Puget Sound Estuary Program
ELLIOTT BAY TOXICS
ACTION PROGRAM
INITIAL DATA SUMMARIES
AND PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION
PREPARED BY:
TETRA TECH, INC.
PREPARED FOR:
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY
JANUARY 1986
PROGRAM PARTICIPANTS:
City of Seattle
Elliott Bay Citizens Advisory Committee
King County
METRO
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Port of Seattle
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Washington Department of Natural Resources
Washington Department of Social and Health Services
-------
Final Report
TC 3991-01
ELLIOTT BAY TOXICS ACTION PROGRAM:
INITIAL DATA SUMMARIES
AND PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION
by
Tetra Tech, Inc.
for
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region X - Office of Puget Sound
Seattle, Washington
January, 1986
Tetra Tech, Inc.
11820 Northup Way, Suite 100
Bellevue, Washington 98005
-------
CONTENTS
Page
LIST OF FIGURES v
LIST OF TABLES viii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS xi
SUMMARY xiii
DECISION-MAKING APPROACH xiii
PHYSICAL SETTING xv
CONTAMINANT SOURCES xvi
SEDIMENT CONTAMINATION xviii
BIOACCUMULATION xx
SEDIMENT TOXICITY BIOASSAYS xx
BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATE COMMUNITIES xxi
FISH PATHOLOGY xxii
HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT xxii
IDENTIFICATION OF PROBLEM AREAS xxiii
INTRODUCTION 1
DECISION-MAKING APPROACH 4
GENERAL FORM OF THE DECISION-MAKING APPROACH 4
CHEMICAL, BIOLOGICAL, AND TOXICOLOGICAL INDICATORS 7
Target Chemicals 9
Biological Variables 12
Form of Indicators 12
ACTION ASSESSMENT MATRIX 14
QUANTITATIVE RELATIONSHIPS 16
PRELIMINARY ACTION CRITERIA 17
ii
-------
RANKING OF PROBLEM AREAS 21
SPATIAL RESOLUTION OF EFFECTS 23
SOURCE EVALUATION 23
PHYSICAL SETTING 25
PROJECT LOCATION 25
DRAINAGE PATTERNS 25
PHYSICAL OCEANOGRAPHY 25
BENEFICIAL USES 30
STUDY AREAS 30
DATA SUMMARIES 33
CONTAMINANT SOURCES 33
Wastewater Treatment Plants 34
Combined Sewer Overflows 39
Storm Drains 46
Industrial Sources 53
Groundwater 58
Accidental Spills 60
Atmospheric Deposition 61
Overall Ranking of Individual Sources 62
CHEMICAL CONTAMINATION OF WATER, SEDIMENTS, AND BIOTA 67
Water Column Contamination 67
Surface Microlayer Contamination 68
Sediment Contamination 72
Bioaccumulation 86
BIOASSAYS 93
Receiving Water Toxicity 93
Sewage Effluent Toxicity 93
Sediment Toxicity 96
BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATE COMMUNITIES 107
General Overview: Temporal Trends 107
General Overview: Spatial Trends 113
Data Synthesis 118
TM
-------
PATHOLOGY 130
General Overview 130
Data Synthesis 132
HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT 137
ASSESSMENT METHOD 138
Background 138
General Approach 139
Summary of Assumptions 140
RESULTS 144
CONCLUSION 147
IDENTIFICATION OF PROBLEM AREAS 152
ACTION ASSESSMENT MATRIX 152
PROBLEM AREA RANKING 154
Ranking of Study Areas 154
Ranking of Study Segments 155
Ranking of Single Stations 158
Final Ranking of Problem Areas 161
REFERENCES 165
APPENDICES
Appendix A. Data Evaluation Summary Tables A-l
Appendix B. Bibliography of Selected Studies Evaluated
for Use in Source Evaluation and Elevation
Above Reference (EAR) Analysis B-l
Appendix C. Document Identification Prefixes for
Sampling Station Labels C-l
Appendix D. Source Data D-l
Appendix E. Selected Sediment Contamination Data Used
for Elevation Above Reference Analysis E-l
Appendix F. Selected Bioaccumulation Data F-l
Appendix G. Health Risk Assessment Methods G-l
Appendix H. Numbers of Stations in Study Area Segments H-l
MAPS
iv
-------
FIGURES
Number Page
S-l Ranking of the loading from major sources xvii
S-2 Source loading by study areas xix
S-3 Final ranking of each study area segment xxv
1 Project location: Elliott Bay and the lower Duwamish River 2
2 General approach to the development of Elliott Bay Toxics
Action Program 3
3 Preponderance-of-evidence approach to evaluation of toxic
contamination problems 5
4 Development of action-level criteria and preliminary
sampling plan design 6
5 Theoretical example of relationship between sediment
contamination and an effects index 18
6 Study area drainage boundaries 26
7 Seasonal variation of Duwamish River discharge 28
8 Total suspended particulate matter and salinity in Elliott Bay 29
9 Project area: Elliott Bay and the lower Duwamish River 31
10 Ranking of the loadings from major sources 64
11 Source loadings by study area 66
12 Spatial distribution of total particulate zinc in Elliott Bay 69
13 Spatial distribution of total particulate copper in Elliott Bay 70
14 Spatial distribution of total particulate lead in Elliott Bay 71
15 Whole-body concentrations of total PCBs in bottom fish of
the Duwamish estuary, 1972-1979 87
16 Mean percent mortality of amphipods in native sand control
sediments 103
-------
17 Total abundance of major infaunal groups for each survey
at West Point 109
18 Change in fauna! species richness at all sample sites at
West Point from 1971 to 1975 110
19 Seasonal changes in abundance and biomass of subtidal benthos
in Elliott Bay 111
20 Seasonal infaunal abundance from inner Elliott Bay and
Duwamish Waterways 112
21 Surface areas of intertidal habitat types by shoreline
segments in Elliott Bay to -50 ft 114
22 Mean densities for summer sampling of small infaunal
organisms recorded during sorting 115
23 Mean total abundance (mean values all transects) for each
depth contour at stations sampled during the July, 1984
Elliott Bay baseline survey 119
24 Mean total number of taxa (mean values all transects) for
each depth contour at stations sampled during the July, 1984
Elliott Bay baseline survey 120
25 Reference conditions for total abundance by depth and
sediment type 125
26 Reference conditions for amphipod abundance by depth and
sediment type 126
27 Reference conditions for species richness by depth and
sediment type 127
28 Reference conditions for dominance index by depth and
sediment type 128
29 Use of graphical model relating cancer risk or noncarcinogenic
exposure to edible-tissue concentrations of a contaminant at
various seafood ingestion rates 141
30 PCBs in edible portion of selected fish and shellfish species
from Elliott Bay system and reference areas 148
31 Total arsenic in edible portion of selected fish and shellfish
species from Elliott Bay system and reference areas 149
32 Total mercury in edible portion of selected fish and shellfish
species from Elliott Bay system and reference areas 150
33 Locations of segments within study areas 157
vi
-------
34 Ranking of study area segments based on integration of
sediment chemistry, toxicity, and benthic infauna indicators 159
35 Number of chemical indicators elevated above the 60th
percentile at each sediment chemistry station 160
36 Final ranking of each study area segment 162
vn
-------
TABLES
Number Page
1 Primary kinds of data used in problem area identification
and priority ranking 8
2 List of contaminants and conventional variables for analysis
in Elliott Bay 10
3 Theoretical example of Elevation Above Reference (EAR) values
for sediment contamination, sediment toxicity, and biological
effects 15
4 Preliminary action-level guidelines 19
5 Summary of ranking criteria for sediment contamination,
toxicity, and biological effects indicators 22
6 Average loading from treatment plant effluent in tons/year 36
7 Loading summaries for Alki, West Point, and Renton treatment
plants (tons/year) 38
8 Flow records for METRO CSOs 40
9 CSO loading calculations (Ibs/yr) 43
10 Flow estimates for city CSOs 44
11 Description of major storm drains in the study area 48
12 Average metal concentrations in surface runoff from Seattle
area (mg/L) 49
13 Estimated metals load from major storm drains (tons/year) 51
14 NPDES-permitted industrial waste discharges 54
15 Comparison of loadings from treatment plants and CSOs
(tons/year) 63
16 Data limitations of selected studies used in detailed analysis
of sediment chemistry 75
vm
-------
17 Summary of metal concentrations in sediments from Puget Sound
reference areas 77
18 Summary of organic compound concentrations in sediments from
Puget Sound reference areas 78
19 Mean Elevation Above Reference (EAR) values for selected
chemical indicators 82
20 Summary of selected bioaccumulation data from Puget Sound
reference areas 90
21 Summary of selected bioaccumulation data for Elliott Bay and
the lower Duwamish River 92
22 Summary of receiving water bioassays in Elliott Bay and the
Duwamish estuary 94
23 Summary of freshwater bioassays with Renton treatment plant
effluent and receiving water 95
24 Summary of marine bioassays with Renton treatment plant
effluent 97
25 Summary of sediment bioassays in Elliott Bay and the Duwamish
River 98
26 Amphipod and oyster bioassay response exceeding 40 percent and
90 percent response criteria 104
27 Summary of mean Elevation Above Reference (EAR) values for
amphipod and oyster sediment bioassays 105
28 The number of intertidal macroinvertebrate species collected
per mixed-sediment transect by all quantitative sampling
methods 108
29 Tentative habitat types for Elliott Bay benthic communities 117
30 Summary reference conditions for benthic infaunal community
variables 123
31 Dominant taxa by depth in central Puget Sound 124
32 Mean values and Elevations Above Reference (EARs) for benthic
community variables 129
33 Histopathological lesions observed in target invertebrate
species collected from Puget Sound 133
34 Reference conditions for liver lesions in demersal fishes from
Elliott Bay and the Duwamish River 135
ix
-------
35 Mean Elevation Above Reference (EAR) values for liver lesions
in demersal fishes 136
36 Summary of assumptions and numerical parameters used in
assessing health risks from consumption of seafood from
Elliott Bay 142
37 Guideline concentrations (Cj*) of carcinogens assuming 20 g/day
(52 meals/yr) consumption and reference lifetime risk of 10~5 145
38 Guideline concentrations (Cj*) of noncarcinogenic priority
pollutants assuming 20 g/day (52 meals/yr) consumption 146
39 Action assessment matrix 153
40 Normalized rank scores for 12 study areas in Elliott Bay and
the lower Duwamish estuary 156
41 Potential sources of sediment contamination in study area
segments 163
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This document was prepared by Tetra Tech, Inc., under the direction
of Dr. Robert A. Pastorok, for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
in partial fulfillment of Contract No. 68-03-1977. Mr. John Underwood
and Ms. Martha Burke of U.S. EPA were the Project Officers, and Dr. Thomas C.
Ginn of Tetra Tech was the Program Manager.
The primary authors of this report were Dr. Robert A. Pastorok and
Ms. Beth Schmoyer of Tetra Tech, Dr. Robert N. Dexter of EVS Consultants,
and Dr. D. Scott Becker, Mr. Pieter N. Booth, Ms. Nancy A. Musgrove, and
Ms. Frederika S. Ott of Tetra Tech. Mr. Robert C. Barrick and Dr. Gordon R.
Bilyard of Tetra Tech, Dr. Peter Chapman of EVS Consultants, and Mr. Thomas P.
Hubbard of the Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle provided detailed review
comments on various parts of the draft report. The following individuals
provided helpful critiques of the health risk assessment section: Dr. John W.
Armstrong and Dr. Michael L. Dourson of U.S. EPA, Dr. David Eaton of the
University of Washington, Mr. Douglas Hotchkiss of the Port of Seattle,
Ms. Jane Lee of Seattle-King County Health Department, Mr. Edward Long
of National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Dr. Charles Muller
of the Citizens Advisory Committee, Mr. Stephen Norsted of the Washington
Department of Social and Health Services, and Mr. Dan Petke of the Washington
Department of Ecology. Ms. Roberts P. Feins and Ms. Karen L. Keeley were
responsible for library development and management. Ms. Marcy B. Brooks-
McAuliffe, Ms. Theresa M. Wood, and Ms. Karen L. Keeley assisted in technical
ed i t i ng.
The Elliott Bay Action Program has benefited from the participation
of an Interagency Work Group (IAWG) and a Citizen's Advisory Committee
(CAC). Duties of the IAWG and CAC members included: 1) reviewing program
documents, agency policies, and proposed actions; 2) providing data reports
and other technical information to U.S. EPA; and 3) disseminating action
program information to respective interest groups or constituencies, and
to the general public. We thank the IAWG and CAC members for their past
and continuing efforts. Ms. Patricia O'Flaherty of SAIC/JRB Associates
provided support for the CAC activities. Mr. Hunter MacDonald of Ecology
provided support to the IAWG. We are especially grateful to Ms. Joan Thomas
for chairing the IAWG, and to Mr. David Schneidler and Ms. Janet Anderson
for co-chairing the CAC. Members of the IAWG and CAC are listed below.
Name
John Armstrong
Ralph Domenowske
Charles J. Henry
Douglas Hotchkiss
Elsie Hulsizer
David Jamison
Carl Kassebaum
ELLIOTT BAY INTERAGENCY WORK GROUP
Affiliation
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
METRO
1984 Puget Sound Water Quality Authority
Port of Seattle
City of Seattle
Washington Department of Natural Resources
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
XI
-------
Edward Long
Jane Lee
Dan Petke
Carl Sagerser
David Schneidler
Martin Seybold
Joan Thomas
John Underwood
Frank Urabeck
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Seattle-King County Department of Public Health
Washington Department of Ecology
Washington Department of Social and Health
Services
Citizen's Advisory Committee
King County
Washington Department of Ecology
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Alternates and Other Participants
Jeffrey Bauman
Gary Brugger
William Clindaniel
John Dohrman
Vi 11 amor Gamponia
Burt Hamner
John Lampe
Robert Matsuda
Stephen Norsted
Joseph Ralph
Robert Swartz
Wally Swofford
Joseph Talbot
William Yake
METRO
Washington Department of Ecology
City of Seattle
Port of Seattle
METRO
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
METRO
METRO
Washington Department of Social and Health
Services
City of Seattle
METRO
Seattle-King County Health Department
City of Seattle
Washington Department of Ecology
ELLIOTT BAY CITIZEN'S ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Janet Anderson
Douglas Briggs
Harriett Bullitt
Virginia Van Engelen
Donald Hamilton
James Heil
Paul Hickey
Dee Ann Kirkpatrick
Minor Lile
Charles Muller
James Pickett
Tom Putman
Annette Ramsour
David Schneidler
Diana Swain
Terry Thomas
Mike White
Robert Williscroft
Magnolia Community Club
Puget Sound Industrial Council
Friends of the Duwamish
League of Woman Voters
Seattle Poggie Club
Puget Sound Alliance
Muckelshoot Indian Tribe
Suquamish Indian Tribe
Greater Seattle Chamber of Commerce
Sierra Club
Puget Sound Alliance
Seattle Audubon Society
Washington State Sports Diving Council
Seattle Marine Business Coalition
Port Watch
Northwest Steel head and Salmon Council
Northwest Marine Trade Association
Washington State Sports Diving Council
Alternates and Other Participants
Chris Luboff
Richard Rutz
Western Washington Toxics Coalition
Seattle Audubon Society
xii
-------
SUMMARY
The goals of the Elliott Bay Toxics Action Program are to protect
the marine and estuarine ecosystem of Elliott Bay and the lower Duwamish
River against further degradation from anthropogenic inputs of toxic materials,
to identify degraded areas that are amenable to restorative action, and
to protect recreational uses that are affected by toxic contamination.
Corrective actions may include regulatory control of point and nonpoint
sources of contaminants, and removal of highly contaminated sediments.
Development of the Action Program involves use of a complex database to
identify toxic problem areas and rank them in terms of priority for corrective
action. The decision-making approach for problem evaluation, the spatial
distribution of contaminants in the Elliott Bay system, and the ranking
of problem areas for interim corrective actions are explained in this report.
After development of an Interim Work Plan (Tetra Tech 1985b), the Sampling
and Analysis Design (Tetra Tech 1985d) will be implemented to fill gaps
in the existing information. Once a comprehensive database is available,
the final action plan will be developed.
DECISION-MAKING APPROACH
The decision-making approach relies fundamentally on empirical measurements
of the environmental or public health threats of contaminated areas. Informa-
tion used in the decision-making process includes primarily data on:
t Sources
Contaminant concentrations
Flow
xiii
-------
Sediments
Contaminant concentrations
Conventional physical/chemical characteristics
Biological effects
Tissue contaminant concentrations (crab, English sole)
Liver lesions (English sole, rock sole)
Benthic invertebrate community structure
Sediment toxicity bioassays
Amphipod mortality
Oyster larvae developmental abnormality.
These data types were selected to characterize several important kinds
of effects indicative of environmental hazard. For example, measurement
of bioaccumulation in fishes and invertebrates provides: 1) a measure
of the bioavailability of sediment or waterborne contaminants, 2) a measure
of the potential threat to human health resulting from ingestion of contaminated
seafood, and 3) potential establishment of an important link between bio-
accumulation and pathology in fish livers.
The environmental contamination and effects data are organized into
a matrix of biological and toxicological indices used to compare study
areas, segments within areas, and single sampling locations with high levels
of contamination. This Action Assessment Matrix uses independent indices
to indicate the magnitudes of contaminant levels and biological effects.
A decision to proceed with source evaluation and ranking of problem areas
is limited to areas that exceed a minimum action level. Action levels
are determined through an intercomparison of the contaminant, sediment
toxicity, and biological indices for each defined area.
xiv
-------
The action-level guidelines are summarized as follows:
Significant elevations above reference for any THREE OR
MORE INDICES defines a problem area requiring source evaluation
and remedial action evaluation.
t For ANY TWO INDICES showing significant elevations, the
decision to proceed with source and remedial action evaluations
depends on the actual combination of indices and the relative
usefulness of those indices in defining site-specific condi-
tions.
t Even when only a SINGLE INDEX is significantly elevated,
a problem area may be defined when additional criteria are
met (i.e., the magnitude of the index is sufficiently above
the significance threshold to warrant further evaluation).
In the latter case, criteria other than exceedance of the significance
threshold are needed, because all but one index suggests lack of a problem.
That is, the magnitude of the single-index elevation must provide sufficient
evidence of a problem to outweigh the absence of significant elevations
in multiple indicators.
PHYSICAL SETTING
Elliott Bay is located on Puget Sound, adjacent to Seattle, Washington.
For this report, the study area is defined as Elliott Bay east of a line
drawn between West Point and Alki Point, including the Duwamish River from
its mouth to the turning basin located approximately 6 mi upstream. The
Duwamish River discharges into the southeast corner of Elliott Bay and
provides the major source of freshwater to the bay. Within the study
boundaries, the Duwamish River drains the predominantly industrial areas
south of Seattle, including Harbor Island, South Park, and Boeing field.
xv
-------
CONTAMINANT SOURCES
The relative ranking of major point sources (e.g., treatment plants,
combined sewer overflows, and storm drains) was based on the lead and zinc
component of the total load (Figure S-l). The two largest sources within
the study area are the West Point and Renton wastewater treatment plants.
The Green River upstream of the study area ranked as the second largest
source, probably due to the influence of the Renton treatment plant and
large river flows. Loading from the Diagonal Way CSO/SD exceeded the Al ki
treatment load. The Diagonal Way discharge is composed of combined sewer
overflows and surface runoff from 1-5 and the Beacon Hill area. Currently,
runoff makes up a little under 45 percent of the total flows. However,
after completion of the 1-90 corridor, additional stormwater runoff from
the Upper Rainier Valley area will be routed to the Diagonal drain.
The following storm drains, which did not rate as major sources because
of smaller annual flows, have been identified as potential problems for
specific pollutants:
S.W. Florida CSO/SD (098) PCBs, PAHs
S.W. Lander SD (105) lead
S.W. Lander SD (21") oil and grease, lead
Georgetown Flume PCBs
Slip 4 CSO/SD (117) PCBs
Fox St. SD metals
Because available data are limited, additional contaminants from these
sources may be identified as problems in the future.
Although West Point and Alki treatment plant effluents rate as two
of the larger sources, neither is expected to have a major localized impact
within the study area. Both are located on the perimeter of the project
area, with discharge points extending into the main basin of Puget Sound.
At this point, it is uncertain how much of the pollutant load from these
two sources is carried into Elliott Bay by water currents. The environmental
impacts of West Point and Alki pollutant loads are expected to be less
xvi
-------
6.0-1
* CSO
* * CSO/STORM DRAIN
* * * TREATMENT PLANT
Figure S-l. Ranking of the loading from major sources,
xvii
-------
significant than those of sources discharging into the narrow confines
of the Duwamish Waterway, and around the nearshore areas of the Elliott
Bay waterfront.
A summary of the annual potential loadings of lead and zinc by source
category to each study area is presented in Figure S-2. Because currents
and other natural sources disperse pollutants throughout the Elliott Bay
system, all of the calculated load for a study area may not remain within
that area. The Magnolia and Upper Duwamish Estuary areas receive the greatest
treatment plant loads. CSO loadings are highest in the East Waterway and
the Seattle Waterfront-North areas. The Seattle Waterfront-North load
results entirely from the Denny Way CSO. Lander and Hanford CSOs are the
two major sources to the East Waterway. Storm drain inputs are largest
in the Kellogg Island and Upper Duwamish Estuary reaches. The Kellogg
Island load results primarily from the Diagonal Way CSO discharge.
The relative importance of the other source categories (industrial
discharges, groundwater discharge, spills, and atmospheric deposition)
could not be evaluated with the techniques used to evaluate wastewater
treatment plants, CSOs, and storm drains. NPDES permitted industrial discharges
primarily consist of noncontact cooling water. Permit requirements are
generally limited to flow, temperature, and turbidity. Most industrial
storm drains are unpermitted. Flow, quality, and in many cases, area served
are unknown. The new NPDES regulations, which require that all industrial
storm drains be permitted, should aid in generating the information needed
to evaluate the impact of these sources.
SEDIMENT CONTAMINATION
Concentrations of many toxic substances in sediments of the Elliott
Bay system are significantly elevated compared to the levels observed in
less urbanized areas of Puget Sound. Nearly all samples collected from
along the Seattle Waterfront and the lower Duwamish estuary (Areas 2-6)
were very contaminated, with concentrations of many of the organic indicator
compounds exceeding the levels in the reference areas by factors of 100
or more.
xviii
-------
40
5-
LJ TREATMENT PLANT
Hi cso
STORM DRAIN
Figure S-2. Source loading by study areas.
xix
-------
Within the more contaminated areas, sites with elevations above reference
conditions exceeding 1,000 for one or more toxic substances have been identi-
fied. These hot spots include sites near the Denny Way CSO (Area 2), near
the mouth of the West Waterway (Areas 4 and 6), and in the southwest corner
of Elliott Bay (Area 4). The limited sampling in most areas, particularly
in proximity to known or suspected sources (e.g., CSOs, storm drains, and
industrial discharges), raises the possibility that additional hot spots
exist, but have not been identified.
The outer bay and deep-water sediments (Areas 1 and 9-12) appear to
be marginally contaminated compared to those from the waterfront and lower
river. However, two contaminated dredged material disposal sites have
been identified, one in Inner Elliott Bay and the other near Fourmile Rock
Disposal Site. The former site was used only once and has been extensively
characterized both spatially and chemically. It is known to contain mainly
PCBs, with elevations above reference values averaging about 400. The
Fourmile Rock Disposal Site has received limited study. Neither its spatial
extent nor the possible elevations of most toxic substances have been defined.
BI-OACCUMULATION
Based on the limited data available, concentrations of most metals in
organisms of the Elliott Bay system are not elevated compared with levels
in organisms from nonurbanized areas of Puget Sound. In contrast, some
organic compounds (e.g., PCBs) in study area samples exceeded reference
levels by one or more orders of magnitude. These tentative conclusions
are based mainly on samples of fish and invertebrates. The limited data
for birds suggests that bioaccumulation of organic contaminants is a potential
problem in the study area.
SEDIMENT TOXICITY BIOASSAYS
The majority of the Elliott Bay shoreline has not been tested for
sediment toxicity to amphipods and oyster larvae. Therefore, it is impossible
to give an accurate, comprehensive overview of sediment toxicity in Elliott
xx
-------
Bay. Instead, the characterization below is based on relatively few intensively
sampled stations and one study of outer Elliott Bay.
No toxicity was found in sediments located inshore of the 300-ft contour
along the Magnolia Bluff shoreline from West Point to Smith Cove or in
the sediments to the west of the north end of Harbor Island near Pier 2.
Moderate toxicities occurred in the central portion of Inner Elliott Bay
and in the Fourmile Rock Disposal Site. High toxicity was found at intensively
sampled areas at the Denny Way CSO, Pier 54, around Harbor Island, and,
interestingly, in outer Elliott Bay off Alki Beach. At point sources (notably
Denny Way CSO), effects of sediment toxicity were localized, and diminished
rapidly with distance from the source.
BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATE COMMUNITIES
Species richness, abundance, and composition of benthic infaunal as-
semblages vary with habitat characteristics such as sediment grain size
and depth. For example, benthic communities in shallow sand habitats are
distinct from those in deep muddy habitats. In Elliott Bay, habitats near
the mouth of the Duwamish River have a high proportion of fine sediments
and organic material, reflecting riverine inputs.
Benthic communities respond to toxic pollutants by a shift in species
composition and/or a decrease in species abundance and richness. Because
of the dependence of benthic assemblages on habitat type, community charac-
teristics at a study site must be compared with those at a reference site
with similar habitat. Suitable reference conditions for Inner Elliott
Bay and the Duwamish River are not available in the existing database.
Therefore, only tentative conclusions regarding pollution impacts on benthic
infauna can be drawn for those areas. Based on the selected variables
(i.e., total abundance, species richness, amphipod abundance, and species
dominance), benthic assemblages in the Magnolia and Duwamish Head/A!ki
Beach areas appear similar to those in reference areas. Communities in
the Seattle Waterfront-North area, followed by those in Inner Elliott Bay
and the Kellogg Island area, appeared to be most affected by pollutants.
xxi
-------
FISH PATHOLOGY
Three major kinds of lesions (neoplasms, preneoplasms, and megalocytic
hepatosis) found in livers of demersal fishes were used to characterize
environmental conditions in the study area. The most complete data for
lesion prevalences (percentage of population exhibiting one or more lesions
of a given kind) were available for English sole and rock sole. Although
the exact causes of these lesions are unknown, previous studies have demon-
strated correlations between high lesion prevalences and toxic .contamination
of sediments.
Results of comparing lesion prevalences in livers of English sole
and rock sole in Elliott Bay with prevalences in conspecifics from reference
areas throughout Puget Sound suggest that the Harbor Island/Duwamish River
region is the most contaminated region of the bay. This was the only region
where prevalences of all three kinds of liver lesions analyzed were signifi-
cantly elevated. The Seattle waterfront appears to be moderately contaminated,
but much less so than the Harbor Island/Duwamish River region. Preneoplasms
and megalocytic hepatosis were significantly elevated in fishes collected
along the waterfront, but neoplasms were not. Finally, fishes from remaining
study areas located away from the Harbor Island/Duwamish River region and
the Seattle waterfront exhibited relatively low prevalences of megalocytic
hepatosis and no other kinds of liver lesions.
HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
Concentrations of most of the priority pollutants measured in edible
tissues of recreational ly harvested species from the Elliott Bay system
are below levels of concern defined herein. Only PCBs and arsenic were
identified as problem chemicals relative to potential human health effects
from regular consumption (i.e., approximately one meal per week) of seafood
from Elliott Bay or the lower Duwamish River. Mean concentrations of PCBs
in muscle of English sole, sablefish, Pacific cod, and Cancer spp. crab
were 6 to 54 times the guideline of 8 ppb. Mean PCB concentrations in
Elliott Bay samples were elevated above reference values about 12-33 times
for English sole and about 2-5 times for crabs. Only one composite sample
xxii
-------
of English sole exceeded the FDA tolerance level of 2 ppm. Therefore,
for most Elliott Bay samples encountered, upper-limit estimates of health
risk are above a level of concern (10~5).
Mean concentrations of arsenic in the selected species were up to
four times the tissue contamination guideline of 1.9 ppm total arsenic.
In contrast to PCBs, no systematic difference was found between arsenic
concentrations in samples from the project area and those in samples from
the reference area. Consequently, a local seafood consumer would encounter
similar arsenic-associated risk, regardless of where in Puget Sound the
seafood was harvested.
Mean concentrations of mercury in muscle tissue of English sole and
crabs were elevated 1.4-3.0 times reference values. However, mercury levels
in all samples were less than 30 percent of the tissue contamination guideline
of 1 ppm. At present, mercury does not appear to be responsible for potential
health risks of concern.
Although the models described herein involve many assumptions and
uncertainities, the best available methods have been used in this analysis.
Further work is needed to confirm this preliminary analysis and to discriminate
among potential problem areas within the Elliott Bay system. Ongoing studies
by NOAA (Landolt et al. 1985) and U.S. EPA will provide further data on
fishing habits of local anglers, species composition of the recreational
catch, and residues of toxic substances in seafood from Elliott Bay and
the lower Duwamish River. Assessment of potential health risks may be
refined when this data becomes available.
IDENTIFICATION OF PROBLEM AREAS
The selected data for indicators of sediment contamination, toxicity,
and biological effects were integrated to evaluate toxic contamination
problems in Elliott Bay/Duwamish River system. Analysis of problem areas
and their priority ranking was performed at three levels of spatial resolution.
First the 12 major study areas described in the text were ranked using
the Action Assessment Matrix and the ranking criteria discussed in the
xxiii
-------
Decision-Making Approach section. Second, portions (segments) of selected
study areas, which ranked high in the previous analysis, were evaluated.
Finally, individual stations were ranked on the basis of sediment chemistry
data alone. The final ranking of problem areas reflects the information
gained from each level of spatial analysis, but is primarily based on study
area segments. This approach provided representative data for several
indicators of contamination and effects, while maintaining a relatively
high degree of spatial resolution.
In the analysis of major study areas, areas of the Duwamish River
and North Harbor Island ranked highest. The Seattle Waterfront (North
and South), Fourmile Rock Disposal Site, and Inner Elliott Bay ranked next.
Outer Elliott Bay, Duwamish Head/Alki Beach, and Magnolia ranked lowest.
The final ranking of study area segments based on the "worst-case"
stations within each segment is shown in Figure S-3. Segments near the
Denny Way CSO, near the Seattle Waterfront CSOs, just north of Harbor Island,
and throughout the Duwamish River system ranked as high priority problem
areas. These study segments comprised most of the individual stations
that ranked above the 60th percentile for four or five of the selected
chemical indicators (low molecular weight PAH; high molecular weight PAH,
PCBs; sum of copper, lead, and zinc; and arsenic). Areas with insufficient
data are not shaded in Figure S-3. Sampling station locations for selected
studies used in this analysis are indicated by maps throughout the text.
Because the available data did not allow subdivision of slips in the Duwamish
River 'for the segment analysis, data from a segment could include an entire
slip, and in some cases, midchannel stations in the river. Nevertheless,
a gradient in sediment contamination from the head of a slip to the mouth
was often apparent (Maps 6-10 and METRO 1985). Therefore, the inner portions
of Slips 1-4 should be considered as potential high-priority problem areas.
A detailed evaluation of specific sources of the environmental contam-
ination just discussed is not possible with the available data. However,
the following potential sources were identified near the most contaminated
areas:
xx iv
-------
SPOKANE STREET
BRIDGE
Figure S-3. Final ranking of each study
area segment.
NOTE: Numbers showing ranking of segments from
highest (1) to lowest (32) in terms of potential
problems. Based on highest rank method (Also see
Figure 30).
XXV
-------
Segment 4B
Duwamish River discharge
Shipyard operations (metals)
Oil Company Pier Spills (PAH)
0 Segment 2A
Denny Way CSO
t Segments 5A/5B
Hanford CSO
Lander CSO
S.W. Florida St. Storm Drain
Segment 7B
PCB spill (in 1974)
CSO W041
t Segment 6A
S.W. Florida St. CSO/Storm drain (098)
S.W. Lander CSO/Storm drain and storm drain
Segment 7A
Diagonal way CSO/Storm drain
Identification of potential sources was usually based on proximity of the
source to the contaminated area. Because limited data are available on
source quality and contaminant loadings, further data collection and analysis
are needed to relate environmental contamination to sources.
XXVI
-------
INTRODUCTION
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Washington Department
of Ecology in cooperation with other agencies at the federal, state, and
local levels are developing a remedial action plan to correct problems
associated with toxic contamination of Elliott Bay and the lower Duwamish
River (Figure 1). Remedial actions may include, for example, source control
designed to reduce specific toxicant emissions and cleanup of contaminated
sediments. An assessment of toxic contamination and associated problems
is provided in this report, including a ranking of study areas in terms
of priority for action. Based on available data, this preliminary evaluation
of problems and a review of existing plans for corrective actions (see
Tetra Tech 1985c) form the basis for development of an interim work plan
for the Elliott Bay Toxics Action Program (1985b). A comprehensive work
plan will be developed after field studies are conducted to fill data gaps
and after a detailed evaluation of environmental hazards and pollutant
sources is conducted (Figure 2). The proposed field studies are described
in the Sampling and Analysis Design (Tetra Tech 1985d).
Development of a remedial action plan requires that the following
kinds of questions be answered for areas within the bay/river system:
1. Is the area contaminated?
2. Does the contamination result in adverse biological effects?
3. Is there a potential threat to public health?
4. Can the contaminant sources be identified?
5. Would remedial action reduce the threat to the environment
or to public health?
Answering Questions 1-5 involves development of a complex information base,
including data on sources, fates, and effects of contaminants.
The decision-making approach used to identify and prioritize contamination
problems is presented in the next section. The project area and its physical
setting are described in the second section of this report. The third
major section provides summaries of existing data on 1) drainage patterns;
2) toxic substances of concern; 3) pollutant sources; 4) sediment contamination;
5) contamination of the water column; 6) bioaccumulation of toxic substances
in fish, shellfish, birds, and mammals; 7) bioassays of water and sediments;
8) structure of benthic macroinvertebrate communities; and 9) pathology
of fish and invertebrates. In the final section, the existing data for
selected indicators are integrated and evaluated within the decision-making
framework. The result of this evaluation process is a ranking of study
areas in terms of their priority for remedial action.
-------
DISPOSAL AREA
yPIER 60
ii.'S BATTLE
ELL/077
DUWAMISH HEAD/7T\ BAY
EAST
WATERWAY
WEST\ ฃ: ':
iALKI PT. WATERWAY\ f;-./.:
DUWAMISH
RIVER
122*20
Figure 1. Project location: Elliott Bay and the lower
Duwamish River.
-------
DATA COLLECTION
1
DATA EVALUATION
HAZARD EVALUATION
I
POLLUTION SOURCE
EVALUATION
1
REMEDIAL ACTION
PLAN
>
DATA
GAPS
1
FIELD STUDY
DESIGN
I
Figure 2. General approach to the development of Elliott Bay
Toxics Action Program.
-------
DECISION-MAKING APPROACH
Information on the extent of toxic contamination, adverse environmental
effects, and potential threats to public health forms the basis for responsible
decisions about remedial actions (e.g., prioritization of areas for cleanup
or source control). A decision-making framework is needed to integrate
and evaluate complex scientific information in a form that can be understood
by regulatory decision-makers and the public. The decision-making framework
developed for the Elliott Bay Toxics Action Program incorporates a "prepon-
derance-of-evidence" approach to problem identification (Figure 3). Study
areas that exhibit high values of indices for contamination and adverse
effects relative to a reference site receive a ranking of "high priority"
for evaluation of pollutant sources and remedial action. The decision-making
criteria used for the Elliott Bay Toxics Action Program are based on those
used in the Commencement Bay Nearshore/Tideflats Remedial Investigation
(see Tetra Tech 1984).
The decision-making framework incorporates existing scientific data
and acconmodates new information as it becomes available (Figure 4). Available
data are used to select short-term remedial actions for the interim work
plan. As new data are collected, the decision criteria are re-evaluated
and, if necessary, revised. Development of the final work plan will be
based on an assessment of the new information and recent historical data
within the decision-making framework.
GENERAL FORM OF THE DECISION-MAKING APPROACH
The decision-making process to evaluate toxic contamination problems
follows seven steps:
Characterize sediment contamination, sediment toxicity,
and biological effects
t Quantify relationships among sediment contamination, sediment
toxicity, and biological effects
Apply action levels to determine problem areas
Determine problem chemicals in problem areas
Define spatial extent of problem areas
Evaluate sources contributing to problem areas
Evaluate, prioritize, and recommend problem areas and sources
for potential remedial action.
Four major premises underlie this approach. First, although preliminary
guidelines are specified, final criteria used to recommend problem areas
for source evaluation and possible sediment remedial action are not established
-------
CONTAMINATION
SEDIMENT
FISH
SHELLFISH
BIOLOGICAL EFFECTS
SEDIMENT TOXICITY
BENTHIC COMMUNITIES
FISH DISEASE
HUMAN HEALTH THREAT
(I) MAGNITUDE OF INDICATORS
fF) NUMBER OF INDICATORS
ACTION I CRITERIA
EACH
AREA
CLASSIFIED
AS:
HIGH PRIORITY
MEDIUM PRIORITY
LOW PRIORITY
NO IMMEDIATE ACTION
Figure 3. Preponderance-of-evidence approach to evaluation of
toxic contamination problems.
-------
REVIEW AVAILABLE
INFORMATION
<~
IDENTIFY
BACKGROUND AREAS
IDENTIFY SUBSTANCES
OF CONCERN
COMPARE ELLIOTT BAY
AND DUWAMISH RIVER
SITES WITH BACKGROUND
EVALUATE
DATA GAPS
RANK ELLIOTT BAY AND
DUWAMISH RIVER SITES
BASED ON A FROM
BACKGROUND
RANK SUBSTANCES BASED
ON A FROM BACKGROUND
DEVELOP SAMPLING
PLAN DESIGN
RECOMMEND PRELIMINARY
ACTION-LEVEL CRITERIA
EVALUATE
NEW INFORMATION
J
IDENTIFY
PROBLEM AREAS
RE-EVALUATE
ACTION-LEVEL CRITERIA
1
0
T
H
E
R
0
N
G
0
I
N
G
W
A
T
E
R
Q
U
A
L
I
T
Y
P
R
0
G
R
A
M
Figure 4. Development of action-level criteria and preliminary
sampling plan design.
-------
a priori because of limitations of the existing database. The decision
process is iterative so that new information may be incorporated as it
is acquired. Final criteria will be developed based on a full complement
of past and present data.
Second, it was determined that no single measure of environmental
conditions could be used in all cases to define adequately the requirements
for potential remedial action. Therefore, problem areas are recommended
for remedial action investigations using several measures of sediment contam-
ination and biological effects, each of which may be used independently
to identify potential problem areas. In this approach, when results of
these independent measures corroborate one another (i.e., there is a pre-
ponderance of evidence), a problem area is defined. There may be special
circumstances where corroboration is not needed and a single indicator
may provide the basis for recommending source control or remedial action.
Third, it is assumed that adverse effects are linked to environmental
conditions that result from source emissions and that these links may be
characterized empirically. Therefore, proof of specific causal agents
is not provided by these studies. Relationships between sources and effects
will be quantified where possible, for example, by correlations of specific
contaminant concentrations and distributions with the occurrence of adverse
biological effects. Direct cause-effect relationships in the sense of
laboratory verification studies are not within the scope of the Elliott
Bay investigation. These empirical relationships are used to define problem
areas and to provide a rationale for recommended remedial action.
Even in the absence of consistent quantitative relationships between
sediment chemistry and toxicity/effeet indicators, it may be possible to
distinguish problem areas from unaffected areas on the basis of their chemical
characteristics. Assuming that the distinguishing characteristics are
s'omehow associated with the actual problem chemical, discrimination of
contaminant patterns is expected to provide clues to contaminant sources.
A wide range of contaminants is included for analysis to increase the
probability of measuring either the causative substances, or related substances
from the same source and with the same distribution in the environment.
Finally, a fourth premise is that the recommended remedial actions
may vary from location to location. For example, only removal of contaminated
sediments may be recommended where contamination originated only from past
sources and biological effects are apparent. In contrast, source control
may be recommended where contamination originates from an ongoing source
even though biological effects may not be apparent. In other cases, both
sediment removal and source control may be recommended. To prevent recontami-
nation of newly cleaned areas, sediment remedial actions should not be
implemented before sources have been fully controlled.
CHEMICAL, BIOLOGICAL, AND TOXICOLOGICAL INDICATORS
The primary kinds of data used in the decision-making process are
shown in Table 1. Although many other variables are evaluated throughout
the decision-making process, those shown in the table form the basis for
problem identification and priority ranking for the interim work plan.
-------
TABLE 1. PRIMARY KINDS OF DATA USED IN PROBLEM
AREA IDENTIFICATION AND PRIORITY RANKING
General Category
Data Type
Specific Indicator Variables
Pollutant source
Habitat condition
Indigenous organisms
Toxicity
Mass emissions
Sediment quality
Bioaccumulation
Benthic community
structure
Fish pathology
Acute lethal
Sublethal
Pollutant concentrations
Discharge flow
t Pollutant concentrations
Contaminant concentrations
in tissues of English sole
and crabs
Total abundance
Species richness
Dominance
Amphipod abundance
Prevalence of liver lesions
in English sole and rock
sole
Amphipod mortality
Oyster larvae abnormality
-------
The rationale for choosing these selected indicator variables is provided
in the following sections.
Target Chemicals
A preliminary list of chemical contaminants of concern for the Elliott
Bay studies is given in Table 2. Substances on this list have one of two
properties: they can bioaccumulate, with adverse biological effects in
the food chain if bioaccumulated, or they can produce adverse biological
effects even when not bioaccumulated. U.S. EPA priority pollutants that
were probably discharged into the study area in the past or are probably
being discharged now are included on the list. Compounds not on the U.S. EPA
list of priority pollutants also have been considered on the basis of their
local significance. Several conventional water and sediment quality variables
have been recommended for analysis. These conventional variables provide
a means of comparing areas with different bulk chemical or physical properties.
Three problems arise in defining contaminants of concern. First,
observed biological effects could result from a characteristic of the system
unrelated to the selected organic compounds or metals of concern (e.g.,
the deleterious effects of sediment anoxia on benthic communities). The
analysis of conventional sediment variables will permit an evaluation of
this possibility.
Second, sediments in portions of the study area appear to have elevated
concentrations of a wide range of contaminants associated with biological
effects in laboratory and limited field investigations. These contaminants
are all recommended for study. A cause-effect relationship has not been
demonstrated between contaminant levels and observed biological abnormalities
in the Elliott Bay system. Therefore, observed biological effects could
result from some unidentified substance or combination of substances for
which analysis has not been performed. The criteria for study design reduce
this concern in three ways:
The decision process is iterative to account for new information
acquired as data gaps are filled
Because the preliminary contaminants of concern have different
analytical requirements, their analysis will enable co-detection
of a much wider set of compounds, thus permitting an ongoing
evaluation of additional significant contaminants
An unanalyzed aliquot of each sample and all significant
chemical fractions during sample workup are preserved to
permit further analyses if required in the future.
Third, preliminary contaminants of concern must have the potential
to cause observed sediment toxicity or biological effects in the Elliott
Bay system. Several factors may affect the ability to correlate contaminant
distributions with observed sediment toxicity or biological effects. These
include synergistic, additive, or antagonistic effects, as well as contaminant
phase associations. For example, substantially elevated sediment concentrations
of one contaminant group may not correlate with observed biological effects,
because the effects may be associated with a synergistic combination of
-------
TABLE 2. LIST OF CONTAMINANTS AND CONVENTIONAL
VARIABLES FOR ANALYSIS IN ELLIOTT BAY
Metals
Neutral Halogenated Compounds
Silver
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Mercury
Nickel
Lead
Antimony
Selenium
Zinc
Phenols
phenol
2-methylphenol
4-methylphenol
2,4-dimethyl phenol
2-chlorophenol
2,4-dichlorophenol
4-chloro-3-methylphenol
2,4,6-trichlorophenol
2,4,5-trichlorophenol
pentachlorophenol
Aromatic Hydrocarbons
naphthalene
acenaphthylene
acenaphthene
fluorene
phenanthrene
anthracene
fluoranthene
pyrene
benzo(a)anthracene
chrysene
benzo(b)fluoranthene
benzo(k)fluoranthene
benzo(a)pyrene
indeno(l,2,3-c,d)pyrene
dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
benzo(g,h,i)perylene
1,2-dichlorobenzene
1,3-dichlorobenzene
1,4-dichlorobenzene
1,2,4-trichlorobenzene
2-chloronaphthalene
hexachlorobenzene (HCB)
trichlorobutadienesa
tetrachlorobutadienesa
pentachlorobutad ienes*
hexachlorobutad iene
Phthalates
dimethyl phthalate
diethyl phthalate
di-n-butyl phthalate
butyl benzyl phthalate
bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
di-n-octyl phthalate
Miscellaneous oxygenated compounds
isophorone
benzyl alcohol
benzoic acid
dibenzofuran
Pesticides
p.p'-DDE
p,p'-DDD
p,p'-DDT
aldrin
dieldrin
chlordane
endrin
endrin aldehyde
heptachlor
alpha-HCH
beta-HCH
delta-HCH
gamma-HCH (lindane)
Total PCBs
a Tentatively identified substances
10
-------
TABLE 2. (Continued)
Volatiles
Miscellaneous Substances
Benzene
Bromodichloromethane
Bromoform
Bromomethane
Carbon tetrachloride
Chloroethane
Chloroform
Chloromethane
Dibromochloromethane
Dichloromethane
l,l'-Dichloroethane
1,2-Dichloroethane
l.l'-Dichloroethene
trans-l,2-Dichloroethene
1,2-Dichloropropane
cis-l,3-Dichloropropene
trans-1,3-Dichloropropene
Ethylbenzene
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
Tetrachloroethene
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
1,1,2-Tr ichloroethane
1,1,1-Tr ichloroethene
Toluene
Total xylenes
Manganese
Iron
Coprostanoia
alpha-Tocopherol
Carbazolesa
2-methyl naphthal
1 -methyl phenanthrenea
2-methyl phenanthrene^
3-methyl phenanthr enea
Biphenyia
Retene3
Dibenzothiophenea
acetate^
Tentatively identified substances
11
-------
a second group of substances whose concentrations are only slightly elevated
in the affected area. A discriminant analysis yielding the parameters
that distinguish the affected area from adjacent unaffected areas may identify
the relevant substances. However, the ability to identify subtle and poorly
understood interactions such as synergism is limited. Although they may
not be distinguishable from other kinds of effects, synergistic effects
may be measured through the use of biological indicators explained below.
Biological Variables
Selection of individual biological and toxicological indicators was
based on the following considerations:
t Use of the indicator in past or ongoing studies in Puget
Sound
t Documented sensitivity of the indicator to contaminant effects
ง Ability to quantify the indicator within the resource and
time constraints of the program.
Response variables were selected to characterize several important
kinds of toxicological or biological effects within each general category
(Table 1). For example, measurement of bioaccumulation in fishes and inverte-
brates provides:
A measure of the bioavai labil ity of sediment or waterborne
contaminants
A measure of the potential threat to human health resulting
from ingestion of contaminated seafood
t Potential establishment of an important link between bioaccu-
mulation and pathology.
Although a study of effects on fish populations is beyond the scope of
the current project, a study of effects on individual fishes is possible
through an assessment of liver lesion prevalence. Benthic macroinvertebrates
were selected because of their sensitivity to sediment contamination, their
importance in local trophic relationships, and their ability to establish
site-specific response gradients relative to sediment contamination.
Form of Indicators
To rank areas based on observed contamination effects and to evaluate
the relative magnitude of these effects, a series of simple indices has
been developed for each toxicological and biological effect category (i.e.,
sediment toxicity, bioaccumulation, pathology, and benthic community
structure). The indices have the general form of a ratio between the value
of a variable at a site in Elliott Bay or the lower Duwamish River and
the value of the same variable at a reference site. The ratios are structured
so that the value of the index increases as the deviation from reference
conditions increases. Thus, each ratio is termed an Elevation Above Reference
(EAR) index.
12
-------
It should be noted that these indices are not used in lieu of the
original data (e.g., contaminant concentrations), but in addition to them.
The original data are used to identify statistically detectable increases
in sediment contamination, sediment toxicity, or biological effect indicators,
and to determine quantitative relationships among these indicators. The
indices are used to reduce large data sets into interpretable numbers that
reflect the magnitudes of the different indicators among areas.
The index for sediment toxicity is expressed as:
i = MSi/MRi
where:
= Mortality or abnormality rate i at an Elliott Bay study
area
= Mortality or abnormality rate i at the Puget Sound reference
area(s) .
The index for bioaccumulation is expressed as:
BIi = CSi/CRi
where:
CR-J =
Tissue concentration of contaminant group i at an Elliott
Bay study area
Tissue concentration of contaminant group i at the reference
area(s) .
The fish pathology index is expressed as the elevation in the prevalence
of fish with liver lesions relative to the reference area:
where:
PRi =
i = PSi/PRi
Percent of fish with liver lesion i at an Elliott Bay study
area
Percent of fish with liver lesion i at the reference area(s).
Benthic community structure cannot be measured by a single indicator,
but by several community indicators associated with toxic biological effects
(e.g., abundance, species richness, and species dominance; see Table 1).
Most of the multiple benthic community structure indices (BCI) are derived
as the inverse ratio of values for these selected community indicators
at Elliott Bay sites relative to reference areas:
BCI = BCRi/BCsi
13
-------
where:
BCRi = The value of a selected benthic community structure indicator
i at the reference area
BCSi = The value of the same benthic community structure indicator
i at the study area.
An inverse ratio is used for most benthic community structure indices
because values for affected study sites would be lower than those at reference
sites. For example, contaminated sites will probably have reduced numbers
of species or reduced numbers of amphipods relative to reference sites.
An increase in the index would therefore reflect a decrease in absolute
value of the variable but an increase in adverse effect relative to reference
conditions.
It is important to note that the sediment contamination, sediment
toxicity, and biological effects indicators are used in the overall assessment
in both the original units of measurement and in the index form. Quantitative
relationships among indicators, including a determination of "apparent
effect thresholds" of sediment contamination, are based on data in their
original units of measurement. The indices provide a mechanism to prioritize
study areas based on the relative magnitude of sediment contamination,
sediment toxicity, and biological effects.
ACTION ASSESSMENT MATRIX
The environmental contamination and effects indicators (EAR) are organized
into an "Action Assessment Matrix" used to compare study areas or "hot
spots". A simplified example of an Action Assesment Matrix is shown in
Table 3.
Theoretical data, rather than actual site data, are used in this case
to develop a complete matrix. A detailed discussion of site-specific data
for the Elliott Bay decision-making process is presented in the chapter
on Identification of Problem Areas.
Theoretical information is presented in Table 3 to demonstrate how
information from multiple indicators can be integrated for an overall evaluation
and prioritization of different study areas without artificially combining
indices mathematically. For this example, only general indices such as
"sediment contamination", or "benthic macroinvertebrates" are used. In
the actual application of the approach, multiple indices for specific types
of sediment contamination will be evaluated, including separate measures
for organic compounds and metals. Similarly, the benthic macroinvertebrates
category will be replaced by more specific measures of benthic community
structure. Evaluation of information in this format enables the decision-
maker to answer the following questions:
1. Is there a significant increase in sediment contamination,
sediment toxicity, or biological effects at any study area?
2. What combination of indicators is significantly elevated?
14
-------
TABLE 3. THEORETICAL EXAMPLE OF ELEVATION ABOVE REFERENCE (EAR)
VALUES FOR SEDIMENT CONTAMINATION, SEDIMENT TOXICITY,
AND BIOLOGICAL EFFECTS
D E F 6 H Reference Value
Sed iment
contamination |1,300
Toxicity
Bioaccumulation
Pathology
Benthic
macroinvertebrates
8 50 4 12
I 8.5 I 2.0 | 10.Q| |4.5| 2.2 [3.5] 2.5 | 3.0
20J | HO?! I 2001 13 I 45| 1.8 2
I 5.2 | 2.6 | 8.0 I I 2.8
4.Ob I 1.2 | 5.0
2.0 1.4 1.0 1.6
1.3 1.1 1.2 1.05 1.08
1,000 ppb
10% mortality
10 ppb
5X prevalence
60 species
a Levels of one or more chemicals observed result in a significant human health risk.
b Benthic macroinvertebrate factors, in this case, represent the factor reduction
in numbers of species at the study site relative to the 60 observed at the reference
site. For example, at Site A, four times fewer species (15) are observed relative
to the reference site. Factors for all of the other Indices represent Increases
relative to the reference site values shown.
I- Indicates parameter for Areas A-H 1s significantly different from reference
parameter.
15
-------
3. What are the relative magnitudes of the elevated indices
(i.e., which pose the greatest relative threats)?
The term significant is generally used in this report to mean statis-
tically significant at the 95 percent confidence level (o= 0.05). However,
note that application of statistical tests to existing data derived from
previous studies is not always appropriate, especially when data sets from
several studies are pooled. In this case, criteria other than a formal
statistical test are used to establish significance of an indicator (e.g.,
the concentration of a chemical in sediments from the study area exceeds
the upper end of the range of values from all Puget Sound reference areas).
The collection of synoptic data specified in the Sampling and Analysis
Design (Tetra Tech 1985d) will allow determinations of statistical significance
for most indicators. For an explanation of the significance determination
for indicators (EAR) based on existing data, refer to the later section
on Preliminary Action Criteria. 'C^V-I-M
In the theoretical matrix given in Table 3, Areas E and G show no
significant increase in the various indices relative to reference conditions,
although the areas exhibit contamination at four to eight times reference
levels. As the general sediment contaminant index increases to 50 times
reference levels, only relatively minor increases in sediment toxicity
and bioaccumulation are observed, although a significant increase in human
health risk is associated with the bioaccumulation observed in Area B.
As sediment contamination increases above this level, the number of toxicity
and biological effects indices with significant elevations increases, and
the magnitudes of the indices also increase. Areas A and C have significant
elevations in all five indices. Area C poses the greatest overall threat
because it has the highest values in the four biological indices. Even
though sediment contamination is higher in Area A, the higher toxicity/
biological effects indicators in Area C suggest a relatively greater environ-
mental and human health threat than in Area A. As will be discussed later
in Preliminary Action Criteria, areas with gross sediment contamination,
sediment toxicity, or biological effects measured by perhaps only one or
two of the indices may nonetheless be evaluated for source control and
sediment remedial action. For example, areas showing major bioaccumulation
of selected chemicals determined to pose a severe public health risk, but
little or no measureable biological effects (e.g., Area B in Table 3),
would receive a higher priority for action than an area with barely significant
levels across all indicators measured.
QUANTITATIVE RELATIONSHIPS
The development of quantitative relationships among possible causative
factors, sediment toxicity, and biological effects identifies threshold
concentrations above which changes in the indicators are detectable. These
"apparent effect thresholds" are a key part of the overall assessment because
they form the basis for identifying areas for further attention (i.e.,
evaluation of contaminant sources and potential remedial actions).
The relationship among individual biological effects indices, sediment
toxicity, and corresponding levels of sediment contamination will be examined
to evaluate possible exposure-response patterns. The basic concept of
increased biological effects or sediment toxicity resulting from increased
16
-------
sediment contamination is depicted in Figure 5 using an unspecified effects
index. Four study areas that have statistically elevated effects are shown
in the figure. Although there is an elevation in contamination relative
to reference conditions at the remaining five study areas, there are no
statistically detectable increases in the effect indicator above background
conditions. Thus, the level of sediment contamination corresponding to
Area X (arrow) represents an apparent threshold above which significant
effects occur. The greatest deviation from background conditions occurred
at Area Z, although greater sediment contamination was observed at Area Y.
Such deviations from a straightforward exposure-response relationship may
result from differences in the exact forms present, spatial heterogeneity
within the area, or differences in environmental conditions that affect
exposure routes. In this simplified example based on only one independent
effects index, Areas W, X, Y, and Z would be recommended for source/remedial
action evaluations. Area Z would be given the highest priority of these
four areas.
Data on sediment toxicity and biological effects are collected from
areas of low, moderate, and high sediment contamination, as well as from
areas with different kinds of contamination (e.g., metals and organic
substances). The resultant relationships among contaminant characteristics
and the kinds and degrees of measurable sediment toxicity or biological
effects are used to evaluate apparent effect thresholds and to prioritize
study areas. Moreover, the quantitative relationships form the basis for
predicting the environmental effects of alternative source control and
sediment remedial actions.
PRELIMINARY ACTION CRITERIA
The decision to evaluate potential sources of contamination and the
need for possible remedial alternatives applies only to those areas that
exceed a minimum action level. An "action level" is a level of contami-
nation or effects that defines a problem area. Action levels are determined
through a comparison of the contaminant, sediment toxicity, and biological
effects indices for each area in the matrix. Action levels are dependent
on the specific combination of indices. It is assumed that an area requires
no action unless at least one of the indicators of contamination, toxicity,
or biological effects is significantly elevated above reference levels.
The preliminary action criteria developed for the evaluation of problem
areas in Elliott Bay and the lower Duwamish River are shown in Table 4. The
action-level guidelines are summarized as follows:
t Significant elevation above reference for THREE OR MORE
INDICES identifies a problem area requiring evaluation of
sources and potential remedial action
For ANY TWO INDICES showing significant elevations, the
decision to proceed with source and remedial action evaluations
depends on the actual combination of indices and the degree
to which they are site-specific
17
-------
o
to
**
u
5
UJ
To
o
AreaZ
AreaX
AreaY
AreaW
Average Reference Index
Sediment Concentration
of Contaminant
O Reference
A Elliott Bay , not statistically significant
A Elliott Bay. statistically significant at
the 95% confidence level (o = 0.05)
Figure 5. Theoretical example of relationship between sediment
contamination and an effects index.
18
-------
TABLE 4. PRELIMINARY ACTION-LEVEL GUIDELINES
Condition Observed
Threshold Required for Action
I. Any THREE OR MORE significantly
elevated indices9
II. TWO significantly elevated
indices
Threshold exceeded, continue with
source and remedial action evaluation.
1. Sediments contaminated, but
below 60th percentile PLUS:
Bioaccumulation without an
increased human health risk
relative to that at the
reference area, OR
Sediment toxicity with less
than 40 percent mortality
or abnormalities, OR
Benthic community structure
indicates altered assemblage,
but less than 80 percent
depression.
2. Sediments contaminated but
below 60th percentile PLUS
elevated Fish Pathology
No immediate action. Recommend
site for future monitoring.
Any TWO significantly ele-
vated indices, but NO ele-
vated sediment contamina-
tion
III. SINGLE significantly elevated
index
1. Sediment contamination
Threshold for source evaluation
exceeded if elevated contaminants
are considered to be biologically
available. If not, recommend site
for future monitoring.
Conduct analysis of chemistry to
distinguish site from adjacent
areas. If test fails, no immediate
action warranted. Otherwise, threshold
exceeded for characterization of
potential sources. Re-evaluate
significance of chemical indicators.
If magnitude of contamination exceeds
the 60th percentile for all study
areas, proceed with source and
remedial action evaluation.
19
-------
TABLE 4. (Continued)
2. Bioaccumulation
3. Sediment toxicity
4. Benthic community structure
5. Fish pathology
Increased human health threat,
defined as: Absolute cancer risk
of 10-5 or greater for single chemical
at study area. For noncarcinogens,
exceedance of the acceptable daily
intake value is required.
Greater than 40 percent response
(mortality or abnormality).
80 percent depression or greater
(equals an EAR of 5 or greater).
Insufficient as a sole indicator.
Recorrmend site for future monitoring.
Check adjacent areas for significant
contamination, toxicity, and/or
biological effects.
a Combinations of significant indices are from independent data types (i.e.
sediment chemistry, bioaccumulation, sediment toxicity, benthic infauna,
fish pathology).
Significant indices are defined as follows:
Sediment Chemistry and Bioaccumulation = Chemical concentration at study
site exceeds highest value observed at all Puget Sound reference areas.
Sediment Toxicity and Pathology = Statistically "significant" difference
between study area and reference area.
Benthic Infauna = Greater than an 80 percent depression (i.e., EAR >5).
20
-------
t Even when only a SINGLE INDEX is significantly elevated,
a problem area may be defined when additional criteria are
met (i.e., the magnitude of the index is sufficiently above
the significance threshold to warrant further evaluation).
Note that these action criteria are used to distinguish areas requiring
evaluation of sources and remedial action from those that do not require
immediate action.
Problem areas are defined according to three basic criteria. The
first criterion concerns the number of indicators that are significantly
elevated. Higher priority would be assigned to an area with many elevated
indices than to an area with few. For example, a study area with significant
elevation of liver lesion prevalences only would be viewed as less hazardous
to the environment or public health than an area with significant changes
in in all three biological effect indicators (benthic macroinvertebrates,
bioaccumulation, and liver lesion prevalence).
The second criterion concerns the magnitude of elevation. In this
assessment, the values of the individual indices represent relative deviation
from reference conditions and thus are assumed to represent relative environ-
mental hazards.
The final criterion concerns cause-effect relationships. This step
involves a determination of whether or not the quantitative (i.e., statistical)
relationships between observed sediment toxicity or biological effects
and sediment contamination are strong enough to link potential causes and
observed effects.
It is conceivable (but not likely) that significant sediment toxicity
or biological effects occur in areas without apparent contamination by
toxic substances. In such cases, it will be important to evaluate the
possibility that the observed conditions result from variables not measured
by available field studies. An attempt will be made to distinguish the
biological problem area from surrounding areas using chemical characteristics,
and to identify sources based on these distinguishing chemical characteristics.
RANKING OF PROBLEM AREAS
Although potential sources and remedial actions are evaluated for
each study area exceeding the action criteria just discussed, it is desirable
to rank these areas in terms of priority for action. Criteria for ranking
problem areas according to individual indicators are shown in Table 5.
Two ranking schemes are used. One uses sediment chemistry indicators only,
primarily to characterize the extent and magnitude of contamination. The
other uses all biological indicators to measure the response to chemical
contamination. Rank scores assigned to an area for individual biological
indicators (i.e., bioassay, infauna, bioaccumulation, pathology) are summed
to obtain an overall rank for the area. Similarly, rank scores assigned
for the sediment chemistry indicators (i.e., metals and organic compounds)
are sumned to obtain an overall rank. If the final ranking based on sediment
21
-------
TABLE 5. SUMMARY OF RANKING CRITERIA FOR SEDIMENT CONTAMINATION,
TOXICITY, AND BIOLOGICAL EFFECTS INDICATORS
Indicator
Criteria
Score
Metals (one or more)
Organic Compounds
(one or more)
Toxicitya
Macroinvertebratesb
Bioaccumulation
(Fish muscle)
Fish Pathology
(Liver lesions)d
Maximum Possible Score
Concentration not significant 0
Significant; EAR <10 1
Significant; EAR 10-<50 2
Significant; EAR 50-<100 3
Significant; EAR >100 4
Concentration not significant 0
Significant; EAR <10 1
Significant; EAR 10-<100 2
Significant; EAR 10D-<1.000 3
Significant; EAR >1,000 4
No significant bioassay response 0
Amphipod OR oyster bioassay significant 2
Amphipod AND oyster bioassays significant 3
>40 percent response in EITHER bioassay 4
No significant depressions 0
1 significant depression 1
2 significant depressions 2
_>3 significant depressions 3
ฑ1 variable with >_ 95 percent depression 4
No significant chemicals 0
1 significant chemical 1
2 significant chemicals 2
>3 significant chemicals 3
"Significant bioaccumulation of >_! chemical
posing a human health threatc 4
No significant lesion types 0
1 significant lesion type 1
2 significant lesion types 2
j>3 significant lesion types 3
_>5 percent prevalence of hepatic neoplasms 4
24
a Toxicity based on amphipod mortality and oyster larvae abnormality bioassays.
b Variables considered were total macrobenthic abundance, total number of taxa, Amphipoda
abundance, and dominance.
c Action Level Guidelines.
d Lesions considered were hepatic neoplasms, preneoplastic nodules, and megalocytic
hepatosis.
22
-------
toxicity and biological effects differs substantially from that based on
sediment chemistry, then the lower-ranking score may be disregarded. High
priority sites may thus be designated strictly on the basis of chemical
contamination (i.e., no corresponding biological problems apparent) or
strictly on the basis of biological conditions (i.e., no chemical contamination
apparent).
SPATIAL RESOLUTION OF EFFECTS
Using the Action Assessment Matrix, contamination and effects may
be analyzed at several levels of spatial resolution (e.g., the entire project
area, smaller study areas within the project area, or individual stations).
Detailed examination of each study area is necessary because spatial hetero-
geneity of sediment contamination can be relatively high. For example,
past studies have identified apparent "hot spots" near contaminant sources,
based on sediment contaminant measurements and sediment bioassays. In
such situations, it is important to determine if broad-scale sediment toxicity
or biological effects detected in the area result only from localized
contamination.
Because of their mobility, fishes and crabs used in the bioaccumulation
and pathology assessments may not be appropriate for studying localized
effects. Therefore, data used for evaluations of localized "hot spots"
are limited to sediment contaminants, sediment toxicity, and benthic macro-
invertebrates. Quantitative relationships among these kinds of data can
be used to evaluate small-scale response gradients. Such relationships
can be used to predict the occurrence of biological problems in an area
where chemistry data are available but biological data are not.
SOURCE EVALUATION
The objective of source evaluation is to identify sources of contamination,
and in turn to guide remedial activities. The source evaluation described
in this report is based upon spatial and temporal characteristics of the
contamination observed in the problem area, the geochemical properties
of the individual or groups of contaminants, and characteristics of known
or potential sources. The types of sources considered include:
Recognized point and nonpoint land sources whose current
discharges are related compositionally to the observed sediment
or tissue contamination (e.g., runoff and effluent discharges,
atmospheric emissions, and groundwater seepage)
Suspected point and nonpoint sources whose discharges may
vary compositionally over time
Undiscovered point sources
Water transport of contaminants from outside the defined
area
Probable historical contamination.
23
-------
The objectives of the source evaluation include 1) ranking of sources
based on mass loadings and relative hazard of contaminants, 2) classification
of sources as historical or ongoing, and 3) identification of potential
responsible parties. When these objectives have been met, the analysis
reduces to an evaluation of whether potential action in these areas would
reduce threats to public health or the environment. As mentioned previously,
the need for possible control of sources in problem areas is evaluated
separately from the need to contain or remove contaminated sediments.
However, coordination of source control and sediment remedial action is
required where ongoing sources of sediment contamination result in sediment
toxicity and/or biological effects.
Four major categories of problem areas are defined:
Areas recommended for evaluation of source control only
Areas recommended for evaluation of containment or removal
of sediments contaminated by historical sources
Areas recommended for evaluation of source control and sediment
remedial action
t Areas in which projected recovery due to natural processes
make immediate remedial action unwarranted.
Problem areas recommended for some form of remedial action will be
ranked in order to allocate resources efficiently. As a starting point,
this prioritization will use the ranking based on contamination and biological
effects discussed earlier. Because the corrective actions are diverse
and largely site-specific, some areas may be given a high priority for
immediate source control, while others may be given a high priority for
immediate dredging studies.
It should be recognized that a detailed evaluation of sources based
on existing data is not possible (see later sections, Data Summaries and
Identification of Problem Areas). The approach just discussed can be applied
once further data on sources and synoptic data on environmental conditions
are available.
24
-------
PHYSICAL SETTING
PROJECT LOCATION
Elliott Bay is located on the eastern shore of Puget Sound off the
city of Seattle approximately midway between Admiralty Inlet and the Tacoma
Narrows. The bay opens toward the main basin of Puget Sound and is defined
(for this study) as the area east of a line joining West Point and Alki
Point. It is about 6 mi wide at the mouth, by 4 mi long. The inner bay
receives fresh water from the Duwamish River. The innermost portions of
Elliott Bay, as well as the lower reaches of the Duwamish River have been
significantly altered from their natural states. The lower 6 mi of the
once meandering river are now a straightened navigational channel, and
the formerly expansive Seattle mudflats are now the equally vast industrial
areas of the city. Near its mouth, the river is divided by Harbor Island
into the East and West Waterways. Upstream, to the head of navigation
and a few miles beyond, the river passes through the industrial heart of
Seattle. Prior to 1906 the Duwamish drainage basin covered more than 1600 mi2;
now, after several diversions upstream, the river drains only 483 mi2 (Santos
and Stoner 1977). Drainage patterns, physical oceanography, benefical
uses, and study areas within the bay/river system are described in the
following sections.
DRAINAGE PATTERNS
The study area drainage basin consists of about 26 mi2 of highly developed
1-and in metropolitan Seattle (Figure 6). Basin boundaries are roughly
defined by Beacon Avenue on the east side and 35th Avenue S.W. on the west
side. The basin includes residential areas in the southern portions of
the Queen Anne and Magnolia neighborhoods, and most of West Seattle; the
industrial areas along the Duwamish Waterway; the 1-5 corridor from James Street
to about S. Dawson Street; and the downtown business district.
The residential areas are generally served by partially separated
storm and sanitary systems. Most surface runoff from streets and surrounding
land surfaces is collected in storm sewers and discharged directly to the
waterway. Runoff from rooftops is( discharged into the combined sewer system
and treated at the three area wa'stewater plants. Runoff from the business
district is served entirely by combined sewers, and is transported to the
West Point plant via METRO'S interceptor system. Runoff from 1-5 is collected
in two large storm drains and discharged to the Duwamish Waterway at Slip 4
and Diagonal Way. The remaining industrial areas, excluding Harbor Island,
are served by combined sewers, and private and municipal storm drains.
Harbor Island has its own storm sewer system which discharges to the East
and West Waterways.
PHYSICAL OCEANOGRAPHY
Outer Elliott Bay is characterized by a submarine canyon oriented
east to west with depths greater than 600 ft. This canyon divides in two
25
-------
Figure 6. Study area drainage boundaries
26
-------
in the inner bay, where depths exceed 400 ft. Water movement in the bay
is defined by local estuarine circulation patterns and circulation in the
main basin of Puget Sound. Elliott Bay currents are dominated by the semi-
diurnal tides and outflow from the Duwamish River, and are generally weak
(<5 cm/sec) with little seasonal variation. In the outer bay, during both
winter and summer: 1) circulation is closely associated with the main
basin, resulting in a probable counterclockwise, mid-depth sub-tidal flow;
2) near-bottom tidal currents run south on a flood and north on an ebb
tide; and 3) water flows into the bay at depth (Sillcox et al. 1981).
In the inner bay, tidal currents are generally weaker. Flow is predominantly
outward at 100 ft and inward at depth.
Surface salinity and temperature data gathered by Sillcox et al. (1981)
indicate that the Duwamish Rier plume is located on the north side of the
bay year-round. This finding is well supported, although it contradicts
earlier work by Winter (1977) based on the Puget Sound hydraulic model.
Hinchley et al. (1980) compared salinity and temperature gradients between
Elliott Bay and the main basin and deduced that water entering the bay
probably was not upwelled from the main basin of Puget Sound.
Baker (1982) examined the transport of suspended particulate matter
(SPM) in Elliott Bay during dry (August) and wet (February) seasons. In
summary, he found:
t A strong negative correlation between salinity and SPM year-round
in surface water and a weaker positive correlation in bottom
waters
Concentrations of SPM 5 m above the bottom of 16-30 percent
higher in the summer than in winter
A bottom nepheloid layer probably maintained more by advection
than by resuspension.
The Duwamish River discharges at an annual average rate of 47 m3/sec
(see Figure 7), and contributes most of the SPM in Elliott Bay. For examples
of the spatial distributions of total suspended particulate matter and
salinity in Elliott Bay, refer to Figure 8.
The Duwamish River is a salt-wedge estuary, influenced by tidal action
over its lower 16 km. A typical salt-wedge estuary is a stratified system
in which a bottom layer of saline water intrudes some distance upriver.
The extent of saltwater intrusion and the amount of mixing between layers
is a function of tidal activity and river flow.
Saltwater intrusion occurs in the Duwamish River for all river flow
rates and tides. The leading edge of the saltwater intrusion, called the
wedge toe, is defined as the farthest point upstream where salinity of
the wedge water is at least 25 ppt. Stoner (1967) found that when river
discharge was less than 28 m3/sec, the toe of the salt wedge did not intrude
past km 12.6 (East Marginal Way Bridge), but it intruded at least that
far on most flood tides when discharge was less than 18 m3/sec. During
some periods of low discharge and high tides, salt has been observed as
far upstream as km 16.4, and on rare occasions km 21 (Stoner et al. 1975).
27
-------
Duwom sh River (Green River at Tukwila)
200-
150-
u
a>
in
E
UJ
^ 100-
0
t/5
a
LJ
E 50-
D Monthly Range (1968-1978)
0 Monthly Sta
Monthly Me
7
\
'<
i
-
7
^
\
n
ar
7
/
f
f
/
/
/J
dard Deviation
i
k\\X\\N 1
i i
7
/
^ซJ
T
\
'<
r
i
i t i
r-.
/
i
r-i
7
/
\
\
-
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
REFERENCE: HASSOTH ET AL., 1982
Figure 7. Seasonal variation of Duwamish River discharge.
28
-------
KILOMETERS
SPM CONCENTRATION (mg'/l)
SURFACE
KILOMETERS
SPM CONCENTRATION (mg/l)
5m ABOVE BOTTOM
122*24
20'
KILOMETFRS
SALINITY (e/oe)
SURFACE
122-24'
20'
KILOMETERS
SALINITY (%.)
5m ABOVE BOTTOM
122*24
REFERENCE: HASSOTH ET AL., 1982
Figure 8. Total suspended particulate matter and salinity
in Elliott Bay.
29
-------
The salt wedge and overlying river water were fairly discrete (highly strati-
fied) at river discharge rates above 28 m3/sec, but at lower rates, the
first 6 km of the estuary were partly mixed.
BENEFICIAL USES
The Elliott Bay/Duwamish River system is used for a variety of purposes.
In this study, the term "beneficial use" refers to activites that depend
on a high degree of environmental quality and that do not (as a direct
consequence) adversely affect that quality. Beneficial uses can be placed
into two categories: resource-using or non-resource-using. Public access
points and recreational areas that support beneficial uses are shown in
Map 1.
Resource-using activities include recreational shellfish harvesting,
commercial salmon fishing, and sport fishing. In Elliott Bay, commercially
important living resoures include, but are not limited to shrimp (off the
mouth of the Duwamish River), salmon (all of the inner bay), flounder (nearly
the entire bay), herring and smelt (ubiquitous), and geoduck (off Discovery
Park). A variety of seafoods is harvested recreationally, such as surf
perch, rock cod and true cod, squid, butter clams, cockles and horseclams,
and seaweeds. The Duwamish River is also used for recreational and commercial
fisheries. Three species of salmon (chinook, coho, and chum), steelhead
and sea-run cutthroat trout, and resident cutthroat and rainbow trout are
the most sought-after fish.
Non-resource-using activities include viewing, recreational boating,
picnicking, bicycling, and strolling. There are two public boat launches
(one on the Duwamish River and one on Elliott Bay) and seven waterfront
parks. Three of these on Elliott Bay (Discovery Park, Waterfront Park,
and Alki Beach) offer extensive waterfront access. Both the city and the
Port of Seattle plan to develop several additional public access points
and to improve existing sites along the Duwamish River. Proposed improvements
include building a bicycle path, upgrading a boat ramp, and expanding a
park.
STUDY AREAS
A major objective of this report is to identify spatial patterns in
the distribution of contaminants, sediment toxicity, and biological responses.
To facilitate spatial analysis, the project area has been divided into
12 smaller areas based on geographic features and locations of major sources
of contaminants [i.e., storm drains and combined sewer overflows (CSOs)
(Figure 9)]. The nearshore region of Elliott Bay (i.e., less than 150 ft
deep) and the lower Duwamish River includes nine areas. The remaining
portion of Elliott Bay includes three deep-water areas: the inner bay,
the outer bay, and the Fourmile Rock Disposal Site. Area boundaries and
major features are as follows:
1. Magnolia -- West Point, south to Smith Cove
2. Seattle Waterfront North -- Terminal 90/91 to Pier 70; Interbay
CSO at Terminal 90/91, Denny Way CSO, Myrtle Edwards public
fishing pier
30
-------
* COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW (MAJOR)
COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW (MINOR)
COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW/STORM DRA
<& STORM DRAIN (( 10 24-)
ft fTDRM DRAIN (K- K 4e')
CTDRM DRAIN (> ซ')
TREATMENT PLANT OUTBU1
OTHER POTENTIAL SOURCES
Figure 9. Project area: Elliott Bay and the
lower Duwamish River.
31
1. MAGNOLIA
Z. SEATTLE WATERFRONT N.
3. SEATTLE WATERFRONT S.
A. N HARBOR ISLAND
5 EAST WATERWAY
6 WEST WATERWAY
7. KELLOGG ISLAND
6. UPPER DUWAMISH ESTUARY
9. DUWAMISH HEAD/ALKI BEACH
10. FOURMILE ROCK DISPOSAL SITE
11. INNER ELLIOTT BAY
12 OUTER ELLIOTT BAY
-------
3. Seattle Waterfront South -- Pier 70 to Terminal 37; main
Seattle waterfront, ferry terminals, King Street and Connecticut
Street CSOs, Seattle Aquarium, public fishing pier
4. North Harbor Island -- Southern end of Elliott Bay from
T37 west to Fairmount Avenue; northern Harbor Island, Longfellow
Creek
5. East Waterway -- Mouth to Spokane Street bridge; Hanford
and Lander CSOs
6. West Waterway -- Mouth to Spokane Street bridge; S.W. Lander
and S.W. Florida CSOs
7. Kellogg Island -- Spokane Street bridge to Kellogg Island/Slip 1;
Hanford-1 CSO
8. Upper Duwamish Estuary -- Kellogg Island/Slip 1 to head
of navigation; Michigan Street CSO, Georgetown flume
9. Duwamish Head/Alki Beach -- Eastern shoreline of Duwamish
Head, north of Fairmount Avenue S.W., to Alki Point
10. Fourmile Rock Disposal Site -- Area along Magnolia Bluff
depicted by Romberg et al. (1984) as having high toxicant
levels
11. Inner Elliott Bay -- All waters east of a north/south transect
from Duwamish Head to Terminal 90/91 not included in the
nearshore areas
12. Outer Elliott Bay -- All deep waters west of a line extending
from Duwamish Head to Terminal 90/91 boundary.
In this report, the phrase "Elliott Bay system" refers to the entire project
area.
32
-------
DATA SUMMARIES
Data on toxic contamination, sediment toxicity, and biological effects
in the Elliott Bay system are summarized in the following sections. The
data summaries are organized according to the major categories of information
reviewed:
Contaminant sources
Contamination of water, sediments, and biota
Sediment toxicity bioassays
Benthic macroinvertebrate communities
Pathology.
Each section on environmental conditions includes 1) a general overview
of existing conditions and historical trends, including data that are not
used directly to identify problem areas and 2) a synthesis of data used
to rank problem areas. The data synthesis section includes discussions
of the rationale for selecting indicator variables, the available data
for Elevation Above Reference (EAR) analysis, sampling station locations,
reference conditions, and the results of EAR analysis. This comparison
is a primary element of the problem evaluation process (see Decision-Making
Approach above) . The scope of each selected study and results of the data
evaluations are summarized in Appendix A.
CONTAMINANT SOURCES
Contaminant sources in the study area can be divided into seven major
categories: wastewater treatment plants, combined sewer overflows, surface
runoff, groundwater, industrial discharges, atmospheric deposition, and
accidental spills. There are three wastewater treatment plants in the
study area: Alki, Renton, and West Point. The combined sewer overflow
(CSO) category covers overflows from the METRO and city of Seattle combined
sewer systems. Surface runoff results from excess precipitation washing
off the land surface. It includes discharges to the waterways from storm
drains, natural drainages, and direct surface runoff. The groundwater
category covers any subsurface transport of contaminants into the study
area. Industrial sources consist of permitted and non-permitted discharges
of wastewater and storm water from individual industrial sites. Industrial
discharges to the combined sewer system are not included in this category,
but are accounted for in the treatment effluent. Atmospheric sources consist
of airborne pollutants deposited directly on the water surface. Airborne
material deposited initially on the land surface and transported to the
waterways via storm runoff is categorized as surface runoff. The final
category, accidental spills, simply includes the release of contaminants
to the waterways resulting from spills in the project area.
33
-------
Monitoring data for conventional pollutants are available for both
the Renton and West Point plants. In addition, priority pollutant analyses
are available from METRO'S Toxic Pretreatment Planning Study (TPPS). Four
of the major combined sewer overflows in the area were also analyzed for
priority pollutants as part of TPPS. Some storm drain sampling has been
conducted recently, but most samples were taken of the sediment in the
drain, and not of the actual discharge.
Except for treatment plant monitoring, source sampling has been confined
to a short-term, single-event analysis with limited utility in estimating
average loadings. Loading estimates for sources are presented in this
report primarily to establish rankings among source categories and are
not suitable for making detailed comparisons among individual sources.
Wastewater Treatment Plants
West Point, the largest of the three treatment plants, is located
at the northwest corner of the Magnolia area, in the northern boundary
of the study area. Alki Point is the smallest and is located on the southwest
boundary of the study area. See Map 2 for exact locations. The Renton
plant, located approximately 13 mi upstream of the mouth of the Duwamish
River, is actually beyond the specified study boundaries. However, effluent
from Renton constitutes a major pollutant source to the Duwamish River.
Therefore, the Renton treatment plant has been included to aid in defining
Duwamish River conditions.
West Point Treatment Plant--
The West Point plant provides primary treatment for municipal and
industrial wastewater from metropolitan Seattle. In addition, sludge from
the Renton, Alki, Carkeek Park, and Richmond Beach wastewater plants is
transported to West Point for treatment. The service area includes all
of the greater Seattle area, south Seattle, Redmond, southern Snohomish
County, and the east slope of West Seattle. The plant serves a population
of approximately 608,000. It has an average design capacity of 125 MGD
and a maximum hydraulic capacity of 325 MGD. Effluent from the plant is
discharged to Elliott Bay via a submarine outfall located 3,650 ft off
of West Point at a depth of 250 ft (see Map 2).
Under .the treatment plant monitoring program, daily 24-h automatic
composite samples of the effluent are analyzed for metals. Conventional
pollutants and oil and grease are sampled weekly. Data summaries are available
for the last 3 yr.
Analyses of organic constituents in the West Point effluent are available
from TPPS (Cooley and Matasci 1984). The study, conducted between November,
1980 and November, 1981, sampled various waste streams in the plant. All
samples were 24-h flow-proportioned composites and were analyzed for priority
pollutants. Plant effluent was sampled 17 times during the study period.
The pollutants detected most often included metals, cyanides, phenol,
toluene, and polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH). Phthalates and methylene
chloride were also detected frequently in the effluent, but large variability
in replicate samples and frequent detection of phthalates and methylene
34
-------
chloride in the field blank samples make the data unreliable. Average
concentrations for the most frequently detected pollutants are presented
in Appendix D, Table D-l.
Approximately annual loadings from West Point (Table 6) were calculated
from the TPPS results, using an average discharge of 124 MGD (from 1979-1931
plant records). These highly variable, log-normally distributed data are
difficult to assess with standard statistical procedures. This problem
was discussed in the METRO study and apparently has not yet been resolved.
However, for this study, where the intent is to identify potential sources
to Elliott Bay and the Duwamish River, the statistical dilemma is not that
critical.
Hydrocarbon loading from West Point was also investigated by Barrick
(1982). Flow-proportioned composites were taken at monthly intervals between
December, 1977 and August, 1979. Total annual hydrocarbon loading in the
effluent was estimated at 610 tons/yr. PAH loading was less than 1 ton/yr.
Undegraded fuel oils were identified as a major source, in addition to
waste oil from automobiles and street runoff. The majority of the hydrocarbons
were associated with particulates in the effluent, similar to the TPPS
results.
Renton Treatment Plant--
The Renton treatment plant provides secondary treatment for wastewater
from a 60,000-ac area bounded by Juanita Bay to the north, Auburn to the
south, Issaquah to the east, and Lake Washington to the west. Sludge is
pumped from Renton to the West Point plant via the Elliott Bay interceptor.
The plant is currently designed for an average wet-weather flow of 96 MGD
and an average dry-weather flow of 36 MGD. There are plans to expand the
p-lant to 72 MGD dry-weather capacity. Effluent from Renton currently discharges
directly to the Duwamish River. After construction of the Renton Tunnel,
effluent will discharge to Elliott Bay off of Duwamish Head.
Effluent metals and conventional pollutant concentrations are monitored
daily. Oil and grease are measured weekly. Samples are 24-h composites.
Monthly summaries are available back to 1977. Data for conventional pollutants
are available back to 1966.
TPPS (Cooley and Matasci 1984) provides the only available organic
constituent analysis of the Renton treatment plant effluent. A total of
17 samples was analyzed for priority pollutants. All samples were 24-h
flow-proportioned composites.
The toxicants most frequently detected were metals, cyanides, and
phenol. PAH were not consistently detected in Renton effluent. Detection
frequencies of PAH were below 20 percent. Phthalate and methylene chloride
data from Renton had the same problems as were discussed for West Point
and are not used in the loading calculations. A summary of average pollutant
concentrations is presented in Appendix D, Table D-l.
With the exception of PCBs, pollutant concentrations in Renton treatment
plant effluent were lower than those at West Point. This has been attributed
35
-------
As
Cd
Cr
Cu
Fe
Pb
Mn
Hg
Ni
Ag
Zn
Cyanide
Naphthalene
Flourene
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
PCB 1242
1248
1254
1260
Phenol
MVtKMbt LUMLUINb rKUM IKtttllltNl Y LHIY 1 tr r LUtlN 1 IN lUNi/YhAK
West Point
123.5 MGD
197
1.3
0.7
1.5
12
17
429
14
36
0.05
10
1.5
26
11
2
0.2
0.6
0.08
0.03
0.03
0.02
0.009
o . 0 '
8
Trichloroethylene 1.6
Benzene
Ethyl benzene
0.7
2.0
Tetrachloroethylene 3.5
Chloroform
Toluene
BOD
COD
TSS
1.4
9.6
18,800
37,600
16,900
Renton
42.3 MGD
12
0.1
0.1
0.09
2.1
1.8
24
1.6
4.8
0.02
2.0
0.2
4.2
1.7
--
--
--
--
0.01
0.01
0.006
NDb
<9. 0:6
NO
0.2
0.2
0.01
0.2
0.2
0.02
600
3,200
600
Alki
7.2 MGD
6.2
0.01
0.02
0.04
--a
0.2
10
0.3
0.7
0.004
0.6
0.04
1.3
--
0.01
<0.0002
0.003
<0.0002
0.01
0.01
0.001
0.002
0.02
<0.0002
<0.0004
--
0.04
0.008
600
800
a -- = Not analyzed.
b ND = Not detected.
36
-------
to improved removal efficiencies obtained by secondary treatment (Cooley
and Matasci, 1984).
Annual pollutant loads from the Renton treatment plant were calculated
using the same approach that was used for West Point. The loadings are
shown in Table 6.
Alki Treatment Plant--
The Alki plant provides primary treatment for wastewater from a 4,100-ac
area in West Seattle and serves a population of about 44,000. The plant
is designed for an average dry-weather flow of 10 MGD and a peak wet-weather
flow of 30 MGD. Effluent is discharged to Elliott Bay via a submarine
outfall located 1,300 ft offshore of Alki Point at a depth of 80 ft (see
Map 2). Sludge is transported by truck to West Point for treatment.
The plant staff monitors effluent daily for conventional pollutants.
Monthly metals sampling was initiated in the mid-1970s. METRO is currently
evaluating the Alki plant. As part of the study, priority pollutant analyses
were performed on six samples (one sample from 1981 and five samples from
1984). The data have been summarized and are available in a draft report
(Parametrix 1985). The only other available data are from the 1981 Section
301(h) application for waiver of secondary treatment requirements (METRO
1981). A summary of the effluent data is presented in Appendix D, Table
D-l. Other than PCBs, most constituent concentrations were within the
range of West Point and Renton data. The PCB concentrations in Alki effluent
were higher than those of both West Point and Renton. Plant operators
have reported detecting a petroleum smell in the influent on Friday afternoons.
METRO is trying to locate the source (Houck, D., 11 March 1985, personal
communication).
Loading estimates for the Alki plant were calculated from the draft
METRO data, using an average annual flow rate of 9 MGD. Results are shown
in Table 6.
Comparison of Loadings from Three Plants--
Pollutant loads for the three plants were grouped into eight major
categories (Table 7): 1) copper, lead, and zinc; 2) arsenic; 3) other
priority pollutant metals; 4) low molecular weight PAH; 5) high molecular
weight PAH; 6) PCBs; 7) volatile organic compounds; and 8) phenols. The
West Point plant had the highest loadings in all pollutant categories.
This was due primarily to the higher flows at West Point. Annual flow
at the West Point plant is about three times larger than the Renton flow
and about 15 times larger than the Alki flow. The large difference in
flows overshadows any effects from variation in effluent quality among
the three plants.
Comparison with Water Quality Criteria--
Treatment plant effluent quality was also compared with available
ambient water quality criteria. The diffusers on both the West Point and
Alki submarine outfalls provide a minimum effluent dilution of 100:1.
Effluent from the Renton plant, which discharges into the Duwamish River,
37
-------
TABLE 7. LOADING SUMMARIES FOR ALKI, WEST POINT, AND RENTON
TREATMENT PLANTS (TONS/YEAR)
Cu, Pb, Zn
As
Other metal sa
Low MW PAHb
High MW PAHc
PCB
Volatilesd
Phenol
West Point
57
0.7
26.3
2.8
0.08
0.09
19
8
Renton
8
0.1
4.5
--
--
0.03
0.8
Alki
2
0.02
0.7
0.01
<0.0002
0.02
0.05
0.02
a Sum of other priority pollutant metals: Sb, Cd, Cr, Hg, Ni, Ag.
b Naphthalene, phenanthrene, fluorene.
C- Pyrene.
d l,l,l,Trichloroethane, tetrachloroethylene, benzene, ethyl benzene, toluene,
chloroform, trichloroethylene.
38
-------
receives only minimal dilution during periods of low river flow. The worst-
case (i.e., minimum dilution) levels were compared with available U.S. EPA
ambient water quality criteria. Where criteria were not available, the
lowest recorded chronic exposure toxic concentrations were used. Comparisons
for the most frequently occurring pollutants are presented in Appendix D,
Table D-2. With 100:1 dilution, West Point and Alki treatment plant effluents
comply with the available criteria. But undiluted Renton treatment plant
effluent exceeds the freshwater chronic criteria for cadmium, chromium,
copper, lead, nickel, silver, zinc, mercury, and cyanides.
Combined Sewer Overflows
Combined sewer overflow result from an overload of the combined sanitary
and storm sewer system. During a large rain storm, additional flows from
storm runoff exceeds the hydraulic capacity of the collection system.
The excess flow, a mixture of storm runoff and raw sewage, is discharged
from overflow points into the surrounding waterways. This discharge is
termed a combined sewer overflow (CSO). There are 48 CSO discharge points
in the study area; 17 are in METRO'S system and 31 are in the city of Seattle
system.
The city maintains the smaller sewer collector and trunk lines. METRO
operates the larger interceptor system, which transports wastewater from
the city system to the area treatment plants. Although METRO has fewer
CSOs, discharge from METRO'S CSOs constitutes an estimated 70-90 percent
of the total annual CSO flow released to the study area.
Many of the city's CSOs are classified as emergency overflows. Discharge
from these CSOs is not associated with a storm event, but results from
an equipment failure or power failure. Emergency overflows are generally
located at all lift stations to discharge excess flow if the pump fails.
Locations of all METRO and city CSOs are shown on Map 2.
METRO CSOs--
Discharge from METRO CSOs is automatically regulated by their Computer
Augmented Treatment and Disposal System (CATAD). The system is designed
to help regulate flow and thereby minimize CSO discharges. Flow data for
these CSOs are available from 1975, 1976, and 1981-1983 (Table 8).
Total annual discharge from METRO CSOs in the study area ranges between
600 and 2,800 M gal/yr. The large fluctuation in annual flows is largely
attributable to variations in precipitation, but is also related to the
flexibility in the system created by CATAD. The Denny Way, Lander, Hanford 2,
and Michigan CSOs account for 50-80 percent of the total METRO discharge.
Other significant METRO CSOs include Magnolia (40-100 M gal/yr), King (10-60 M
gal/yr), Connecticut (30-100 M gal/yr), Hanford 1 (30-480 M gal/yr), and
Harbor (20-50 M gal/yr). The Hanford 1 and Harbor overflows actually enter
the waterways through city storm drains. They are shown as CSO/SD on Map 2.
The Hanford 1 CSO discharges to the Duwamish River near Diagonal Way.
Harbor CSO/SD discharges into the West Waterway at S.W. Hinds Street.
METRO'S TPPS study (Cooley et al. 1984) is the primary source of infor-
mation on chemical composition of CSO discharges. The four largest CSOs
39
-------
TABLE 8. FLOW RECORDS FOR METRO CSOs
Sub Area
Magnol ia
North Downtown
Waterfront
South Downtown
Waterfront
North Harbor
Island
Duwamish Head/
Alki Beach
West Waterway
East Waterway
Kellogg Island
Upper Duwamish
Estuary
Metro CSOs
Name/Permit #
Magnol ia/W006a
Denny Way/W027
King St/W028
Connecticut St/W029
53rd St. Pump Sta/A003a
Harbor/W037
Chelan Ave/W036
Lander/W030
Hanford 2/W031
Duwamish Siphon E./b
W034
Duwamish Siphon W/b
W035
Hanford 1/W031
Brandon/W041
Michigan/W039
W Michigan/W042
8th Ave. S./W040
E. Marginal Pump Sta/
W043
1975
Annual Flow (M gal/Year)
1976 1981 1982
1983
40-100 M gal/year
221.24
59.54
92.72
--
37.91
3.7
100.85
292.95
..
--
223.07
29.5
213.31
0.52
18.21
0
83.65
8.33
27.97
--
1-10
15.99
0.84
21.27
130.33
._
--
76.81
22.91
86.95
4.57
0.91
0
420.55
64.03
35.5
--
M gal /year
33.16
46.45
128.69
252.66
__
--
321.97
39.51
211.32
1.16
16.53
0
616.9
60.18
41.60
--
48.71
48.80
328.94
697.70
__
-.
34.19
29.25
197.18
2.45
12.35
0
354.01
22.9
52.2
--
32.47
24.34
99.96
0
__
..
476.03
4.66
157.89
1.43
10.69
0
a Not monitored by CATAD. Flow Estimate from (Brown & Caldwell 1979).
b Emergency overflow only.
40
-------
(Denny, Lander, Hanford 2, and Michigan) were sampled and analyzed for
priority pollutants between January and April, 1982. A total of four overflow
events were monitored, three between January 22 and January 25 and one
on April 11. All samples represent wet-season conditions, but two events
were preceded by a dry period and should include the first flush effect
found in surface runoff.
No dry-season CSO samples were taken. The TPPS did sample the collection
system at the Lander and Michigan regulators during the dry season, but
not during an overflow event. This would not be characteristic of dry-
season overflows because it neglects the stormwater runoff component.
A summary of the average concentrations of the most frequently detected
pollutants is presented in Appendix D, Table D-3. Conventional pollutants
and metals concentrations are similar for the four CSOs. However, because
only four storms were sampled and three of them occurred within a 4-day
period, detailed comparisons are not possible. There were some obvious
differences among organic constituents. The Lander CSO discharge contained
the highest concentrations of trichloroethylene. The Michigan CSO exhibited
greater concentrations of tetrachloroethylene. The Denny Way CSO had the
largest concentrations of toluene and ethyl benzene.
In addition to the TPPS data, Denny Way and Hanford have been sampled
as part of other METRO CSO studies. Tomlinson et al . (1976) sampled both
Denny Way and Hanford 2 CSOs during a single dry-season storm event on
August 8, 1976. Grab samples were taken at approximately 1-h intervals
during the storm and analyzed for conventional pollutants, metals, and
nutrients. The Denny Way CSO was monitored again in 1978 by Tomlinson
et al. (1980). Samples taken at regular intervals during two storms (March 7,
1987 and October 23-24, 1978) were analyzed for metals, oil, grease, and
chlorinated hydrocarbons.
A comparison of data on metals and conventional constituents for the
Denny Way and Hanford 2 CSO investigations is presented in Appendix D,
Tables D-4 and D-5. With the exception of lead, average metals and conventional
pollutant concentrations from the two wet-season sample sets at the Denny
CSO (Cooley et al. 1984; Tomlinson 1980) are similar. Average lead concen-
trations from Tomlinson et al. (1980) are more than double those found
in the TPPS samples. Metals data from Tomlinson et al . (1976) for both
Denny Way and Hanford CSOs are on the high end or exceed the range determined
in TPPS. The 1976 data are from a dry-season sample, which could explain
the higher metal concentrations. But none of the CSO investigations in
the study area have been able to establish a significant difference between
wet- and dry-season pollutant concentrations. All statistical comparisons
have been hampered by the limited number of samples and natural variations
in environmental conditions.
The difficulty in deriving general loading characteristics from a
few data points is especially evident with the CSOs. Annual flows as well
as pollutant concentrations are highly variable. The approach taken for
CSOs was to calculate a possible range of annual loadings from historical
flow data, using average pollutant concentration data. Data from TPPS
were used for the pollutant concentrations because TPPS is the most compre-
41
-------
hensive data set available on CSOs. The annual loading ranges calculated
for the four METRO CSOs in the study are shown in Table 9.
Because the existing data do not shown systematic variation in pollutant
concentrations among the individual CSOs, differences in the annual loading
estimates are mostly a function of the flow. Therefore a rough priority
ranking of METRO CSOs could be developed from the flow records:
Maximum Recorded Flow Cumulative
CSO Name M gal/yr Percentage
Hanford 2 700 25.2
Denny Way 620 47.6
Hanford 1 400 64.9
Lander 330 76.6
Michigan 210 84.3
Connecticut 100 87.9
Magnolia 100 91.5
King 60 93.7
Harbor 50 95.5
Chelan 50 97.3
Brandon 40 98.7
8th Avenue South 20 99.5
53rd Street Pump Station 10 99.8
West Michigan 5 100.0
East Marginal Pump Station 0 100.0
Duwamish River Siphons 0 100.0
TOTAL 2,775 100.0
Annual loadings for the remaining CSOs that have not been sampled were
estimated from available flow records and overall average of pollutant
concentrations from the TPPS report (results from all four sampled CSOs
were averaged). The results are presented in the summary below.
City of Seattle CSOs
City CSOs have not been monitored for either flow or chemical composition.
The only available information is on annual flow, which was estimated by
the city based on precipitation records and the system's hydraulic capacities.
The flow estimates and frequency of occurrence are displayed in Table 10.
Many of the city CSOs discharge into the waterways via the storm drain
system. The discharge has two distinct components: a CSO from the combined
sewer system and surface runoff from the storm sewer system. Surface runoff
42
-------
TABLE 9. CSO LOADING CALCULATIONS (LBS/YR)
Denny
High
620 M gal
BOD 390
COD 978
TSS 561
Al 15
Sb
As
Be
Cd
Cr
Cu
Fe 12
Pb
Mn
Hg
Ni
Ag
Zn 1
Phenol
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
l.l.l.Trichloro-
ethane
Tetrathloro-
ethylene
Benzene
Ethyl benzene
Toluene
Chloroform
Trichloroethylene
,197
,067
,101
,443
12.4
51.5
0.18
13.4
134
386
,355
875
319
2.7
165
87.5
,184
15.4
49.1
4.4
7.7
28.3
2.6
59.2
844
25.1
5.1
Low
80 M gal
52,910
132,623
76,084
2,094
1.7
7.0
0.024
1.8
18.1
52.4
1,675
119
43.3
0.37
22.3
11.9
161
2.1
6.7
0.60
1.0
3.8
0.35
8.0
114
3.4
0.70
Lander
High
330 M gal
156,181
356,829
356,829
14,685
9.33
30.2
0.24
15.6
274
439
13,916
384
549
0.55
220
10.2
796
4.1
1.37
1.37
3.65
6.40
3.65
6.51
20.1
9.1
271
Low
20 M gal
10,099
23,073
23,073
950
0.60
1.95
0.016
1.01
17.7
28.4
900
24.8
35.5
0.035
14.2
0.66
51.5
0.27
0.089
0.089
0.236
0.41
0.24
0.42
1.3
0.59
17.5
Hanford 2 Michigan
High
700 M gal
402,297
995,554
716,100
31,264
7.0
64.0
0.40
11.6
140
291
23,288
815
640
2.3
157
34.9
1,106
7.6
6.8
0.70
13.0
16.0
7.3
8.7
5.8
11.6
64.6
Low High
0 MG 210 M gal
91,134
190,456
202,916
11,071
3.6
17.3
0.20
8.2
76.5
112
9,309
427
196
0.61
53.4
8.5
374
4.1
0.59
0.59
2.8
27.1
1.8
4.8
29.7
6.4
10.1
Low
90 M gal
37,148
77,634
82,713
4,513
1.5
7.0
0.08
3.3
31.2
45.7
3,795
174
79.8
0.25
21.8
3.5
152
1.7
0.24
0.24
1.1
11.0
0.73
1.9
12.1
2.6
4.1
43
-------
TABLE 10. FLOW ESTIMATES FOR CITY CSOs
Subarea
Seattle CSO
#/Street
Freq.
# Times/Year
Average
Annual Flow
M gal/Year
Magnolia
Downtown Water-
front North
Downtown Water-
front South
North Harbor
Island
Duwamish Head/
Alki Beach
West Waterway
East Waterway
Kellogg Island
061/West Raye Street
062/West Raye Street
063/West Raye Street
064/West 32nd Avenue
068/Interbay
069/Vine
070/University
164/Madison
071/Madison
172/Columbia
072/Washington
077/N.E. Harbor Island
078/S.W. Fairmont
1/7
080/S.W.
082/S.W.
083/S.W.
085/Alki
098/S.W.
106/S.W.
105/S.W.
104/S.W.
099/S.W.
102/S.W.
103/S.W.
Maryland
Donald
Atlantic
Point
Florida
Florida
Lander
16th
Hinds
Spokane
Spokane
107/South Hinds
162/S.W. Hanford
163/S.W. Spokane
Ill/Diagonal Way
0
0
37
0
38
38
14
12
12
.3 years
38
0
3
27
0
27
0
0
0
0
0
33
0
0
0
0
0
32
0
0
13.022
0
71.7
34.682
1.488
1.144
1.144
0.001
16.712
0
0.399
2.864
0
5.624
0
0
0
0
0
41.437
0
0
0
0
0
49.323
Upper Duwamish
Estuary
116/Slip 3
117/Slip 4
156
0
0
0
0
0
0
44
-------
loadings for these sources are discussed in the storm drain section. All
CSOs that discharge via the storm drain system are shown as CSO/SD on Map 2.
Most of the CSOs listed in Table 10 with annual flows of 0 are emergency
overflows that function only as the result of a power outage or pump failure
at a lift station. For example, all CSOs on Harbor Island are emergency
overflows. The storm drain system is completely separated from the sanitary
system. A discharge of sewage from the sanitary system would be due entirely
to equipment malfunction and would not be related to a storm event.
The city's 1980 facility plan estimated the frequency of occurrence
of pump station failures as follows:
External power failure 1 in 4.4 yr
t In-station electrical failure 1 in 4.8 yr
In-station mechanical failure 1 in 12.5 yr
The average duration of overflow was estimated at 1 h. The city is currently
setting up emergency pump connections at the lift stations so that a portable
pump could be used in the event of a malfunction or power outage (Becker,
C., 12 March 1985, personal communication). Other recent or ongoing work
on city CSOs affecting the study area includes:
1. Control of the three CSOs along S.W. Delridge Way, which
historically discharged an estimated 124 M gal/yr to Longfellow
Creek. They have been modified to contain flows from a
10-yr storm with no overflow.
2. Control of two CSOs at West Raye Street (061 and 062).
Plans are being developed to add storage capacity so a 1-yr
event can be contained. Design was scheduled to begin in
April, 1985.
3. Installation of weir to route all nonstorm flows and part
of the storm flows from Galer Street CSO (on Lake Union)
to Denny Way trunk line. This will reduce CSO discharges
to Lake Union, but could increase overflow at Denny Way.
Comparison with Water Quality Criteria--
The average and maximum pollutant concentrations reported at the four
major METRO CSOs were compared with available ambient water quality criteria
(Appendix D, Table D-6). Comparisons were made between acute exposure
criteria and undiluted CSO discharge. This was done because most CSOs
discharge at shallow depths and would receive minimal dilution. Acute
level criteria were used because of the intermittent nature of CSO discharge.
Criteria for copper, silver, and zinc were exceeded by both the average
and maximum concentrations, while cyanide criteria were exceeded less fre-
quently, by only the maximum recorded concentration (see Appendix D, Table
D-6). Concentrations of all organic constituents were lower than the available
criteria.
45
-------
Storm Drains
Stormwater runoff has long been suspected of being a potential source
of pollution. Recently, it has received more attention as the problems
of toxic input from urban runoff have been recognized. Most surface runoff
in the project area is collected by city and industrial storm sewers and
the municipal combined sewer system. Storm drains discharge directly to
the waterways. Runoff collected in the combined sewer system is treated
at the area wastewater treatment plants. Stormwater also discharges to
the waterways via natural drainage channels and as dispersed surface runoff.
Input from the Duwamish River upstream of the project area accounts for
most of this component of surface runoff.
Because Stormwater runoff was considered less important than sewage
discharges, many older cities with combined systems initiated programs
to separate storm runoff from the sanitary system. This was done primarily
to reduce the discharge of raw sewage via combined sewer overflows. In
Seattle, the Magnolia and West Seattle areas have partially separated storm
and sanitary systems. Roof drains continue to discharge to the sanitary
system, but street runoff is collected in a separate storm sewer system
and is discharged to the nearest waterway. The downtown business district
is served entirely by a combined system, while Harbor Island has completely
separated systems. The Duwamish River area is served by a combination
of seoarate and combined drainage and sewerage systems. Approximately
10 mi'2 of land in the study area are served by storm drains.
There are essentially no data available to characterize storm drain
discharges. Annual loadings can only be evaluated from flow estimates
using pollutant concentration data from studies conducted in other cities.
Storm drain flow can be approximated from the size and land use of the
contributing area, and annual precipitation (36 in). This was done for
the major storm drains in the study area. Drainage basin boundaries were
determined from city of Seattle drainage and sewer maps (scale of 1 in =
200 ft). Flow was calculated by adjusting the total Stormwater input to
each basin using runoff coefficients that vary with land use.
Land use was separated into three main categories: residential, indus-
trial, and undeveloped or park. Discharge from the 1-5 corridor, which
is considered a source of metals and potentially PAH, constitutes a separate
sub-category. Drainage from 1-5 is discharged from two storm drains in
the study area. The Diagonal Way storm drain collects surface runoff from
about a 3.5-mi reach of 1-5, between James Street and S. Dawson. The remainder,
from a little over 1-mi of freeway, is discharged at Slip 4 via the 1-5
drain (see Map 2 for storm drain locations). The runoff coefficients used
in flow calculations are listed below:
Residential
Separate storm sewer 0.20
Partially separated 0.15
Industrial 0.90
Undeveloped 0.05
1-5 0.95
46
-------
A summary of the annual flow estimates for the major storm drains
and a brief description of the drainage area are presented in Table 11.
Because Harbor Island is a known problem area, all storm drains, regardless
of drainage area size, are included in the table. Flows range between
3 and 430 M gal/yr, which is generally comparable to CSO discharges. Other
storm drains in the area serve small, primarily residential areas. Flow
and loading from these areas are expected to be much less than those from
the larger industrial area storm drains.
Loading--
METRO has conducted several surface water runoff sampling studies
in the Seattle/Bellevue area. Farris et al. (1979) investigated three
sites in Seattle (one residential, one commercial, and one industrial site).
Twenty-six storm events were monitored at each site between October, 1974
and December, 1975. Samples were analyzed for nutrients and metals, as
summarized in Table 12.
Stormwater runoff from a residential area in Bellevue was investigated
by Galvin and Moore (1982). Twenty-nine samples were taken at two sites
between June, 1980 and June, 1982, and analyzed for priority pollutants.
Cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, and zinc were detected in all samples.
Nickel was found in 57 percent of the samples and all other metals were
found less than 50 percent of the time. Results of the metals analyses
are presented in Table 12. The average chromium concentration, which was
reported only by Galvin and Moore (1982), was 0.007 mg/L. Organic constituents
were detected in less than 20 percent of the samples. The organic constituents
most frequently detected were lindane, a-HCH, pentachlorophenol, fluoranthene,
phenanthrene, and pyrene. However, concentrations varied by as much as
three orders of magnitude.
Zawlocki (1981) sampled runoff from 1-5 at N.E. 148th Street during
three storms in October and December, 1979. Samples were analyzed for
metals and organic compounds. The metals concentrations were higher than
those for most other land use categories. A summary of the findings is
shown in Table 12. The results for the organic compound analyses were
grouped into several categories. The major organic components were the
aliphatic hydrocarbons, aromatic hydrocarbons, and the oxygenates, which
included ethers, esters, epoxides, carboxylic acids, and oxidized aromatics.
The following is a summary of the organic results for the two stations
analyzed:
Sample Date
12/2/79 5/28/80
(mg/L) (mg/L)
aliphatic hydrocarbons 6.93 2.49
aromatic hydrocarbons 2.2 0.393
oxygenates 3.58 3.74
alcohols 0.16 0.633
halogenates -- 0.082
phenols 2.91 0.003
ketones/aldehydes 1.13 0.126
organo sulfur compounds 1.26 0.005
47
-------
TABLE 11. DESCRIPTION OF MAJOR STORM DRAINS IN THE STUDY AREA
Subarea
Magnol ia
Downtown Water-
front North
North Harbor
Island
Duwamish Head/
Alki Beach
West Waterway
East Waterway
Kellogg Island
Upper Duwamish
Estuary
Storm Drain
Magnolia
Interbay
Longfellow Creek
llth Avenue S.W
(077)
56th S.W.
S.W. Florida (098)
S.W. Hinds (099)
S.W. Florida (106)
S.W. Lander (105)
S.W. Lander (21")
16th S.W. (104)
S.W. Spokane (102)
S.W. Florida
S.W. Lander
S.W. Hanford (162)
S.W. Spokane (163)
S.W. Spokane
S. Hinds (107)
S.W. Dakota
S.W. Idaho
Diagonal Way
S.W. Graham
S.W. Michigan
1-5 Drain
Georgetown Flume
Slip 4 CSO/SD (117)
Slip 4 SD
Isaacson Steel
SI ip 6 SD
South Fox Street
Landa
Use
R
I
I
I
R.P
I
R.I.P
I
I
I
I
I
1
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I.R.F
R
R
F
I
I
I
I
I
I
Description of Area Flow
Area Served (acres) (M gal/yr)
Mangolia Bluff between West
40th and West 28th
Interbay east of RR tracks
Lower Longfellow basin and
Bethlehem Steel cooling water
N.E. corner Harbor Island
Central West Seattle Schmitz
Park
Area along S.W. Florida and
26th S.W.
Upper Longfellow basin, area
along 26th S.W. and West
Marginal 1
N.W. corner of Harbor Island
Central part of Harbor Island
along 16th S.W.
Central part of Harbor Island
(private line)
S.W. corner of Harbor Island
South end of Harbor Island
N.E. corner of Harbor Island
Central part of Harbor Island
along llth S.W.
S.E. corner of Harbor Island
South end Harbor Island along
S.W. Spokane Street
S.W. Spokane Street
Alaskan viaduct/East Marginal
Way
Area around Bethlehem Steel
Area along West Marginal Way
South
1-5 corridor. Beacon Hill,
area along East Marginal Way
South 1
Area along West Marginal Way
South
Highland Park
1-5 corridor
Area north of King County Dept.
King County airport
Boeing Field
Boeing Field
Area along South Fox Street
380
180
120
37
655
25
,410
40
54
9
12
19
25
8
70
4
3
50
25
390
,030
170
460
29
150
170
290
120
30
60
110
100
30
100
20
280
30
50
8
10
20
7
60
3
3
40
20
60
430
20
80
10
140
150
250
100
30
a I * Industrial. R ซ Residential. F = Freeway. P = Park, undeveloped.
48
-------
TABLE 12. AVERAGE METAL CONCENTRATIONS IN SURFACE
RUNOFF FROM SEATTLE AREA (mg/L)
Residential
Commercials
Industrials
Residential
I-5c
Cd
0.003
0.002
0.003
0.0007
--
Pb
0.25
0.46
0.22
0.21
0.466
Zn
0.11
0.23
0.22
0.12
0.638
Cu
--
--
--
0.02
0.43
a Farris et al. (1979).
b Galvin and Moore (1982).
c Zawlocki (1981).
49
-------
Generally, data on chemical composition of runoff in the metropolitan
area show little difference between the various land use categories. Runoff
from 1-5 exhibited the highest metals concentrations. Lead concentrations
from conmercial site runoff are similar to those from 1-5 runoff, but all
other metals concentrations are similar for the three main land use categories.
Variability of the sources and limited sample size are the most likely
causes of the observed similarities among runoff characteristics from different
land uses. Intuitively, it would seem that there should be a difference
in chemical composition of runoff from a residential area versus an industrial
area. However, this cannot be established from available data in the Seattle
area.
To facilitate comparisons with other kinds of sources, metals loadings
for the major storm drains were calculated from flow estimates and the
existing chemical data, based on land use distribution within the individual
drainage basins. However, because of the similarity in chemical quality
between land use categories, load is primarily a function of flow. The
loadings for selected metals are shown in Table 13.
In addition to the loading calculations, a recent study by METRO identified
several problem storm drains. The study included chemical analyses of
sediments that had accumulated in the storm drain lines. This approach
is not suitable for generating loading estimates. The study was used primarily
to identify potentially contaminated drains.
Chemical analyses of sediments from 12 storm drains were compared
with available information on the composition of street dust from residential
(Bellevue) and industrial (S. Michigan Street) areas. When a significant
elevation above street dust levels was found, an attempt was made to locate
the possible sources. Storm drains sampled included:
S.W. Florida Street (098)
S.W. Lander Street (105)
S.W. Lander Street (21 in)
Longfellow Creek
S.W. Idaho Creek
Diagonal Way
S.W. Michigan Street
S. Fox Street
Georgetown flume
1-5 storm drain
Slip 4 storm drain
Slip 4 CSO/SD
Results are currently available for samples from S.W. Florida Street,
S. Fox Street, the two storm drains at S.W. Lander, and the four drains
at Slip 4, as summarized below. Detailed data are presented in Appendix D,
Table D-7.
1. S.W. Florida Street storm drain (098). Sampled April 5, 1984.
The S.W. Florida Street storm drain discharges to the
West Waterway. It serves an industrial area along S.W. Florida
50
-------
TABLE 13. ESTIMATED METALS LOAD FROM MAJOR
STORM DRAINS (TONS/YEAR)
West 32nd
Interbay
Longfellow Creek
llth S.W.
56th S.W.
S.W. Florida (098)
S.W. Hinds (099)
S.W. Florida (106)
S.W. Lander (105)
S.W. Lander (21")
16th S.W. (104)
S.W. Spokane (102)
S.W. Florida (36")
S.W. Hanford (162)
South Hinds (107)
S.W. Dakota
S.W. Idaho
Diagonal Way
S.W. Graham
S.W. Michigan
South Fox
1-5
Georgetown Flume
Slip 4 (117)
Slip 4 SD
Isaacson
Slip 6
2nd Ave. S.
Cd
0.0002
0.001
0.001
0.004
0.0003
0.0003
0.001
0.0004
0.0006
0.0001
0.0001
0.0003
0.0003
0.0008
0.0006
0.0003
0.0002
0.004
0.0003
0.0005
0.0004
0.002
0.002
0.003
0.001
0.002
Pb
0.05
0.10
0.09
0.03
0.084
0.02
0.24
0.03
0.04
0.007
0.009
0.02
0.02
0.06
0.04
0.02
0.06
0.49
0.02
0.07
0.03
0.02
--
0.12
0.14
0.23
0.09
0.14
Zn Cu
0.03
0.10
0.09
0.03
0.05
0.02
0.16
0.03
0.04
0.007
0.009
0.02
0.02
0.06
0.04
0.02
0.03
0.50 0.01
0.02
0.05
0.03
0.03 0.002
__
0.12
0.14
0.23
0.09
0.13
Flow
(M gal /year)
60
110
100
30
100
20
280
30
50
8
10
20
20
60
40
20
60
430
20
80
30
10
--
150
140
250
100
150
51
-------
Street and 26th Avenue S.W. Sediment from the 26th S.W. line
exhibited elevated nickel concentrations compared to the
two reference sites. Samples from the S.W. Florida line
showed elevated concentrations of nickel, zinc, chromium,
copper, and arsenic. Although there are no PCB data for
the two Seattle area reference sites for comparison, data
from the two U.S. cities cited in Galvin and Moore (1982)
showed average PCB concentrations of less than 1 ppm. PCB
concentrations of about 200 ppm in the S.W. Florida drain
indicate some source of PCB contamination. PAH levels in
the S.W. Florida line were 8-20 times those at the residential
reference site.
In addition, chemical concentrations for all samples
exceeded the Fourmile Rock criteria for open water sediment
disposal. Sources of the contamination have not yet been
established. Wyckoff is alleged to have discharged wastewater
from its pole treatment facility into the S.W. Florida system
and is currently under criminal investigation. The PCB
concentrations, however, were larger upstream of the Wyckoff
facility. METRO plans further investigations of facilities
upstream of Wyckoff to locate the PCB source.
2. Fox Street storm drain. Sampled April 5, 1984.
The Fox Street storm drain serves an industrial area
of approximately 30 ac along S. Fox Street. Concentrations
of arsenic, copper, lead, and zinc in the sediments were
higher than the background levels defined by the two reference
sites. All metals concentrations exceeded the Fourmile
Rock criteria. The contaminant source has not been identified.
Marine Power and Equipment has recently been investigated
by U.S. EPA, but the results are not yet available.
3. S.W. Lander Street storm drains. Sampled March 20, 1984.
Both the S.W. Lander Street CSO/SD (105) and the S.W. Lander
Street storm drain (21-in) serve areas in the vicinity of
the old Harbor Island lead smelter. The 21-in line is a
private drain with a contributing area of 9 ac. The CSO/SD
has a 54-ac drainage basin.
Arsenic and lead concentrations in sediment from the
21-in line are higher than those from the two reference
sites. The CSO/SD showed gross lead contamination - lead
constituted between 24 and 36 percent of the sediment.
Other metals with concentrations greater than those at the
reference sites include arsenic, copper, and nickel. Metals
concentrations in both drains exceeded the Fourmile Rock
criteria. The Lander CSO/SD (105) sediments were cleaned
out in October, 1984.
52
-------
4. Slip 4 storm drain sediments. Sampled October 1, 1984.
Sampling of the Slip 4 storm drain was conducted as
an attempt to locate the source of PCB contamination in
Slip 4 sediments. The Georgetown flume was originally installed
to discharge wastewater from the old City Light steam plant.
The plant is now closed, but the flume is still used by
Boeing for discharge of noncontact cooling water, as well
as numerous other undocumented stormwater discharges. The
1-5 drain discharges stormwater runoff from approximately
1 mi of freeway. The Slip 4 CSO/SD drains 150 ac of land
between Ellis Avenue S. and the north end of the King County
airport. The Slip 4 drain serves the northern portion of
King County airport and part of the Boeing facility (170 ac).
The highest concentration of PCBs was found in sediments from the
flume (18,137 ppm) and Slip 4 CSO/SD (103 ppm). PCB concentrations in
Slip 4 storm drain sediments greatly exceeded the 1 ppm level found in
urban street dust. The old City Light plant is believed to be the major
source of PCBs in the flume. City Light is currently developing plans
to remove sediments from the flume. No other sources of PCBs have been
identified to explain the PCB levels in the other drains. It is not known
if the PCBs result from a continuing source of discharge to the drains
or whether they are simply an accumulation from historic sources.
Industrial Sources
Industrial sources can be divided into point and nonpoint discharges.
Point sources consist of discrete discharges from an identifiable source.
They are composed primarily of NPDES-permitted discharges and industrial
storm drains. The nonpoint sources include any off-site migration of pollutants
resulting from contaminant storage, treatment, and handling practices.
The major potential industrial sources are shown on Map 2.
Point Discharges--
The Washington Department of Ecology is responsible for issuing NPDES
permits. The Washington Department of Ecology policy limits industrial
discharges to fugitive emissions of sandblasting material from shipyards,
cooling water, and stormwater. All other industrial wastewater is discharged
to the combined sewer system and is subject to METRO pretreatment permits.
Permitted industrial discharge loadings to the Duwamish River have been
summarized by Harper-Owes (1983). A list of the NPDES discharges, organized
by study subarea, is presented in Table 14.
Historically, the use of sodium arsenite to control woodworms in shipyard
dry docks was a significant source of arsenic to the waterways. Prior
to 1975, both Todd Shipyard and Lockheed Shipyard (Plant 2) treated their
docks twice a year, resulting in a total application rate of 4,920 Ib/yr.
However, the Washington Department of Ecology no longer permits the use
of sodium arsenite. As a result, Todd Shipyard stopped treating its drydocks
around 1975. Lockheed Shipyard continued using sodium arsenite through
1981, but reduced its treatment to once a year (1,490 Ib arsenic/yr).
53
-------
TABLE 14. NPOES-PERMITTED INDUSTRIAL WASTE DISCHARGES
Study Subarea
South Downtown
Waterfront
North Harbor
Island
East Waterway
West Waterway
Kellogg Island
Upper Duwamish
Estuary
Company
Seattle Steam
Western Avenue
Seattle Steam
Post Avenue
Todda
Mobil
Lockheed 11
Seattle
6ATX
Chevron
Arco
Texaco
Fischer Mills
Lockheed Iป
Plant 2
Shell
Quemetco/RSR
Ash Grove
Seaboard
Lumber
Columbia
Ideal
Kaiser
North Coast
Chemical
Northwest
Glass
Airco Welding
Boeing
Monsanto
Industry Annual Flow
Description (M gal/yr)
Steam production
for central heating
Steam production
Shipyard
Petroleum storage
Shipyard
Steel Manufacturer
Petroleum storage
Petroleum storage
Petroleum storage
Petroleum storage
Flour refinery
Shipyard
Petroleum storage
Lead salvage
Cement Manufacturer
Sawini
Cement Manufacturer
Cement Manufacturer
Cement Manufacturer
Cnemical Manufacturer
Glass Manufacturer
Acetylene Manu-
facturer
Aerospace
Vanillin Manu-
facturer
21.9
1.6
19.2
24
5.3
0.9 MGD
maximum
..
-
..
..
23.4
43.6
--
4.4
78
3.9
7.3
5.5
19
0.4
13.9
1.6
204
360
36.5
Annual Load
(Ibs) Comments
13 Ibs zinc
1 Ib Zinc
1,940 Ib arsenic ฐr> dock treated with
Temp 70ฐ F sodium arsenlte
--- Storm water
Temp 600 p
5.0 mj/1 oil Flow Intermittent
--- Storm water
Storm water
... Storm water
Storm water
Temp 700 f
Temp 60ฐ F Dry dock treated with
2,980 Ibs arsenic sodium arsenlte
--- Storm water
3.7 Ibs lead
Temp 75ฐ F
10 NTU turbidity Cooling water and truck rinse
To Pond To Groundwater
Temp 650 F
Temp 1030 F
Temp 550 F
27 NT'J turbidity
609 Ibs oil
Temp 700 F
Temp 70ฐ F
27 NTU turbidity
Temp 85ฐ F
Temp 750 F
Temp 1000 F
Temp 760 F
Oils 4.723 Ibs
Temp 75ฐ F
4.569 IBs oil
30 Ibs zinc
15 Ibs chloride
Todd end Lockheed no longer treat their drydocks with todium arsenite. Figures on table
are historical application rates. Actual loadings to waterway system could be less than tabled
values (see text).
54
-------
Historically, the spent material from sandblasting operations at shipyards
was deposited directly in the waterways. Any number of different materials
are used as sandblast grit, including waste copper slag. Approximately
12 yr ago, some shipyards began to control the release of sandblast materials
from their facilities. Spent copper slag used to sandblast ships in the
drydocks is collected and sent to a landfill for disposal. Todd Shipyard
has also constructed a new sandblast building for its smaller projects.
Many industries along the Seattle Waterfront, including Port of Seattle
terminals, are served by unpermitted private storm drains discharging directly
to the waterways. The locations of most industrial storm drains have never
been pinpointed. Flow and chemical quality are also unknown. Because
these drains serve only the industrial facility, flows should be relatively
small. Although there are no data available on the chemical quality of
the flows, the potential for contamination due to industrial practices
could make private storm drains an important source of pollutants to the
waterways. For this reason, the U.S. EPA and the Washington Department
of Ecology are currently bringing industrial storm drains into the NPDES
program. This should help consolidate existing information on these sources.
In the Duwamish Industrial Nonpoint Source Investigation (METRO 1985),
34 industrial sites in the Duwamish River/Harbor Island area were studied
to identify problem areas and to instigate corrective actions. As part
of the study, 16 industries served by private storm drains were identified.
Exact locations of most of the drains are unknown and there are no data
available on discharge rates or quality. The following is a list of the
industries identified as being served by private drains (Hubbard, T. ,
22 February and 8 March, 1985, personal communication).
North Harbor Island
Lockheed Shipyard
Todd Shipyard
West Waterway
Fischer Mills
jjpper Duwamish Estuary
Boeing Company
Duwamish Shipyards
Ideal
Jorgenson Steel
Kenworth
Manson Construction
Marine Power and Equipment
Richardson and Holland
Seattle Boiler Works
Sea West Chemical
Morton Marine/Workboat N.W.
55
-------
Kellogg Island
Seattle Steel (Bethlehem)
East Waterway
Pacific Molasses
Nonpoint Sources--
The nonpoint source category is essentially a catchall that covers
other potential indirect sources of pollution. Off-site migration of pollutants
could occur when surface runoff picks up contaminants as it moves across
the property, or when pollutants percolate into the groundwater system
where they could be transported to the waterways via groundwater flow.
At present, pollutant contribution from these sites is largely unknown.
The nature of the discharge varies, depending on the industry. The Washington
Department of Ecology is planning to change its permitting structure to
include nonpoint sources. Pollutant discharges will be controlled through
enforcement of best management practices.
Potential problem sites shown on Map 2 were selected from U.S. EPA's
list of sites that are likely to require RCRA permits and from the Washington
Department of Ecology's preliminary assessment of potential Superfund sites.
The Washington Department of Ecology's preliminary assessment evaluated
the potential threat to public health and the environment from existing
hazardous waste sites. There were no high-risk sites in the study area.
Most were classified as low-risk or no risk. Chromium, Inc. and Terminal 115
were given a medium ranking, which is defined as a site highly suspected
of presenting a potential problem. The following is a list of potential
nonpoint sources of industrial discharge, with the agency responsible for
the listing shown in parentheses.
Downtown Waterfront North
Chemical Processors, Inc. (U.S. EPA)
Downtown Waterfront South
Chromium, Inc. (Washington Department of Ecology)
East Waterway
Northwest Tank (U.S. EPA)
Western Pacific Vacuum Service, Inc. (U.S. EPA)
Upper Duwamish Estuary
Terminal 115 (Washington Department of Ecology)
Boeing Plant 2 (U.S. EPA)
Boeing Developmental Center (U.S. EPA)
Chemical Processors, Inc. (U.S. EPA)
Monsanto (U.S. EPA)
56
-------
Kellogg Island
Seattle Steel (Bethlehem) (U.S. EPA)
Problem sites were also identified in the Duwamish Industrial Nonpoint
Source Investigation. Four sites were referred to the Washington Department
of Ecology for further investigation.
have been resolved. The following is a
description of the corrective actions:
Problems at most of the other sites
list of problem sites and a brief
North Harbor Island
1) Todd Shipyard:
2) Texaco:
East Waterway
1) Seattle Iron
and Metal:
West Waterway
1) Lockheed
Shipyard:
2) Purdy:
3) Wyckoff:
4) Non Ferrous
Metals:
5) Harbor Island
Machine Works:
Built a new sandblast facility to reduce heavy
metal loading to Elliott Bay from spent sandblast
material (classified as a point source under NPDES
permit).
Tank trucks were washed near oil separator units
which discharged to their permitted storm drain.
Now a tank wash facility that discharges to the
sanitary sewer system is used.
Copper wash facility contributed metals load to
East Waterway. Seattle Iron and Metal plans to
direct copper wash effluent to the sanitary system.
Overspray from paint facility was being deposited
in Duwamish River. A new control device to eliminate
the problem has been installed.
Identified as a potential
West Waterway. The study
the Washington Department
investigation.
source of PCBs to the
has been referred to
of Ecology for further
Currently undergoing criminal investigation for
allegedly dumping wastewater from the pole treatment
facility into the S.W. Florida Street storm drain.
Recently settled out of court for $1 M. Plans
are underway to initiate cleanup at the site.
Elevated metals concentrations were found in a
sediment sample from a catch basin on the property.
The sediment has been cleaned out and follow-up
monitoring planned.
Surface
with oil
via a storm drain.
removed.
runoff from the site was contaminated
The runoff discharged to West Waterway
The source of oil has been
57
-------
6) Sea Fab Site of the old lead smelter on Harbor Island.
Metals: Elevated lead concentrations were found in sediments
from the S.W. Lander Street storm drain. The
sediment was removed in October, 1984 and shipped
to a lead smelter in Oregon for recovery. Parking
lots in the area were paved to eliminate a source
of lead to the storm drains.
7) Mono Roofing: Discharged asphalt roofing wastewater to the S.W.
Spokane Street storm drain. Referred to the Washington
Department of Ecology.
Upper Duwaniish Estuary
1) Jorgenson Operates a concrete lined acid wastewater disposal
Steel: pit adjacent to the Duwamish Estuary for spills
and emergency overflows. Pit had previously been
1ined with limestone.
2) Marine Power Discharged wastewater to the Duwamish Estuary
and Equipment: that exceeded state water quality standards for
copper, lead, arsenic, and zinc. Referred to
the Washington Department of Ecology.
3) Northwest Surface runoff from the property was contaminated
Glass: from leaking barrels of solvents, oils, and lubri-
cants. Northwest Glass has installed a berm around
the storage area to prevent contamination.
Groundwater
The impact of toxic input from groundwater flow into the study area
is difficult to determine. To date, there have been no studies defining
regional groundwater conditions in the immediate area. An investigation
of groundwater resources in southwestern King County (Luzier 1969) is the
only complete regional study. However it terminates just south of the
project area, near Renton.
In evaluating groundwater pollution problems, the shallow water table
aquifers, which are most vulnerable to contamination from surface activities,
are the most important. Based on the southwest King County study, the
Duwamish Valley alluvium would constitute the major water table aquifer
in the study area. Groundwater generally flows toward the river. In the
southwestern portion of the county, groundwater levels are usually less
than 10 ft.
The groundwater system is complicated by the fact that most of the
land along the lower Duwamish estuary, and all of Harbor Island, was developed
by filling in tideflats with materials from surrounding hillsides, dredge
material from the Duwamish River, and refuse from the Seattle area. The
material used for fill may in itself be a source of contaminants.
58
-------
A recent study by the King County Health Department also identified
four abandoned landfill sites in the study area--Interbay, West Seattle,
South Park, and 6th Avenue S. (King County Department of Public Health
1984). After a preliminary investigation of the sites, all except the
6th Avenue S. landfill were recommended for further study to evaluate ground-
water quality. The following is a brief description of the four landfills.
1) Interbay: The old landfill consisted of about 55 ac between
Magnolia and Queen Anne (see Map 2). It operated between
1911 and 1968, accepting municipal as well as military wastes.
Preliminary monitoring at the site showed that methane continues
to be generated from the old fill. The health department
recommended that soil and groundwater sampling for priority
pollutant analyses be conducted.
2) West Seattle: The landfill is located between S.W. Harbor
Avenue and the railroad tracks, in the area south of S.W. Florida
Street (see Map 2). It covers about 20 ac, and was operated
between 1939 and 1966. It was used primarily for disposing
of city garbage, but because there has been much industrial
activity in the area, it is also highly suspected of containing
industrial wastes. Slag from Bethlehem Steel is known to
have been dumped at the West Seattle landfill in the past.
The site has also had problems with underground fires.
The health department recommended priority pollutant sampling
of the soil, groundwater, and tidepools near the landfill.
3) South Park: The 96-ac landfill is located between West
Marginal Way and 2nd Avenue S., north of Sullivan Street
and south of Kenyon Street. It was operated between 1945
and 1966, and was filled with waste sawdust from area mills
and garbage from Seattle. The South Park landfill is also
suspected of containing industrial wastes. Soil borings
drilled in 1983 identified sands having an oily sheen and
odor beneath the fill, and extending to depths of 20-22 ft.
Depth to groundwater varied between 10 and 13 ft. The health
department recommended further study to evaluate the extent
of groundwater contamination.
4) 6th Avenue S.: The old landfill, located in the vicinity
of 6th Avenue S. between S. Spokane Street and about S. Dakota
Street, was used primarily in the early 1900s. Disposal
of dredge materials and garbage is believed to have continued
through 1955. The landfill is also reported to contain
transformers and waste from Seattle City Light. The area
is now developed and mostly paved. As a result, the health
department could neither conduct any preliminary sampling
nor determine the exact boundaries of the old fill. There
have been complaints of odor problems in buildings at 6th
Avenue S. and Spokane Street. The health department recommended
that further research be conducted to more accurately determine
the age and boundaries of the old landfill before any field
sampling is done.
59
-------
Contamination of groundwater beneath industrial areas is also likely,
but has not been thoroughly documented. Both Shell and Chevron operate
wells on their properties to recover oil lost from storage facilities.
In the mid-1970s, Texaco spilled 10,000 gal of leaded gasoline which percolated
into the soil before it could be recovered. Waste oil sludge material
was often drained from oil tanks, directly onto the railroad tracks. The
problems are not limited to oil storage facilities. Soils in the area
around Isaacson Steel contain arsenic concentrations between 8,000 and
10,000 ppm. The area was paved over in 1936, so the arsenic must have
been deposited prior to that. At this time, it is not known how much arsenic
has leached into the groundwater.
Sweet-Edwards and Associates, under contract with METRO, recently
reviewed available groundwater information to determine what additional
investigations would be needed to evaluate groundwater contaminant contributions
to the Duwamish River (Sweet-Edwards and Associates 1985). The study area
extended from Elliott Bay upstream to the Black River and included most
of the heavily industrialized areas along the Duwamish River and Harbor
Island. The investigation encompassed a review of existing reports on
geology, groundwater, surface water, land use, and documented contaminant
sources, as well as a study of waste disposal practices and dredge fill
history in the Duwamish Valley.
Two major groundwater flow components are suspected--a shallow flow
in the fill and surficial deposits and a deeper component in underlying
alluvial and glacial deposits. Flow in the shallow groundwater is primarily
towards the river, while deeper flow is generally parallel to the valley
axis, discharging into Elliott Bay.
Fifty-nine potential groundwater pollutant sources were identified
in the study area. Available quality data were sufficient to determine
the range of potential contaminants, but were not adequate for determining
toxicant loadings from groundwater sources. Potential contaminants cover
a wide array of chemical compounds including PCBs, wood preservatives,
heavy metals, petroleum products, solvents, fertilizers, and pesticides.
Accidental Spills
Information on accidental spills in the region is kept in Washington
Department of Ecology files. The files consist of complaints reported
to the Washington Department of Ecology by private citizens. Reports usually
contain information on date and location of the spill, a description of
what and how much was spilled, and the cleanup measures taken. Normally,
there is not enough detailed information available to calculate pollutant
loading.
The only fully documented spill occurred at Slip 1 in September, 1974.
A transformer was dropped in the north pier and leaked 255 gal of Aroclor
1242 into the Duwamish Waterway. Subsequent U.S. EPA cleanup operations
recovered about 92 percent of the material (Blazevich et al. 1977). Material
remaining in the Duwamish channel is believed to have been covered over
as a result of normal river sedimentation. PCB remnants in Slip 1 have
tended to migrate back towards the head of the slip.
60
-------
The U.S. Coast Guard maintains a file on marine spills. Periods for
the study area are available back to 1973. The information stored includes
the date and location of the spill, type of material spilled, and estimated
quantity spilled. Location is given by latitude and longitude to the nearest
minute, making it impossible to identify the exact location of the spill.
Also, there is no information on the amount of material recovered from
cleanup operations, so loadings cannot be determined. The reported spills
consisted primarily of oil products (i.e., gasoline, diesel, fuel oil,
jet fuel, and waste oil). Quantities ranged from less than 1 to 15,000 gal.
However, most were less than 50 gal.
Atmospheric Deposition
The Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency (PSAPCA) monitors major
point source emissions in the Elliott Bay area. A major source is defined
as one that emits at least 25 tons/yr of one or more of the pollutant variables
that are measured - total suspended particulate matter (TSPM) , oxides of
sulfur, oxides of nitrogen, volatile organic compounds, and carbon monoxide.
TSPM is the only variable that could significantly impact the waterways.
The others are composed of primarily gaseous phase compounds that are not
likely to deposit on the water surface.
According to PSAPCA records for 1982 (Puget Sound Air Pollution Control
Agency 1983), TSPM emissions for the 32 sources in the area was 1,355 tons/yr.
Only a portion of the material emitted will be deposited directly on the
waterways within the study area. Most will be carried out of the area
by wind currents. Some will be deposited on the land surface in the area
and would eventually discharge into the waterways in stormwater runoff.
A rough estimate of air pollution loadings has been made by assuming
that 10 percent of the annual particulate emissions, or 136 tons/yr, is
deposited directly on the water surface within the study boundaries. Street
dust data for an industrial site at 4th Avenue S. and S. Michigan Street
(Galvin and Moore 1982) were used to characterize the pollutant composition
of the deposited material:
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Nickel
Zinc
4th Avenue S. at
S. Michigan Street
(ppm)
40
1.4
50
117
460
36
540
Deposited on
Study Area Waterways
(tons/yr)
0.005
0.0002
0.007
0.02
0.06
0.005
0.07
These loadings, when distributed over the entire surface area of the waterways
in the study area, would be negligible.
61
-------
Overall Ranking of Individual Sources
Because of the limited quantity of data and the high degree of variability
in contaminant concentrations at individual sites, it is difficult to make
comparisons among the various pollutant sources. Pollutant loadings from
the seven sampled sites in the study area were compared by grouping the
chemical constituents into broad categories. Metals were organized into
three categories. Copper, lead, and zinc were combined into a single group.
Arsenic constitutes the second category, and the remaining priority pollutant
metals (i.e., antimony, cadmium, chromium, mercury, nickel, and silver)
were combined into a third category. The organic compounds were divided
into the following groups: low molecular weight PAH, high molecular weight
PAH, PCBs, volatiles, and phenols. The results are shown in Table 15.
Among the known sources, effluent from the West Point treatment plant
produces the largest loadings in all pollutant categories. The greatest
differences exist in the phenols and other metals categories, where loadings
from West Point are as much as three orders of magnitude larger than the
other sources. Effluent from the Renton wastewater treatment plant ranks
as the second largest source. However, the magnitude of the difference
between this and other sources is not as significant. Loading from the
remaining sources, although similar, can be ranked as follows (highest
to lowest): Alki treatment plant, Denny Way CSO, Hanford CSO, Lander CSO,
and Michigan CSO. Exceptions are found in the volatile organic compound
loadings from Denny Way CSO and Lander CSO which are on the order of Renton
treatment plant loadings. These exceptions are caused by relatively larger
concentrations of trichloroethylene in Lander CSO samples and relatively
higher concentrations of toluene in Denny Way CSO samples. For the most
part, differences in loading are primarily flow-related. The small differences
in average pollutant concentrations derived from available data are usually
masked by overwhelming differences in flow rates.
There are essentially no available chemical data for any of the remaining
sources. The only way to make comparisons is to define average pollutant
concentrations for the various source categories based on the existing
chemical data, and then calculate average annual loadings using existing
flow data. Because data on only a few metals are available for surface
runoff, the relative ranking of sources was based on the lead and zinc
components of the overall loading. Results of the rankings for the major
point sources in the study area are shown in Figure 10. Loading from the
Green River was included to give a perspective on overall basin pollutant
loadings.
The analysis shows that the two largest sources within the study area
are the West Point and Renton treatment plants. Because of its large service
area and high discharge rates, the West Point treatment plant is by far
the largest source. Loading for the Alki treatment plant is approximately
equivalent to the larger CSOs. Loading from the Green River ranks as the
second largest source, probably due to the influence of the Renton treatment
plant and large river flows.
Although West Point and Alki effluents rank as two of the larger sources,
neither is expected to have a major localized impact within the study area.
Both are located on the perimeter of the project, with discharge points
62
-------
TABLE 15. COMPARISON OF LOADINGS FROM TREATMENT
PLANTS AND CSOs (TONS/YEAR)
Flow (M gal/yr)
Cu+Pb+Zn
As
Other metal sa
Low MW PAHb
High MW PAHc
PCB
Volatilesd
Phenol
West
Point TP
45 , 100
57
0.7
26.3
2.8
0.08
0.09
19
8
Renton
TP
15,400
8
0.1
4.5
--
--
0.03
0.8
--
Alki
TP
2,630
2
0.02
0.7
0.01
<0.0002
0.02
0.05
0.02
Denny
CSO
620
1.2
0.03
0.2
0.03
0.5
0.008
Hanford
CSO
700
1.1
0.05
0.2
0.0004
0.06
0.004
Lander
CSO
330
0.8
0.02
0.3
0.001
--
0.2
0.002
Michigan
CSO
210
0.5
0.009
0.08
<0.001
--
--
0.04
0.002
a Sum of other priority pollutant metals: Sb, Cd, Cr, Hg, Ni, Ag.
b Naphthalene, phenanthrene, fluorene.
c Pyrene.
d l,l,l,Trichloroethane, tetrachloroethylene, benzene, ethyl benzene, toluene,
chloroform, trichloroethylene.
63
-------
5.0 -
4.0 -
LLJ
ฃ
g 3.0
H
19
P
* cso
* * CSO/STORM DRAIN
* * * TREATMENT PLANT
Figure 10. Ranking of the loadings from major sources.
64
-------
extending into the main body of Puget Sound. At present, it is uncertain
how much of the pollutant load from these two sources is carried into Elliott
Bay by water currents. Most would likely circulate within the main body
of Puget Sound and not affect the study area. Consequently, when compared
with sources discharging into the narrow confines of the Duwamish Waterway
and around the nearshore areas along the Elliott Bay waterfront, the environ-
mental impacts of West Point and Alki pollutant loads become significantly
less.
In addition to the major CSOs, several storm drains rated highly.
The Diagonal Way CSO/SD ranked fourth overall, higher than Alki treatment
plant effluent. Discharge from the Diagonal Way CSO/SD is composed of
combined sewer overflows and stormwater runoff from 1-5 and the Beacon
Hill area. Currently, runoff constitutes just under 45 percent of the
total flow. However, after completion of the 1-90 corridor, additional
stormwater runoff from the upper Rainier Valley area will be routed to
the Diagonal Way drain.
The S.W. Hinds discharge is also composed of overflows and surface
runoff. The city has recently controlled several of the CSOs that used
to flow into Longfellow Creek, which discharges at S.W. Hinds. However,
the Harbor Avenue CSO continues to discharge to S.W. Hinds as well as the
stormwater runoff from the mostly residential areas in Longfellow Creek
basin.
Effluent from the Isaacson, Slip 6, and Slip 4 drains is composed
mostly of runoff from the industrial area around the King County airport
and Boeing. These should eventually be covered under U.S. EPA and the
Washington Department of Ecology's new NPDES requirements for industrial
area storm drains.
Some storm drains, which did not show up in Figure 10, have been identified
as potential problems for specific pollutants. The following is a brief
description of these drains:
- S.W. Florida CSO/SD (098) Potential source of PCBs and PAH from the
area around S.W. Florida and 26th S.W.
- S.W. Lander storm drains Historically, a major source of lead to West
Waterway. Remedial actions have been taken
to control the source of lead, but no follow-up
monitoring has been conducted to determine
their effectiveness.
- Georgetown flume PCBs found in sediments from the flume and
Slip 4 have identified it as probable source
of PCBs. City Light is planning to remove
contaminated sediments from the flume. The
original source of PCBs to the flume has
not yet been located.
- Fox Street CSO/SD Sediment samples from the drain exceeded
Fourmile Rock criteria for metals and oil
and grease. The source has not been identified.
A summary of the annual potential loadings of lead and zinc by source
category to each study area is presented in Figure 11. Because currents
65
-------
40
6
5-
I ซ'
UJ
| 3-
N
JS 2-
Q.
1 -
0
/
M*
^
LJ TREATMENT PLANT
I STORM DRAIN
n
P; _
M IBS li 1 ปi
EIป BE II 1 ]_ iiE fejE
Figure 11. Source loadings by study area,
66
-------
and other natural forces disperse pollutants throughout the Elliott Bay
system, all of the calculated load for a study area may not remain within
that area. The Magnolia (40 tons/yr) and Upper Duwamish Estuary (5.8 tons/yr)
areas receive the greatest treatment plant loads. These loads are from
the West Point and Renton treatment plants. CSO loadings are highest in
the East Waterway (1.7 tons/yr) and North Downtown Waterfront (1.2 tons/yr)
areas. The North Downtown Waterfront load results entirely from the Denny
Way CSO. Lander and Hanford CSOs are the two major sources to the East
Waterway. Storm drain inputs are largest in the Kellogg Island (2.0 tons/yr)
and Upper Duwamish Estuary (1.8 tons/yr) reaches. The Kellogg Island load
results primarily from the Diagonal Way discharge.
The relative importance of the other source categories (i.e., industrial
discharges, groundwater discharge, spills, and atmospheric deposition)
could not be evaluated using the above technique. NPDES-permitted industrial
discharges primarily consist of noncontact cooling water. Permit requirements
are generally limited to flow, temperature, and turbidity. Most industrial
storm drains are unpermitted. Flow, quality, and in many case, drainage
area are unknown. The new NPDES regulations require that all industrial
storm drains be permitted and should aid in generating the information
needed to evaluate the impact of these sources.
CHEMICAL CONTAMINATION OF WATER, SEDIMENTS, AND BIOTA
Approximately 70 reports were reviewed regarding the distribution
of chemical contamination in the water, sediments, and biota of the Elliott
Bay system. The majority of these reports were from studies performed
in the early to mid-1970s. In these early studies, many analytical techniques
and quality control procedures were not well developed, leading to some
questions as to the quality of the data. Second, significant changes in
the concentrations of many of the chemicals have occurred in the decade
since many of the earlier studies were performed. Finally, more recent
data usually represent more comprehensive studies in terms of spatial coverage,
numbers of stations, and numbers of compounds investigated. Most of the
earlier work was summarized in previous reports (e.g., Dexter et al. 1981;
Harper-Owes 1983).
Water Column Contamination
Previous water quality studies of Elliott Bay and the lower Duwamish
River have mainly addressed two problems: 1) nutrient enrichment and ammonia
(NH3) toxicity within the river system and 2) toxic contamination of the
water column, primarily associated with suspended particles. Discharge
of nutrients, mainly from sewage effluent, has caused problems both from
eutrophication and the resulting low dissolved oxygen concentrations, and
from direct NH3 toxicity (Yake 1981a,b, 1982). Both nutrient-related problems
were acute only in the Upper Duwamish Estuary during late summer/early
fall. These problems were largely controlled by the interception of the
Diagonal Way Treatment Plant discharge in 1969. Nutrient problems are
expected to be eliminated with the diversion of Renton treatment plant
effluent from the Duwamish River in the late 1980s. Although some comparatively
minor discharge of nutrients from storm drains and CSOs will probably continue,
these are not expected to cause a major impact on the system.
67
-------
High levels of a number of metals, hydrocarbons, and polychlorinated
biphenyls (PCBs) have been observed in the water and suspended particulate
matter of the Duwamish River. In most areas of Elliott Bay, limited elevations
of various metals and organic compounds compared to the levels generally
observed in the Main Basin have been noted (Tomlinson et al. 1980; Hamilton
1984; Paulson et al. 1984; Pavlou and Dexter 1979; Pacific Marine Environmental
Lab 1982). Paulson and Feely (1985) demonstrated surface-water enrichments
of copper, lead, and zinc but not nickel and cadmium due to anthropogenic
discharges into Elliott Bay and the lower Duwamish River. For the first
three metals, surface-water elevations relative to deep-water concentrations
were 2.3-15 times in the river, and 1.2-6.2 times in the bay. The spatial
distributions of selected contaminants associated with suspended particulate
matter are shown in Figures 12-14. These data indicate that the Duwamish
River is the major source of particulate trace metals in surface waters
of Elliott Bay (Pacific Marine Environmental Lab 1982).
In general, the major limitation of water column studies in general
is the transient nature of water column effects. In response to changing
river flows, tidal mixing, and toxicant discharge rates, the concentrations
observed in the natural system show large variations over both space and
time. As a result, adequate characterization of the system requires an
enormous allocation of resources to collect sufficient numbers of samples
to obtain representative concentrations. At the present time, such intensive
sampling has not been performed for toxic chemicals in the Elliott Bay/Duwamish
River system. Because most of the chemicals of toxicological concern accumulate
in the sediments, this latter medium constitutes a much more effective
sampling matrix than does the water column. Sediments provide temporally
integrated samples from which the spatial distribution of areas of high
chemical concentrations can be distinguished.
Surface Microlayer Contamination
Two recent lines of research in Puget Sound have revived an area of
study that was pursued nationwide for a few years in the mid-1970s (i.e.,
the importance of the surface microlayer in the transport of pollutants,
and exposure of biological organisms that reside in the near-surface zone
to pollutants). The first line of research is based on the widely recognized
fact that natural and anthropogenic lipid materials tend to collect at
the air-sea interface (Duce et al. 1972). Particulate matter and hydrophobic
contaminants tend to associate with this surface layer at much higher concen-
trations than those observed in the underlying water column. This enriched
layer may be transported to shore or may directly affect organisms that
reside in the neuston layer. Enrichment of PCBs in the surface layer of
Elliott Bay has been documented (Clayton et al. 1977; Blazevich et al. 1977).
In a more recent study, enrichment of metals ranging from one to two orders
of magnitude above the concentrations in underlying seawater were observed
in Elliott Bay (Hardy et al. in press).
In the second line of investigation, it was noted in recent studies
that a substantial fraction (about 10 percent) of the particulate matter
in sewage effluent consists of bouyant particles (Word et al. 1984b; Word
and Ebbesmeyer 1984). These particles are predominantly fat globules that
are less dense than water. Such particles and associated contaminants
may rise to the surface and contribute to the natural slicks that form
68
-------
A
122-24
122-24'
20'
122-24'
PZn (ng/L)
5m above bottom
122-24'
20'
I22ฐ24.2'
I22ฐ20.7' I22ฐ2I.8'
I22ฐ2I.5'
o
to ^ in <& O
CD CD CD CD CC
UJ UJ UJ UJ O
iiiI000j I
4 * IW-A-.00
>OC
REFERENCE: MASSOTH ET AL., 1982
Figure 12. Spatial distribution of local particulate zinc
in Elliott Bay.
69
-------
A
122-24'
22'
20'
122-24'
I22'2ซ
20'
I22ฐ24.2'
I22ฐ20.7' I22ฐ2I.8'
B
E
I
t-
o.
UJ
o
I2262I.5
O
ro ^ in ID o
CD co m CD or
UJ UJ UJ LL) O
REFERENCE: HASSOTH ET AL.. 1982
Figure 13. Spatial distribution of total particulate copper
in Elliott Bay.
70
-------
A
KIlOUETCRS
PPbtpg/L)
Surface
I22ฐ24.2'
I22ฐ20.7' I22ฐ2I.8'
m
m CD m
UJ LJ LJ
REFERENCE: MASSOTH ET AL., 1982
Figure 14. Spatial distribution of total particulate lead
in Elliott Bay.
71
-------
in Puget Sound. These processes may provide a mechanism for the transport
of toxic chemicals and pathogenic sewage-derived organisms to the beaches
of Puget Sound.
Available data are not adequate to determine the significance of toxic
contamination of the surface microlayer. In particular, do surface layer
phenomena provide important transport or exposure mechanisms in comparison
to those provided by bulk water movements? At present, these kinds of
investigations are still in the preliminary research stage. Insufficient
data have been collected to determine the extent of enrichment of the surface
waters for most compounds in Puget Sound. Although the enrichment measured
for metals can be substantial, variations of two orders of magnitude in
the concentration measured at nearby stations is common (Hardy et al. in
press). Thus, it is very difficult to estimate a representative or average
concentration in an area.
In part, the difficulties of measuring toxicants in the surface microlayer
result from the patchy nature of the surface slicks. Winds have a substantial
influence on the formation of surface slicks and their distribution. Under
light winds, the surface material may collect in thick slicks and windrows
of unpredictable dimensions. Under heavier winds, the surface layer may
be completely mixed into the deeper waters. This range of conditions and
patchy distributions will probably continue to plague researchers trying
to determine adequate sampling strategies.
Sediment Contamination
The physical-chemical characteristics of sediments in Elliott Bay
and the lower Duwamish River are reviewed in the following sections.
General Overview--
Conventional Variables The importance of sediment physicochemical
characteristics to the interpretation of chemical distributions is well
recognized. In many recent studies, sediment texture and organic carbon
content have been measured together with the toxic chemicals. These data
are summarized in Maps 3 and 4, which present the quartile concentration
ranges observed for grain size and total organic carbon (TOC), respectively.
In general, coarser sediments are located in the shallower areas, where
wave disturbance and stronger currents prevent the deposition of fine sedi-
ments. The sediments tend to grade into finer texture in the deeper areas.
Nearshore areas that are either near sources of fine-grained material (e.g.,
the Denny Way CSO) or are protected from open wave action (e.g., near the
piers in the East Waterway), accumulate fine-grained sediments. The latter
process probably occurs in similar areas throughout the Elliott Bay system,
although few such protected sites have been sampled.
In general, TOC distribution follows that of grain size, with higher
TOC levels associated with finer sediments. Elliott Bay sediments appear
to have a lower average TOC content than that observed in sediments from
Conmencement Bay waterways. Areas of high TOC exist in the southwest and
southeast corners of the inner bay, near Denny Way CSO and in the deep
water north of Alki beach. These enriched areas indicate the possible
effects of human inputs.
72
-------
Few recent TOC and grain size data are available from the Duwamish
River, but earlier data indicate that the sediment texture is variable
and tends to be finer in the protected areas (e.g., in the slips) than
in the main river channel.
Toxic Chemical s--Studies from the early and mid-1970s are primarily
limited to metals, aromatic hydrocarbons, and some chlorinated organic
compounds, particularly the PCBs. These data indicate that the concentrations
of most of these substances show similar spatial distributions, with highest
concentrations observed in the lower Duwamish estuary and along the Seattle
waterfront. However, numerous samples having much higher toxicant concen-
trations than usually observed have been collected predominantly in the
nearshore zone close to sources [e.g., near the Lander Street storm drain
(West Waterway, Harbor Island) and the Denny Way CSO]. But these contaminated
sediments have also been associated with spills and other nonpoint sources.
Areas of high chemical concentrations in the deep waters of Elliott
Bay are primarily associated with the two dredged material disposal sites
located offshore from Fourmile Rock and in inner Elliott Bay. The former
site has received dredged material from a number of contaminated areas,
including the Duwamish River, the Lake Washington Ship Canal, and Sinclair
Inlet. The site in inner Elliott Bay received PCB-contaminated sediments
from the Upper Duwamish Estuary. Material was dumped only once at the
latter site as an experiment to measure the chemical, physical, and biological
impacts of dredged material disposal.
Available historical data indicate that the sediments of the Duwamish
estuary and the Seattle Waterfront have been contaminated with toxic chemicals
for at least the last four decades. The PCB spill at Slip 1 in the Duwamish
estuary and accumulations of lead from the storm drain discharges of Harbor
Island have been largely cleaned up (Dexter et al. 1981; Harper-Owes 1983).
Comparisons of the levels of PCBs in sediments of the Duwamish in the early
1970s with those noted more recently indicate that PCB levels have decreased
by a factor of two or more (Harper-Owes 1983). Similar data are not available
for other substances, and no dated sediment cores have been collected within
the Elliott Bay system that could be used to described historical trends.
Data Synthesis--
Choice of Indicators Nearly 150 organic compounds and metals have
been measured in sediments collected from Elliott Bay and the lower Duwamish
River. These chemicals include all of the trace metals that are considered
to be toxic and representative chemicals from nearly all of the major types
of toxic organic chemicals (see Table 2 in Decision-Making Approach).
Of these chemicals, many were detected at levels near the limits of the
analytical procedures and in relatively few of the sediment samples. Many
chemicals co-vary in their spatial distributions with other toxic substances.
Finally, many of the substances were not accurately measured, or were not
measured with sufficient sensitivity in some of the studies. Therefore,
only the data for selected chemicals measured with a reasonable level of
accuracy by established analytical protocols are discussed in detail below.
73
-------
Chemical indicators used for analysis of sediment contamination include:
Sum of low molecular weight polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons
(LPAHs)
Sum of high molecular weight polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons
(HPAHs)
Total PCBs
Sum of the concentrations of copper (Cu), lead (Pb), and
zinc (In)
Arsenic (As).
Concentrations of related chemicals were summed when the individual chemicals
were found to strongly co-vary in their distributions in the sediments.
The selected indicators were found to be reasonable surrogates for a broad
range of chemicals that had similar overall distributions in the system.
They are also representative of a range of sources and transport mechanisms.
Finally, the selected indicators are known to cause a variety of toxic
responses in organisms under laboratory conditions.
Available Data The detailed analysis of "current" conditions (1979-
1983) was developed primarily from data reported in the following documents:
Romberg et al. (1984), a report on METRO'S extensive environ-
mental sampling as part of their Toxicant Pretreatment Planning
Study
Malins et al. (1980, 1982), two reports presenting the results
of sampling performed in Elliott Bay in support of pathology
studies of resident organisms
Dexter et al. (1984), description of the inner bay experimental
disposal site evaluation, which presents a detailed distribution
of PCBs in southern Elliott Bay
Stober and Chew (1984), a report on the baseline investigations
performed for METRO near Duwamish Head
U.S. EPA (1982, 1983), two surveys performed by U.S. EPA
in the Duwamish River in 1982 and 1983.
These studies represent large-scale surveys that provided comparable, synoptic
data from most areas of the Elliott Bay/Duwamish River system. All of
the selected data are recent (1979-1983). In general, data from the studies
chosen for detailed analysis were measured by appropriate analytical procedures,
were supported by QA/QC programs, and gave results consistent with the
generally recognized concentrations in frequently sampled areas (Appendix A).
The selected sediment chemistry data for individual sampling stations
are given in Appendix D. As shown in Table 16, not all of the selected
74
-------
TABLE 16. DATA LIMITATIONS OF SELECTED STUDIES USED
IN DETAILED ANALYSIS OF SEDIMENT CHEMISTRY
Study
Romberg
Mai ins
Dexter
Stober
et al.
et al.
et al.
(1984)
(1980, 1982)
(1984)
and Chew (1984)
U.S. EPA (1982
, 1983)
LPAH
Ace
Ace
Na
Ace
Part
Chemicals Analyzed
HPAH PCB Cu+Pb+Zn
Ace
Ace
Na
Ace
Ace
Ace
Ace
Ace
Ace
Ace
Ace
Ace
Na
No
Ace
As
Ace
No
Na
No
Ace
Ace = Acceptable data.
Na = Not analyzed.
No = Data not acceptable.
Part = Data acceptable from some stations only.
75
-------
indicator chemicals were measured (or they were not measured by appropriate
procedures) at all of the stations sampled during the studies listed above.
Station Locations Station locations for the selected studies are
presented in Map 5. Examination of the station locations reveals a nonuniform
allocation of sampling effort. Many areas of Elliott Bay and the Duwamish
estuary have received limited study, while certain areas (e.g., near the
Denny Way CSO) have been sampled intensely. Such spatial heterogeneity
makes it difficult to distinguish spatial trends in chemical concentrations.
Reference Area Data The range of sediment concentrations of metals
and organic compounds for up to nine Puget Sound reference areas are summarized
in Tables 17 and 18. It is assumed that this range of reference concentrations
provides a reasonable measure of the possible variability in concentrations
in relatively uncontaminated sediments for comparison with conditions in
Elliott Bay. Averaged data from six Carr Inlet stations sampled in 1984
are used to calculate elevations above reference conditions for the reasons
outlined below. However, the full range of Puget Sound reference area
data (collected from 1976 to 1984) is used as the criterion for determining
whether these elevations are significant (i.e, the contamination exceeds
all Puget Sound reference conditions). Recent Carr Inlet data are used
as the basis for calculating the elevations above reference values because:
The most complete reference data set is available for Carr
Inlet and includes synoptic data for metals, organic compounds,
grain size, organic carbon, and other conventional variables
The lowest reference detection limits for most substances
of concern in Puget Sound embayments are available for Carr
Inlet
0 Elevations above reference values for other urban embayments
(e.g., Commencement Bay) have been calculated with these
data, and therefore, will be directly comparable with Elliott
Bay studies
In almost all cases where chemicals were detected in multiple
reference areas, the Carr Inlet samples had comparable or
lower values and on this basis appear to be reasonably representa-
tive of Puget Sound reference conditions.
The Carr Inlet samples collected in 1984 provide the most comprehensive
reference area data set for Puget Sound. These data include blank-corrected
analyses for the 13 U.S. EPA priority pollutant metals, 3 additional metals
(including iron and manganese used as natural indicators), 78 U.S. EPA
extractable priority pollutant compounds, 12 additional U.S. EPA Hazardous
Substance List compounds, and selected tentatively identified compounds
analyzed for in each of 6 samples. Data for almost all of the organic
compounds were corrected for potential losses during sample preparation
and analysis using isotope dilution mass spectroscopy. The comprehensive
nature of these data is a major reason for their sole use in calculating
elevations above reference conditions.
76
-------
TABLE 17. SUMMARY OF METAL CONCENTRATIONS IN
SEDIMENTS FROM PUGET SOUND REFERENCE AREAS
Range
(mg/kg dry wt)
Antimony
Arsenic
Beryllium
Barium
Cadm i urn
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
Zinc
U O.lb.
1.9 -
0.07 -
5.6 -
0.1 -
9.6 -
5 -
U 0.1 -
0.01 -
4 -
U 0.1 -
0.02 -
U 0.1 -
15 -
1.7
17
5.5
7.8
1.9
130
74
24
0.28
47
1.0
3.3
0.2
100
Mean
(mg/kg dry wt)
0.32C - 0.38d
7.2
2.3
6.9
0.67
54
32
9.8C - 9. 3d
0.08
28
0.36C - o.62d
1.2
0.05C - Q.12d
62
Detection
Frequency
12/32
34/34
26/26
4/4
24/24
38/38
28/28
21/28
38/38
26/26
16/24
26/26
8/22
26/26
Reference
Sitesa
1,2,3,4,7,8,9
1,2,3,4,7,8,9
1,2,3,4,5,9
1
1,2,3,4,6,9
1-9
1,2,3,4,5,6,9
1,2,3,4,5,6,9
1-9
1,2,3,4,5,9
1,2,3,4,6,9
1,2,3,4,5,9
1,2,3,4,9
1,2,3,4,5,9
a Reference sites: 1. Carr Inlet 4. Case Inlet 7. Nisqually Delta
2. Samish Bay 5. Port Madison 8. Hood Canal
3. Dabob Bay 6. Port Susan 9. Sequim Bay
b U: Undetected at the method detection limit shown.
c Mean calculated using 0.00 for undetected values.
d Mean calculated using the reported detection limit for undetected values.
Reference:
(Site 1) Tetra Tech (1985a); Crecelius et al. (1975).
(Sites 2 and 3) Battelle Northwest (1983).
(Site 4) Crecelius et al. (1975); Mai ins et al. (1980).
(Site 5) Mai ins et al. (1980).
(Site 6) Mai ins (1981).
(Site 7) Crecelius et al. (1975).
(Site 8) Crecelius et al. (1975).
(Site 9) Battelle Northwest (1983).
77
-------
TABLE 18. SUMMARY OF ORGANIC COMPOUND CONCENTRATIONS
IN SEDIMENTS FROM PUGET SOUND REFERENCE AREAS
Substance
Phenols
65 phenol
HSL 2-methyl phenol
HSL 4-methyl phenol
34 2,4-dimethylphenol
Substituted Phenols
24 2-chlorophenol
31 2,4-dichlorophenol
22 4-chloro-3-methyl phenol
21 2,4,6-trichlorophenol
HSL
64
57
59
60
58
Low
55
77
1
80
81
78
HSL
High
39
84
72
76
74
75
73
83
82
79
2,4,5-trichlorophenol
pentachlorophenol
2-nitrophenol
2,4-dinitrophenol
4,6-dinitro-o-cresol
4-nitrophenol
Molecular Weight Aromatic
naphthalene
acenaphthylene
acenaphthene
f luorene
phenanthrene
anthracene
2-methylnaphthalen
Molecular Weight Aromatic
fluoranthene
pyrene
benzo(a)anthracene
chrysene
benzo( b) f 1 uoranthene
benzo(k) fluoranthene
benzojajpyrene
indeno (1,2, 3- c,d) pyrene
d ibenzo ( a, h) anthracene
benzo(g,h,i)pery!ene
Range
(ug/kg dry
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
10 -
10
10 -
1 -
0.5 -
0.5 -
0.5 -
0.5 -
10
0.1 -
0.1 -
0.5
0.5 -
0.5 -
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
wt)
62b
32
10
5
10
10
10
50
10
100
100
f
Mean
(ug/kg dry wt)
lie .
14 -
..
0.02 -
--
--
..
--
20
.
33
-
-
.
-
Detection
Frequency
3/13
0/4
2/4
0/6
0/6
0/6
0/6
0/6
0/4
1/6
1/6
0/6
0/6
0/6
Reference
Sitesa
1,2,3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Hydrocarbons
U
U
U
U
U
0.5 -
0.1 -
0.1 -
0.1 -
5 -
0.5 -
1 -
U
U
U
U
40
40
40
40
170
40
20
5.6 -
0.08 -
0.48 -
3.0 -
19 -
2.7 -
7.5 -
22
17
17
19
35
22
9.5
10/20
1/20
4/20
7/21
11/17
7/17
6/10
1,2,3,4,5
1,2,3,4,5
1,2,3,4,5
All
1,2,3,6,
1,2,3,6,
1,4,5,6
,6
6
,6
7
7
Hydrocarbons
U
U
U
U
U
7 -
8 -
4 -
5 -
5 -
5 -
0.37-
0.37-
0.4 -
3 -
U
U
U
100
120
40
40
94
94
40
30
5
20
32 -
30 -
3.7 -
6.4 -
17 -
17 -
9.3 -
7.4 -
0.08 -
3.8 -
41
41
23
26
33
33
10
9.2
4.1
7.2
17/22
16/22
8/17
8/17
12/21
12/21
10/14
6/12
1/5
2/6
All
All
1,2,3,6,
1,2,3,6,
All
All
7
7
1,3,4,5,6,7
1,4,5,6,
1
1,7
7
Chlorinated Aromatic Hydrocarbons
26
27
25
8
20
9
1,3-dichlorobenzene
1,4-dichlorobenzene
1,2-dichlorobenzene
1,2,4-trichlorobenzene
2-chloronaphthalene
hexachlorobenzene (HCB)
U
U
U
U
U
0.06-
0.06-
0.06-
0.5-
0.5-
0.01-
U
U
U
U
U
U
40
40
40
5
50
10
0.004
0.004
0.004
-
-
0.07
19
19
19
-
-
3.5
1/18
1/18
1/18
0/6
0/6
6/12
1,2,3,4,5
1,2,3,4,5
1,2,3,4,5
1
1
1.4,5,6
78
-------
TABLE 18. (Continued)
Chlorinated Aliphatic Hydrocarbons
12 hexachloroethane
xx trichlorobutadiene
xx tetrachlorobutadiene isomers
xx pentachlorobutadiene isomers
52 hexachlorobutadiene
53 hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Halogenated Ethers
18 bis(2-chloroethyl) ether
42 bis(2-ch1oroisopropyl) ether
43 bis(2-chloroethoxy)methane
40 4-chlorophenyl phenyl ether
41 4-bromophenyl phenyl ether
Phthalate Esters
71 dimethyl phthalate
70 diethyl phthalate
68 di-n-butyl phthalate
67 butyl benzyl phthalate
66 bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
69 di-n-octyl phthalate
Miscellaneous oxygenated compounds
54 isophorone
HSL benzyl alcohol
HSL benzoic acid
129 2,3,7,8-tetrachloro-
dibenzo-p-dioxin
HSL dibenzofuran
U 0.5- U 50
U 0.03- U 25
U 0.04- U 25
0.03- U 25
U 0.03- U 25
not analyzed
0.3 - U 10
U 0.5 - U 10
U 10
U 0.5 - U 5
U 0.5 - U 5
U 0.5 - U 50
9.0 - 11
U 20 - 760
U 0.5 - U 25
U 0.5 - U 25
U 0.5 - U 25
U 0.5 - U 130
U 10
U 25 - 430
not analyzed
U 5
Organonitrogen Compounds
HSL aniline
56 nitrobenzene
63 n-nitroso-di-n-propylamine
HSL 4-chloroaniline
HSL 2-nitroaniline
HSL 3-nitroaniline
HSL 4-nitroaniline
36 2,6-dinitrotoluene
35 2,4-dinitrotoluene
62 n-nitrosodiphenylamine
37 1,2-diphenylhydrazine
5 benzidine (4,4'-diamino-
biphenyl)
28 3,3'-dichlorobenzidine
U 1.0
U 0.5
U 0.5
U 50
U 50
U 50
U 50
U 0.5
U 0.5
U 0.5
U 0.5
U 0.5
U 0.5
- U
- U
- U
- U
- U
- U
- U
- U
20
5
10
10
5
5
5
100
0.27
1.6
0.15
0.07
...
- 7.9
- 9.2
- 7.7
- 8.5
0/6
5/12
5/12
5/12
5/12
1
1,4,5,6
1,4,5,6
1,4,5,6
1,4,5,6
4
160
18
170
210 - 216
1/6
0/6
0/6
0/6
0/6
0/5
4/5
3/5
0/5
0/5
0/5
0/5
0/4
3/4
0/4
0/6
0/5
0/5
0/4
0/4
0/4
0/4
0/5
0/5
0/5
0/6
0/2
0/6
79
-------
TABLE 18. (Continued)
Pesticides
93 p.p'-DDE
94 p,p'-DDD
92 p.p'-DDT
89 aldrin
90 dieldrin
91 chlordan
95 alpha-endosulfan
96 beta-endosulfan
97 endosulfan sulfate
98 endrin
99 endrin aldehyde
100 heptachlor
101 heptachlor epoxide
102 alpha-HCH
103 beta-HCH
104 delta-HCH
105 gatma-HCH (lindane)
113 toxaphene
PCBs
xx Total PCBs (primarily
1254/1260)
U 10
U 10
U 10
U 10
U 10
U 10
U 10
U 10
U 10
U 10
U 10
U 10
U 10
U 10
U 10
U 10
U 10
U 10
U 25
U 25
U 25
U 25
U 25
U 25
U 25
U 25
U 25
U 25
U 25
U 25
U 25
U 25
U 25
U 25
U 25
3.1 - U 20
1.8 - 12
0/5
0/6
0/5
0/6
0/6
0/6
0/5
0/5
0/5
0/6
0/5
0/6
0/6
0/6
0/6
0/6
0/6
0/2
7/19
1,2,3,4,6,7
Volatile Compounds
85 tetrachloroethene
38 ethylbenzene
a Reference sites: 1.
2.
3.
U
U
Carr Inlet
Samish Bay
Dabob Bay
4.1 -
4.1 -
4.
5.
6.
U 16 0/8
U 16 0/8
Case Inlet 7. Nisqually Delta
Port Madison
Port Susan
2,3
2,3
An anomalously high phenol value of 1800 ug/kg dry weight was found at one Carr Inlet
station. For the purposes of reference area comparisons, this value has been excluded.
Mean calculated using 0.00 for undetected values.
Mean calculated using the reported detection limit for undetected values.
Reference:
(Site 1) Tetra Tech (1985a); Mowrer et al. (1977).
(Site 2) Battelle Northwest (1983).
(Site 3) Battelle Northwest (1983); Prahl and Carpenter (1979).
(Site 4) Malins et al. (1980); Mowrer et al. (1977).
(Site 5) Malins et al. (1980).
(Site 6) Malins (1981).
(Site 7) Barrick and Prahl (in review); Mowrer et al. (1977).
80
-------
The most commonly analyzed contaminants in other reference areas were
metals and neutral organic compounds (especially hydrocarbons). With the
exception of selected hydrocarbon data from the Nisqually delta and Dabob
Bay, analytical recovery data were not available for evaluation of organic
compound data from these other reference data sets. Phthalate data were
available for some non-Carr Inlet reference areas, but were rejected because
the data were apparently not corrected for potential laboratory contamination,
a common problem with this group of compounds.
Detection limits for some reference areas exceeded 50 ppb dry weight
for several organic compounds. Detection limits for the recent Carr Inlet
samples ranged from 0.5 to 50 ppb dry weight for almost all compounds.
To provide a comparable data set, a maximum detection limit of 50 ppb dry
weight was set for the acceptance of data from other reference areas included
in the ranges reported in Table 18. For the few reference data sets affected
by this cutoff, most of the relevant compounds have either been found at
levels below 50 ppb dry weight or have been undetected at low parts per
billion levels in the remaining reference areas. This cutoff makes the
determination of the significance of Elliott Bay contamination less sensitive
to limitations of some analytical methods and more sensitive to the actual
levels of compounds in reference areas.
Elevations Above Reference (EAR) Analysis--Dry-weight concentrations
of selected chemical indicators in the sediments of Elliott Bay were divided
by the average concentration of the same indicators measured in sediments
of the reference area, Carr Inlet. The resulting elevations above reference
(EAR) indicate the degree to which concentrations in the contaminated areas
exceed those observed in a nonurban area of the Sound. Detailed spatial
distributions of the EAR for the selected indicators are presented in Maps
6-10.
For an initial ranking of the study areas, a mean EAR value for each
selected indicator was calculated over all stations in each of the 12 areas.
In most areas, the mean values were calculated as the arithmetic mean of
all observed values. When replicate measurements were available from a
single station, the replicates were averaged prior to their inclusion in
the overall area mean EAR. Similarly, to maintain some comparability in
the areal extent denoted by the samples, values from the cross-channel
and inter-slip sampling of the Duwamish estuary were averaged prior to
calculating the mean EAR for the areas containing those stations.
The calculated mean EAR for the selected indicators are presented
by area in Table 19. See Apendix E, Table E-l for sample size-s (i.e.,
number of stations used to calculate mean EAR). Of the selected indicators,
the organic compounds in general exhibited much higher EAR than did the
metals. Mean values for the former exceeded 100 in many of the areas,
while the EAR for the metals rarely exceeded 50. The data agree overall
with the distributions identified in previous reviews (e.g., Dexter et
al. 1981; Harper-Owes 1983; Romberg et al. 1984), including higher values
noted in the lower Duwamish estuary (Areas 5, 6, and 7) and along the Seattle
Waterfront (Areas 2, 3, and 4). However, each area could be characterized
by particular chemical distributions, as discussed below.
81
-------
TABLE 19. MEAN ELEVATION ABOVE REFERENCE (EAR) VALUES
FOR SELECTED CHEMICAL INDICATORS,
Area
Magnolia
Seattle Waterfront North
Seattle Waterfront South
North Harbor Island
East Waterway
West Waterway
Kellogg Island
Upper Duwamish Estuary
Duwarnish Head/Alki Beach
Fourmile Rock Disposal
Site
Inner Elliott Bay
Outer Elliott Bay
Mean Elevation Above Referencea
LPAH HPAH PCB Cu+Pb+Zn
22*
110*
100*
300*
25*
220*
190*
65*
4
17*
13*
6
43*
350*
310*
370*
130*
210*
99*
35*
24*
120*
39*
43*
16*
170*
200*
120*
170*
190*
67*
85*
6
97*
81*
22*
2
11*
39*
28*
15*
46*
17*
8*
5
18*
11*
6*
As
2
4
6*
14*
3*
65*
8*
6*
2
5
3
4
a Asterisk indicates significant EAR, (i.e., chemical concentration in
study area is larger than the maximum value observed in all Puget Sound
reference areas).
Mean EAR for PCBs in Inner Elliott Bay is 105 when value for experimental
disposal site is included.
82
-------
In Area 1, along the Magnolia/Discovery Park bluffs, the majority
of the samples exhibited relatively low EAR compared with most of the other
areas. This area contains predominantly coarse-grained sediments with
a low organic carbon content, reflecting the relatively high degree of
wave and current scour of the sediments. In addition, substantial sediment
erosion from the bluffs in the area occurs (Dexter et al. 1981). Both
of these factors would tend to reduce the concentrations observed in the
area, even near major sources.
Because Area 1 has not been extensively sampled, particularly in the
northern portions, some areas of high concentrations may remain unidentified.
Within this area, high values of PAH were observed at the two stations
located near the storm drain from Magnolia Hill. Other storm drains of
similar size and smaller size may contribute to similar localized accumulations
of contaminated sediments. The data are too limited to infer the possible
extent of contaminated sediments associated with the drains. Nevertheless,
a dominance of low EAR values at stations away from the drains indicates
that these contaminated areas ("hot spots") are probably small. The influence
of West Point and/or dredged-material disposal at Fourmile Rock Disposal
Site could be widespread, but the available data are insufficient to identify
nearshore impact of these sources.
Area 2, the Seattle Waterfront-North extending from just west of Pier
91 to Pier 70, exhibits strong evidence of anthropogenic contamination.
The average EAR observed for sediments of this area were comparable to
those from the most contaminated areas of Elliott Bay for the PAH and PCBs.
The mean EAR value exceeded 100 for LPAH and PCBs, with a value of about
350 for the HPAH. Metals were also elevated in this area, but not as much
as in localized areas of the inner bay and the Duwamish River.
Virtually all of the stations upon which this analysis is based were
located near the Denny Way CSO, a major source of combined sewage. The
approximate spatial limits of this highly contaminated area extend a few
thousand feet along the beach and offshore from the end of the pipe. Because
the rest of Area 2 has not been well sampled, neither the approximate mean
EAR for the rest of the area nor the possible existence of additional contami-
nated sediments can be determined. A single sample collected about one-half
mile north of the CSO had marginally elevated concentrations of PAH, PCBs,
and metals. Of particular concern is the area near Piers 90 and 91. Because
the piers have been used for multiple purposes for many years, the area
could be the site of numerous spills and discharges of toxic substances.
In addition, a number of storm drains service a commercial-industrial area
within the pier complex, suggesting that the sediments might be contaminated.
The pier area is probably more poorly flushed than is the more exposed
Denny Way CSO site, suggesting a possibility for contaminant accumulation.
Areas 3 (Seattle Waterfront-South) and 4 (North Harbor Island) have
been fairly evenly sampled (i.e., the samples were not all collected near
one or a few sources). These areas are similar in their general physical
characteristics, with most of the inner shore protected from waves and
currents by the many piers. The sediments are medium coarse sand with
low organic carbon content. The highest mean EAR for all of the selected
organic chemical groups were found in these areas, while the elevations
of metals are second only to the West Waterway of the Duwamish River.
83
-------
Sampling has not been sufficient to determine whether any of the high-EAR
stations represent localized hot spots or more widespread contamination
resulting from the integration of discharges from many sources. While
most of the sediments from these two areas were highly contaminated, a
few outstanding samples should be noted. First, the PAH were most elevated
in the southwest corner of the bay, just north of Harbor Island, and near
Pier 54. The highest EAR for PCBs were observed near the mouth of the
East Waterway north of Harbor Island, and at Pier 54 and the more northerly
piers. In contrast, the metals were elevated mainly near Pier 54 and at
the mouth of the West Waterway.
Many areas of shoreline sediments have not yet been sampled, particularly
in the zones between piers where finer, more contaminated sediments may
accumulate. Because these shoreline areas are closest to pollutant sources,
the existing data may not be representative of an entire study area (e.g.,
north Harbor Island). It is clear that several potential contaminated
areas exist: 1) southwest corner of Elliott Bay near the creosote piers,
2) north of Harbor Island, and 3) along the waterfront near storm drains
and CSOs. The extent of these hot spots and whether they are in fact only
portions of much larger continuous contaminated sites cannot be resolved
with the available data.
Although Area 5 (East Waterway) receives inputs from some of the larger
CSOs in Elliott Bay, as well as storm drainage from Harbor Island, the
mean EAR for all of the selected chemicals were lower than noted in nearby
areas. Still, the levels of all of the organic compounds were substantially
elevated compared to Puget Sound reference sediments (mean EAR = 25-170
in Table 19). Some of the highest levels of Cu + Pb+Zn (630-940 ppb) were
noted near the Hanford CSO on the east side of the waterway. As was the
case with Areas 3 and 4, the sampling intensity in the East Waterway has
been sufficient to rank it among the more contaminated areas in Puget Sound.
The data are not adequate to clearly identify spatial gradients in contaminant
concentrations and relationships to sources.
Concentrations of most chemicals in sediment from Area 6 (the West
Waterway) were similar to those in Area 5, but lower than those in Area 3
along the Seattle Waterfront. High concentrations of metals, particularly
As (1,420 ppb), and PCBs (<3,900 ppb) were observed in sediments near the
west bank at the mouth of the waterway. Similarly, high concentrations
of metals were noted midway up the waterway near the Lander Street storm
drain from Harbor Island, a well-known source of these substances. The
sediment sampling intensity is too limited to establish the extent of these
highly contaminated zones. The PAH were also substantially elevated (mean
EAR >200) in the West Waterway, but did not show any clear spatial trends.
In Areas 7 (Kellogg Island) and 8 (Upper Duwamish Estuary), EAR for
most of the selected chemicals decreased in the upriver direction. This
probably reflects the decreases in the number and volume of sources and
the relative increase in the rate of natural sedimentation. Only limited
sampling has been performed recently, however, and the existence of small
areas of contamination cannot be ruled out. HPAH (11,000 ppb) and PCBs
(800 ppb) were elevated in the sediments just south of Harbor Island.
PCBs were present at high concentrations (<410 ppb) south of the 14th Street
84
-------
Bridge, an area of historical PCB contamination. In addition, sampling
in nearly all of the slips along the river revealed contaminated sediments:
t Slip 1 had high levels of PAH and moderately elevated PCBs
and metals
Slip 2 showed evidence of moderate elevation for metals
Slip 3 had a high EAR for As, as well as elevated PAH
t Slip 4 had high levels of PCB.
Only Slip 6, near the head of navigation, did not show any particular evidence
of contamination. In the slips, the sampling indicated that the sediments
near the heads of the slips were more contaminated than those near the
mouths. Many of the known sources are located near the heads of slips.
In addition, it is possible that at least some of the higher EAR result
from the selective retention of finer, more contaminated sediments in the
backwater areas.
Sediment chemistry data were available from only two stations within
Area 9 (Duwamish Head/Alki Beach). As would be expected from the limited
sources in Area 9 and from the relatively open exposure of this reach to
waves and currents, the limited data indicate that Area 9 is among the
least contaminated in Elliott Bay (Table 19). The lowest mean EAR for
all of the selected chemicals from Elliott Bay were observed in Area 9,
with the exception of the combined metals (which were second lowest behind
Area 1).
At the Fourmile Rock Disposal Site (Area 10), mean EAR for the selected
chemicals indicate moderate levels of contamination. Comparable to what
was observed in Areas 7 and 8 of the Duwamish River, no clear spatial trends
within the area can be defined, reflecting either the somewhat random distri-
bution of contaminated material from different disposal activities or simply
the limits of the present sampling. Neither the spatial extent of the
degraded area nor the possible upper limits of the contaminant elevations
can be determined.
The remainder of deep-water Elliott Bay (Areas 11 and 12) generally
exhibited low EAR for all chemical indicators. The most obvious major
exception is the experimental dredged material disposal site in south-central
Elliott Bay where over 100,000 yd3 of material contaminated with PCBs at
levels exceeding 1,000 times the reference concentrations were dumped in
1976 (Dexter et al. 1984). In contrast to the dredged material disposal
site off Fourmile Rock, this inner bay site was used only once and has
been well characterized, both at the time of disposal and in more recent
studies.
The mean elevation of PCBs in Area 11, presented in Table 19, does
not include the high values from the experimental disposal site in southern
Elliott Bay- These data were excluded to prevent bias due to the large
number of high PCB values obtained from this site, which represents only
a small, well-defined portion of Area 11. The mean elevation of the PCBs
at the experimental disposal site was 441, among the higher values in the
85
-------
study area. Inclusion of this average as a single sample (to maintain
some representative spatial weighting) increases the overall mean EAR of
the PCBs for Area 11 to 105.
Comparisons among the remainders of Area 11 and Area 12 indicate that
the inner bay showed slightly higher elevations for all of the selected
chemicals than the outer bay, with the exception of similar EAR for HPAH
in both areas. The lower EAR in the deeper waters undoubtedly reflects
the effects of dilution during transport from more contaminated nearshore
areas. Some EAR in Inner and Outer Elliott Bay may be higher than those
observed in the shallower areas (Areas 1 and 9) because of the finer grain
size and higher TOC content of the deeper sediments.
Bioaccumulation
General Overview--
Limited data are available regarding the concentrations of toxic chemicals
in marine organisms of Elliott Bay. Measurements of the concentrations
of selected trace metals in bivalves, crab, and fish have indicated that
lead was elevated in mussels (Mytilus edulis) at the mouth of the Duwamish
River compared to other areas of Puget Sound (Schell and Barnes 1974; Harper-
Owes 1983). Other metals and other organisms did not exhibit elevated
metal concentrations. All of the dogfish sampled from Elliott Bay in the
mid-1970s had mercury levels that exceeded the allowable levels for consumption
in the U.S. However, similar levels of mercury were noted in dogfish from
other areas of Puget Sound, so an increase of mercury contamination in
Elliott Bay was not apparent (Hall et al. 1977).
Nearly all organic compounds that have been measured in the tissues
o-f organisms have been found in higher concentrations in Elliott Bay, and
particularly in the Duwamish River, compared with less urbanized areas
of Puget Sound (Dexter et al. 1981; Harper-Owes 1983). Measurements have
been made of zooplankton, benthic shrimp, other benthic macroinvertebrates,
crab, and fish. For most of the organic compounds, tissue levels of most
organisms tested exceeded those observed in reference areas by one or more
orders of magnitude.
Because of the limited sampling of biota and the mobility of most
target species, spatial trends in tissue contamination cannot be character-
ized in detail. One limited study of the concentrations of PCBs in benthic
macrobenthos from southern Elliott Bay did indicate that the levels of
the PCBs in those organisms was directly related to the levels in the sediments
in which they lived (Dexter et al. 1984). Similarly, the concentrations
of PCBs in the livers of English sole decreased regularly in a series of
samples from the lower Duwamish estuary northward along the Seattle waterfront
to Magnolia Bluff (Maiins et al. 1980). Most other studies have not clearly
established small-scale spatial differences.
Although data on bioaccumulation are minimal, the concentrations of
PCBs in flatfish from the Duwamish River constitute one of the best sets
of data depicting temporal trends in the levels of contamination within
the system. These data have been summarized by Harper-Owes (1983), and
are presented in Figure 15. The data indicate both a long-term decrease
86
-------
E = Engl I sh sole (Porophrys vetulus)
P = Pocific stoghorn sculpin (Leptocottus ormotus)
S = Starry flounder (Plotichthys stellatus)
4
ซ
O)
O)
8
a.
3-
2
_4)
O
I
\
Half-life = 3.4+1.1 years
significant declining trend at P=.01
E
P
U 1
I.I I
YEAR
REFERENCE: HARPER-OWES 1983
Figure 15. Whole-body concentration of total PCBs in bottom
fish of the Duwamish estuary, 1972-1979.
87
-------
in the concentration of PCBs in the fish tissue and an apparent seasonal
change. Higher PCB concentrations were generally observed during the winter
months. The long-term decrease is consistent with the apparent decline
in the concentrations of PCBs in the sediments of the river, as discussed
earlier.
Few studies have documented concentrations of chemical contaminants
in birds and mammals of Puget Sound (Dexter et al. 1981). Concentrations
of PCBs and other organic compounds have been measured in samples of blubber
from harbor seals collected since 1975, particularly in south Puget Sound.
However, no samples were collected from the Elliott Bay study area. Riley
et al. (1983) measured concentrations of metals, aromatic hydrocarbons,
PCBs, and other chlorinated organic compounds in liver and kidney tissues
from birds caught in Elliott Bay. The levels of mercury, lead, and PCBs
were elevated in Elliott Bay birds compared with those from reference areas
in the Strait of Juan de Fuca. Aromatic hydrocarbons were not detected
in the Puget Sound bird samples.
Concentrations of PCBs were measured in pigeon guillemot eggs collected
from nests in Elliott Bay in 1975 (Evergreen State College unpublished)
and in 1982 (Riley et al. 1983). The PCB levels were 15-20 ppm (wet weight,
two eggs) in 1975, and 11 ppm (wet weight, one egg) in 1982.
Data Synthesis--
Analysis of recent bioaccumulation data used to define toxic contamination
problems in the study area is presented in the following sections.
Choice of IndicatorsEnglish sole, crabs, and butter clams were chosen
as indicators for bioaccumulation of toxic substances because of their
availability and close association with bottom sediments. Chemical indicators
chosen for analysis of bioaccumulation EAR are the same as those used to
examine sediment contamination:
Sum of low molecular weight polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons
(LPAH)
Sum of high molecular weight polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons
(HPAH)
0 Total PCBs
Sum of copper (Cu), lead (Pb), and zinc (Zn)
Arsenic (As).
These indicators represent a wide range of chemicals with varying persistence
and transport mechanisms, and they are potentially responsible for a variety
of biological effects. Furthermore, data for the other chemicals analyzed
in target species are too limited for spatial comparisons.
Available Data Recent bioaccumulation data for English sole, Cancer
crabs, and butter clams are presented in Appendix F, Table F-l. Malins
et al. (1980) analyzed aromatic hydrocarbons, PCBs, HCBD, and selected
-------
pesticides in livers from English sole collected at seven stations in the
study area. Metals in English sole livers from two sites were also analyzed
by Mai ins et al. (1980). Romberg et al. (1984) analyzed most of the semi-
volatile priority pollutants in edible muscle tissue of English sole and
Cancer crabs from sites near the Denny Way CSO, West Point, and Alki Point.
The latter two stations were located beyond the limits of the present study
area, but are included here for comparative purposes because of the paucity
of bioaccumulation data. Romberg et al. (1984) also analyzed whole butter
clams from sites just north of West Point and just south of Alki Point.
Despite the relatively small number of samples analyzed, concentrations
of just over 50 priority pollutants have been measured in tissue samples
collected from Elliott Bay and the lower Duwamish River. Few data are
available for acid-extractable organic compounds (e.g., phenols) and organo-
nitrogen compounds (e.g., nitrosamines). No recent data are available
for volatile organic compounds in tissue samples collected from the study
area. Tetrachloroethene and pentachlorophenol have been detected in muscle
tissue of English sole in Commencement Bay (Tetra Tech 1985a), suggesting
that bioaccumulation of these compounds may occur near localized sources.
The lack of bioaccumulation data on organonitrogen compounds in the study
area may not be a serious data gap. Local sources of these compounds,
which are used mainly in the dye industry, are limited. Moreover, the
organonitrogen compounds listed as U.S. EPA priority pollutants, with the
exception of n-nitrosodiphenylamine, were detected in only a few of the
more than 200 sediment samples analyzed as part of the METRO TPPS study
(Galvin et al. 1984). The compound n-nitrosodiphenylamine was detected
in about 30 percent of the 219 sediment samples analyzed.
Station Locations Station locations for selected bioaccumulation
data sets are shown in Map 11. As indicated in Appendix F, Table F-l,
not all of the selected chemical indicators have been measured at all stations.
Recent bioaccumulation data are missing for many areas of the Elliott Bay
and the lower Duwamish River, including the East Waterway, the West Waterway,
Kellogg Island stretch, Duwamish Head/Alki Beach, Fourmile Rock Disposal
Site, and deepwater areas of Elliott Bay (greater than 100 ft).
Reference Area Data--Bioaccumu1ation data for target species collected
from Puget Sound reference areas are summarized in Table 20. A complete
listing of the data is provided in Appendix F, Table F-2. Where more than
one sample was analyzed at a station, the mean is presented in Table F-2.
Method detection limits and/or quantitation limits were included in calculations
of means and sums.
Although reference area data are limited, there is reasonable agreement
among studies. Most contaminants were below method detection limits or
quantitation limits. Relatively high concentrations were observed only
for PCBs in liver tissue of English sole, from Port Madison in particular.
Data from Port Madison will not be used in the analysis below.
Discovery Bay, Carr Inlet, and Case Inlet appear to be adequate reference
areas based on the limited data in Table 20. Because toxicant concentration
data for livers of English sole in Elliott Bay were obtained from Malins
et al. (1980), data from Case Inlet were used to calculate EAR for fish
livers. Discovery Bay and Carr Inlet values were used to calculate all
89
-------
TABLE 20. SUMMARY OF SELECTED BIOACCUMULATION DATA
FROM PUGET SOUND REFERENCE AREAS
Sample Type/Area Reference
Concentrations (organics = ppb, metals = ppm)
LPAH HPAH PCB Cu+Pb+Zn As
English Sole-Liver
Port Madison
Case Inlet
Carr Inletb
English Sole-Muscle
Discovery Bay
Carr Inlet
Crab (Cancer)-Muscle
Discovery Bay
Carr Inlet
Mai ins et al . 1980
Mai ins et al . 1980
Tetra Tech (1985a)
Gahler et al . 1982
Tetra Tech (1985a)
Gahler et al . 1982
Tetra Tech (1985a)
<7.4 <13
<6.5 <19
<220 U280
U29 U1400
<100 U100
U29 U1400
U60 U100
590
340 323
260 323
<13 6.1
36 <4.0
U10 57
22 56
3.2
7.9
7.2
2.4
NOTE: All values are expressed on a wet weight basis. See Appendix F for complete
data listing.
a Only copper and zinc were analyzed or acceptable.
b Average value for total PCBs in two samples of normal (not diseased) livers.
U = Undetected at the method detection limit shown.
90
-------
other EAR. For a given chemical or indicator group, the lowest value from
these two areas (Table 20) was chosen as the reference value for the EAR.
Note that quantisation limits or method detection limits reported for reference
areas were used in many cases to calculate EAR. Thus, some EAR could be
larger than the values reported in the next section.
Elevation Above Reference (EAR) Analysis--Bioaccumu1ation data for
target species and selected chemical indicators in Elliott Bay and the
lower Duwamish River are summarized in Table 21. Because only a few tissue
samples from the study area have been analyzed recently, additional data
for samples collected just beyond the boundaries of the study area have
been included in Appendix F, Table F-l. These data are used for comparative
purposes only, and do not enter into the calculations of EAR for any of
the study areas. Also, adequate reference area data were not available
to calculate EAR from butter clam data presented in Appendix F, Table F-l.
Because the bioaccumulation data for reference areas are so limited,
a range of values was not available for comparison with the Elliott Bay
data. Consequently, the significance of the EAR could not be established
by the criteria developed a priori (see above, Decision-Making Approach).
Data on PCB and copper concentrations in English sole muscle from Conmencement
Bay indicate that the mean concentration at a station in the study area
is statistically different (P<0.05) from the reference site mean at an
EAR of about 5 or greater. For some PAH (e.g., napththalene), an EAR of
10 or greater was required to achieve a statistically "significant" difference
between study site and reference area. Therefore, for this initial assessment
of Elliott Bay data, an EAR of 5 or greater was defined as significant.
As shown in Table 21, significant EAR were found in tissue samples
from all areas sampled, except Magnolia. Aside from the relatively low
value for LPAH in English sole muscle near the Denny Way CSO (Seattle Waterfront-
North, ME14-T002) LPAH and PCBs were consistently elevated. The highest
PCB elevations were observed in English sole liver from the Upper Duwamish
Estuary (EAR = 24) and in English sole muscle tissue from the Seattle Waterfront-
North (EAR = 22). The PCB data in Table 21 are consistent with other data
showing high concentrations of PCBs in organisms from the study area (also
see below, Health Risk Assessment). For example, Harper-Owes (1983) estimated
that average PCB concentrations were 560 ppb (12 times reference) in bottom
fish in 1979, and 240 ppb (14 times reference) in salmon muscle in 1975.
Malins et al. (1982) measured PCBs in organisms of Elliott Bay (locations
unspecified) as follows: 1) 270-2,100 ppb (no reference data) in muscle
and 2,100-16,000 ppb (0.9-6.9 times reference) in liver of English sole;
2) 140-150 ppb (1.7-1.8 times reference) in muscle and 99-160 ppb (1.1-1.7
times reference) in liver of salmon; and 3) 14-38 ppb (1.4-3.7 times reference)
in muscle and 3,300-4,200 ppb (2.2-2.9 times reference) in liver of Pacific
cod. In muscle from Pacific cod, Romberg et al. (1984) found 179 ppb of
PCBs near Denny Way and 298 ppb near West Point. In muscle from Chinook
salmon, the same investigators found 1,350 ppb of PCBs near Denny Way,
and 47-610 ppb near Richmond Beach. The latter data and tissue concentrations
of PCBs in reference areas suggest that problems of PCB contamination are
not restricted to the urbanized embayments of Puget Sound.
The limited data available for metals suggest that metals are not
accumulating to abnormally high concentrations in tissues of target species
91
-------
TABLE 21. SUMMARY OF SELECTED BIOACCUMULATION DATA FOR
ELLIOTT BAY AND THE LOWER DUWAMISH RIVER
Concentration (organics = ppb, metals = ppm) and EARb
Sample Type/Area Stationa LPAH HPAH PCB Cu+Pb+Zn As
English Sole-Liver
Magnol ia
Seattle Waterfront
North and South
North Harbor
Island
Upper Duwamish
Estuary
MA2-10014
MA2-3-2
MA2-10016
MA2-10045
MA2-E-1
<3.8
<0.6
30
<5
<43
<7*
<50
<8*
<51
<8*
<79
<4
<20
<1
<58
<3
<74
<4
<20
<1
<970
<3
2,200
6*
3,100
9*
<2,900
<9*
8,000
24*
36
1
33
1
English Sole-Muscle
Seattle Waterfront
North ME14-T002
-Crab-Muscle
Seattle Waterfront
North ME14-T001
U17
<0.6
<250
<9*
U170
<2
<310
<3
290
22*
5.6
1
76
8*
61
1
6.1
2
5.8
2
a Station prefix codes:
MA2 = Mai ins et al. 1980
ME14 = Romberg et al. 1984
b EAR is shown below concentration. See Appendix F for samples sizes.
* Indicates "significant" EAR, as discussed in text.
92
-------
from the study area. This tentative conclusion is consistent with results
of Harper-Owes (1983), who summarized data on metals concentrations in
annelids, crustaceans, molluscs, and bottomfish from the Duwamish River.
In 18 cases representing various combinations of different organisms with
metals, the only case of a statistically "significant" elevation was for
lead in annelids, crustaceans, and molluscs combined. It should be noted
that the analysis by Harper-Owes (1983) included data from the early 1970s
as well as the more recent data from Mai ins et al. (1980, 1982).
BIOASSAYS
In bioassays, test organisms respond only to the bioavailable fraction
of toxicants in contaminated water and sediments. At present, this fraction
cannot be determined by routine chemical analytical techniques. Thus,
bioassays should be used in conjunction with chemical data when characterizing
ecological impacts of contaminated sediments or water.
Receiving Water Toxicity
As shown in Table 22, bioassays measuring lethal, sublethal, and genotoxic
effects have been performed on water samples from Elliott Bay and the Duwamish
River (see Stober and Pierson 1984 for a review of these data). Results
of these studies indicate that lethal toxic response could not be solely
attributed to water-borne chemicals. Sublethal effects were evident in
samples from the Duwamish River south of Harbor Island, in which significant
reductions in oligochaete respiration occurred (Chapman et al. 1982b).
No genotoxic effects were observed.
Characterization of water column toxicity in Elliott Bay and the Duwamish
River is presently impossible due to the limited spatial coverage and inter-
mittent nature of studies. Further, in areas with known high levels of
sediment contamination (Malins et al. 1980, 1982), toxicity of surface
water or water column samples was evident but minimal (Armstrong et al. 1978;
Chapman et al. 1982b; Tomlinson et al. 1980). These results suggest that
toxicity of receiving water samples may be too transient to characterize
site-specific conditions.
Sewage Effluent Toxicity
The Renton treatment plant contributes nearly 80 percent of the total
ammonia, most of the residual chlorine, and measureable amounts of various
metals and organic compounds to the Duwamish River (Harper-Owes 1983).
Although it is located outside the study area, sewage discharged from this
plant may influence biota within the Duwamish estuary and, potentially,
within Elliott Bay. Studies assessing Renton treatment plant effluent
impacts using nonsaline Duwamish River water showed lethal and sublethal
effects of Renton effluent and organics/metals associated with sewage on
coho salmonids (Table 23). As a result of pre-1978 studies, which showed
that many lethal and sublethal effects were attributed to the oxidative
nature of chlorine associated with the effluent, the Renton effluent is
now completely dechlorinated. Toxicity tests with copper demonstrated
that toxicity of total copper decreased from 0.164 ug/1 to 0.286 ug/1 in
river water containing 40 percent sewage effluent. Both of these concentrations
exceed of the maximum acceptable 0.023 ug/1 established by the water quality
93
-------
TABLE 22. SUMMARY OF RECEIVING WATER BIOASSAYS
IN ELLIOTT BAY AND THE DUWAMISH ESTUARY
Area
Test
Organism
References
Laboratory Studies
Seattle Waterfront North,
West Waterway, Upper
Duwamish Estuary
Seattle Waterfront North,
Seattle Waterfront South,
North Harbor Island ,
Outer Elliott Bay
Seattle Waterfront South,
Kellogg Island
In Situ Exposure Studies
Seattle Waterfront North
Lethal ,
sublethal
Lethal ,
sublethal
Lethal,
sublethal ,
genotoxic
Lethal
Crassostrea gigas
(embryos)
C. gigas (embryos) ,
TTendraster excentricus
(embryos)
Gasterosteus aculeatus.
Monopylephorus cuticulatus,
Eogammarus confervicolus,
Salmo cjairdneri cells
Crassostrea gigas
[adults) ,
Mytilus edulis
Cardwell and Woelke
1979; Cummins 1973,
1974
Ross et al. 1984
Chapman et al . 1982b
Armstrong et al . 1978;
Tomlinson et al . 1980
a Areas correspond to areas of the present study.
94
-------
TABLE 23. SUMMARY OF FRESHWATER BIOASSAYS WITH RENTON TREATMENT PLANT
EFFLUENT AND RECEIVING WATER
Test
Material
Tested
Organism
Comment
Reference
Lethal
Whole
effluent
Coho salmon
Sublethal
Whole
effluent
Coho salmon
Lethal
Lethal
Duwamish
River water
Coho salmon
Copper
alone and
combined
with effluent
organics
Coho salmon
24-h LC50=33% effluent
(equivalent to 0.23 mg/1
residual chlorine); 96-h
LC50=29% effluent (equiva-
lent to 0.20 mg/1 residual
chlorine)
Symptoms of hemolytic anemia,
increased numbers of circu-
lating immature erythocytes,
pathological changes in
erythorocytes, and a reduction
in packed cell volume and hemo-
globin levels noted for
chlorine equivalent concentra-
tions as low as 0.003 mg/1
96-h LC50 inป river water asso-
ciated with 0.45mg/l un-
ionized ammonia
96-h LC50 of Cu+2 ion=0.017
to 0.022 mg/1; 96-h LC50 of
total copper varied from
0.164 (in river water) to
0.286 (in 40% sewage effluent)
mg/1; mean survival times in
diluted effluent with added
copper were inversely propor-
tional to the Cu2+ concentra-
tion
Buckley and
Matsuda 1973
Buckley 1976
Buckley
1978
Buckley
1983
95
-------
criteria (U.S. EPA 1980). Studies assessing toxicity of Renton seawater
effluent mixtures to various early marine life stages (Dinnel et al. 1983a,b)
are summarized in Table 24. Results indicate that relative toxicities
of Renton sewage effluent were: chlorinated secondary sewage > influent >
primary sewage > dechlorinated secondary effluent > pre-chlorinated secondary
sewage. Later studies with sand dollar sperm and embryo bioassays reported
similar results both in magnitude of response and relative toxicities (Ross
et al. 1984). Based on results of marine bioassays with Renton effluent,
the LCcn values for dechlorinated secondary effluent are sufficiently high
to imply that the effluent will not cause acute toxicity in the water column
when discharged at a minimum effluent dilution of 100:1 (Dinnel et al. 1983a,b,
1984).
Sediment Toxicity
General Overview--
It is well documented that chemical contaminants partition onto sediments
(Morel and Schiff 1983). By using sediment bioassays to test for sediment
toxicity on an area-by-area basis, site-specific toxicity patterns can
be obtained. Lethal and sublethal responses of over 20 bioassay organisms
were measured following acute, prolonged, and chronic exposure to either
whole or fractionated sediments from Elliott Bay (Table 25).
Areas with the most intensive temporal sampling include the Denny
Way CSO, the Pier 54 ferry terminal, the area south of Harbor Island, and
the West Waterway of the Duwamish River. Areas with the most intensive
spatial sampling includes the Denny Way CSO and inner/outer Elliott Bay
around Duwamish Head. While many of these bioassays show promise as rapid
and sensitive toxicity tests, the amphipod assay has been the most widely
used acute lethality test in Elliott Bay. Sediment samples were consistently
toxic to amphipods, but were toxic to other organisms as well (Chapman
and Fink 1984; Chapman and Morgan 1983; Stromberg et al. 1981; Shuba et
al. 1978).
In any program to characterize toxicity, it is desirable to use more
than one test organism and/or life-cycle stage because responses to different
contaminants vary with species and life stage (Chapman and Long 1983).
The oyster embryo assay, a subacute test, has also been used in Elliott
Bay (Table 25), often in conjunction with amphipod assays, as noted in
Table 25. E.V.S. (1984a) tested nine sediments simultaneously with oyster
embryos and amphipods using sediments held fresh at 40 C for a maximum
of 3 wk. Ranking of stations by toxicity and the range of response [11-83
percent mortality (amphipod) and 13-72 percent abnormality (oysters)] were
quite similar between the two tests.
The study by Ross et al. (1984) illustrates two areas of concern in
sediment bioassays: fine-grain sediments and frozen sediments. The study
involved a large number of contaminated but extremely fine-grained sediments.
In an attempt to control for amphipod mortality induced by particle size
differences, a fine-grained reference control sediment was used as well
as the native sand control used by all other studies. Sediment chosen
as a fine-grained control was from Seahurst I690E (Dinnel et al. 1984),
a silty-clay sediment (percentage of sand/silt/clay or S/S/C = 15/33/52)
96
-------
TABLE 24. SUMMARY OF MARINE BIOASSAYS WITH RENTON TREATMENT PLANT EFFLUENT
Average EC50 (Percent Sewage 1n Seawater Vol.
Renton
Sewage Type
Influent
Primary
Secondary
Chlorinated
secondary
De-chlorinated
secondary
Freshwater
dilutions
Sand Dollarb Oyster
Sperm Embryo0
Assay Abnormal
(60 min) (48 h)
1.9
2.9
17.6
1.0
7.1
>20.0d
4.2
5.9
>20.0
2.3
>20.0
>20.0
Oyster
Embryob
Mortality
(48 h)
5.7
7.3
>20.0
3.2
>20.0
>20.0
Craba
Zoea
Mortality
(48 h)
NT
>20.0
>20.0
>20.0C
>20.0
>20.0
Greena
Urchin
Sperm
Assay
(60 min)
NT
10.5
>20.0
0.4
>20.0
>20.0
/Vol.)
Greena
Urchin
Embryo
Abnormal
(96 h)
NT
15.8
18.1
11.9
17.4
>20.0
Greenb
Urchin
Embryo
Mortality
(96 h)
NT
>20.0
>20.0
>20.0
>20.0
>20.0
8 Tests conducted winter 1983. These results are _not_ directly comparable to the summer 1982
tests since sewage characteristics vary by season.
b Tests conducted summer 1982.
c Moribund zoea commonly noted in 13.0 and 20 percent chlorinated secondary sewage.
d EC50 not exceeded in dilutions of seawater with up to 20 percent sewage.
NT = Not tested.
Reference: Stober and Pierson (1984).
97
-------
TABLE 25. SUMMARY OF SEDIMENT BIOASSAYS IN ELLIOTT BAY
AND THE DUWAMISH RIVER
Area
Media
Organlsm(s)
Comment
Reference
00
Acute Bioassays
All areas except
Alki
Magnolia, Seattle
Waterfront North,
Inner and Outer
Elliott Bay
Magnolia, Seattle
Waterfront North,
Inner and Outer
Elliott Bay
Kellogg Island
Kellogg Island
Kellogg Island
Sediment (S) Rhepoxynius abronius
Sediment,
sediment
elutriate
Sediment (S),
sediment
elutriate (SE)
Slurry with
freshwater
Liquid phase
(LG), suspended
particulate
phase (SPP),
sediment slurry
(SS)
Sediment (In
situ)
Eogammarus confervicolus,
Gasterosteus aculeatus.
Honopy1ephoru~cuticu1atu5
Capitella capitata
<>. aculeatus,
Oncorhynchus Msutch fry
Acartla tonsa,
Tigriopus callfornlcus,
Rangia cuheata,
Palaemonetes puglo
Cancer graclHs,
Hacoma nasuta, M. jccta
H. inquTnata,
Tagps phi 11ippinarum
Response related to area
with evidence of spatial-
tempora1 var i ab11i ty
within each area; methodolo-
gies varied regarding
test system (static,
recirculating, flow-through)
and sediment storage
(fresh vs. frozen)
No acute response except
for amphipods in sediment
samples from Denny Way
CSO
Significant initial mortality
and abnormal larvae observed,
more so in S than SE
during life cycle bioassays
of 35-50 days
No mortality or loss
of equilibrium in 96-h
tests
Low or no response of
copepods to 24-h exposure
of LP and SPP of sediments
from site of 1974 PCB
spill; clams unaffected
by 14-day exposure to
SS while shrimps had
0-45 percent mortality
No significant clam or
shrimp mortality attributed
directly to sediments
after 56-71 day exposures
Battelle Northwest 1985;
Chapman et al. 1982b; Chapman
and Fink 1983; Oinnel et al. 1984;
EVS 1984a,b; Ott (in prep);
Ott et al. (in prep);
Ross et al. 1984; Swartz et al. 1979.
Chapman et al. 198Za
Chapman and Fink 1984
LeGore and OesVolgne 1973
Shuba et al. 1978
Ma 11ns et a1. 1982
-------
TABLE 25. (Continued)
Area
Exposurc(s)
Organism(s)
Comment
Reference
to
\o
Sublethal Bloassays
All areas except
Duwamish Head/Alki
Beach, Fourmlle
Rock, Inner and
Outer Elliott Bay
North Harbor Island,
Kellogg Island,
Fourmile Rock,
Inner and Outer
Elliott Bay
All areas except
East Waterway,
Upper Duwamish
Estuary, and
Duwamish Head/Alki
Beach
Sediment slurry
(SS); sediment
(S); Inter-
stitial water
(IS); elutriate
filtrate (EF)
Elutriate
filtrate (EF)
Elutriate
Crassostrea gigas
embryos
Dendraster excentrlcus
sperm and embryos
M. cutlculatus
Variable results: no
or low response In
S not mixed with water,
IS and EF (Cummins);
high mortality/abnormalIty
in remaining studies
with embryos exposed
to suspended sediments
with response dependent
on concentration of sediment
In seawater
Sperm affected by variables
other than chenical contami-
nation; embryo response
correlated with overall
organic priority pollutant
contamination of sediment
Positive and negative
deviations from control
occurred depending on
sediments
Cummins 1973, 1974; Chapman and
Morgan 1983; EVS 1984a; Schink
et al. 1974
Ross et al. 1984
Chapman et al. 1982a,b; Chapman
and Fink 1983
Genotox1city/Hutagen1city Bloassays
Inner and Outer Organic
Elliott Bay chemical
extracts
Seattle Waterfront In situ
North and South, exposure
North Harbor
Island, East and
West Waterway,
Kellogg Island
All areas except Organic
East Waterway, chemical
Upper Duwamish extracts
Estuary and
Duwamish Head/AIM
Beach
Ames test
Parophrys vetulus,
Pholis ornata,
Blipsias cirrhosis,
Leplocottus armatus
Salmo galrdnerl
Inconclusive results
due to high acute toxlclty
of extracts and lack
of agreement
Frequency of sister chronatid
exchanges 1n cells of
fish from Duwamish elevated
and similar to rate Induced
by Injection of benzo(a)pyrene
Significant response
(anaphase aberration)
occurred
Dexter et al. 1979
Stromberg et al. 1981
Chapman et al. 1982a,b; Landolt
and Kocan 1984
-------
with a mean grain size of 17 urn. Unfortunately, mean survival in 1690E
sediment was only 72.5 percent in the Ross et al. (1984) study, well below
earlier results showing 85-93 percent survival with this sediment (Dinnel
et al. 1984). Because the Dinnel et al. (1984) study further obtained
"control" survival (i.e., ^90 percent) in seven sediments with a mean grain
size of 17 urn and less, Ott (in prep) argued that fine-grained sediments,
if collected from the surface layer, do not impact amphipod survival.
Use of previously frozen I690E sediment may have been the cause of
observed differences in survival between the Dinnel et al. (1984) and the
Ross et al. (1984) studies. Use of previously frozen sediments affects
the reproducibility of tests and has a toxic effect on amphipod survival,
both of which are exacerbated in finer-grained sediments (Ott in prep).
Data Synthesis
Choice of Indicators Because of the frequent use of the amphipod
and oyster bioassays and the existence of standardized techniques for both
(Chapman and Morgan 1983; Swartz et al. 1984), both kinds of assays were
selected as indicators of sediment toxicity. The infaunal amphipod Rhepoxynius
abronius is more sensitive to sediment toxicity than are other small infaunal
crustaceans, polycheates, and bivalves (Boesch 1982; Connell and Airey
1979; Hansen 1974; McGrath 1974; Steimle et al. 1982; Swartz et al. 1979).
Physiologically, amphipods are ideal animals for testing sediment because
their burrowing behavior maximizes time spent in the sediment and hence
their exposure to sediment contaminants. R. abronius is native to Puget
Sound, where it serves an important functional role as both predator on
small benthic invertebrates and as prey of fish and larger invertebrates
(Ambrose 1984; Manzanilla and Cross 1982; Oliver et al. 1982; Van Blaricom
1982). Data from ฃ. abronius bioassays can be directly compared to data
on the field distribution of this species. This coupling of data sets
can provide powerful evidence for ecological impacts of contaminated sediment.
The design of the amphipod assay has contributed to its wide use.
Testing of whole sediments (versus elutriates) is the most environmentally
realistic approach in sediment bioassays, because exposure more closely
resembles field conditions. The predictive value and sensitivity of this
assay were confirmed in field studies in which abundance of R. abronius
decreased along an increasing pollution gradient (Swartz et al. 1981, 1982,
1984). Further, an interlaboratory comparison designed to test the robustness
of this assay demonstrated good agreement between five independent laboratories
using seven different test sediments (Mearns et al. in press).
Bioassays with oyster embryos were initially developed to test water
samples (Woelke 1972) and later modified for sediment (Chapman and Morgan
1983; Schink et al. 1974). Despite problems associated with obtaining
a year-round supply of high-quality gametes and with correlations of response
with variables other than toxicants (e.g., dissolved oxygen, organics,
parasites), this assay is widely used as a standard method for seawater
samples (ASTM 1984) and has been applied to sediment samples. In sediments,
response may be correlated with total sulfides, total phosphorus, and sediment
particle size, depending on the technique used (Schink et al. 1974). Sediment
response may be also correlated with biological oxygen demand and organic
content (Tstra Tech 1985a). Despite claims that the methodology has not
100
-------
been "fully worked out and validated specifically for sediments" (Stober
and Pierson 1984), useful information has been generated. Finally, oysters
are planktonic during the embryo to prodissoconch stages used in the test
(i.e., they are not normally in contact with sediments or benthic communities
during this time). Thus, the test is an indicator of sediment toxicity
and lacks the direct ecological relevance of the amphipod test.
Although there is not always exact agreement, data generated with
amphipod and oyster embryo bioassays tend to be highly correlated (Tetra
Tech 1985a). Thus, these tests largely appear to be responding to the
same chemicals.
Available Data and Station Locations Because the amphipod bioassay
response is relatively robust (Mearns et al. in press), data obtained using
several variations of the standard static protocol, including a flow-through
and a recirculating system, were accepted for the database. Because the
ability of this test to distinguish differences in survival between control
and treatment sediments is dependent on both the number of replicates and
the number of individuals per replicate (see Table 1 in Swartz et al. 1984),
only those studies with a minimum of four replicates and 20 amphipods per
replicate were chosen for the database.
Seven amphipod bioassay studies involving 86 sediments met the above
prerequisites. Of these, 42 test sediments were analyzed with the static
system, 38 with a flow-through system, and 6 with a recirculating system
(see Appendix A). The basic protocol of each system was as follows. All
tests were conducted for 10 days. Upon termination of any bioassay system,
the number of burrowing amphipods were counted. The number of moribund
amphipods was determined in a separate test of the animals' abilities to
bury themselves in uncontaminated sediments.
The three studies conducted with the static system included: 24 sediments
from West Point, the Denny Way CSO, Pier 54, and near the Duwamish River
mouth (Comiskey et al. 1984); 10 sediments from the Duwamish East Waterway
near Pier 32 (E.V.S. Consultants 1984a,b); and 8 sediments from the Fourmile
Rock area (Batelle Northwest 1985). In the single study using the recirculating
system, sediments from six sites along the Seattle waterfront and around
Harbor Island were tested (Ott et al. in prep). Several sites from this
study, including south of Harbor Island in the Duwamish River which served
as a "toxic control", were reoccupied and tested with the flow-through
system by Ott (in prep) and Ross et al. (1984). The two flow-through studies
tested 10 sediments primarily from the Duwamish estuary, (Ott in prep)
and 28 sediments from the southern shoreline of inner and outer Elliott
Bay near Duwamish Head (Ross et al. 1984).
Only two of the acceptable amphipod studies for the Elliott Bay database,
involving 4 of 86 sediments, used fresh sediments within 96 h of collection
(Battelle Northwest 1985; Ott et al. in prep), as recommended by Swartz
et al. (1984). Therefore, it was decided for the purpose of this initial
data analysis to include studies with frozen sediments in the database.
Only two oyster embryo tests (Chapman et al. 1983; E.V.S. Consultants
1984a,b) were acceptable for the Elliott Bay database (Appendix A). The
101
-------
accepted studies involved 18 sediments and followed the same protocol (Chapman
and Morgan 1983) as described above.
Station locations for the accepted bioassay studies are shown in Map 12.
Bioassays were conducted with sediment samples from a total of 104 stations.
No bioassay data are available for the Duwamish Head/Alki Beach area.
Reference Area DataFor amphipod bioassays, sediments used as native
sand controls in the accepted studies were used for reference purposes.
These included sediments from West Beach, Bowman Bay, and Yaquina Bay.
Mean amphipod mortality in each substrate is shown in Figure 16. Although
mean mortality was low (7 percent) in all native sands, the variability
in response was generally much higher in frozen sediments than in fresh
sediments, with the exception of one E.V.S. study. [The exceptionally
high variability in the E.V.S. study (1984b) was attributed to one replicate
with 45 percent mortality]. Thus, effects of using frozen sediment were
apparent even within the controls. Oyster abnormality in control sediment
from West Beach was 6.1 percent, which is equivalent to corresponding seawater
controls (Chapman et al. 1982b).
Elevation Above Reference (EAR) AnalysisWithin each study, mortality
or abnormality (as appropriate) was compared between test and control sediments
using appropriate statistical methods (one way ANOVA, Dunnett's test, Student's
t-test) (Zar 1974). By dividing the test sediment means for each station
by the control average, a ratio was obtained indicating the relative magnitude
of sediment toxicity as an elevation above reference (EAR) value. Results
of these analyses were plotted to show both statistically significant differ-
ences in response and the magnitude of the differences in response between
control and test sediments (Map 13). Stations exhibiting greater than
40 percent response or greater than 90 percent response in sediment toxicity
bioassays are indicated in Table 26.
To obtain mean EAR values for each of the 12 study areas in the Elliott
Bay system, data from all stations within each area were averaged separately
for the amphipod and oyster bioassays. Mean mortality, abnormality, and
EAR values are summarized by area in Table 27.
For Area 1 (Magnolia) the mean EAR is 1.1 for amphipods and 0.5 for
oysters. There was no toxicity in any of the five amphipod or single oyster
tests conducted in this section. However, stations were concentrated near
West Point and the 32nd Avenue W. storm drain, leaving the entire shoreline
north of the Fourmile Rock area untested.
For the Seattle Waterfront-North (Area 2), the mean EAR is 2.3 for
amphipods and 4.9 for oysters. Sediments for all eight amphipod assays
and the single oyster assay were collected in the vicinity of the Denny
Way CSO. Tests yielded variable results, with mortality (EAR) generally
higher in sediments from, near, or to the north of the CSO. These same
sediments from near or to the north of the CSO coincidentally contained
a higher percentage of fine particles than sediments to the south of the
CSO. There is no information for the area along the shoreline to the north
of the Denny Way CSO.
102
-------
o
til
o
tL
in
a.
35-1
30-
25-
20-
15-
10-
ป
5-
I
I!'
BOWMAN
BAY, WA
WEST BEACH, WA
D
A
O
A
O
REFERENCE
Cm (in prep)
Cummins 1984
Chapman et al. 1984
EVS Consultants 1984a
EVS Consultants 1984b
Ottetal. (in prep)
Stober and Chew 1984
Comiskeyetal. 1984
SEDIMENT
Fresh
Fresh
Fresh
Frozen
Frozen
Frozen
Fresh
Fresh
NEWPORT,
OR
Figure 16. Mean percent mortality of amphipods in native sand
control sediments.
103
-------
TABLE 26. AMPHIPOD AND OYSTER BIOASSAY RESPONSE EXCEEDING
40 PERCENT AND 90 PERCENT RESPONSE CRITERIA
Area
3
3
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
6
6
6
11
12
12
12
12
12
Seattle Water-
front South
Seattle Water-
front South
East Waterway
East Waterway
East Waterway
East Waterway
East Waterway
East Waterway
East Waterway
East Waterway
East Waterway
West Waterway
West Waterway
West Waterway
Inner Elliott Bay
Outer Elliott Bay
Outer Elliott Bay
Outer Elliott Bay
Outer Elliott Bay
Outer Elliott Bay
Station
ME29-S0090
ME29-S0093
EV12-A&D
EV13-6
EV13-7
EV13-8
EV13-10
EV13-11
EV13-12
EV13-13
ME29-S0092
CP2-21
OT1-10030
ME29-S0091
UW6-118
ME29-0128
UW6-109
UW6-113
UW6-114
UW6-128
Amphipod Oyster
Mortality % Abnormality9 %
>40% >90% >40%
62
46
98
57 49
83 72
57 54
47
48 41
43
48
56
78
63
47
45
57
44
43
49
41
a No stations showed greater than 90 percent abnormalities in oyster larvae
bioassay.
104
-------
TABLE 27. SUMMARY OF MEAN ELEVATION ABOVE REFERENCE (EAR)
VALUES FOR AMPHIPOD AND OYSTER SEDIMENT BIOASSAYS
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Area
Magnolia
Seattle Water-
front North
Seattle Water-
front South
North Harbor
Island
East Waterway
West Waterway
Kellogg Island
Amphipod Mean
N Mortality EAR
5
8
4
4
3
3
3
9.
17.
35.
6.
47.
31.
27.
5
0
0
3
3
5
5
1.
2.
4-
0.
6.
3.
3.
1
3
93
9
83
83
13
Oyster Mean
N Abnormality EAR
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
3
30
2
6
36.9
78
2
0.
4.
0.
1.
6.
12.
0.
5
93
3
03
13
8
3
8 Upper Duwamish
Estuary 1 8.3 1.2 1 31 5.1*
9 Duwamish Head/A!ki
Beach NA NA
10 Fournm'le Rock
Disposal Site
11 Inner Elliott Bay
12 Outer Elliott Bay
Reference0
10
12
18
3
19.0
23.0
32.0
7.0
2.7
3.33
5.43
--
NA
NA
NA
6.1
a Significantly different from average reference conditions (P<0.05).
b Reference sites included Bowman Bay (WA), West Beach (WA), and Yaquina
Bay (OR).
N = Number of stations.
NA = Adequate data not available.
105
-------
Along Seattle Waterfront-South (Area 3), the mean EAR is 4.9 for amphipods
and 0.3 for oysters. Sediments for four of the five amphipod assays and
the single oyster assay were collected in the vicinity of the ferry terminal
at Pier 54. Amphipod mortality (EAR) was generally higher in sediments
closer to shore. Response to sediment contamination was not consistent
among amphipod studies or between amphipod and oyster bioasssays, varying
from 2 percent abnormality for oysters to 62 percent mortality for amphipods.
Sediment from the single site to the north of the East Waterway was moderately
toxic to amphipods.
In Area 4 (North Harbor Island), the mean EAR is 0.9 for amphipods
and 1.0 for oysters. There was no significant toxicity in sediments from
any of the four amphipod single oyster tests. Spatial coverage of the
stations was not great, as three of these stations were located together
in the nearshore area between Pier 2 and Fairmount Avenue.
For the East Waterway (Area 5), the mean EAR is 6.8 for amphipods
and 6.1 for oysters. Sediments were highly toxic to both amphipods and
oysters at all but one of the 12 stations sampled. Amphipods were either
as sensitive as or more sensitive than oysters in the nine sediments tested
simultaneously with both assays. Despite the relatively large number of
sediments collected in this section, nine stations were concentrated near
Pier 32. Spatial coverage of this waterway was therefore quite limited.
For the West Waterway (Area 6), the mean EAR is 3.8 for amphipods
and 12.8 for oysters. Variable toxicity was obtained in the five sediments
tested with amphipods, often from sediments retested from the same station.
High toxicity occurred in the single sample tested with oysters. One site
midway up the waterway was reoccupied by three different studies, so spatial
coverage in this waterway was also limited.
In the Kellogg Island area (Area 7), the mean EAR is 3.1 for amphipods
and 0.3 for oysters. Sediments for all five amphipod assays and for the
single oyster assay were collected immediately south of Harbor Island.
Low to high toxicity was demonstrated in the sediments tested with amphipods;
high toxicity was reported at the single site tested by both methods.
In the Upper Duwamish Estuary (Area 8), the mean EAR is 1.2 for amphipods
and 5.1 for oysters. Sediment from only one station near the 14th Street
bridge, located approximately 6 km upstream, was tested. This sediment
was not toxic to amphipods, but it was toxic to oyster larvae.
For the Fourmile Rock Disposal Site (Area 10), the mean EAR is 2.7
for amphipods. There are no data for oysters. Low to moderate toxicity
was found in the ten sediments tested with amphipods. Toxicity was more
pronounced in sediments located in the middle and to the west of the disposal
area than in sediments to the east of the disposal area.
In Inner Elliott Bay (Area 11), the mean EAR is 3.3 for amphipods.
There are no data for oysters. Low to moderate toxicity was reported in
the 12 sediments tested. In general, toxicity was more pronounced in the
eastern and shallower area of the bay. Offshore of the Denny Way CSO and
in the central portion of the Bay, sediments were less toxic despite high
percentages of fine-grained sediments.
106
-------
In Outer Elliott Bay (Area 12), the mean EAR is 5.4 for amphipods.
There are no data for oysters. No mortality was obtained in the two sandy
sediments offshore of West Point. This result contrasts with the high
toxicity obtained in the majority of tests conducted on 16 sediment samples
collected from the canyon to the southeast of the Fourmile Rock Disposal
Site. However, all of the latter sediments were extremely fine-grained
(silt-clays) and frozen prior to bioassays. Thus, amphipod response may
be an artifact of methodology or grain size-related variables such as high
TOC, rather than a response to sediment contamination.
BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATE COMMUNITIES
A summary evaluation of 37 documents containing pertinent benthic
infaunal data for Elliott Bay from 1968 to 1985 is presented in Appendix A.
Twelve studies (both intertidal and subtidal) were accepted for inclusion
in the Elliott Bay database. Several other studies were used as reference
data.
General Overview: Temporal Trends
Studies examining temporal trends in benthic infaunal communities
within the study area were conducted before 1980. Data from these studies
do not provide an accurate assessment of present benthic community structure.
However, they are valuable for characterizing seasonal and long-term changes
that have occurred in Elliott Bay. It should be noted that documentation
of long-term trends is complicated by changes in taxonomic expertise and
sampling effort within and among studies.
Intertidal Communities
Seasonal Changes Intertidal communities exhibit seasonal variations
in species richness and abundance. Maximum abundance occurs during the
summer and fall months in Elliott Bay (Armstrong 1977). Armstrong (1977)
found species richness to be greatest in the fall at West Point and Alki
Beach (Table 28).
Long-Term Changes Long-term changes in species abundance and richness
have been documented for West Point intertidal communities (Staude 1979).
Total abundance increased dramatically over the 4-yr period from 1971 to
1975 at West Point (Figure 17). This increase appears to be influenced
primarily by increased polychaete abundance. Species richness also increased
at West Point during this period (Figure 18). No other data are available
to document long-term changes in intertidal community variables in Elliott
Bay.
Subtidal Communities
Seasonal Changes Subtidal community variables tend to show a summer
maximum. Abundance and biomass measured at two areas in southern Elliott
Bay were greatest during the summer (Figure 19). Mean abundances from
six sites in Elliott Bay and from three sites from the lower Duwamish River
(Figure 20) show similar seasonal variations, with maximum abundances occurring
during the summer.
107
-------
TABLE 28. THE NUMBER OF INTERTIDAL MACROINVERTEBRATE SPECIES
COLLECTED PER MIXED-SEDIMENT TRANSECT BY ALL
QUANTITATIVE SAMPLING METHODS
Transect
Alki 9
Alki 10
West Point 10
West Point 19
July, 1975
49
56
54
51
Number of
October, 1975
78
80
77
66
Species Collected
January, 1976
54
66
71
41
April, 1976
49
63
71
46
Reference: Armstrong (1977).
108
-------
1500
V)
<
o
ฃ 1000
o
z
u.
O
cc
UJ
m
5
z
500
<
O
_B/yALVlA
1971
1973
1975
REFERENCE: STAUDE 1979
Figure 17. Total abundance of major infaunal groups for each
survey at West Point.
109
-------
4 - NO CHANGE (-1 to+1 งp)
- INCREASED 2 to S top
INCREASED 6 to 10 (pp
INCREASED 11 to 15 ipp
INCREASED 16 to 20 ซpp
O - DECREASED 2 10 5 ipp
REFERENCE: STAUDE 1979
Figure 18. Change in faunal species richness at all sample
sites at West Point from 1971 to 1975.
110
-------
$00
0
I
100.
I
-i
REFERENCE: DEXTER ET AL., 1981
Figure 19. Seasonal changes in abundance and biomass of
subtidal benthos in Elliott Bay.
Ill
-------
140
Z> 120-
<
u:
O
cc
*_
QJ ฐ 10ฐ ~
H .re
DC &
CD T5
UJ -0
fe -s
UJ c BU
MEAN ABUNDANCE OF BENTHIC INV
(numbers/IOOOcm3, ฑ sta
IO A O>
3 O O O
1 1 1
T
I
I
I
I
1
I
i
f!
.
jj
T
I
i
i
i
i
" 1
i
1;
I;
T
1
1
1
I1
WINTER SPRING SUMMER FALL
| g | ELLIOTT BAY
t-ป -^ -H DUWAMISH WATERWAY
REFERENCE: DEXTER ET AL.. 1981
Figure 20. Seasonal infaunal abundance from inner Elliott
Bay and Duwamish Waterways. Stations with maximum
and minimum abundance (symbols) with standard
deviation (lines) are plotted.
112
-------
Long-Term ChangesLong-term monitoring of subtidal infaunal cormiunities
has not been conducted in Elliott Bay. Lie and Evans (1973) analyzed long-term
variability in benthic communities in central Puget Sound from 1963 to
1969, and concluded that deep-water communities are relatively stable.
The recent Seahurst Baseline Study (Word et al. 1984a) resampled a site
in central Puget Sound that had been sampled by Nichols, and found a significant
increase in species abundance and richness. Although this study investigated
long-term changes at only one site, it suggests that changes are occurring
in the subtidal communities of Elliott Bay.
General Overview: Spatial Trends
Seven studies conducted in Elliott Bay since 1980 provide an assessment
of present conditions in intertidal and subtidal benthic communities.
Extensive data were collected from West Point, Magnolia Bluff, Duwamish
Head, and Alki Beach. Several other areas (Terminal 90/91, Denny Way CSO,
North Harbor Island dredge disposal site and Kellogg Island) were sampled
in localized areas.
Intertidal and Nearshore Communities--
Distribution of HabitatsStober and Pierson (1984) defined six intertidal
and nearshore (depth <50 ft) habitat types for the study area (Figure 21).
These habitats have been highly modified by human activity. The majority
of the intertidal/nearshore areas in Elliott Bay are sand or sandy mud
habitats. Most infauna are associated with three habitat types: sand/sandy
mud, cobble/mixed sediment, and eelgrass beds (Armstrong 1977; Stober and
Chew 1984).
Benthic Community Variables Stober and Chew (1984) described the
intertidal nearshore benthic communities along Magnolia Bluff and Duwamish
Head-Alki Beach. Polychaetes, molluscs, and crustaceans were dominant
in each habitat, but characteristic, dominant species varied with each
habitat type.
No other recent data characterize the intertidal species assemblages
of these two areas. Older data from West Point (Armstrong 1977) indicate
that other species may be dominant in a cobble and mixed sediment habitat.
In general, mixed sediment ("cobble") habitats support greater infaunal
abundances than do nearshore eelgrass beds, which in turn support greater
abundances than do sand and sandy mud habitats (Figure 22). However, past
data indicate comparable habitats may support different numbers of species
and abundances depending on location with Elliott Bay. Armstrong (1977)
found infaunal abundances at West Point to be approximately 2.5 times greater
than those at a comparable habitat at Alki Point. A greater number (3 times)
of species was also found at West Point.
Little (<5 ha) intertidal habitat occurs in the remaining areas of
Elliott Bay and no recent data exist. Armstrong et al. (1978) sampled
two small coves near the Denny Way CSO and found these areas were dominated
by Capitella capitata, and appeared to be highly stressed. Only oligochaetes
and one isopod species occurred at the outfall, and species richness was
113
-------
PILING
L
J
SAN) WO
SAWT HB
\///\
OTBLEAW
BOULDER
LXXX]
RIPRAP
Y/////A
EELGRASS
12828221
HELP BED
300
275
250
225
200
175
ISO
125
100
75
50
25
0
HABITATS IN ELLIOTT BAY
INTERTIDAL TO -50ft
HECTARES
ALKI TOOH
T:
OH TO PIER 80 PIER BO TO 4>I.RK tel.RK TO VEST PT
REGION
REFERENCE: STOBER AND PIERSON 1984
Figure 21. Surface areas of intertidal habitat types by shoreline segments in
Elliott Bay to -50 ft.
-------
SMALL INFAUNA DENSITY
80
70
60
50
40 I-
30
20
10
no.
sq. en
AA
AS AC AD AE1
AE2 Ml
SITE
H2
SC SS SLC
SUBSTRATE
Alki
Magnolia
SAND
COBBLE
AA
AB
AC
AD
Ml
M2
EELGRASS
AE1
AE2
Smith Cove
Seahurst
SC
SS
SLC
SE
REFERENCE: STOBER AND CHEW 1984
Figure 22. Mean densities for summer sampling of small infaunal
organisms recorded during sorting.
115
-------
poor in all samples. Leon (1980) found intertidal habitats at Kellogg
Island to be dominated by the infaunal polychaetes Manayunkia aestuarina,
Capitella spp., and oligochaeta. He concluded these communities were responding
to physical stresses (freshwater influx, ship scouring, and other physical
disturbances).
Subtidal Communities--
Distribution of Habitats--Subtida1 habitats within Elliott Bay are
diverse, reflecting the variability of sediment types and the wide depth
ranges found within the study area. Subtidally, sediments range from gravel
to mud, and depths range to 600 ft.
In this study, six habitat types were identified in Elliott Bay based
on depth, sediment grain size, general bottom topography, and community
structure (Table 29). These habitat definitions are tentative and are
based on a limited data set. Sand habitats dominate at depths of 50-300 ft
in outer Elliott Bay. As shown in Map 3 above, sediments at greater depths
have increasing percentages of fine grain sizes (i.e., silt and clay).
At approximately 600 ft, sediments are primarily mud (silt and clay).
The sediments of inner Elliott Bay reflect the influence of the Duwamish
River, particularly in the southern and eastern portions of the bay. Sediments
in these shallow regions of the bay contain a substantial percentage of
silt or clay, and are usually classified as muddy sand or sandy mud.
Community Variables--Infaunal species assemblages in Puget Sound have
been shown to be strongly associated with depth and sediment type (Lie
1968; Word et al. 1984a). Data from nonurban areas in central Puget Sound
indicate that shallow, sandy habitats are dominated by the ostracod Euphilomedes
carcharodonta, the bivalve Psephidia lordi, the amphipod Rhepoxynius abronius,
and the gastropod Bittium spp., while deep, muddy sediments are characterized
by the ostracod Euphilomedej producta, the polychaete Mediomastus spp.,
and the bivalves Axinopsida serricata and Macoma carlottensis (Word et
al. 1984a).
Sand and mud habitats in outer Elliott Bay are generally represented
by the same taxa that dominate the Puget Sound central basin. One exception
is the area near Fourmile Rock (along Magnolia Bluff). This area appears
to be characterized by species responding to organic enrichment and high
currents. According to Thorn et al. (1979), this area is still heavily
influenced by the Duwamish River.
Shallow (less than 200 ft), finer sediments in inner Elliott Bay are
typified by the presence of the following dominant taxa: the polychaete
Polydora websteri, the ostracod Euphilomedes carcharodonta, the bivalves
Axinopsida serricata and Macoma carlottensis, and euclymenid polychaetes
(Stober and Chew 1984; Comiskey et al. 1984). Deeper areas of inner Elliott
Bay share many of the same taxa, but frequencies of occurrence and abundance
differ from those in shallow areas. The polychaetes Mediomastus spp., Lumbri-
neris spp., and Syllidae are common between the 300- and 400-ft depth contour
in inner Elliott Bay. Areas within the Elliott Bay system that experience
a high degree of environmental variability or organic enrichment (e.g.,
lower Duwamish River and Denny Way CSO) are characterized by high abundances
116
-------
TABLE 29. TENTATIVE HABITAT TYPES FOR
ELLIOTT BAY BENTHIC COMMUNITIES
Outer Elliott Bay Inner Elliott Bay
Depth
50-100 ft Shallow sand Shallow muddy sand
100-300 ft Shelf sand Shelf sandy mud
300-400 ft -ซ Transitional habitats
(steep slope)
500 ft + -ซ Deep water mud
117
-------
of the polychaetes Capitella capltata. Mediomastus spp., Lumbrineridae,
and Spionidae.
Several simple biological patterns have been identified for infaunal
conmunities in Elliott Bay (Stober and Chew 1984). Generally, total infaunal
abundance decreases with increasing depth (Figure 23). The number of taxa
also decreases with increasing depth (Figure 24), except in outer Elliott
Bay, where the maximum number of taxa occurs at 200 ft.
Stober and Chew (1984) found that stations in inner Elliott Bay usually
exhibited a decrease (30-50 percent) in the number of taxa compared with
similar sites in outer Elliott Bay and central Puget Sound. The mean number
of taxa in inner Elliott Bay ranged from 11 to 104 (1< = 41.4), while the
mean number in outer Elliott Bay ranged from 33 to 128 ("x=65.1). The presence
of fewer taxa in the inner bay may not represent the general condition
because station locations were not randomly or uniformly distributed.
The stations in inner Elliott Bay were localized in areas where depressions
in species richness might be anticipated (e.g., Terminal 90/91, Denny Way
CSO, and the northern Harbor Island area).
Data Synthesis
Choice of Indicators--
Recent data (1980 to present) for Elliott Bay subtidal benthic corrmunities
were summarized in this study using the following four variables:
t Species richness
Total abundance
Amphipod abundance
Dominance.
Species richness (number of taxa) and total abundance (number of individuals)
are commonly reported variables in benthic studies that have been used
extensively to evaluate pollution effects (e.g., Pearson and Rosenberg
1978). Power analyses have shown that species richness is a precise measure
of community changes relative to other benthic variables. Significant
statistical differences can be detected using a few (^2) 0.1-m2 samples,
making this variable an efficient tool with which to evaluate community
responses to pollution. Total abundance generally exhibits more within-station
variability than does species richness, and is therefore a less powerful
statistical measure than is species richness. But changes in total abundances
do occur in response to pollutant stresses (see Pearson and Rosenberg,
1978), and may be tested statistically.
Amphipod abundance was included in the existing data summaries to
facilitate the identification of toxic problem areas. Amphipods are among
the infaunal groups most sensitive to environmental degradation (Bellan-Santini
1980; Oakden et al. 1984). Swartz et al. (1982) have shown a correlation
between amphipod abundance and sediment toxicity (i.e., depressed amphipod
abundances occur in areas of sediment contamination).
118
-------
ELLIOTT BAY BASELINE:: AE3UNDANCE
MEAN VALUES ALL TRAMSECTS
01
E
O
CK
0.
U.
O
CK
m
2
CJ
z
0.2
50-100 200
400
f>00 600 700 +
DEPTH INTEFT^AL (FT.)
D INNER BAY O OUTER BAY A OUTSIDE ELLIOTT BAY
REFERENCE: STOBER AND CHEW 1984
Figure 23. Mean total abundance (mean values all transects) for each depth contour
at stations sampled during the July, 1984 Elliott Bay baseline survey.
-------
ro
o
o"
or
UJ
a.
u.
O
UJ
m
ELLIOTT BAY BASELINE: NUMBER OF TAXA
MEAN VALUES ALL TRANSECTS
1.30
120 -
110 -
100 -
90 -
80 -
70 -
50 -
50 -
40 -
.30 -
50-100 200
.300
400
500
600
700 +
o INNER BAY
DEPTH INTERVAL (FT.)
OUTER BAY o OUTSIDE ELLIOTT DAY
REFERENCE: STOBER AMD CHEW 1904
Figure 24. Mean total number of taxa (mean values all transects) for each depth
contour at stations sampled during the July, 1984 Elliott Bay base-
line survey.
-------
Dominance is defined as the minimum number of species that contribute
75 percent of the total abundance in a given sample (see Swartz et al.
in press). This index is easily calculated and provides useful information
on the dispersion of individuals among the species in a benthic community.
It is also not subject to many of the practical and theoretical problems
that plague most diversity indices (see Washington 1984).
Available Data--
Only data from the last 5 yr meeting criteria for acceptance were
used to characterize Elliott Bay benthic communities and to identify toxic
problem areas. No intertidal data were evaluated further because of their
limited use in defining toxic problem areas. Also, the intertidal areas
within Elliott Bay are restricted to Magnolia Bluff and Duwamish Head/Alki
Beach. In addition, total intertidal area in the bay is less than approximately
135 ha (Stober and Pierson 1984) and intertidal benthos represents a small
portion of the total benthic community. The following six studies were
accepted for use in characterizing subtidal benthic infaunal communities
and defining problem areas:
METRO TPPS Report C2; Comiskey et al. 1984
t Duwamish Head Baseline; Stober and Chew 1984
Port of Seattle, Terminal 90/91 Studies; Port of Seattle
1980
Kellogg Island Benthic Community Impact Study; Leon 1980
Denny Way CSO Impact Study; Armstrong et al. 1978, 1980
t Seahurst Baseline; Word et al. 1984a.
In-depth statistical analyses were not performed on the existing data
due to inherent limitations in the two major studies (TPPS and the Duwamish
Head Baseline.) These two studies were designed to evaluate the effects
of an existing and a future sewage outfall, respectively. As part of their
study designs, replicate samples were only partially analyzed or were analyzed
only for selected stations. Therefore, the data sets are incomplete, and
are of limited utility for statistical testing.
Station Locations--
More than 80 stations were sampled in Elliott Bay as part of the six
accepted subtidal benthic community studies (Map 14). The majority of
those stations were distributed in areas offshore from Magnolia Bluff (Areas
1 and 12) and Duwamish Head/Alki Beach (Areas 9 and 12). Additional stations
were sampled at Terminals 90 and 91 (Area 2), the Denny Way CSO (Area 2),
North Harbor Island (Area 4), Inner Elliott Bay (Area 11), and Kellogg
Island (Area 7). No stations were located within any of the remaining
areas of Elliott Bay (i.e., Seattle Waterfront-South, Duwamish waterways,
the Upper Duwamish Estuary, and the Fourmile Rock Disposal Site).
121
-------
Reference Conditions--
Benthic community structure varies greatly in response to sediment
type and depth. Numbers of individuals and taxa, as well as the presence
or absence of certain species, are characteristic for various sediment
types at a given depth stratum. Because of this variability, multiple
reference conditions representing combinations of habitat depths with sediment
types were defined for selected benthic community variables.
Data collected from central Puget Sound during the Seahurst Baseline
Study (Word et al. 1984a) are used below to provide reference conditions
for some areas of Elliott Bay. All Seahurst stations sampled during the
summer of 1982 were evaluated. Reference station depths ranged from 50
to 720 ft. Four sediment types were represented among the stations sampled.
Sand was the dominant sediment type from 50 to 200 ft. Most 400-ft stations
occurred on the steep eastern slope in the central basin. This area appears
to be transitional between sand and mud, and is characterized by three
sediment types sand, muddy sand, and sandy mud. The deepest stations
were primarily mud, although a few stations were sandy mud.
Mean values for each of the four selected variables within a given
substrate and depth category were calculated in this study using selected
Seahurst stations (Table 30). Benthic community structure at the reference
stations was found to be highly associated with depth and sediment type.
Each depth stratum had characteristic, numerically dominant taxa that occurred
at most of the stations sampled (Table 31). Total abundance was greatest
at the 50-ft depth and decreased with increasing depth thereafter (Figure 25).
Amphipod abundance also decreased with increasing depth (Figure 26). Variables
reflecting number of taxa (total taxa, dominance index) displayed a slightly
different pattern. Maximum values occurred at 200 ft and subsequently
decreased at the deeper stations (Figures 27 and 28).
Elevation Above Reference (EAR) Analysis--
Mean reference values (Table 30) were used to calculate elevations
above reference (EAR) for each study area station that exhibited similar
physical conditions (see Maps 15-18). A mean EAR for each community variable
was then calculated for each of the areas in Outer Elliott Bay (see Figure 9
for area boundaries). Due to the influence of the Duwamish River on sediment
types in Inner Elliott Bay, no appropriate reference comparison could be
made using Seahurst data. Moreover, no other reference data for these
habitat types exists. For this reason no EAR analysis was performed for
Inner Elliott Bay areas.
A comparison of mean EAR by study area showed that the values of all
benthic community variables were enhanced (EAR<1) within the Magnolia Bluff
(Area 1) and Alki Beach (Area 9) areas (Table 32). However, amphipod abundances
in Area 1 and dominance values in Area 9 were depressed, suggesting the
influence of nearby CSO outfalls.
In Outer Elliott Bay (Area 12), all community variables were depressed
from reference conditions (EAR>1) except total abundance, which was slightly
enhanced (EAR=0.9). Evaluation of EAR on a per station basis showed that
the greatest number of depressed stations occurred at depths 600 ft or
122
-------
TABLE 30. SUMMARY REFERENCE CONDITIONS FOR
BENTHIC INFAUNAL COMMUNITY VARIABLES
Depth
50 ft
75-100 ft
200 ft
300-400 ft
600 ft +
Sediment
Type
sand
sand
sand
sand
muddy
sand
sandy
mud
sandy
mud
mud
Total
Abundance
x" (s.d.)
635 (106)
546 (143)
433 (96)
386 (184)
560 (80)
411 (151)
335 (93)
184 (76)
Total
Taxa
x (s.d.)
73 (23)
79 (16)
88 (20)
74 (16)
82 (3)
64 (1)
62 (17)
43 (10)
Amphipod
Abundance
x (s.d.)
51 (16)
46 (22)
18 (3)
20 (21)
33 (16)
13 (5)
15 (4)
21 (6)
Dominance
Index
Y (s.d.)
10 (10)
12 (7)
26 (9)
20 (3)
17 (4)
11 (8)
16 (11)
14 (4)
123
-------
TABLE 31. DOMINANT TAXA BY DEPTH IN CENTRAL PUGET SOUNDa
Depth Species
50-100 ft Euphilomedes carcharodonta (c)
Rheppxynius abronius(c)
Psephidia lordi(m)
Bittium Tpp. (m)
200 ft Nereis spp. (p)
Euphilomedes producta (c)
Megacrenella columbiana (m)
400 ft Mediomastus spp. (p)
Potamilla occelata (p)
Sigambra tentaculata (p)
600 ft and deeper Axinopsida serricata (m)
Macoma c"aFlottensis (m)
a Taxa greater than 33 percent frequency.
p = Polychaeta.
c = Crustacea.
m = Mollusca.
124
-------
700-
55"
o 60ฐ-
H
ง
-! 500-
<.
cc
UJ
8
|JJ 400-
s
_J
Q.
UJ
0^ 300-
UJ
O
<
Q
Z 200-
^
m
<
z
UJ 100-
2
SAND(
1
0 25
i
<
I SAND
ซ
(
I SAND
Bar = ฑ Standard deviation
//
50 75 100 200
^ป
t
1
f
ALL !
SEDIMENT .
TYPES I
t
g
t
t
t
ฑ
^^^^
y MUDDY SAND
/ 1
1 ^~
(
(
ป
-^ SANDY MUD
ISANO
"*" ( 1 SANDY MUD
ALL -J.T
SEDIMENT! >
TYPES
A MUD
fc ^^ ,-
^^^^^i^
-A.
- -
|
1 1 1
300 400 500 600
DEPTH (feet)
Figure 25. Reference conditions for total abundance by depth and sediment type.
-------
ro
70 -i
60 -
UJ W
0 ฃ 50
40-
5ง
"uj
10 -
SAND
SAND
SAND*
I
25
50
1^
75
1
100
Bar = i Standard deviation
ALL
SEDIMENT
TYPES
MUDDY SAND
-SAND
T
1
ALL :
SEDIMENT
TYPES 5
SANDY MUD
1
MUD
SANDY MUD
200 300
400
500
600
DEPTH (feet)
Figure 26. Reference conditions for amphipod abundance by depth and sediment type.
-------
to
ง
g
UJ
o
01
cc
UJ
u.
UJ
oc
<
cc
o
o.
UJ
cc
O
z
UJ
100 -i
90 -
80-
70-
50 -
40 -
30-
SANDI
SAND I
SAND
ALL
SEDIMENT
TYPES
I MUDDY SAND
I SAND
SANDY MUD
ALL
SEDIMENT
TYPES
SANDY MUD
Bar = i Standard deviation
1111
0 25 60 75 100
200 300
DEPTH (feet)
l
400
I
500
600
Figure 27- Reference conditions for species richness by
depth and sediment type.
127
-------
rv>
09
o.
LU
Q
m
35-
30-
25-
20-
X
UJ
Q
? 15-J
UJ
O
o
Q
10-
5-
SAND
SAND
SAND
0 25 50 75 100
Bar = i Standard deviation
ALL
SEDIMENT
TYPES
-SAND
-MUDDY SAND
ALL
SEDIMENT
TYPES
SANDY MUD
- SANDY MUD
MUD
200 300
DEPTH (feet)
400
\^
500
I
600
Figure 28. Reference conditions for dominance index by depth and sediment type.
-------
TABLE 32. MEAN VALUES AND ELEVATIONS ABOVE REFERENCE (EARs)
FOR BENTHIC COMMUNITY VARIABLES
fM
No.
Area Stations
Magnol ia
Waterfront North
North Harbor Island
Kellogg Island
Duwamish Head/AIki Beach
Inner Elliott Bay
Outer Elliott Bay
14
27
4
5
78
12
37
Mean No.
Satnpl es
per Station
1
2
1
3
1.75
1.08
1.84
Mean
Total
Abundance
658
356
914
898
901
366
381
Mean
Mean Total Mean
EAR Tax a EAR
0.9 110 0.7
34
76
29
0.7 87 0.9
48
0.9 53 1.2
Mean
flmphipod Mean
Abundance EAR
19 >17
7
4
16
90 0.7
12
14 1.6
Mean
Dominance
Index
22
7
11
5
10
7
10
Mean
EAR
0.6
1.6
3.1
Blanks indicate that EAR could not be calculated because adequate reference data was unavailable
for the depth and substrate type within the area.
-------
greater, and that the least number of depressed variables occurred at the
shallowest depth (200 ft) sampled in Area 12. Conventional organic variables
(TOC, BOD, TVS, organic nitrogen) increased in concentration with increasing
depth in this same area (Stober and Chew 1984). Benthic communities in
deep-water areas may be responding to increased organic matter content
consistent with the Pearson-Rosenburg model for organic enrichment effects.
Further data are needed to evaluate the effects of organic enrichment in
Outer Elliott Bay.
To evaluate areas of Elliott Bay where no elevations above reference
could be calculated, all study areas were ranked based on the mean area
values for each benthic community variable. For each variable, the area
with the highest value received the highest rank. Cumulative ranks for
all variables in each area were used for comparisons. Magnolia (Area 1)
and Duwamish Head/Alki Beach (Area 9) had the highest overall ranks (24
and 23.5, respectively, out of a possible rank of 28). All other areas
had lower rankings, including Outer Elliott Bay. Seattle Waterfront-North
(Area 2), Inner Elliott Bay (Area 11), and Kellogg Island (Area 7) had
the lowest rankings (7.5, 10.5 and 12, respectively) reflecting the fewest
number of taxa and individuals in the benthic community. Comparison of
overall ranking suggests that Seattle Waterfront-North has the most degraded
benthic communities in Elliott Bay, followed by Inner Elliott Bay, and
Kellogg Island. The available data were insufficient to rank Areas 3,
5, 6, 8, and 10.
PATHOLOGY
Pathological conditions in fish and invertebrates of Elliott Bay and
the lower Duwamish River are described in the following sections.
General Overview
Tissue abnormalities such as liver and skin lesions are indicators
of organism health that may relate to levels of environmental contamination.
Recent studies (e.g., Malins et al. 1980, 1982, 1984; McCain et al. 1982)
have attempted to link pathological conditions in demersal fishes and inverte-
brates to concentrations of toxic chemicals in sediments. Lesion prevalence
in field populations was correlated with sediment concentrations of broad
classes of chemicals (e.g., metals, PCBs, aromatic hydrocarbons). The
possible influences of organism migration and environmental factors other
than toxic chemicals have not been evaluated adequately. For example,
in seasonally migrating species like English sole, do individual fish return
to the same nearshore habitat each spring? Or does interannual variability
in spatial distribution of most individuals confound the use of such species
as site-specific indicators? Tagging studies and fine-scale sampling may
be needed to determine the relative importance of toxicants and other factors
affecting lesion prevalence. Nevertheless, where relationships among lesion
prevalence, sediment chemistry, and tissue concentrations of toxic chemicals
can be established (e.g., when spatial gradients in variables are apparent),
then pathological conditions are a useful indicator of environmental degra-
dation.
130
-------
Fishes--
Historical data regarding pathological conditions in demersal fishes
from Elliott Bay are reviewed by Stober and Pierson (1984). Major conditions
that may be linked to environmental contamination include fin erosion,
skin tumors, and liver lesions.
Fin Erosion This condition is characterized by a progressive loss
of fin tissue from the margin of the fin toward its base. Although the
etiology (i.e., cause) of fin erosion is unknown, the condition is found
in high prevalences in a variety of polluted environments (e.g., Mearns
and Sherwood 1974; Murchelano and Ziskowski 1976; Wei lings et al. 1976).
In Elliott Bay, fin erosion has been found only in the Duwamish River,
and only in English sole (Parophrys vetulus) and starry flounder (Platichthys
stellatus). Prevalence of this condition ranged from 2.3 to 11.4 percent
in starry flounder and from 0.4 to 1.3 percent in English sole (Miller
et al. 1977; Malins et al. 1982; McCain et al. 1982).
Skin TumorsThese nodules are found on the external surface of flatfishes,
and include three morphological kinds: angioepithelial nodules, angioepithelial
polyps, and epidermal papillomas. These tumors have been found in both
industrialized (Cooper and Keller 1969; Miller and Wellings 1971) and nonin-
dustrialized (McCain et al. 1978, 1979) environments. Although their etiology
is unknown, recent evidence suggests that they may be xenomas caused by
a parasitic amoeba (Dawe 1980; Myers 1981).
In Elliott Bay, skin tumors have been found in English sole from Alki
Point, West Point, and the Duwamish River, and in starry flounder from
the Duwamish River. Tumor prevalence was generally confined to individuals
younger than 2 yr old. The near absence of skin tumors in older fishes
has caused some authors to speculate that the tumors are lethal to affected
individuals.
Although skin tumors have been found in fish from known contaminated
areas of Elliott Bay, they have also been found in relatively high prevalences
at nonurban reference areas in Puget Sound, such as Point Pully (English
sole, Miller et al. 1977) and McAllister Creek (starry flounder, McCain
et al. 1982). Stober and Pierson (1984) concluded that because of the
variable occurrence of skin tumors in both urban and nonurban areas, a
relationship between tumor prevalence and chemical contamination is question-
able.
Liver Lesions Three major kinds of liver lesion have been found in
demersal fishes from Elliott Bay: neoplasms, preneoplasms, and megalocytic
hepatosis. Although a variety of other kinds of liver abnormality have
been found, the three listed above are considered important because their
etiology is unknown and because morphologically similar lesions have been
induced in laboratory manmals and fishes following exposure to toxic chemicals,
including carcinogens (Malins et al. 1984). It is therefore possible that
these three lesions represent effects of sediment contamination in Elliott
Bay. However, it is unknown whether any of these lesions negatively influence
the affected fishes.
131
-------
In Elliott Bay, the three major liver lesions have been found in English
sole, starry flounder, rock sole, (Lepidopsetta bilineata), and Pacific
staghorn sculpin (Leptocottus armatus)(Malins et al. 1980, 1982; McCain
et al. 1982). Although one or more of the three lesions have been found
in one or more of the four species throughout Elliott Bay, highest prevalences
were found along the Seattle Waterfront, around Harbor Island, and throughout
the Duwamish River.
Invertebrates--
Stober and Pierson (1984) reviewed historical data regarding histo-
pathological lesions in invertebrates from Elliott Bay. The only information
available was that collected by Malins et al. (1980, 1982) for polychaetes
(Capitella capitata, Glycera capitata, and Prionospio pinnata), moll uses
(Macoma carlottensis, Macoma nasuta, and Acila castrensis), shrimp (Pandalus
danae, Pandalus jordani, and Crangon alaskensis), and crabs (Cancer magister,
Cancer gracilis, and Cancer productus).
Histopathological lesions observed by Malins et al. (1980, 1982) in
invertebrates throughout Puget Sound are listed in Table 33. Note that
no lesions were found in polychaetes and molluscs. Although several of
these lesions appeared to be more prevalent in invertebrates from Elliott
Bay (especially in the Duwamish River) compared to many other areas of
Puget Sound, low sample sizes did not allow meaningful statistical analysis
of the data (Stober and Pierson 1984). Thus, historical data regarding
lesions in invertebrates suggest (but do not confirm) that prevalences
may be elevated in Elliott Bay. Because the invertebrate data of Malins
et al. (1980, 1982) could not be evaluated statistically, this information
was not considered further in the present study.
Data Synthesis
Choice of Indicators--
Of the three pathological conditions in demersal fishes discussed
earlier (i.e., fin erosion, skin tumors, and liver lesions), only liver
lesions were selected as indicators of sediment contamination in Elliott
Bay. Fin erosion was rejected because its spatial restriction to the Duwamish
River precludes its use for evaluating and comparing study areas outside
the river. Moreover, pooling of fin erosion data from different studies
is questionable because results are so dependent on observer interpretation
of abnormal conditions. Additionally, prevalences of fin erosion are relatively
low, resulting in poor statistical power for discriminating among sites.
Skin tumors were rejected because they have been found in relatively high
prevalences in uncontaminated areas and because they may be the result
of a parasitic amoeba rather than contaminants. Liver lesions were accepted
as indicators because they occur throughout Elliott Bay and the Duwamish
River and because strong circumstantial evidence suggests they result from
exposure to contaminants.
Available Data and Station Locations--
Acceptable historical data related to liver lesions in demersal fishes
from Elliott Bay are limited (see Appendix A for summary of data evaluations).
132
-------
TABLE 33. HISTOPATHOLOGICAL LESIONS OBSERVED IN TARGET
INVERTEBRATE SPECIES COLLECTED FROM PUGET SOUND
Organ or
Tissue Type
Gill
Hepatopancreas
Antenna! gland
Bladder
Midgut
Muscle
Nervous system
Systemic
a Taken from Mai ins
A
B
A
B
C
A
A
A
B
A
A
A
et al.
b Species affected were
magister, C. gracilis, and
Condition
Necrosis
Melanized nodules and
granulomas
Epithelial necrosis and/or
encapsulation
Epithelial metaplasia
Phagocytic activation
Necrosis
Necrosis
Melanized nodules
and granulomas
Hemocytic infiltration
Microsporidan infestation
Trematode infestation
Yeast infestation
(1982).
Crangon alaskenisis (CA); Cancer
C. productus; and panda! id shrimp
Species
affectedb
CA,CC,PS
CC
CA.PS
CC,PS
CA
CC
CC
CA, CC, PS
CC, CA, PS
CC
CC
CA
CA
CA
crabs (CC) , C.
(PS), Pandalus
danae and P. jordani.
133
-------
The studies conducted by Mai ins et al. (1980, 1982, 1984) and McCain et
al. (1982) were used to describe recent conditions in the study area.
Mai ins et al. (1980, 1982, 1984) collected data on English sole, rock sole,
and Pacific staghorn sculpin at 14 stations throughout Elliott Bay and
the Duwamish River from 1979 to 1982 (Map 11). McCain et al. (1982) sampled
English sole and starry flounder at seven stations in the Duwamish River
and West Waterway from 1978 to 1982 (Map 11). Note that two stations were
common to both studies.
Reference Area Data--
Reference data for liver lesions (Table 34) were taken from studies
conducted by Mai ins et al. (1982), McCain et al. (1982), Landolt et al. (1984),
and Tetra Tech (1985a). These data were collected throughout Puget Sound,
from Discovery Bay in the north to Case Inlet in the south. Reference
data for the Duwamish River were kept separate from data for the remainder
of Elliott Bay because the estuarine character of the lower part of the
river makes it a unique habitat.
Elevation Above Reference (EAR) Analysis--
In reporting the results of their study, Malins et al. (1982, 1984)
pooled data across trawl stations for geographic subregions within Elliott
Bay. Because these data were frequently pooled across the study areas
considered in the present study, it was not possible to calculate independent
mean Elevation Above Reference (EAR) values for each study area. Instead,
all study areas included in each pooled data set of Malins et al . (1982,
1984) were given the mean EAR of the pooled data set (Table 35). Note
that no data exist for Duwamish Head/Alki Beach (Area 9), the Fourmile
Rock Disposal Site (Area 10) and Outer Elliott Bay (Area 12). Each mean
EAR was compared to its respective pooled reference data using a 2x2 contingency
test and the chi-square criterion.
For neoplasms, mean EAR were significantly elevated (P<0.05) only
for English sole. These significant elevations were restricted to the
Harbor Island/Duwamish River region (Areas 4-8). No neoplasms were found
for either English sole or rock sole in the Magnolia area (Area 1) or in
Inner Elliott Bay (Area 11).
As with neoplasms, English sole was the only species showing significantly
elevated (P<0.05) EARs for preneoplasms. These significant elevations
were found in the Harbor Island/Duwamish River region (Areas 4-8), as well
as along the Seattle Waterfront (Areas 2 and 3). Preneoplasms were found
in English sole from all study areas having data. By contrast, no preneoplasms
were found in rock sole from Areas 1 and 11.
Significantly elevated (P<0.05) EAR for megalocytic hepatosis were
found for English sole at all study areas having data and for rock sole
at most of these study areas. The only areas not showing significantly
elevated EAR for rock sole were Areas 1 and 11. N
134
-------
TABLE 34. REFERENCE CONDITIONS FOR LIVER LESIONS IN DEMERSAL FISHES
FROM ELLIOTT BAY AND THE DUWAMISH RIVER
OJ
in
Species/Area Study
English sole/ Malln et al . (1982)
Elliott Bay
Landolt et al . (1984)
Tetra Tech (in prep)
Rock sole/ Mai ins et al . (1982)
Elliott Bay
English sole/ McCain et al . (1982)
Duwamish River
Starry flounder/ McCain et al . (1982)
Duwamish River
Reference Area
Case Inlet
Port Susan
Port Madison
Discovery Bay
Seahurst
Point Pully
Saltwater Park
Carr Inlet
TOTAL
PERCENT
Case Inlet
Port Madison
TOTAL
PERCENT
McAllister Creek
PERCENT
McAllister Creek
PERCENT
N
34
33
38
51
93
40
30
120
439
--
28
22
50
--
36
--
38
Neoplasms
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Prevalence
Preneoplasms
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
7
9
2.1
2
2
4
8.0
0
0
0
0
(t)
Megalocytic Hepatosis
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
2
0.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-------
TABLE 35. MEAN ELEVATION ABOVE REFERENCE (EAR) VALUES FOR LIVER
LESIONS IN DEMERSAL FISHES
Area
Magnolia
Seattle Waterfront-North
Seattle Waterfront-South
North Harbor Island
East Waterway
West Waterway
Kellogg Island
Upper Duwamish Estuary
Duwamish Head/Alk1 Beach
Foui-mile Rock Disposal Site
Inner Elliott Bay
Outer Elliott Bay
Reference (Elliott Bay)f
Reference (Duwamish River)?
Spedesa'b
ES
RS
ES
RS
ES
RS
ES
RS
ES
RS
ES
RS
ES
(Mai ins et al.)
ES
(McCain et al.)
SF
(McCain et al.)
ES
(Mai ins et el.)
ES
(McCain et al.)
SF
(McCain et al.)
ES
RS
ES
RS
ES
SF
Elevation Above Reference [EAR)
-------
HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
The purpose of this analysis is to identify the potential for human
health problems from toxic contamination of seafood harvested from Elliott
Bay and the lower Duwamish River. In this approach, available data on
contaminant concentrations in edible tissue of selected marine species
are compared with tissue contamination guidelines derived from analysis
of potential human health effects. The study objectives are to:
For selected species, estimate the magnitude of observed
tissue contamination relative to tissue contamination guidelines
Identify problem chemicals in tissues of selected species
based on the ratio of the observed tissue concentration
to the guideline for each chemical.
All models and general methods used in this analysis are consistent with
risk assessment procedures in U.S. EPA (1980, 1985a) and guidelines proposed
by U.S. EPA (1984a).
Because of data limitations described throughout the text, health
risk assessment is preliminary. Data were sufficient to assess potential
health risks and problem chemicals only for the Elliott Bay system as a
whole. The results of this preliminary analysis are presented as averages
and ranges for the entire project area. The ongoing urban angler study
by NOAA (Landolt et al. 1985) and studies to be conducted by U.S. EPA will
provide further data on the fishing habits of local anglers, species composition
of the recreational catch, and residues of toxic substances in seafood
from Elliott Bay and the Duwamish River. Assessment of potential human
health risks may be refined when the data from these studies become available.
For example, future assessments may: 1) estimate human health risks resulting
from local seafood consumption; 2) identify chemicals responsible for health
risks exceeding some established guideline; and 3) identify problem areas
within the Elliott Bay system based on estimates of potential health risks.
A major objective of the analysis in the future will be to estimate advisable
seafood consumption rates in relation to specified health risk levels.
The selected bioaccumulation data consist of concentrations of individual
chemicals in muscle tissue primarily of English sole, Cancer spp. crabs,
and butter clams (see Appendix F). These species were selected to represent
contamination in the biological community because of their availability
in the project area and because they live in close association with contaminated
bottom sediments. Because few people [<5 percent of interviewees (McCallum
1985)] eat the internal organs of fish or crabs collected from the Elliott
Bay system, risk analysis was conducted only for fish fillets and crab
muscle. The calculations below are restricted to single-species diets.
Limitations of available data precluded consideration of mixed-species
diets.
137
-------
The approach used here may overestimate health risks because the selected
species are expected to be among the most contaminated species available
for harvest. As shown in a later section, English sole may be used as
an indicator of the order-of-magnitude contaminant levels that would be
expected in edible tissues of species caught recreationally. Data were
not sufficient to state that Cancer crabs and butter clams were more or
less contaminated than other species of shellfish. The use of a few selected
species is appropriate for initial screening of geographic areas before
more detailed risk assessments are conducted. If no potential health problems
are identified in this initial analysis, then further data collection may
not be warranted (except for long-term monitoring purposes). If, on the
other hand, the selected-species approach reveals substantial health risks,
then further field surveys may be needed to perform a detailed risk assessment
based on consumption patterns and contaminant concentrations for a wider
variety of harvested species. Recent data for sablefish and Pacific cod
obtained by Landolt et al . (1985) are also included in this preliminary
analysis for comparison with the selected species. Sablefish and cod are
major components of the recreational fishery (McCallum 1985; Landolt et al .
1985). Adequate data for other harvested species, such as salmon, are
not available.
ASSESSMENT METHODS
Background
All risk assessments have two elements in common: 1) exposure evaluation,
or estimation of organism (human) exposure per unit time to toxic chemical(s)
through one or more environmental pathways (e.g., air, water, and food),
and 2) risk characterization, or estimation of the potential for adverse
biological effects (e.g., cancer, mutations, birth defects) associated
with a given exposure. Only one exposure route is considered in this study
(-i.e., consumption of seafood harvested from the Elliott Bay system).
Therefore, values should be interpreted as excess risks above background
levels related to other exposures (e.g., through inhalation, drinking water,
or bathing).
Two broad categories of toxicants are considered in relation to human
health effects: 1) carcinogens, or chemicals that cause cancer, and 2)
noncarcinogens, or chemicals that induce toxic effects other than cancer,
such as liver toxicity, reproductive malfunction, or birth defects. In
the health risk assessment, a key difference between carcinogenic effects
and other health effects arises from the threshold response concept. For
a noncarcinogen, an acceptable exposure value (the Acceptable Daily Intake,
or ADI in units of mg-kg-1 -dayl) is defined based on a threshold in the
dose-response relationship. Below some threshold exposure (dose) of a
noncarcinogen, no adverse biological effects are expected. The lack of
a demonstrated threshold in dose-response relationships for carcinogens
(U.S. EPA 1980; U.S. Office of Science and Technology Policy 1984) implies
a finite risk of cancer even at very low doses of the carcinogen. Therefore,
a quantitative risk assessment approach is used to predict an upper limit
estimate of the probability (risk) that a given exposure level will result
in cancer. The potency of a carcinogen is expressed as a "carcinogenic
potency factor," which is an upper limit estimate of the probability of
138
-------
effect per unit dose of chemical in units of kg.day-mg-1 (i.e., the inverse
of exposure units, mg-kg-l-day-1).
Cancer risks can be expressed in two ways. First, the risk of an
individual developing cancer as a result of a specified exposure averaged
over a 70-yr lifetime is calculated. For example, an individual upper-
limit risk of 1x10-6 means that there is up to a "one-in-a-million" chance
that the exposed individual will experience cancer during a period of 70 yr.
Similarly, an individual risk of 5x10-3 corresponds to an upper-limit lifetime
probability of cancer equal to 5 in 1,000. Second, an estimate of population
risk can be derived by multiplying an individual risk value times the total
number of persons exposed (i.e., the target population). For example,
an upper-limit risk of 10-6 predicted for each individual in an exposed
population of 10 million people means that up to 10 individuals in that
population would be expected to develop cancer in their lifetimes. Note
that only individuals within the exposed population experience the risk
(i.e., only those individuals who consume for 70 yr a diet of seafood contam-
inated at levels detected and quantified in samples from the study area).
In this report, all risk criteria are expressed on an individual basis.
Additional data on the exposed population are needed before population
risk can be characterized.
For perspective in interpreting risk estimates, it should be recognized
that risks on the order of 7x10-5 per lifetime (10-6/yr) are commonly accepted
by most people, while higher risks are clearly of concern to environmental
regulators (Pochin 1975; Crouch et al. 1983). U.S. EPA (1980) used lifetime
risk levels of 10-5 to 10-7 to develop water quality criteria. In general,
U.S. EPA has made decisions to allow levels of carcinogens in the environment
where the estimates of individual lifetime risk have been within the range
of 10-4 to 10-8 (Thomas 1984). The lifetime risk of cancer from cigarette
smoking is considerably higher (e.g., approximately 1.4x10-2 per cigarette
smoked daily) (Crouch et al. 1983). For example, a person who smokes 20 ciga-
rettes per day would experience a lifetime cancer risk of 2xlO~l. In setting
standards for benzene exposure, Justice Steward of the U.S. Supreme Court
argued that lifetime risks of 10~3 were clearly "unacceptable," whereas
those of 10-9 were clearly "acceptable" (Connor 1983). Finally, note that
smoking and charbroiling of fish and meats may result in benzo(a)pyrene
concentrations of up to about 50 ppb, corresponding to lifetime cancer
risks possibly as high as 2x10-4 (at an average ingestion rate of 20 g/day).
General Approach
Two approaches to analysis of health risk from seafood consumption
are possible. In the first approach, cancer risk is calculated for each
carcinogenic chemical based on 1) the observed average contaminant concen-
tration in seafood, 2) a given average seafood consumption rate, and 3)
a carcinogenic potency factor (U.S. EPA 1980). For each noncarcinogenic
chemical, an approximate index of upper-limit risk can be expressed as
the ratio of the estimated exposure to the ADI (U.S. EPA 1985b). In the
second approach (which is used in this study), risk assessment models are
used to estimate tissue contamination guidelines for seafood, which are
analogous to U.S. FDA tolerance levels (U.S. FDA 1982) (i.e., maximum allowable
contaminant concentrations). In contrast to FDA tolerance levels, the
139
-------
tissue contamination guidelines established here do not account for potential
economic impacts of seafood regulation.
The general approach used here involves the following steps:
Define a reference-risk value (10'5 excess lifetime cancer
risk) or reference-risk dose (equals ADI for a noncarcinogen)
as a criterion for identifying potential problem areas or
problem chemicals
Define an average consumption rate (=20 g/day, or about
one serving ~per week) during a 70-yr lifetime
t Calculate the tissue concentration guideline for each chemical,
corresponding to the reference-risk value (or ADI) and the
average consumption rate assumed above
Calculate the ratio of mean observed toxicant concentration
to the contamination guideline for each chemical
Identify problem chemicals (i.e., chemicals for which the
ratio of fish-flesh concentration to contamination guideline
exceeds 1).
The approach used to derive tissue contamination guidelines is shown
graphically in Figure 29. For carcinogens (upper panel of Figure 29),
lifetime cancer risk (R) is a function of 1) the concentration of a selected
toxic contaminant (or group of chemicals) in edible tissues of a seafood
organism and 2) the average rate of seafood consumption. These two latter
variables together determine the average exposure to the hazardous chemical(s).
A. relationship between risk and tissue concentration is derived for each
assumed seafood ingestion rate. By defining a reference-risk level, the
corresponding tissue-concentration guideline can be found for any given
ingestion rate. A graphic example of this procedure is shown by the dotted
line in the upper panel of Figure 29. Note that the reference-risk value
(R-j*) is chosen by a regulatory policy decision. This reference-risk value
does not necessarily correspond to risks associated with consuming seafood
from a "reference area" (i.e., relatively uncontaminated location in Puget
Sound used for comparison with the study area). An analogous approach
to derive tissue contamination guidelines for noncarcinogens is illustrated
in the lower panel of Figure 29. In this case, the guidelines can be derived
from the corresponding acceptable exposure (i.e., ADI) established by U.S. EPA.
Procedures for derivation of tissue contamination guidelines based
on models for exposure evaluation and risk characterization are discussed
in Appendix G. All models and general methods follow risk assessment procedures
in U.S. EPA (1980, 1985a) and guidelines proposed by U.S. EPA (1984a).
Summary of Assumptions
Assumptions and estimated values for model variables used in this
analysis are summarized in Table 36. Note that the methods and assumptions
chosen for this analysis are conservative (i.e., protective of human health).
For example, U.S. EPA (1980, 1984b, 1985a) uses a conservative approach
140
-------
(O
cr
cr
LU
o
ง
CONTAMINANT
CONCENTRATION
UJ
ir
ง
Q.
X
UJ
ADI
CONTAMINANT
CONCENTRATION
Notes: Different curves result from different values for seafood ingestion rate
(i.e. I,, I2, and y shown above where I3>I2>IV The contaminant
concentration is the average value for species of concern.
R,* is an assumed reference-risk level for chemical I.
C,'(1), Cj*(2), and C,*(3), are tissue concentration guidelines for
carcinogenic chemical i at corresponding seafood ingestion rate of I,, I2,
and I,. For each carcinogenic chemical (upper panel), the guidelines are
derived from a reference-risk value. For each noncarcinogenic chemical
(lower panel), the guidelines are derived from an ADI value.
ADI - Acceptable Daily Intake
Figure 29. Use of graphical model relating cancer risk or
noncarcinogenic exposure to edible-tissue concen-
trations of a contaminant at various seafood
ingestion rates.
141
-------
TABLE 36. SUMMARY OF ASSUMPTIONS AND NUMERICAL PARAMETERS USED IN
ASSESSING HEALTH RISKS FROM CONSUMPTION OF SEAFOOD FROM ELLIOTT BAY
Parameter
Assumptions/Estimates
Reference
Selected Species:
English sole
Cancer crabs and
butter clams
Exposure Assessment:
Contaminant concentrations
in tissues of indicator
species
Consumption rate
Gastrointestinal absorption
coefficient
Exposure duration
Human body weight
English sole, as bottom feeders,
are exposed to highly contaminated
sediments and prey organisms.
Mai ins et al. 1982
Contaminant concentrations in English Gahler et al. 1982
sole tissues are greater than or equal
to the average of those in sportfish
tissues.
These invertebrates are potentially
important sport species for a small
population of users.
Values from literature
No effect of cooking
20 g/day
1.0
Assumes 100 percent absorption of
contaminants
70 yr lifetime
70 kg (= avg. adult male)
McCallum 1985
Appendix F, Tables
F-l and F-2
Gahler et al. 1982
Mai ins et al. 1980,
1982
Romberg et al. 1984
Tetra Tech 1985a
Landolt et al. 1985
Worst case for parent
compounds. Net
effect on risk is
uncertain.
Value specified by
regulatory policy
(see text)
Worst case
U.S. EPA (1980)
U.S. EPA-CAGa
142
-------
TABLE 36. (Continued)
Parameter
Assumptions/Estimates
Reference
Risk Characterization:
Carcinogenic risk model
Carcinogenic potency
Acceptable Daily Intakes
(ADIs)
Multiple Chemicals
Undetected Chemicals
Problem Definition:
Criteria
Carcinogens
Noncarcinogens
Linearized Multistage Model (linear,
no-threshold model). At risks less
than 10'2; Risk = Exposure x Potency
Potency factors are based on low-dose
extrapolation from animal bioassay
data.
Upper bound of 95 percent confidence
interval on potency is used.
ADIs for noncarcinogens are current
U.S. EPA values.
Only risks for single chemicals are
addressed.
Assume risk for undetected chemicals
equals 0. Total risk is under-
estimated if many undetected chemicals
are present just below their detection
limits.
Absolute risk of >10'5 for any single
detected chemical at consumption rate
of 20 g/day
Exceedance of ADI value for any
single chemical at consumption rate
of 20 g/day
U.S. EPA 1980
Appendix G, Table
6-1. U.S. EPA
1980, 1985a
Appendix G, Table G-2
U.S. EPA Envirormental
Criteria and Assessment
Office
Elliott Bay Toxics
Action Plan decision-
making approach
Elliott Bay Toxics
Action Plan decision-
making approach
8 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Carcinogen Assessment Group.
143
-------
to derive carcinogenic potency factors and ADI values, so the final results
are protective of human health. Detailed discussion of assumptions made
in estimating potency factors and ADI values can be found in U.S. EPA (1980).
Contaminant intake by seafood consumers may depend on methods of prepara-
tion of fish and shellfish. Upon cooking of fish, for example, PCB concen-
trations in edible muscle tissue generally decrease (i.e., by 2-64 percent)
depending on species and cooking method (Smith et al. 1973; Skea et al. 1981).
However, cooking may also activate or create carcinogenic chemicals. Because
of uncertainties about the net effects of cooking, corrections for effects
of cooking were not made in the analysis below. Effects of seafood cooking
(frying) on contaminant concentrations are being investigated as part of
the ongoing NOAA study of urban anglers (Landolt et al. 1985).
As shown by the examples just discussed, many of the assumptions used
in this risk analysis are conservative. The conservative assumptions are
necessary to counteract the influence of factors that would otherwise lead
to underestimation of the true risk. For example, synergistic interactions
among chemicals (i.e., responses much greater than expected from summing
the known responses to single chemicals) are not included in the risk model.
Because information on interactions among chemicals is lacking, potential
additive risks from chemical mixtures are not incorporated into this model.
Only risks for single detected chemicals are addressed in this report.
Health effects from undetected chemicals are assumed to be negligible,
although they could be high (e.g., analysis for carcinogenic nitrosamines
have generally not been performed). Also, samples are not analyzed for
many carcinogenic chemicals because of technological limitations. Some
chemicals presently classified as noncarcinogens have not been adequately
tested for carcinogenic effects. Until adequate information is available,
the chemical is treated as a noncarcinogen. Finally, the use of an average
(or typical) seafood consumption rate to calculate tissues contamination
guidelines does not protect subpopulations with higher consumption. For
example, 0.1-0.9 percent of the successful anglers caught 50 or more fish
per trip, representing the maximum catch (Landolt et al. 1985).
RESULTS
Concentrations of priority pollutants in edible tissues of selected
species (English sole, Cancer spp. crabs, and butter clams) are presented
in Appendix F for the Elliott Bay system (Table F-l) and reference areas
(Table F-2). For comparison, additional data for sablefish, rockfish,
rock sole, and Pacific cod from Mai ins et al. (1982), Romberg et al. (1984),
and Landolt et al. (1985) are presented in this section. Note that sampling
locations for all data include sites throughout the Elliott Bay system,
not just recreational fishing areas. Some of the sampled sites are highly
contaminated, but may not be fished.
Tissue contamination guidelines (established herein to define contamination
levels of concern) derived by the methods described earlier are shown in
Tables 37 and 38. These guidelines range from 2x10-7 ppm for 2,3,7,8-TCDD
(dioxin) to 4.4x104 ppm for diethyl phthalate. Note that the guideline
for arsenic in Table 37 is for the inorganic form only. Recent studies
indicate that the arsenic in seafood is primarily in a nontoxic, organic
form that is rapidly excreted by humans without toxic effects (Crecelius
and Apts 1985). An average of about 0.12 percent of the total arsenic
144
-------
TABLE 37. GUIDELINE CONCENTRATIONS (Cj*) OF CARCINOGENS
ASSUMING 20 G/DAY (52 MEALS/YR) CONSUMPTION AND
REFERENCE LIFETIME RISK OF 10-5
PP# Pollutant
129 TCDD (dioxin)
5 benzidine
90 dieldrin
61 N-nitrosodimethylamine
115 arsenic
73 benzo(a)pyrene
89 aldrin
102 alpha-HCH
106-112 PCBs
100 heptachlor
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
37 1,2-diphenylhydrazine
92-94 4,4'-DDT, ODD, DDE
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 tetrachloroeth
4 benzene
21 2,4,6-trichlorophenol
88 vinyl chloride
12 hexachloroethane
87 trichloroethene
62 N-nitrosodiphenylamine
44 dichloromethane
Guideline Concentration (ppm)a
0.000000200
0.000100000
0.001000000
0.001000000
0.002000000
0.003000000
0.003000000
0.003000000
0.008000000
0.010000000
0.020000000
0.020000000
0.020000000
0.020000000
0.030000000
0.030000000
0.030000000
0.030000000
0.050000000
0.100000000
0.100000000
0.100000000
0.200000000
0.300000000
0.400000000
0.500000000
0.500000000
0.600000000
0.700000000
1.000000000
2.000000000
2.000000000
2.000000000
3.000000000
7.000000000
60.000000000
a Guideline concentrations were calculated using Equation 3 in
Appendix G.
145
-------
TABLE 38. GUIDELINE CONCENTRATIONS (Cj*) QF NON-
CARCINOGENIC PRIORITY POLLUTANTS ASSUMING
20 G/DAY (52 MEALS/YR) CONSUMPTION
Guideline
PP# Pollutant Concentration (ppm)a
126 silver
123 mercury
60 4,6-dinitro-o-cresol
127 thallium
42 bis(2-chloroisopropyl)ether
98 endrin
59 2,4-dinitrophenol
33 1,3-dichloropropene
119 chromium VI
95 alpha-endosulfan
96 beta- endosul fan
97 endosul fan sulfate
114 antimony
53 hexachlorocyclopentadiene
125 selenium
25 1,2-dichlorobenzene
26 1,3-dichlorobenzene
27 1,4-dichlorobenzene
7 chlorobenzene
2 acrolein
46 bromomethane
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 chlorcmethane
56 nitrobenzene
66 bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
68 di-n-butyl phthalate
119 chromium III
71 dimethyl phthalate
70 diethyl phthalate
0.8
1.0
1.0
2.0
4.0
4.0
7.0
9.0
9.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
20.0
40.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
60.0
80.0
80.0
80.0
100.0
400.0
400.0
400.0
500.0
700.0
1000.0
2000.0
2000.0
2000.0
2000.0
4000.0
6000.0
40000.0
40000.0
a Guideline concentrations were calculated using Equation 4 in
Appendix G.
146
-------
present in seafood organisms of Puget Sound is in a potentially toxic form
(Crecelius and Apts 1985)., Thus, the guideline derived for inorganic arsenic
was divided by 0.0012 to obtain a guideline of 1.9 ppm for total arsenic.
Only two suspected carcinogens (PCBs and arsenic) were detected at
concentrations that exceeded their respective tissue contamination guidelines.
Priority pollutant PAH and pesticides (other than DDE) were not detected
inmost samples (Appendix F, Tables F-l and F-2). For noncarcinogens detected
in tissue samples from reference areas and the Elliott Bay system, the
tissue contamination guidelines were not exceeded.
To illustrate the range of contamination relative to the guidelines for
selected chemicals (PCBs, arsenic, and mercury), observed tissue concentrations
for individual samples from Elliott Bay are presented in Figures 30-32.
For comparison, data are provided for reference area samples and U.S. FDA
action (or tolerance) levels. Although mercury concentrations did not
exceed the guideline developed in this study, the results are presented
because of the potential concern about health effects of this metal.
PCB concentrations in three fish species (English sole, sablefish, and
Pacific cod) and Cancer spp. crabs were consistently above the guideline of
8 ppb, with mean values ranging from 6 to 54 times the guideline (Figure 30).
Mean PCB levels in samples from the Elliott Bay system were elevated about
12-33 times reference area values for English sole and about 2-5 times
reference area values for Cancer crabs. Note that the tissue contamination
guideline for PCBs was also exceeded in samples of these species from reference
areas. The PCB guideline was not exceeded for two samples of butter clams
from Elliott Bay. Only one composite sample (English sole) exceeded the
U.S. FDA tolerance level of 2 ppm PCBs. Recall that the tolerance level
(and analogous action levels discussed below) are established by U.S. FDA
to determine the acceptability of marketplace foods for human consumption.
Tolerance levels are established by balancing increased health risks associated
with relaxed regulations against negative economic impacts of stricter
regulations.
In contrast to PCB results, arsenic concentrations in tissue samples
from the Elliott Bay system were not substantially elevated above those
in reference areas (Figure 31). The tissue contamination guideline of
1.9 ppm total arsenic was exceeded in samples of all species except sablefish
in both the project area and reference areas. Health risks associated
with arsenic do not appear to vary substantially among areas of Puget Sound.
The mean concentration of total arsenic for sablefish collected from the
Elliott Bay system was just below the guideline.
CONCLUSION
Concentrations of most of the priority pollutants measured in edible
tissues of recreationally harvested species from the Elliott Bay system
are below levels of concern defined herein. Only PCBs and arsenic were
identified as problem chemicals relative to potential human health effects
from regular consumption (i.e., approximately one meal per week) of seafood
from Elliott Bay or the lower Duwamish River. Mean concentrations of PCBs
in muscle of English sole, sablefish, Pacific cod, and Cancer spp. crab
were 6 to 54 times the guideline of 8 ppb. Mean PCB concentrations in
147
-------
1000-
Q.
Q.
z
LLJ
o
z
o
u
CO
CD
O
D.
100 -
10 -
ELLIOTT BAY
*
'
1
A
A
ฎ ^
i *%
i i
0 *
U
u
r
REFERENCE VALUES
FDA
TOLERANCE
D
on
oU
i, en.,
\j i jii njj ^ ^i
U--U
_ I I
UJ
SPECIES:
I I
| i 8
w " o
5 H C
ID
UJ V) D. ffl O
NO. INDIVIDUALS: E >14 12 >6 >2 12
uj cc
_J UJ
O o
m
^u **
d ^
O <
<:. u. Z CC
UJ O UJ O
12 7, ,5 2
Rombergetal. 1984
Malinsetal. 1982
A Landottetal. 1985
D TetraTech1985a
- Gahleretal. 1982
ฎ Mean concentration
GUIDELINE
DISCOVERY BAY
1 CARR INLET
Note:
Some points represent composite samples.
U - undetected
Figure 30. PCBs in edible portion of selected fish and shell-
fish species from the Elliott Bay system and
reference areas.
148
-------
10
E"
D.
Z
0
p
cr
z
LU
O
z
o
ซ 1.0
0
z
LU
cr
04
.1
SPECIES:
NO. INDIVIDUALS:
-
"
-
-
-
-
~
_
-
C
ELLIOTT BAY
ฎ A ซ*
A
Al *
; -L- 1 1
* ฎ *
A
*
A
A
A
A*
A4
1 1 1 1 1 1 1
I
% a 2 E
8 5 ง x a g |
g c o g ฃ c 3
= a i fe X r^ ป
O CD O y O P <
2 < < O O ID cr
iu w OL cr cc m o
>9 12 1 1 5 >2 12
REFERENCE VALUES
o
D
ฎ
LU cr LU cr
dLU -J UJ
CO 2 & i
ฃ S | o
-j CD -J m
i 2 $ ฃ
LU O UJ O
,10 8,, 5 2 -
^ 1 ! Dl
GUIDELINE
Rombergetal. 1984
A LandoKetal. 1985
o TelraTech1985a
- Gahleretal. 1982
ฎ Mean concentration
DISCOVERY BAY
Note: CARR INLET
Points from Romberg et al. (1984) represent composite samples.
U undetected U.S. FDA has not established an action level for
arsenic. Guideline shown here is for total arsenic, assuming
inorganic forms comprise 0.12 percent of total.
Figure 31. Total arsenic in edible portion of selected fish
and shellfish species from the Elliott Bay system
and reference areas.
149
-------
1.0
D.
o.
Z
111
O
o
o
QC
O
oc
UJ
0.1 -
0.01
ELLIOTT BAY
I
_ I
SPECIES:
NO. INDIVIDUALS:
I I
>4 >2 >2 12
REFERENCE VALUES
FDA
ACTION
LEVEL
a
a
o
o
o
GUIDELINE
UJ
Q
w
i
to
1
O
z
Ul
, 10
I
cc
UJ
2
3
Ul
Q
V)
(O
m i
< 0
(f Z
O Ul
8 5
i i
cc
Ul
o
Z
s
'CO
fl
0
2 .
L_
i
DISCOVERY BAY
CARR INLET
Romberg el at. 1984
TetraTech1985a
Gahleretal. 1982
Mean concentration
Note:
Some points represent composhe samples. U undetected
Figure 32. Total mercury in edible portion of selected fish
and shellfish species from the Elliott Bay system
and reference areas.
150
-------
Elliott Bay samples were elevated above reference values about 12-33 times
for English sole and about 2-5 times for crabs. Only one composite sample
of English sole exceeded the FDA tolerance level of 2 ppm. Therefore,
for most Elliott Bay samples encountered, upper-limit estimates of health
risk are above a level of concern (10~5).
Mean concentrations of arsenic in the selected species were up to
four times the tissue contamination guideline of 1.9 ppm total arsenic.
In contrast to PCBs, no systematic difference was found between arsenic
concentrations in samples from the project area and those in samples from
the reference area. Consequently, a local seafood consumer would encounter
similar arsenic-associated risk, regardless of where in Puget Sound the
seafood was harvested.
Mean concentrations of mercury in muscle tissue of English sole and
crabs were elevated 1.4-3.0 times reference values. However, mercury levels
in all samples were less than 30 percent of the tissue contamination guideline
of 1 ppm. At present, mercury does not appear to be responsible for potential
health risks of concern.
Although the models described herein involve many assumptions and
uncertainities, the best available methods have been used in this analysis.
Further work is needed to confirm this preliminary analysis and to discriminate
among potential problem areas within the Elliott Bay system. Ongoing studies
by NOAA (Landolt et al . 1985) and U.S. EPA will provide further data on
fishing habits of local anglers, species composition of the recreational
catch, and residues of toxic substances in seafood from Elliott Bay and
the lower Duwamish River. Assessment of potential health risks may be
refined when this data becomes available.
Concentrations of mercury in tissue samples from both the Elliott
Bay system and reference areas were substantially below the tissue contamination
guideline of 1 ppm (Figure 32). Note that the guideline derived in this
study is equal to the FDA action level for mercury contamination of fish
and shellfish. Mean concentrations of mercury in muscle tissue of English
sole and Cancer spp. crab were only slightly elevated (1.4-3.0 times) above
reference values (Figure 32).
151
-------
IDENTIFICATION OF PROBLEM AREAS
In this section, the selected data for indicators of sediment contamina-
tion, toxicity, and biological effects are integrated to evaluate toxic
contamination problems in the Elliott Bay/Duwamish River system. Analysis
of problem areas and their priority ranking was performed at three levels
of spatial resolution. First, the study areas (Areas 1-12) described previously
were ranked using the Action Assessment Matrix and the ranking criteria
discussed in the Decision-Making Approach section. Second, portions (segments)
of selected study areas, which ranked high in the previous analysis, were
evaluated. Finally, individual stations were ranked on the basis of sediment
chemistry data alone. The final ranking of problem areas reflects the
information gained from each level of spatial analysis, but is primarily
based on study area segments. This approach provided representative data
for several indicators of contamination and effects, while maintaining
a relatively high degree of spatial resolution.
ACTION ASSESSMENT MATRIX
Analysis of Areas 1-12 within the Elliott Bay system was performed
using the Action Assessment Matrix. Elevation Above Reference (EAR) values
compiled from different kinds of studies are shown in Table 39. Reference
values are shown on the right-hand side of the table. For benthic infauna,
mean reference conditions across all habitats are shown for comparison.
As discussed previously, benthic infauna EAR were calculated by matching
sediment type and depth of the study area site to similar conditions in
the reference area. Refer to individual sections of the Data Summaries
above for information on sample sizes (number of stations) for each indicator
in each area. For perspective in interpreting Table 39, note that:
t 40 percent response corresponds to an EAR of 5.7 for the
amphipod bioassay and an EAR of 6.6 for the oyster bioassay
5 percent prevalence of neoplasms corresponds to an EAR
of 50
60th percentile of sediment chemistry based on the ranking
of all stations (Appendix D) corresponds to EAR of 33 for
LPAH, 87 for HPAH, 74 for PCBs, 12 for sum of copper, lead,
and zinc, and 4.2 for arsenic.
Significant elevations for one or more sediment contamination indices were
found in all areas. However, the Duwamish Head/Alki Beach and Magnolia
areas showed no significant EAR for selected metals. Area 9 (Duwamish
Head/Alki Beach) exhibited a significant EAR only for HPAH. Chemical indicators
were generally highest at North Harbor Island. Mean sediment toxicity
was highest in the East and West Waterways. The limited data for benthic
infauna indicate a significant depression of amphipod abundance in Area 1
(Magnolia) with a mean EAR of 17. However, only three stations were sampled,
and the results were highly variable (range of amphipod abundance per 0.1 m2
152
-------
TABLE 39. ACTION ASSESSMENT MATRIX
.#*
10
11
gปv BA7 RIVER
12 REFERENCE REFERENCE
SEDIMENT CONTAMINATION
LPAH
HPAH
PCB
Cu-Pb-Zn
Arsenic
SEDIMENT TOXICITV
Aaphlpod aortality
Oyster abnormality
BEXTH3C INFAUNA
Total Abundance
Total Taxa
Aaphipod Abundance
Dominance Index
FISH PATHOLOGY
ENGLISH SOLE
Neoplasis
Preneoplascs
Xeg. Hepatosls
ROCK SOLE
Neoplasms
Preneoplasms
Meg. Nepatosis
-
ri
2
2
no
350
no
.i.i-
4
100
310
200
L 39
,...,
300
370
120
>.?ง.
14
"ilt
130
170
16
'-3J
220_
210
190
46
-Si1
|190| feS]
! 991 '35'
1 67"; !85i
PB ra
[391
oo
2.7
0.7
0.9
0.7
1.6
i.s3
4
0.8
1.2
1.6
3.1
<41 ppb
78 ppb
6 ppb
34 ppป
3 ppB
449
71
27
16
0 *
2.1 *
0.5 *
0 *
e x
o *
LPAH - Low molecular weight polynulclear aromatic hydrocarbons
HPAH - High molecular weight polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons
I I - Significant EAR (for sediment contamination only, EARMOO)
r."J] - Significant EAR <100 (for aediment contamination only)
a - Values for study area 7 and 6 were averaged between results
from Malins, et al. (1980) and McCain, et al. (1983)
"< EAR value" indicates numerator was quantltation or detection Unit
Elevation Above Reference (EAR) valuta are shown for Stud; Azeu 1-12. Values
for reference arta( are shown ID laat two columns. 0-undetected. See text
chapter on Decision-Halting Approach for farther explanation of basis for matrix
and Ita Interpretation.
BIOACCUMULATIOX
CRAB ML'S'CLE
LPAH
HPAH
PCB
: Cu-Pb-Zn
Arsenic
ENGLISH SOLE LIVER
LPAH
HPAH
PCB
Cu-Pb-Zn
Arsenic (No data)
ENGLISH SOLE MUSCLE
LPAH
HPAH
PCB
Cu-Pb-Zn
Arsenic
<9
<3
|"B~1
1
2
<0.6 <5 <5 |<7| [7T|
<4 <1 <1 <3
-------
was 0-47). Because of the limited data, the significance of the amphipod
abundance EAR for Area 1 is questionable.
Significant EAR for fish pathology were found in all areas for which
data were available. However, limitations of the data set necessitated
use of the same pooled data for some areas (see Data Summaries, Pathology
for details). Although the bioaccumulation data are limited, PCBs were
significantly elevated (EAR >_5) in six of seven cases (Table 39). The
mean EAR for English sole muscle from the Seattle Waterfront-North was 22,
corresponding to a tissue concentration of about 290 ppb. PCBs were signifi-
cantly elevated in sediments from all study areas except Duwamish Head/Alki
Beach. These results and other data discussed previously suggest that
PCB contamination is a potential problem throughout the Elliott Bay system.
As indicated by the missing values in Table 39, data gaps exist for
benthic infauna and bioaccumulation in most study areas. The Duwamish
Head/Alki Beach area, Fourmile Rock Disposal Site, and deep-water areas
of Elliott Bay (Areas 11 and 12) were lacking information for most of the
selected indicators. Because the data are limited and because sediment
chemistry and fish pathology indices are significantly elevated in all
cases where data are available, all study areas were included in the priority
ranking analyses presented below.
PROBLEM AREA RANKING
As discussed in the introduction to this section, action-priority
rankings were developed for three levels of spatial resolution: study
areas, segments within areas, and single stations. The ranking analysis
was applied to all areas, segments, or stations, where appropriate, based
on data availability. The final results of the ranking analysis are presented
below after discussion of the three levels of spatial analysis. For consis-
tency, the highest rank is always applied to the site with the highest
priority for source evaluation and remedial action.
Ranking of Study Areas
The ranking criteria presented in the Decision-Making Approach section
(Table 5 above) were applied to the Action Assessment Matrix (Table 39)
to establish the priority order of study areas. Because data on biological
effects are missing from many study areas, rankings based on sediment chemistry
and biological indicators were not established separately. Also, the limited
data for bioaccumulation do not allow use of information on public health
risks in the ranking analysis. The final rank for a study area was obtained
by summing ranks for different indicator categories, and normalizing the
actual sum of ranks to the maximum attainable with the available data.
This normalization step was necessary to avoid biasing ranks for some study
areas towards lower values just because certain data were missing.
If all data were present for an area, the maximum possible rank score
would be 23, based on the sum of the following maximum rank scores for
different data types:
154
-------
Maximum of 4 each for organic compounds and metals, with
a maximum sum of 8 for sediment contamination
Maximum of 4 for toxicity bioassays
Maximum of 4 for benthic infauna
Maximum of 4 for fish pathology
Maximum of 3 for bioaccumulation.
A maximum possible score was determined for each area. The actual rank
score for each area was then normalized to the maximum possible score and
multiplied by 100.
Normalized rank scores for the 12 study areas are presented in Table 40.
Areas of the Duwamish River, North Harbor Island, and Seattle Waterfront-
North (Denny Way CSO) ranked highest. The Seattle Waterfront-South, Fourmile
Rock Disposal Site, and Inner Elliott Bay ranked next. Outer Elliott Bay,
Duwamish Head/Alki Beach, and Magnolia ranked lowest.
Ranking of Study Area Segments
A more detailed spatial analysis of potential problem areas was performed
based on the results of EAR analysis. Because of the limited data for
bioaccumulation and pathology, these indicators could not be used to rank
site-specific problems. Thus, only the EAR for sediment chemistry, toxicity
bioassays, and benthic infauna were used in the following analysis.
First, Maps 6-10, 13, and 15-18 were overlaid to determine study area
segments suitable for analysis. The objective was to define the smallest
site possible while maximizing the number of indicators with available
data. In most cases, clusters of stations were easily identified. A boundary
was drawn around each station cluster to define study area segments (Figure
33). Each segment was assigned an alphanumeric code, where the number
indicates the area in which the segment is located and the letter identifies
the specific site. The number of stations with data for a given indicator
are shown in Appendix H, Table H-l. Note that data for some segments (e.g.,
Segments 2B, 3B, 5B, 9A, and 12B) are very limited. Also, only sediment
chemistry data were available for Segments 3A, 3B, 8A, 8C, 8D, 8E, 8F,
and 12B.
Data were then compiled for ranks of EAR for all indicators within
a segment. For example, a nonsignificant EAR for any indicator was assigned
a rank of 0. A significant chemistry EAR less than 10 was assigned a rank
of 1. A significant chemistry EAR between 10 and 100 was assigned a rank
of 2, and so on. A similar procedure was followed for each indicator,
with the lowest rank assigned to the lowest EAR category (or range) and
the highest rank assigned to the highest EAR category (or range). For
EAR gradations, refer to Maps 6-10, 13, and 15-18. For each segment, the
number of stations of a given EAR rank was scored. For example, in Segment 3A,
one station received a rank of 3 and three stations received a rank of 2
for LPAH.
155
-------
TABLE 40. NORMALIZED RANK SCORES FOR TWELVE STUDY AREAS
IN ELLIOTT BAY AND THE LOWER DUWAMISH RIVERa
Area Score
West Waterway 88
East Waterway 81
Kellogg Island 69
Seattle Waterfront-North 63
North Harbor Island 58
Upper Duwamish Estuary 58
Seattle Waterfront-South 53
Inner Elliott Bay 50
Fourmile Rock Disposal Site 42
Outer Elliott Bay 31
Duwamish Head/Alki Beach 17
Magnolia 17
a Normalized rank score is the percentage of total possible
rank. Higher scorces indicate higher priority problem areas.
See text for explanation.
156
-------
ป COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW (MAJOR)
fr COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW (MINOR)
COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW/STORM DRAIN
STORM DRAIN (ป In }4")
STORM DRAIN (ซ' B ซ')
*ฃ STORM DRAIN (>
O TREATMENT PLANT OUTFALL
ฉ OTHER POTENTIAL SOURCES
Figure 33. Locations of segments within study areas
-------
Ranks for single indicators were integrated in two ways. In the "average
rank method," an average rank was calculated for all stations within a
segment. For example, the average rank for LPAH in Segment A was 2.25.
In the "highest rank method," the segment was assigned the rank of the
highest ranked station within the segment. Using this approach, Segment 3A
received a rank of 3 for LPAH. The highest rank method was used to avoid
loss of information about "peaks" of contamination and effects through
averaging.
For both methods just described, ranks for different indicators were
summed and normalized to a maximum possible rank score. As in the preceding
section, the maximum possible score was highest when data were available
for all indicators. The final rank score assigned to a study area segment
is essentially a percentage (or fraction) of the maximum possible score.
The results of this analysis are shown in Figure 34. The highest
rank method provides the greatest spread between segments. In general,
segments that ranked high by one method also ranked high with the other
method. A large difference between the two ranks assigned to a segment
indicates substantial heterogeneity in conditions within the segment.
Ranking of Single Stations
Single stations were ranked according to sediment concentrations of
the selected indicators (Appendix E, Table E-2). The most contaminated
sites were generally located in nearshore areas of Elliott Bay and in the
Duwamish River, especially Slip 3, the East and West Waterways, and North
Harbor Island. Stations that ranked above the 60th percentile for each
chemical variable are indicated in Appendix E, Table E-l. The number of
chemical indicators elevated above the 60th percentile is shown for each
of the highest ranked stations in Figure 35. Eight sites in seven segments
ranked above the 60th percentile for all five indicators. These are:
Station ME14-401603 near the Denny Way CSO, Segment 2A
t Station ME14-S0090 near Pier 54, Segment 3C
t Stations EP9-37 and EP9-39 near Piers 13 and 15, North Harbor
Island, Segment 4B
Station EP9-43 near Pier 3, Segment 4C
Station ME14-S0036 at the southern end of the West Waterway,
Segment 6B
Station ME29-0149 just south of Harbor Island, Segment 7A
Station ME14-50057 just southeast of the designated Fourmile
Rock Disposal site, Segment 10A
These stations generally fell within segments that ranked high by one or
both methods in the analysis discussed in the previous section. However,
Segment 7A ranked as the seventh highest site by the highest rank method
and as the eleventh highest site by the average rank method. Segment 10A
158
-------
AVERAGE RANK
METHOD
HIGHEST RANK
METHOD
6B 6A
4B
3C
AC" "ปR
5A.3A
SB, 7A
2B 2A
fiR
nn AA
10A 8 A
11C
AH
19R
12 A, Ob
11B
8F 1A
1C
9A
85
80 -
75 -
70 -
CC
60 -
ff
40 -
35 ~"
9R .
20-
15 -
10
OA
e A
7R AA
7A, DO, 3C
3A
12A
8D, 3B
SB
11C
on
8A
AH
ftp
11H
1B
12B
1A
8C
OP
9A
Figure 34. Ranking of study area segments based on integration
of sediment chemistry, toxicity, and benthic infauna
indicators.
159
-------
A COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW (MAJOR)
COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW fMINORI
COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW/STORM DRAIN
STORM DRAIN (6- ID 14")
STORM DRAIN (25- 10 ซ')
STORM DRAIN (> 4ป')
TREATMENT PLANT OUTFALL
OTHER POTENTIAL SOURCES
-------
(Four-mile Rock Disposal Site) ranked ninth and seventeenth, respectively.
This suggests that Segments 7A and IDA have extensive contamination of
sediments by many chemicals, but that overall EAR (sediment contamination,
toxicity, and for IDA, benthic infauna) are not high relative to other
sites.
Final Ranking of Problem Areas
Because the study segments defined above (Figure 33) comprised individual
stations that ranked in the 60th percentile for four or five chemical in-
dicators, the final ranking of problem areas was derived mainly from the
segment-ranking analysis (Figure 34 above). To avoid loss of information
due to averaging results from multiple stations, the final ranking was
based on the highest rank method. As shown in Figure 34 above, eight of
the segments scored above 60 on the normalized rank scale. Twelve segments
scored between 45 and 60, and 12 segments scored below 45.
The final ranking of problem areas based on the highest rank method
is shown in Figure 36. Because the available data did not allow subdivision
of slips in the Duwamish River for the segment analysis, data from a segment
could include an entire slip, and in some cases, midchannel stations in
the river. Nevertheless, a gradient in sediment contamination from the
head of a slip to the mouth was often apparent (Maps 6-10 above and METRO
1985). Therefore, the inner portions of Slips 1-4 should be considered
as potential high-priority problem areas.
A detailed evaluation of specific sources of the environmental contami-
nation just discussed is not possible with the available data. However,
potential sources were identified near contaminated areas (Table 41).
Identification of potential sources was usually based on proximity of the
source to the contaminated area. Because limited data are available on
source quality and contaminant loadings, further data collection and analysis
are needed to relate environmental contamination to sources.
161
-------
WEST POINT
GEORGETOWN
21
SMITH COVE
SPOKANE STREET
BRIDGE
NOTE: Numbers showing ranking of segments from
highest (1) to lowest (32) in terms of potential
problems. Based on highest rank method (Also see
Figure 30).
Final ranking of each study
area segment.
Figure 36.
-------
TABLE 41. POTENTIAL SOURCES OF SEDIMENT CONTAMINATION
IN STUDY .AREA SEGMENTS3
Contamination Rank
Segment
4B
2A
5A
7B
6A
7A
3C
6B
IDA
8B
4A
4C
11A
3A
12A
8D
3B
SB
LPAH
4
3
2
4
3
2
3
3
2
3
2
4
2
3
2
-
2
-
HP AH
4
4
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
3
3
2
3
3
3
PCB
3
3
3
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
3
3
2
3
2
2
Cu.Pb.Zn
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
1
2
As
3
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
0
0
0
2
2
Potential Sources
Duwamish River Discharge, Shipyard Operations
(As)0, Oil transfer pier (PAH)
Denny Way CSO
Hanford CSO
Lander CSO, S.W. Florida St. SD
PCB spill (1974)ฐ, Branclon st. cso W041
S.W. Florida St. CSO/SD (098) S.W.
CSO/SD and SD
Diagonal Way CSO/SD
City CSOsฐ
Madison Sewer
S.W. Hinds CSO/SD, Chelan CSO
Dredged Material Disposal0
Michigan St. CSO, S. Fox St. SD
Duwamish River Discharge, Connecticut
llth Avenue S.W. CSO/SD (077)
Longfellow Creek (PAH)
Bethlehem Steel
Dredged Material Disposal0
Vine St. CSO (064)
Unidentified sources
Georgetown Flume (PCBs), Slip 4 CSO/SD
City CSOs
CSO/SD 107 and 163
Lander
St. CSO
Storm Drains
11C 23210 Unidentified sources
163
-------
TABLE 41. (Continued)
Segment
2B
8A
4D
BE
11B
IB
12B
1A
1C
8C
3D
8F
9A
Contamination Rank
LPAH
2
.
2
-
2
2
1
2
2
-
0
-
1
HPAH
2
2
3
2
2
2
2
3
2
-
1
1
0
PCB
2
2
3
2
3
2
2
2
2
3
0
1
0
Cu.Pb.Zn
1
2
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
As
-
1
-
1 ,
0
0
1
0
0
0
-
0
0
Potential Sources
Pier 90/91
Unknown sources. Downstream of Michigan
St. sources
Longfellow Creek, Wyckoff, Purdy
Chemical Co., Terminal 128, Slip 6 SO
Unidentified sources
Unidentified sources
Unidentified sources
Magnolia CSO, 32nd Avenue W. SO
Unidentified sources
Slip 4 PCBs
Connecticut CSO
Unknown sources
CSO 085
a See Maps 6-10 for complete sediment contamination data. Each rank is the highest EAR rank
for one or more stations within a segment.
EAR Ranks
0 = not significant
1 = < 10 x reference
2 = 10-100 x reference
3 = 100-1000 x reference
4 = > 1000 x reference
b Historical sources.
164
-------
REFERENCES
Ambrose, W.G., Jr. 1984. Increased emigration of the amphipod Rhepoxynius
abronius (Barnard) and the polychaete Nephtys caeca (Fabricius) in the
presence of invertebrate predators. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 80:67-75.
AMBR001F
American Society for Testing and Materials. 1984. Standard practice for
conducting static acute toxicity tests with larvae of four species of bivalve
molluscs. ASTM E724-80. American Society of Testing and Materials, Phila-
delphia, PA. 11.04:259-275.
ASTM002F
Armstrong, J.W., R.M. Thorn, and K.K. Chew. 1980. Impact of a combined
sewer overflow on the abundance, distribution, and community structure
of subtidal benthos. Mar. Environ. Res. 4:3-23.
ARMS001F
Armstrong, J.W. 1977. The impact of subtidal sewage outfalls on the intertidal
macrofauna of five central Puget Sound beaches. Ph.D. Thesis. University
of Washington School of Fisheries, Seattle, WA. 216 pp.
ARMS002F
Armstrong, J.W., R.H. Thorn, K.K. Chew, B. Arpke, R. Bohn, J. Glock, R.
Hieronymus, E. Hurlbert, K. Johnson, B. Mayer, B. Stevens, S. Tettlebach,
and P. Waterstrat. 1978. The impact of the Denny Way combined sewer overflow
on the adjacent flora and fauna in Elliott Bay, Puget Sound, Washington.
Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle, Seattle, WA. 102 pp.
MET0056F
Baker, E.T. 1982. Suspended particulate matter in Elliott Bay. NOAA
Technical Report ERL 417-PMEL 35. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Adminis-
tration Pacific Marine Environmental Lab, Seattle, WA. National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration, Pacific Marine Environmental Lab, Seattle,
WA. 44 pp.
BAKE002F
Barrick, R.C. 1982. Flux of aliphatic and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
to central Puget Sound from Seattle (West Point) primary sewage effluent.
Environ. Sci. Techno!. 16:682-692.
BARR003F
Barrick, R.C., and F.G. Prahl. (In review.) Hydrocarbon geochemistry
of the Puget Sound region. Ill: Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in sediment.
BARR005D
Battelle Northwest. 1983. Draft tables of chemical and biological analyses
of selected sediments from Puget Sound. U.S. EPA Region X, Seattle, WA.
27 pp.
BNWS002D
165
-------
Battelle Northwest. 1985. Detailed chemical and biololgical analyses
of selected sediments from Puget Sound. Draft Final Report. U.S. EPA Region
X, Seattle, WA. 300 pp.
BNWS009D
Becker, C. 12 March 1985. Personal Communication (phone by Beth Schmoyer).
Seattle Engineering Department, Seattle, WA.
Bellan-Santini , D. 1980. Relationship between populations of amphipods
and pollution. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 11:224-227.
BELL101F
Blazevich, J.N., A.R. Gahler, G.J. Vasconcelos, R.H. Rieck, and S.V.W. Pope.
1977. Monitoring of trace constituents during PCB recovery dredging opera-
tions. Duwamish Waterway. U.S. EPA Region X, Seattle, WA. 147 pp.
EPAX007F
Boesch, D.F. 1982. Ecosystem consequences of alterations of benthic community
structure and function in the New York Bight region, pp. 543-568. In:
Ecological Stress and the New York Bight: Science and Management. G.F. Mayer
(ed). Estuarine Research Federation, Columbia, SC.
BOES002F
Brown and Caldwell. 1979. Combined sewer overflow control program. Mjnici-
pality of Metropolitan Seattle, Seattle, WA. 110 pp.
MET0060F
Buckley, J.A. 1976. Heinz body hemolytic anemia in coho salmon (Oncorhynchus
kisutch) exposed to chlorinated wastewater. J. Fish. Res. Board Can. 34:215-
BUCK004F
Buckley, J.A. 1978. Acute toxicity of un-ionized ammonia to fingerling
coho. Prog. Fish-Culturist 40:30-32.
BUCK001F
Buckley, J.A. 1983. Complexation of copper in the effluent of a sewage
treatment plant and an estimate of its influence on toxicity to coho salmon.
Water Res. 17:1929-1934.
BUCK003F
Buckley, J.A., and R.I. Matsuda. 1973. Toxicity of the Renton treatment
plant effluent to coho salmon, Oncorhynchus kisutch. Municipality of Metro-
politan Seattle, Seattle, WA. 32 pp.
BUCK005F
Cardwell, R.D., and C.E. Woelke. 1979. Marine water quality compendium
for Washington State. Vol. II: Data. Washington Department of Fisheries,
Olympia, WA. 528 pp.
CARD002F
166
-------
Chapman, P.M., and R. Fink. 1983. Additional marine sediment toxicity
tests in connection with toxicant pretreatment planning studies, Metro
Seattle. E.V.S. Consultants, Vancouver, B.C., . 28pp.
CHAP012D
Chapman, P.M., and R. Fink. 1984. Effects of Puget Sound sediments and
their elutriates on the life cycle of Capitella capitata. Bull. Environ.
Contam. Toxicol. 33:451-459.
CHAP011F
Chapman, P.M., and E.R. Long. 1983. The use of bioassays as part of a
comprehensive approach to marine pollution assessment. Mar. Pollut. Bull.
14:81-84.
CHAP016F
Chapman, P.M.
larvae. Bull.
CHAP004F
, and J.D. Morgan. 1983. Sediment bioassays with oyster
Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 31:438-444.
Chapman, P.M., M.A. Parrel 1, R.M. Kocan, and M.L. Landolt. 1982a. Marine
sediment toxicity tests in connection with toxicant pretreatment planning
studies, METRO Seattle. E.V.S. Consultants, Vancouver, B.C. 15 pp.
CHAP010F
Chapman, P.M., G.A. Vigers, M.A. Farrell, R.N. Dexter, E.A. Quinlan, R.M.
Kocan, and M.L. Landolt. 1982b. Survey of biological effects of toxicants
upon Puget Sound Biota. I: Broad scale toxicity survey. NOAA Technical
Memorandum OMPA-25. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Boulder,
CO. 98 pp.
CHAP001F
Chapman, P.M., D.R. Munday, and J. Morgan. 1983. Survey of biological
effects of toxicants upon Puget Sound Biota. II: Tests of reproduction
and impairment, plus Appendices A-E. National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, Washington, DC. 58 pp.
CHAP002F
Chapman, P.M., R.N. Dexter, J. Morgan, R. Fink, P. Mitchell, R.M. Kocan,
and M.L. Landolt. 1984. Survey of biological effects of toxicants upon
Puget Sound biota. Ill: Tests in Everett Harbor, Samish, and Bellingham
Bays. NOAA Technical Memorandum NOS QMS 2. National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, Rockville, MD.
CHAP008F
Clayson, D.B., D. Krewski, and I.C. Munro. 1983. The power and interpretation
of the carcinogenicity bioassay. Reg. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 3:3269-348.
Clayton, J.R., S.P. Pavlou, and N.F. Breitner. 1977. Polychlorinated
biphenyls in coastal marine zooplankton: bioaccumulation by equilibrium
partitioning. Environ. Sci. Technol. 11:676-682.
CLAY001F
167
-------
Comiskey, C.E., T.A. Farmer, C.C. Brandt, and 6. P. Romberg. 1984. Toxicant
Pretreatment Planning Study Technical Report C2: Puget Sound benthic studies
and ecological implications. Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle, Seattle,
WA. 373 pp.
MET0029F
Connell, A.D., and D.D. Airey. 1979. Life-cycle bioassays using two estuarine
amphipods, Grandidierella lutosa and J5. 1 ignorum, to determine detrimental
sublethal levels of marine pollutants? 5. Africfan J. Sci. 75:313-314.
CONN201F
Connor, M.S. 1983. Estimating the public health risk of organic carcinogens
in U.S. fish. Paper No. 15. In: International Ocean Disposal Symposium
Series. Special Symposium: Ocean Waste Management: Policy and Strategies.
University of Rhode Island, Kingston, RI. 26 pp.
CONN002F
Cooley, R. , and R. Matasci. 1984. Treatment plant evaluation. Toxicant
Pretreatment Planning Study Technical Report Al. METRO Toxicant Program
Report No. 4A. Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle, Seattle, WA. 108 pp.
MET0037F
Cooley, R., R. Matasci, M.S. Merrill, and Brown and Caldwell. 1984. Collection
system evaluation. Toxicant Pretreatment Planning Study Technical Report
A2. METRO Toxicant Program Report No. 4B. Municipality of Metropolitan
Seattle, Seattle, WA. 100 pp.
MET0052F
Cooper, R.C., and C.A. Keller. 1969. Epizootiology of papillomas in English
sole, Parophrys vetulus. Natl. Cancer Inst. Monogr. 31:173-185.
.COOPOOTF
Crecelius, E.A., and C.W. Apts. 1984. Concentration and speciation of
arsenic in flatfish and crabs collected from Commencement Bay. Draft report.
Prepared for Tacoma-Pierce County Health Department, Tacoma, WA. Battelle
Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Richland, WA. 8 pp.
CREC004D
Crecelius, E.A., M.H. Bothner, and R. Carpenter. 1975. Geochemistry of
arsenic, antimony, mercury, and related elements in sediments of Puget
Sound. Environ. Sci. Technol. 9:325-333.
CREC001F
Crouch, E.A.C., R. Wilson, and L. Zeise.
water. Water Resour. Res. 19:1359-1375.
CROU001F
1983. The risks of drinking
Cummins, J.M. 1973. Results of oyster embryo bioassay of Duwamish River
bottom sediments. U.S. EPA Environmental Research Laboratory, Manchester,
WA. 8 pp.
CUMM007F
168
-------
Cummins, J.M. 1974. Oyster embryo bioassay of seawater and
from the Duwamish River, Elliott Bay, and Clam Bay, Washington.
Environmental Research Laboratory, Manchester, WA. 10 pp.
CUMM008F
sediments
U.S. EPA
Cummins, J. 1984. Data tables and figures for bioassay, sediment chemistry,
benthic infauna, and station locations. Puget Sound Survey. U.S. EPA
Region X, Seattle, WA.
BNWS004D
Dawe, C.J. 1980. Polyoma tumors in mice and x-cell tumors in fish, viewed
through telescope and microscope. Eleventh International Symposium of Princess
Takamatsu Cancer Research Fund, Nakahara Memorial Lecture.
DAWE00 IF
Dexter, R.N.,
Sound sediment
ERL MESA 43.
CO. 27 pp.
DEXT002F
S.P. Pavlou, and R.M. Kocan. 1979. Mutagenicity of Puget
extracts: feasibility study. NOAA Technical Memorandum
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Boulder,
Dexter, R.N., D.E. Anderson, E.A. Quinlan, L.S. Goldstein, R.M. Strickland,
S.P. Pavlou, J.R. Clayton, Jr., R.M. Kocan, and M.L. Landolt. 1981. A
summary of knowledge of Puget Sound related to chemical contaminants.
NOAA Technical Memorandum OMPA-13. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Adminis-
tration, Boulder, CO. 435 pp.
DEXT001F
Dexter, R.N., D.E. Anderson, and E.A. Quinlan. 1984. Long-term impacts
induced by disposal of contaminated river sediments in Elliott Bay, Seattle,
Washington. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station,
"Vicksburg, MS. 224 pp.
URSC004F
Dinnel, P.A., F.S. Ott, J. Minikin, D.A. Armstrong, and Q.J. Stober. 1983a.
Marine toxicology, pp. 556-657. In: Renton Sewage Treatment Plant Project.
Seahurst Baseline Study. Phase I. Draft Annual Report. Q.J. Stober and
K.K. Chew. (eds). University of Washington Fisheries Research Institute,
Seattle, WA.
UWFR001F
Dinnel, P.A., F.S. Ott, J. Minikin,
Marine toxicology, pp. 95-109. In
Seahurst Baseline Study. Phase II.
and K.K. Chew (eds). University of
Seattle, WA.
UWFR026D
D.A. Armstrong, and Q.J. Stober. 1983b.
: Renton Sewage Treatment Plant Project.
Draft Quarterly Report No. 7. Q.J. Stober
Washington Fisheries Research Institute,
Dinnell, P.A., F.S. Ott, and Q.J. Stober. 1984. Renton sewage treatment
plant project. Seahurst baseline study. Volume X. Section 12. Marine
toxicology. University of Washington Fisheries Research Institute, Seattle,
WA. 192 pp.
UWFR019F
169
-------
Duce, R.A., J.G.
organic compounds
Island.
DUCE001F
Quinn, C.E. Olny. 1972. Enrichment of heavy metals and
in the surface microlayer of Narragansett Bay, Rhode
Science 176:161-163.
E.V.S. Consultants. 1984a. Additional amphipod bioassay analyses of sediments
to be dredged from the Duwamish East Waterway. Port of Seattle, Seattle,
WA. 6 pp.
EVSC012D
E.V.S. Consultants. 1984b. Bioassay analyses of sediments to be dredged
from the Duwamish East Waterway. Port of Seattle, Seattle, WA. 11 pp.
EVSC013F
Evergreen State College. (Unpublished). Eggshell thickness and chlorinated
hydrocarbon residue in the eggs of the pigeon guilleot, Cepphus columba,
in Puget Sound. Evergreen State College, Olympia, WA. 7 pp.
ESC001D
Farris, G.D., J.M. Buffo, K.L. Clark, D.S. Sturgill,
1979. Urban drainage storm water monitoring program.
Metropolitan Seattle, Seattle, WA. 112 pp.
MET0047F
and R.I. Matsuda.
Municipality of
Gahler, A.R., R.L. Arp, and J.M. Cummins. 1982. Chemical
in edible non-salmonid fish and crabs from Commencement Bay,
U.S. EPA Environmental Services Division, Seattle, WA. 117 pp.
GAHL001F
contaminants
Washington.
Galvin, D.V, G.P. Romberg, D.R. Houck, and J.H. Lesniak. 1984. Toxicant
Pretreatment Planning Study. Summary Report. Municipality of Metropolitan
"Seattle, Seattle, WA. 202 pp.
MET0031F
Galvin, D.V., and R.K. Moore. 1982. Toxicants in urban runoff. METRO
Toxicant Program Report No. 2. Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle, Seattle,
WA. 160 pp.
MET0036F
Guess, H. , K. Crump, and R. Peto. 1977. Uncertainty estimates for low-
dose-rate extrapolations of animal carcinogenicity data. Cancer Res. 37:3475-
3483.
Hall, A., F.M. Teenyu, and E. Granglitz, Jr. 1977. Mercury in fish and
shellfish of the northwest Pacific: dogfish, Squalus acanthius. U.S. NMFS
Fish. Bull. 75:642-645.
HALL00 IF
Hamilton, S.E. 1984. Sources and transport of hydrocarbons in the Green-
Duwamish River, Washington. Environ. Sci. Technol. 18:72-79.
HAMI001F
170
-------
Hansen, D.J. 1974. Aroclor 1254: effects on composition of developing
estuarine animal communities in the laboratory. Contrib. Mar. Sci. 18:19-33.
HANS101F
Hardy, J.T., C.W. Apts, E.A. Crecelius, and N.S. Bloom. (In press). Sea-
surface microlayer metals enrichment in an urban and rural bay. Submitted
to Estuar. Coastal and Shelf Sci. 31 pp.
HARD002F
Harper-Owes Company. 1983. Water quality assessment of the Duwamish Estuary,
Washington. Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle, Seattle, WA.
MET0026F
Hinchey, L., C.C. Ebbesmeyer, J.M. Helseth, and J.M. Cox. 1980. Dynamics
of Elliott Bay and approaches, Washington. Evans Hamilton, Inc., Seattle,
WA. 58 pp.
EVHI005F
Houck, D. 11 March 1985. Personal Communication (phone by Beth Schmoyer).
Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle, Seattle, WA.
Hubbard, T. 22 February 1985. Personal Communication (phone by Beth
Schmoyer). Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle, Seattle, WA.
Hubbard, T. 8 March 1985. Personal Communication (phone by Beth Schmoyer).
Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle, Seattle, WA.
International Agency for Research on Cancer. 1978. Working group on the
evaluation of the carcinogenic risk of chemicals to humans. International
Agency for Research on Cancer Monographs Vol. 18, Polychlorinated Biphenyls,
Lyon, France.
International Agency for Research on Cancer. 1980. IARC monographs on
the evaluation of the carcinogenic risk of chemicals to humans: some metals
and metallic compounds. IARC Vol. 23, Lyon, France. 438 pp.
King County Department of Public Health. 1984. Abandoned landfill study
in the City of Seattle. King County Department of Public Health, Seattle,
WA. 121 pp.
KCPH001F
Landolt, M.L., and R.M. Kocan. 1984. Lethal and sublethal effects of
marine sediment extracts on fish cells and chromosomes. Heg. Meer. 37:479-
491.
LAND101F
Landolt, M.L., D.B. Powell, and R.M. Kocan. 1984. Renton sewage treatment
plant project. Seahurst baseline study. Volume VII. Section 8. Fish health.
University of Washington Fisheries Research Institute, Seattle, WA. 160 pp.
UWFR015F
171
-------
Landolt, M.L., F.R. Hafer, A. Nevissi, G. van Belle, K. Van Ness, and C. Rock-
well. 1985. Potential toxicant exposure among consumers of recreationally
caught fish from urban embayments of Puget Sound. NOAA Technical Memorandum
NOS-OMA-23. National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration, Rockville,
MD. 104 pp.
LeGore, R.S., and D.M. DesVoigne. 1973. Absence of acute effects on threespine
sticklebacks (Gasterosteus aculeatus) and coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch)
exposed to resuspended harbor sediment contaminants. J. Fish. Res. Board
Can. 30:1240-1242.
LEG0001F
Leon, H. 1980. Benthic community impact study. Terminal 107 (Kellogg
Island) and vicinity. Final Report. Port of Seattle, Seattle, VIA. 98 pp.
LEON001F
Letz, G. 1983. The toxicology of PCBs - an overview for clinicians.
Western J. Medicine 138:534-540.
Lie, U. 1968. A quantitative study of benthic infauna in Puget Sound,
Washington, U.S.A. in 1963-1964. Fisk. Skr., Ser. Hav. 14:229-556.
LIE 001F
Lie, U., and R.A. Evans. 1973. Long-term variability in the structure
of subtidal benthic communities in Puget Sound, Washington, USA. Mar. Biol.
21:122-126.
LIE 003F
Luzier, J.E. 1969. Geology and ground-water resources of southwestern
King County, WA. Water-Supply Bulletin No. 28. 260 pp.
LUZI001F
Malins, D.C. 1981. Data from sediments collected from central Puget Sound,
1979-1980. National Marine Fisheries Service, Seattle, WA. 5 pp.
MALI010F
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.
MALI002F
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. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Adminis-
tration, Boulder, CO. 168 pp.
MALI003F
172
-------
Malins, D.C., B.B.
P.G. Prohaska, A.J
and H.O. Hodgins
of bottom-dwelling fish
18:705-713.
MALI009F
McCain, D.W. Brown, S.-L. Chan, M.S. Myers, J.T. Landahl,
Friedman, L.D. Rhodes, D.G. Burrows, W.D. Gronlund,
1984. Chemical pollutants in sediments and diseases
in Puget Sound, Washington. Environ. Sci. Technol .
Manzanilla, E., and J.N. Cross. 1982. 1981-1982 Biennial report.
Calif. Coastal Water Res. Proj., Long Beach, CA.
MANZ001F
South
Massoth, G.J., R.A. Feely, and M.F. Lamb. 1982. Elemental composition
of suspended particulate matter in the lower Duwamish River and Elliot
Bay, WA. NOAA Technical Memorandum OMPA-17. National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, Boulder, CO. 41 pp.
MASS001F
McCain, B.B., M.S. Myers, W.D. Gronlund, S.R. Wellings, and C.E. Alpers.
1978. The frequency distribution and pathology of three diseases of demersal
fishes in the Bering Sea. J. Fish. Biol. 12:267-276.
MCCA004F
McCain, B.B.,
and microbial
2:111-130.
MCCA005F
W.D. Gronlund, M.S. Myers, and S.R. Wellings.
diseases of marine fishes in Alaskan waters.
1979. Tumors
J. Fish Dis.
McCain, B.B., M.S. Myers, and U. Varanasi. 1982. Pathology of two
of flatfish from urban estuaries in Puget Sound. NOAA Northwest and
Fisheries Center, Seattle, WA. 100 pp.
MCCA001F
species
Alaska
McCallum, M. 1985. Recreational and subsistence catch and consumption
of seafood from three urban industrial bays of Puget Sound: Port Gardner,
Elliott Bay, and Sinclair Inlet. Washington Department of Social and Health
Services, Olympia, WA. 59 pp.
MCCA301F
McGrath,
results.
Ecology,
40 pp.
MCGR201F
P. 1974. Benthic macrofaunal census of Raritan Bay; preliminary
Paper 24 in Hudson River Ecology, Third Symposium on Hudson River
22-23 March 1973. Hudson River Environmental Society, Inc., NY.
Mearns , A.J., and M.
and tumors
810.
MEAR002F
in southern
Sherwood. 1974. Environmental aspects of fin erosion
California Dover sole. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 103:799-
Mearns, A.J., R.C. Swartz, J.M. Cummins, P. Dinnell, P. Plesha, and P.M.
Chapman. (In press). Interlaboratory comparison of a sediment toxicity
test using the marine amphipod Rhepoxynius abronius. Submitted to Aquat.
Toxicol.
MEAR003F
173
-------
Metro. 1981. METRO 301(h) waiver application for the Alki Treatment Plant.
Attachment A.2: Wastewater characteristics, pp. 69-89. Municipality
of Metropolitan Seattle, Seattle, WA. 9 pp.
MET0055F
Metro. 1985. Duwamish industrial non-point source investigation.
of Metropolitan Seattle, Seattle, WA. 15 pp.
MET0034F
Municipality
Miller, B.S., and S.R. Wellings. 1971.
sole (Hippoglossoides elassodon) in East
Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 100:247-266.
MILL003F
Epizootiology of tumors on flathead
Sound, Orcas Island, Washington.
Miller, B.S., B.B. McCain, and R.C. Wingert. 1977. Ecological and disease
studies of demersal fishes near METRO operated sewage treatment plants
on Puget Sound and the Duwamish River. Final Report. Puget Sound Interim
Studies. Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle, Seattle, WA. 164 pp.
MET0013F
Morel, F.M., and S.L. Schiff. 1983. Geochemistry of municipal waste in
coastal waters, pp. 250-421. In: Ocean Disposal of Municipal Wastewater:
Impacts on the Coastal Environment. E.P. Myers and E.T. Harding, (eds).
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA.
MORE001F
Mowrer, J., J. Calambokidis, N. Musgrove, B. Drager, M.W. Beug, and S.G.
Herman. 1977. Polychlorinated biphenyls in cottids, mussels, and sediment
in southern Puget Sound, Washington. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 18:588-
594.
Mt)WR001F
Murchelano, R.A., and J. Ziskowski.
the New York Bight, pp. 329-336. In:
Oceanography, Special Symposium. Allen
MURC001F
1976. Fin rot disease studies in
American Society of Limnology and
Press, Lawrence, KS.
Myers, M.S. 1981
Pathologic anatomy of papilloma-like tumors in Pacific
" ~v from the Gulf of Alaska. M.S. Thesis. University
Ocean perch (Sebastes alutus)
of Washington, Seattle, WA.
MYER101F
Oakden, J.M., J.S. Oliver, and A.R. Flegal. 1984. Behavioral responses
of a phoxocephal id amphipod to organic enrichment and trace metals in sedi-
ments. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 14:253-257.
OAKD001F
Oliver, J.S., J.M. Oakden, and P.N. Slattery. 1982. Phoxacephalid amphipod
crustaceans as predators on larvae and juveniles in marine soft bottom
communities. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 7:179-184.
OLIV001F
174
-------
Ott, F.S. (In prep). Amphipod sediment bioassays: use of laboratory manipula-
tions of grain size and toxicants to interpret field data. Ph.D. Thesis.
University of Washington Fisheries Research Institute, Seattle, WA. 250 pp.
OTT 002D
Ott, F.S., P.O. Plesha, R.D. Bates, C. Smith, and B.B. McCain. (In prep).
An evaluation of an amphipod bioassay using sediments from Puget Sound.
36 pp.
OH 001D
Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory. 1982. Estuarine and coastal
pollutant transport and transformation: the role of particulates. FY-80-82
Summary Report. FY82 Annual Report. NOAA Pacific Marine Environmental
Laboratory, Seattle, WA. 228 pp.
PMEL001F
Parametrix,
improvements
WA. 2 pp.
PARA009D
Inc. 1985,
predesign.
Water quality.
Technical Memo.
Alki Treatment Plant outfall:
No. 83. Parametrix, Bellevue,
Paulson, A.J., and R.A. Feely. 1985. Dissolved trace metals in the surface
waters of Puget Sound. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 16:285-291.
PAUL002F
Paulson, A.J., R.A. Feely, and H.C. Curl. 1984. Behavior of Fe, Mn, Cu,
and Cd in the Duwamish River Estuary downstream of a sewage treatment plant.
Water Res. 18:633-641.
PAUL001F
Pavlou, S.P., and R.N. Dexter. 1979.
biphenyls (PCB) in estuarine ecosystems:
partitioning in the marine environment.
PAVL001F
Distributions of polychlorinated
testing the concept of equilibrium
Environ. Sci. Technol. 13:65-71.
Pearson, T.H., and R. Rosenberg. 1978. Macrobenthic succession in relation
to organic enrichment and pollution of the marine environment. Oceanogr. Mar.
Biol. Annu. Rev. 16:229-311.
PEAR001F
Pochin, E.E.
POCH001F
1975. Acceptance of risk. Br. Med. Bull. 31:184-190.
Prahl, F.G., and R. Carpenter. 1979. Role of zooplankton fecal pellets
in the sedimentation of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in Dabob Bay,
Washington.
PRAH001F
Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 43:1959-1972.
Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency. 1983. 1982 point source emissions.
Unpublished data. Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency, Olympia, WA.
6 pp.
PSAP002F
175
-------
Riley, R.G., E.A. Crecelius, and R.E. Fitzner. 1983. Organic and inorganic
toxicants in sediment and marine birds from Puget Sound. National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration, Rockville, MD. 125 pp.
RILE003F
Romberg, G.P., S.P. Pavlou, R.F. Shokes, W. Horn, E.A. Crecelius, P. Hamilton,
J.T. Gunn, R.D. Muench, and J. Vinelli. 1984. TPPS Technical Report Cl:
Presence, distribution, and fate of toxicants in Puget Sound and Lake Washing-
ton. Toxicant Pretreatment Planning Study. METRO Toxicant Program Report
No. 6A. Water Quality Division. 231 pp.
MET0014F
Ross, B., P. Dinnell, and Q. Stober. 1984. Marine toxicology. In: Renton
Sewage Treatment Plant Project. Duwamish Head. Final Report. University
of Washington Fisheries Research Institute, Seattle, WA. 370 pp.
UWFR006F
Santos, J.F., and J.D. Stoner. 1977. Physical, chemical, and biological
aspects of the Duwamish River Estuary, King County, Washington, 1963-67.
Environmental Quality. Geological Survey Water Supply Paper 1873-C. U.S.
Geological Survey, Reston, VA. 74 pp.
USGS003F
Schell, W.R., and R.S. Barnes. 1974. Lead and mercury in the aquatic
environment of western Washington State, pp. 129-165. In: Aqueous-Environ-
mental Chemistry of Metals. A.J. Rubin (ed). Ann Arbor Science, Ann Arbor,
MI.
SCHE103F
Schink, T.D., R.E. Westley, and C.E. Woelke. 1974. Pacific oyster embryo
bioassays of bottom sediments from Washington waters. Washington Department
of Fisheries, Olympia, WA. 24 pp.
SCHI001F
Seattle, Port of. 1980. Appendix. Draft Environmental Impact Statement
on alternative uses for Terminal 91 (Piers 90, 91). Port of Seattle, Seattle,
WA.
PTOS002D
Shuba, P.O., H.E. Tatem, and J.H. Carroll. 1978. Biological assessment
methods to predict the impact of open-water disposal of dredged material.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.
80 pp.
AEWS002F
Sillcox, R.L., W.R. Geyer, and G.A. Cannon. 1981. Physical transport
processes and circulation in Elliott Bay. NOAA Technical Memorandum OMPA-8.
National Oceanic and Atmosperhic Administration, Boulder, CO. 45 pp.
SILL001F
Skea, J.C., S. Jackling, J. Symula, H.A. Simonin, E.J. Harris, and J.R.
Colquhoun. 1981. Summary of fish trimming and cooking techniques used
to reduce levels of oil soluble contaminants. New York Department of Environ-
mental Conservation, Albany, NY. 36 pp.
176
-------
Smith, W.E., K. Funk, and M.E. Zabik. 1973. Effects of cooking on concen-
trations of PCB and DDT compounds in Chinook (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha)
and coho (0. kisutch) salmon from Lake Michigan. J. Fish. Res. Board Can.
30:702-706.
Staude, C.P. 1979. Changes in the intertidal macrofauna and macroflora
near Seattle's West Point Sewage Treatment Plant from 1971 to 1975. M.S.
Thesis. University of Washington School of Fisheries, Seattle, WA. 161 pp.
STAU001F
Steimle, F., J. Caracciolog, and
on New York Bight apex benthos, pp,
the New York Bight: Science and
Research Federation, Columbia, SC.
STEI201F
J.B. Pearce. 1982. Impacts of dumping
213-224. In: Ecological Stress and
Management. G.F. Mayer (ed). Estuarine
Stober, Q.J., and K.K. Chew. 1983. Renton sewage treatment plant project.
Seahurst baseline study. Phase I. Draft Annual Report. 1 April, 1982,
31 March, 1983. University of Washington Fisheries Research Institute,
Seattle, WA. >1000 pp.
UWFR001F
Stober, Q.J., and K.K. Chew. 1984. Renton sewage treatment plant project.
Duwamish Head. Final report for the period 1 July to 31 December, 1984.
University of Washington Fisheries Research Institute, Seattle, WA. 370 pp.
UWFR006F
Stober, Q.J., and K.B. Pierson.
marine resources of Elliott Bay,
Metropolitan Seattle, Seattle, WA.
UWFR004F
1984. A review of the
Seattle, Washington.
256 pp.
water qua!ity and
Municipality of
Stoner, J.D., W.L. Hauschild, and J.B. McConnell. 1975. A numerical model
of material transport in salt-wedge estuaries. Part II. Model computation
of salinity and salt-wedge dissolved oxygen in the Duwamish River Estuary,
King County, Washington. Geological Survey Professional Paper 917. 36 pp.
USGS018F
Stoner, J.D. 1967. Prediction of salt-wedge intrusion in the Duwamish
River Estuary, King County, Washington. Geological Survey Professional
Paper 575D. U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, VA. 3 pp.
USGS019F
Stromberg, P.T., M.L. Landolt, and R.M. Kocan. 1981. Alterations in the
frequency of sister chromatid exchanges in flatfish from Puget Sound, Washington
following experimental and natural exposure to mutagenic chemicals. NOAA
Technical Memorandum OMPA-10. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
43 pp.
STR0101F
177
-------
Swartz, R.C., W.A. DeBen, and F.A. Cole. 1979. A bioassay for the
of sediment to marine macrobenthos. J. Water Pollut. Control Fed.
950.
SWAR010F
toxic ity
51:944-
Swartz, R.C., D.W. Schults, G.R. Ditsworth, W.A. DeBen, and
1981. Sediment toxicity, contamination, and benthic community
near ocean disposal sites. Estuaries 4:258.
SWAR014F
F.A. Cole.
structure
Swartz, R.C., W.A. DeBen, K.A. Sercu, and J.O. Lamberson. 1982. Sediment
toxicity and the distribution of amphipods in Commencement Bay, Washington,
USA. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 13:359-364.
SWAR002F
Swartz, R.C., W.A. DeBen, J.K.P. Jones, J.O. Lamberson, and F.A. Cole.
1985. Phoxocephalid amphipod bioassay for marine sediment toxicity. pp. 284-
307. In: Aquatic Toxicology and Hazard Assessment: Seventh Symposium.
R.D. Cardwell, R. Purdy, and R.C. Bahner (eds). ASTM STP 854. American
Society of Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, PA.
SWAR009F
Swartz, R.C., D.W. Schults, G.R. Ditsworth, W.A. DeBen, and F.A. Cole.
(In press). Sediment toxicity, contamination and macrobenthic communities
near a large sewage outfall. The Proceedings of the 7th Symposium on Aquatic
Toxicology. American Society of Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, PA.
25 pp.
SWAR008F
Sweet-Edwards & Associates. 1985. Duwamish groundwater studies. Prepared
for Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle (METRO). Sweet-Edwards & Associates,
Redmond, WA.
Tetra Tech. 1984. A decision-making approach for the Commencement Bay
Nearshore/Tideflats Superfund Project. Prepared for the Washington State
Department of Ecology. Tetra Tech, Bellevue, WA. 64 pp.
TTB 010F
Tetra Tech. 1985a. Commencement Bay Nearshore/Tideflats Remedial Investi-
gation. 2 Volumes. Prepared for Washington Department of Ecology and
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Tetra Tech, Bellevue, WA. 642 pp.
TTB 051F
Tetra Tech. 1985b. Elliott Bay Toxics Action Program: interim work plan.
Prepared for U.S. EPA Region X and Washington Department of Ecology. Tetra
Tech, Bellevue, WA. 35 pp.
TTB 128F
Tetra Tech. 1985c. Elliott
action plans. Final Report.
U.S. EPA Region X, Seattle, WA.
TTB 062F
Bay Toxics Action
Prepared for the
Plan: Review of existing
Office of Puget Sound.
178
-------
Tetra Tech. 1985d. Sampling and analysis design for development of Elliott
Bay Toxics Action Plan. Final Report. Prepared for the Office of Puget
Sound. U.S. EPA Region X, Seattle, WA. 69 pp.
TTB 055F
Thorn, R.M., K.K. Chew, and J.Q. Word. 1979. Abundance, biomass, and trophic
structure of the subtidal infaunal communities of the eastern side of central
Puget Sound. Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle, Seattle, WA.
THOM101F
Thomas, L.M. 1984. EPA memorandum on determining acceptable risk levels
for carcinogens in setting alternate concentration levels under RCRA.
Bureau of National Affairs, Inc., Washington, D.C.
EPA 018F
Tomlinson, R.D., B.N. Bebee, A.A. Heyward, S.G. Munger, R.G. Swartz, S. Lazoff,
D.E. Spyridakis, M.F. Shepard, R.M. Thorn, K.K. Chew, and R.R. Whitney.
1980. Fate and effects of particulates discharged by combined sewers and
storm drains. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
MET0023F
Tomlinson, R.P., B.N. Bebee, and R.G. Swartz. 1976. Combined sewer overflow
studies. Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle, Seattle, WA. 98 pp.
MET0024D
Trial , W.T., and E.B. Welch.
nitrification, sediment release,
Washington Water Research Center,
UWCE001F
1982. Ammonium in the Duwamish Estuary:
and toxicity. U.S. Department of Interior
Pullman, WA. 87 pp.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1980. Water quality criteria documents:
availability. U.S. EPA, Washington, DC. Federal Register Vol. 45, No. 231,
Part V. pp. 79318-79379.
EPA 017F
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1982. Organic analyses for Duwamish
River surveys, September 1982. Unpublished data. U.S. EPA Region X, Seattle,
WA. 10 pp.
EPAX009F
U.S. Environmental
River surveys, July
WA. 10 pp.
EPAX009F
Protection Agency, 1983.
1983. Unpublsihed data.
Organic analyses
U.S. EPA Region
for Duwamish
X, Seattle,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1984a.
carcinogen risk assessment; request for comments
D.C. Federal Register, Vol. 49, No. 227, Part VII.
Proposed guidelines for
U.S. EPA, Washington,
pp. 46294-46301.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1984b. Health assessment document
for epichlorohydrin. Final Report. EPA-600/8-83-032F. Office of Health
and Environmental Assessment, Washington, DC.
179
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1984c. Health assessment document
for inorganic arsenic. EPA-600/8-83-021F. Office of Health and Environmental
Assessment, Washington, DC.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1985a. Health assessment document
for tetrachloroethylene (perchloroethylene). Final Report. EPA-600/8-82/005F.
Office of Health and Environmental Assessment, Washington, DC.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 19855. Proposed guidelines for
the health risk assessment of chemical mixtures and request for comment;
notice. U.S. EPA, Washington, D.C. Federal Register, Vol. 50, No. 6, Part
III. pp. 1170-1176.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental Criteria and Assessment
Office. 8 August 1984. Personal Communication (letter to Dr. Robert
Pastorok). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH.
U.S. Food and Drug Administration. 1982. Action levels for poisonous
or deleterious substances in human food and animal feed. U.S. Department
of Health, Education, and Welfare, Food and Drug Administration, Washington,
DC. 13 pp.
U.S. Office of Science and Technology. 1984. Chemical carcinogens; review
of the science and its associated principles, May, 1984. U.S. Office of
Science and Technology, Washington, DC. Federal Register, Vol. 49, No. 100.
pp. 21594-21661.
Van Blaricom, G.R. 1982. Experimental analyses of structural regulation
in a marine sand community exposed to ocean swell. Ecol. Monogr. 52:283-305.
VANB002F
Washington, H.G. 1984. Diversity, biotic and similarity indices. A review
with special relevance to aquatic ecosystems. Water Res. 18:653-694.
WASH001F
Wellings, S.R., C.E. Alpers, B.B. McCain, and B.S. Miller. 1976. Fin
erosion disease of starry flounder (PIatyichthys stellatus) and English
sole (Parophrys vetul us) in the estuary of the Duwamish River, Seattle,
Washington. J. Fish. Res. Board Can. 33:2577-2586.
WELL102F
Winter, D.F. 1977. Studies of circulation and primary production in deep
inlet environments. EPA-600/3-77-049. U.S. EPA Environmental Research
Laboratory, Corvallis, OR. 100 pp.
WINT002F
Woelke, C.E. 1972. Development of a receiving water quality bioassay
criterion based on the 48-hour Pacific oyster (Crassostrea gigas) embryo.
Washington Department of Fisheries, Olympia, WA.93 pp.
WDOF001F
180
-------
Word, J.Q., and C.C. Ebbesmeyer. 1984. Renton sewage treatment plant
project. Seahurst baseline study. Volume XI. Section 14. pp. 40-86.
The influence of floatable materials from treated sewage effluents on shore-
lines. University of Washington Fisheries Research Institute, Seattle,
WA.
UWFR021F
Word, J.Q., P.L. Strip!in, K. Keeley, J. Ward, P. Sparks-McConkey, L. Bentler,
S. Hulsman, K. Li, J. Schroeder, and K. Chew. 1984. Renton sewage treatment
plant project. Seahurst baseline study. Volume V. Section 6. Subtidal
benthic ecology. University of Washington Fisheries Research Institute,
Seattle, WA. 461 pp.
UWFR013F
Word, J.Q., C.D. Boatman, and C.C. Ebbesmeyer. 1984. Vertical transport
of freon extractable and non-extractable material and bacteria (fecal coliform
and enterococci) to the surface of marine waters: some experimental results
using secondary sewage effluent. Renton Sewage Treatment Plant Project.
Seahurst Baseline Study. Vol. XI. Sec. 13. 39 pp.
UWFR020F
Yake, W.E. 1981a. The impact of effluent from the Renton Wastewater Treatment
Plant on the dissolved oxygen regimen of the lower Green/Duwamish River.
Washington Department of Ecology, Olympia, WA. 19 pp.
WDOE099F
Yake, W.E. 1981b. Metro work on un-ionized ammonia and potential fish
kills in the Duwamish River. Amnonia toxicity to fish. Memorandum. Washington
Department of Ecology, Olympia, WA. 1 pp.
WDOE105F
Yake, W.E. 1982. Renton Treatment Plant, water quality issues: response
to PSCOG working paper (1982). Washington Department of Ecology, Olympia,
WA. 16 pp.
WDOE103F
Zar, J.H. 1974. Biostatistical analysis. Prentice-Hall, Inc. 620 pp.
ZAR 001F
Zawlocki, K.R. 1981. A survey of trace organics in highway runoff in
Seattle, WA. M.S. Thesis. University of Washington, Seatte, WA. 147 pp.
ZAWL001F
181
-------
APPENDICES
-------
APPENDIX A
DATA EVALUATION SUMMARY TABLES
-------
APPENDIX A
Data evaluations are summarized for individual study types (pollutant
source, sediment contamination and bioaccumulation, sediment bioassays,
subtidal and intertidal benthic infaunal communities and fish pathology)
in the following appendix. Two summaries are provided for each study type.
The first table lists the evaluation summaries for all documents reviewed
for Elliott Bay. A summary of the scope of the accepted studies follows
in a second table.
The first table lists the document code of each study evaluated.
Full references can be found in Elliott Bay library list. The remaining
information includes the final conclusion as to whether or not the study
was acceptable for the purposes of source evaluation and problem area identifica-
tion, and the adequacy of the procedures for sample collection, sampling
handling, quality assurance, and analyses. In the case of biological studies,
analyses refer to statistical analyses. In all other cases the term refers
to laboratory analytical techniques.
A summary of the scope of the accepted studies follows each of the
above tables. The format for the accepted studies table varies by study
type but all present the following information: document code (full reference
is in Appendix B), author/year citation, period of study, type of samples
taken, variables measured or analyzed, number of stations, number of replicates
per station and number of times a station was sampled during the study
period.
A-l
-------
TABLE A-l. DATA EVALUATION SUMMARY FOR POLLUTANT SOURCE STUDIES
Document No.
BARR003F
MET0014F
MET0023F
METOU24D
MET0026F
MET0032F
MET0033F
METOU35F
MET0036F
MET0037F
METU046F
METU047F
MET0048F
MET0049F
MET0052F
METUU53F
MET0054F
MET0055F
MET0058F
MET0059F
TOML001F
WDOE098F
WDOE110F
WDOE112F
WDOE113F
WDOE114F
WOOE115F
WDOE116F
WDOE117F
Yes/No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Examine
Yes
Yes
?
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
SC
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
N
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
N
A
N
N
N
A
A
N
A
A
A
A
A
A
SH
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
N
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
N
A
A
A
A
N
N
QA
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
N
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
I
I
A
A
A
N
N
AM
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
N
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
N
A
A
A
A
N
N
DL
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
N
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
N
A
A
A
A
A
A
Comments
Water-column samples Duwamish
Denny Way regulator
Denny Way and Hanford
Some work not Metro's
Questionable metals data
Florida St.
Est. of CSO annual disch.
Not spec. Elliott Bay
Raw data for MET0037F
Rainfall vs. runoff
Rainfall vs. overflow vol.
Ind. waste raw data
TPPS-A2
Cu, Pb
Alki effluent
Alki effluent
Duwamish effluent
West Point effluent
Lake Wash, mass loadings
Time of travel fr. RTP
Water quality index
Longfellow Ck.
Some salt water influence in
analysis
Sodium arsenite from Todd
drydocks
Historical
Historical
Seattle Steam
Seattle Steam
A = Adequate, I = Inadequate, N = Not Available, SC = Sample Collection,
SH = Sample Handling, QA = QAQC, AM = Analytical Methods, DL ป Detection Limits.
A-2
-------
TABLE A-2. SUMMARY OF ACCEPTED POLLUTANT SOURCE STUDIES
Document No.
BARR003F
MET0014F
MET0023F
MET00240
METOU32F
MET0033F
MET0036F
MET0037F
MET0046F
MET0047F
METU048F
MET0049F
MET0052F
MET0053F
METU054F
METOU55F
MET0058F
METUUb9F
TOML001F
WOOE098F
WDOE112F
WOOE113F
WDOE114F
WOOE115F
WDOE116F
WDOE117F
Author(s)/Year
Barrick 1982
Romberg 1984
Tomlinson 1980
Tomlinson 1976
Hubbard 1984
Hubbard 1984
Galvin 1982
Cooley 1984
Coo ley 1984
Farris 1979
Staff 1971
Gall 1984
METRO 1984
Farris 1980
METRO 1981
METRO 1981
METRO 1981
METRO 1981
Tomlinson 1980
Bernhardt 1981
Uevitt 1972
Jeanne 1973
Uevitt 1972
Devitt 1973
WDOE 1984
WDOE 1984
Samples
WPTP
REC(l)
CSO
CSO
SD
SD
RNO
RTP,WPTP
RTP.WPTP
RNO
CSO
RTP.WPTP
CSO
SD
ATP
ATP
DTP
WPTP
CSO, SO
REC(l)
IND,REC(2)
IND
IND
I NO
IND
IND
Variables
ORG
MET, ORG
MET.ORG.CONV
MET,ORG,CONV
MET.ORG.CONV
MET
MET, ORG
MET,ORG,CONV
MET, ORG
MET.ORG.CONV
CONV
MET.ORG.CONV
MET, ORG
MET
MET, CONV, ORG
MET, CONV
MET, ORG
MET, ORG, PEST
MET.ORG.CONV
MET, ORG, CONV
MET.ORG.CONV
MET(3)
CONV
MET, CONV
MET
MET
Period
12/77-8/79
10/80-9/82
3/7/79 & 10/23-24/79
8/5,7/76
4/5/84
2/14/84
6/80-6/82
11/19/80-6/15/82
11/19/80-6/15/82
10/20/74-12/7/75
10/69-12/70
1/22/82-4/11/82
3/8/80
5/17/78-8/2/79
1973-1975
5/17/78-1/25/79
5/18/78-1/25/79
3/23-24/78,4/15,31/78
9/18-19/79,10/2-3/79
4/11/72
12/5/72
11/9/72
12/18/72
11/4/83-5/8/84
# Stations
1
52
1
4
5
4
2
1
1
3
16
23
4
7
1
1
1
1
1
18
7
15
15
10
1
1
# Replicates
0
0-2
0
0
0
0
11
11
11
0
0
0
0
0
Var.
Van.
Var.
Var.
0
0
0
0-1
0
Var.
0
0
# Times
19
1-2
2
2
1
1
19
22
22
Var.
26
Var.
4
1
2
Var.
1-2
1-2
2
4
1
1
1
1
12
1
CSO = Combined sewer overflow, SD = storm drain, RTP = Renton treatment plant
WPTP = West Point treatment plant, RNO = runoff, REC = receiving water
IND = industrial waste, MET = metals, ORG = organics, CONV = conventionals
1. Duwamish
2. Longfellow Ck.
3. Sodium arsenite
-------
TABLE A-3. DATA EVALUATION SUMMARY FOR SEDIMENT CONTAMINATION
AND BIOACCUMULATION STUDIES
Document No.
AMTS002F
BATE001F
AEWS013F
EPAX007F
BOTH001F
CALM001F
CARP002F
CLAY001F
COES005F
CREC001F
DEXT001F
URSC004F
FURLOU1F
HAFF001F
HAMI001F
HAMIU02F
HOC0001F
MET0026F
HOMW001F
MET0008F
KONA001F
UWD0006F
LENA001F
MALI001F
MALI002F
MALI008F
. MASS001F
" MET0010F
MET0011F
MILL001F
MOWROU1F
MURRUU1F
OLSEUU1F
PMEL001F
PAUL001F
AEWSU15F
PAVL001F
UWD0005F
UWDOOU8F
RILEOU1F
METOU14F
USGS003F
SCHE102F
SCHE1U3F
Class
SE
SE
SE.P
SE.P.W
SE.P.W
B
SE
B,W
W.SE
SE
SE.P.W.B
SE
P,W
P
P
W.SE
SE.B.P.W
SE
W
SE.B.W
W
W
SE.B
SE.B
SE.B
P
SE.W
W
W
SE,B
SE,P;W
8
SE.P.W
W
SE.P.W
SE.P.W.B
SE.P.W.B
SE.P.W.B
P
SE.P.W.B
SE.P.W.B
SE.P
Ace?
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
SC
N
A
A
A
A
A
N
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
I
A
A
A
A
A
I
A
I
N
SH
N
A
I
A
A
A
I
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
I
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
N
QA
N
A
N
N
A
N
A
A
A
A
I
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
N
A
A
N
AM
N
A
I
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
I
A
A
A
A
A
I
A
A
N
Comments
Limited data; unknown quality
Limited compounds; not in area
Errors; old; limited data
Older data, from a trans study
Older data
Older data; limited
Summary paper; old
Old data of limited pertinence
With AMTS002F; convents maybe
Old data; limited
Summary report
PCBs and conventional s
Aazarenes, limited pertinence
Old study of transient event
Near Renton STP only; aliphats
Up. Duwamish only; aliphatics
Sum report of conv. wat. qual .
Summary report
Older PCB data; limited spatially
Old water quality report
Summary report
Old conventional data
Old study of conventional s
Limited new data; no raw data
Summary report
Metals in river and bay
Summary report
Summary planning document
Old summary of conventional s
Older PCB data; limited
Fe only; limited data
Older data of limited scope
PAHs and metals; not comprehensive
Metals in water at Renton
PCBs and convent.; older data
Summary paper
PCBs and convent.; older data
PCBs and convent.; older data
Preliminary analyses
Some data better than others
Good summary of river system
Older data; some questionable
Summary paper
A-4
-------
TABLE A-3. (Continued)
EPAX009F
UWFR006
STRI001F
AEWS004F
STOT001F
AEWS016F
TAT0001F
AEWS003F
MET0024U
WDOE100F
USGS004F
WELC001F
WuOE09yF
SE
SE
SE
B
B
SE
W
B
SE.P
W
W
W
W
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
A
A
A
I
A
A
A
A
N
A
A
A
A
A
A
N
I
I
A
A
N
A
A
A
A
A
A
I
1
I
I
N
N
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
I
I
A
N
A
A
A
Duwamish Head baseline
Good sum of sed trans in river
PCBs and metals; some bad; old
PCBs and DDTs; old and limited
Metals and some convent.; old
Old study; technique develop
Old data; some questionable
Older data
Storet data for conventional s
Ecology of the river
Ecology of the river
Conventional pollutants
SE = sediment, P = particulates, W = water, B = biota.
A = Adequate, I = Inadequate, N = Not Available, SC = Sample Collection,
SH = Sample Handling, QA = QAQC, AM = Analytical Methods.
A-5
-------
TABLE A-4. SUMMARY OF ACCEPTEU SEDIMENT CONTAMINATION STUDIES
AND BIOACCUMULATION STUDIES
Document No.
EPAX009F
MASSOU1F
MALI002F
MET0014F
PMEL001F
URSC004F
UWFR006F
Author/Year
EPA 1983
Massoth 1982
Mai ins 1980
Romberg 1984
Curl 1982
Dexter 1984
Stober 1984
Sample
Type
Se
P
Se, B
Se, B
Se, P
Se, B
Se
Variables
Accepted
Me, Org
Me, Cv
Me, Org, Cv
Me, Org, Cv
Me, Dry, Cv
PCBs, Cv
Org, Cv
Period
of Study
9/82+7/83
2/80
2/79-10/79
9/81-1/83
1979-1981
2/79-5/80
1984
No. Stat.
in Area
65
78
17
61
Var
45
35
No. Reps.
0
0
0
0-3
Var
0-2
0
No. Times
Sampled
1
1
1
1-3
Var
1
1
f*
CTt
Se = sediment, B = bioaccumulation, P = particulates, Me = metals,
Org = organics, PCBs = polychlorinated biphenyls, CV = conventional
-------
TABLE A-5. DATA EVALUATION SUMMARY FOR
SEDIMENT TOXICITY BIOASSAYS
Document No.
AEWS002F
BNWS0020
CARD001F
CAKD002F
CHAP001F
CHAP002F
CHAP004F
CHAP008F
CHAP009F
CHAP010F
CHAP011F
EPAX004F
LAND101F
LONG003F
LONGD01F
MALI003F
MALI004F
MALI 007 F
MALI 001 F
MET0029F
(=CHAP010)
MET0031F
OTT001D
OTT0020
SCOT001D
SWAR004F
SWAR005F
WHIT001F
UWFR006F
Yes/No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
Yes
SC*
A
A
N
N(A)
A
A
A
A
I
A/?
A
A
A
N
N
A
I
A(N)
N
A
A
A
A
A
KN)
A
SH*
A/ 1
A
N(A)
N(A)
A
A
A
A
I
A/?
A
A
A
N
N
A
I
A(N)
N
A
A
A
A
A
N
A
QA
A
I
N(A)
N(A)
A
A
A
A
I
A
A
A
A
N
N
I
I
I
I
A
A
A
A
A
I
A
AM
A
A
A
N(A)
A
A
A
A
I
A
A
A
A
N
N
I
I
I
A
A( I )
A
A
A
A
I
A
A/0
A
_
0
AM
0
0
AOM
-
AM
M
0
M
-
-
M
-
M
M
AOM
-
A
A
A
AM
A
-
AO
Comments
Not standard tests
Need more info prior to
using data
Data in CARD002F
Only data; other info in
CARD001F. Missing some data
for Study #43 (E.B.)
Amp. data not standard
methods. Olig, trout
Port Madison ref. area
Data, etc. reported in
CHAP002F
Stand, techniques for amphi-
pods (olig, trout)
Overview of bioassays
Use only amphipod data from
Phase IIIB; olig, trout
Publication of CHAP002F
poly, data
Liberty Bay, Hood Canal,
Clam Bay
Trout publication of data
from CHAP002&1F (SED)
Overview summary paper with
Puget Sound model
Summary of Puget Sound
bioassay data
Focus on histopathology; fish
Review petroleum and fishes
In situ exposures of crabs/
molluscs
Focus on pathology: spiked
sediments. Injection of
sediment extracts; whole
sediments
Use only Phase IIIB data for
amphipods
Summary/discussion of above
Need raw data; recirculating
Flow-through & static methods
Info only as east coast study
of amphipods
Testing of dredge spoils.
Early methods w/R.a.
In defense of R.a. bioassays
Bioassay hoax-academic value
Need data; oyster tests
rejected
A-7
-------
TABLE A-5. (Continued)
BNWS004D
EVSC012D
EVSC013F
CUMMUU7F
CUMMU08F
CHAP012F
SCHNOU2F
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
A
A
A
A
A/ 1
A
I
A
A
A
A
A
A
I
A
A
A
A
I
A
I
A
A
A
A
I
A
I
A
A
AO
0
0
A
-
Phase II Cummins EPA/Battelle
Additional assays E. Duw.
dredge; ignore tests from
below surface
Dredge material E. Duwamish;
ignore subsurface tests
Early oyster work Duwamish
Poor control survival
Data in MET0029f
Fouling panel studies
A = Adequate, I = Inadequate, N = Not Available, SC = Sample Collection, SH = Sample
Handling, QA = QAQC, AM = Analytical Methods, A/0 = amphipods(A), oysters(0), or
miscellaneous(M).
*If only one letter, refers to both animals and sediment; otherwise first
letter is animals, second sediment.
A-8
-------
TABLE A-6. SUMMARY OF ACCEPTED SEDIMENT TOXICITY STUDIES
Document No.
BNWS004D
CHAPU02F
CHAP008F
EVSCU12U
EVSC013F
METOU29F
UTTU01D
OTT002D
UWFR006F
Author(s)/Year
Cummins 1984
Chapman et al . 1983
Chapman et al . 1984
EVS 1984
EVS 1984
Comiskey et al. 1984
Utt et al. 1985
Ott 198b
Stober/Chew 1984
Samples*
8
9
Ref
9
24
7
12
28
Variables
Amp hi pod
Oyster
Amphipod, Oyster
Amphipod
Amphipod, Oyster
Amphipod
Amphipod
Amphipod
Amphipod
Period
Apr-May 1984
Fall 1982
May-Aug 1983
Sep 1984
Oct 1984
Spring 1983
Spring-Summer 1980
Oct-Nov 1983
July-Sep 1984
Y/N
Y
N
N
N
N,N
Y
N
N
Y
Replicates
5
2
5,2
b
5,3
6
4
4
Map Code
84
CP2
EV12
EV13
ME29
OT1
OT2
UW6
Y/N = data recalculated (yes/no); * = number in Elliott Bay (excludes control and ref.).
-------
TABLE A-7. DATA EVALUATION SUMMARY FOR STUDIES OF
SUBTIDAL BENTHIC INFAUNA
Document No.
AEWS006F
AEWS008F
AEWSU14F
ARMS001F
BECK002F
BRCA013F
CHAP001F
COES004D
DOME001F
EVSC011F
HARM001F
LEON001F
LIEOU1F
MET0007F
MET0024U
MET0029F
MET0056F
PTOSOU1F
PTOS002D
SYLV001F
THOM101F
THOM105F
TTB062D
URSC004F
UWFR002F
UWFR006F
UWFR012F
UWFR013F
WOR0006D
Yes/No
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
Part
No
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
SC
A
A
A
A
I
I
I
A
N
N
I
A
A
A
I
A
A
A
A
I
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
SH
N
N
A
A
A
I
I
A
N
N
A
N
A
N
N
A
A
A
A
N
A
A
A
A
N
A
A
A
A
QA
N
N
N
N
N
I
I
N
N
N
N
N
A
N
N
A
A
N
N
N
N
N
N
A
N
A
A
A
A
AM
N
N
A
A
-
I
I
N
I
-
-
-
-
-
N
A
N
A
-
A
A
A/ 1
A
I
A
A
A
A
Comments
Trawl caught invertebrates
Same data as AEWS014
Older data set - incomplete
taxonomy
Benthic study secondary to
fish studies
Used Peterson dredge, incom-
plete taxonomy
Observed presence/absence of
invertebrates
Inadequate data base,
incomplete taxonomy
Seven taxa ID'd only, no
replicates
Uses historical data - note
sampling method
Incomplete taxonomy, no
replicates
Incomplete taxonomy the only
data set for Duwamish River
Data 20 years old
No data, inadequate sample
size
Inadequate taxonomy, little
information
Same subtidal data as ARMS001
Inadequate taxonomy
Questionable recovery
Little information, inade-
quate taxonomy
No replicates, data not
available
Data not available
Data included elsewhere
Data currently not available
Questionable recovery with
sampling technique
Reference site only
Reference site only
Replication study unpublished
A = Adequate, I = Inadequate, N = Not Available, SC = Sample Collection,
SH = Sample Handling, QA = QAQC, AM * Analytical Methods.
A-10
-------
TABLE A-8. DATA EVALUATION SUMMARY FOR
INTERTIDAL bENTHIC INFAUNA
Document No. Yes/No SC SH QA AM
Comments
ARMSUU2F
CHEW001F
CHEW002F
LEONOU1F
METOU23F
METOU66F
STAU001F
UWFKOU6F
UWFRU12F
MET0019F
MET0021F
Yes A
No A
No A
Part A/ I
No A
Yes A
Yes A
Yes A
Yes A
Full report
Full report
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
and data
and data
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
A
A
in
in
No tidal heights, two reps
only, 6 mm screen, class
project
No tidal heights, two reps
only, 6 mm screen, class
project
Only 1 rep shallow subtidal,
3 cores intertidal, incom-
plete taxonomy
Data set unavailable
-
No tidal heights, two reps
only, 6 mm screen
A
A Reference sites only
ARMS002F
CHEW001, CHEW002F, STAU001F
A = Adequate, I = Inadequate, N = Not Available, SC = Sample Collection,
SH = Sample Handling, QA = QAQC, AM = Analytical Methods.
A-ll
-------
TABLE A-9. SUMMARY OF ACCEPTED BENTHIC INFAUNA STUDIES
Docwtnt No. Author(s)/Tear
IEONU01F Leon 1980
KT0019F Anastrona et ซ1. 1977
NET0021F Staude et (I. 1977
STAUUU1F Staude 1979
AP.HSU02F Armstrong 1977
UWFR012F Thai ct ll. 1984
METU029F Conlskey et ll. 1984
AMG001F Anatrond. 1980
UUFR006F Stobcr 1 Chen 1984
PTUS002D Port of Still ) 1980
HUHUUU6 Word et *l. - unpuD.
TA to til abundance
TT total taxi
PA polychaete abundance
PT polychaete taxi
HA mollusc abundance
NT noil use taxa
AA arthropod abundance
AT arthropod taxa
EA echlnodem abundance
ET echlnodem tana
OA Miscellaneous abundance
OT Miscellaneous taxi
Period
8/77 to 4/78
7/74 to 5/76
4/71 to 5/75
4/71 to 5/75
7/74 to 5/76
4/82 to 4/84
9/81 to 8/82
4/77 to S/77
7/84 to 10/84
9/81
Type
I/S
1
I
1
S
s
I/S
S
ปSta.
9/5
IS
47
a?
9
18 to 30
-70
13
-13/83
4
ซep.
3*1/2
2
2
z
2
10 to IS
1 to 4
2?
S/4
10
Times
2
a
3
j
7
8
3
2
3
1
Saiplt
Total
64/20
240
-280
-280
126
250*
277
52
19S/247
Variables of Concern (see key)
TA TT PA PT MA MT AA AF EA ET OA OT Other Coments
>/> I/I ป/* X/X X/l X/X X/X X/X X/X X/X X/X X/I Kelloug Island/Dummlsh River ID'S o.k.
to family
X X X X X Alkl/Uest Point see ARMSOU2F
West Point see STAUOU1F
data for son* species
XXX Seahurstt for dontnant fauna only at
son* sites
Sumarles for nost other
I X X X X X TPPS - West Point/Northern Elliott Bay-
Data suwjrtes only
1-2 rep analyzed
XXX X I I X Hepl teat Ion studies. Need to obtain raw
data for tophi pods
AHMSUOU for suotldal
-------
TABLE A-10. DATA EVALUATION SUMMARY FOR FISH PATHOLOGY STUDIES
Document No. Yes/No SC SH QA AM
Comments
GRIG001F
MCCAUU3F
WELL101F
WELL103F
WELL102F
STIT001F
PIER101F
MILLU02F
MILL003F
MOULU01F
MET0012F
MET0013F
UWFR006F
MCCA001F
MALI009F
MALI003F
MALI002F
UWFR015F
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
A
A
I
A
A
N
A
A
I
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
N
A
A
I
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
A
A
A
A
A
N
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
Data in MALI009F
Data in MALI009F
Reference area
A - Adequate, I = Inadequate, N = Not Available, SC = Sample Collection,
SH ซ Sample Handling, QA = QAQC, AM = Analytical Methods.
A-13
-------
TABLE A-ll. SUMMARY OF ACCEPTED FISH PATHOLOGY STUDIES
Document No.
MCCA001F
MALI009F
MALI003F
MALIOU2F
UWFR015F
Author(s)/Year
McCain et al .
Mai ins et al .
Mai ins et al .
Mai ins et al .
Landolt et al
1982
1984
1982
1980
. 1984
Samples Variables Period
English sole Liver disorders 78-80
Starry flounder
English sole Liver disorders 79-82
Rock sole
Stag, sculpin
English sole Liver disorders 82-83
Dover sole
Slender sole
Number
Sta. Keps. Times
7 1 5
16 1 4-6
3 1 8
-------
APPENDIX B
BIBLIOGRAPHY OF SELECTED STUDIES EVALUATED FOR USE IN SOURCE
EVALUATION AND ELEVATION ABOVE REFERENCE (EAR) ANALYSIS
-------
APPENDIX B. BIBLIOGRAPHY OF SELECTED STUDIES EVALUATED FOR
USE IN SOURCE EVALUATION AND ELEVATION ABOVE REFERENCE (EAR) ANALYSIS
AEWS002F
Shuba, P.J., H.E. Tatem, and J.H. Carroll. 1978. Biological assessment
methods to predict the impact of open-water disposal of dredged material.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.
80 pp.
AEWS003F
Teeny, F.M., and A.S. Hall. 1977. Effects of dredged material of the
concentration of mercury and chromium in several species of marine animals.
Aquatic Disposal Field Investigations, Duwamish Waterway Disposal Site,
Puget Sound, Washington. Appendix C. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways
Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. 22 pp.
AEWS006F
Hughes, J.R., W.E. Ames, and D.A. Misitano. 1978. Effects of dredged
material disposal on demersal fish and shellfish in Elliott Bay, Seattle,
Washington. Aquatic Disposal Field Investigations, Duwamish Waterway Disposal
Site, Puget Sound, Washington. Appendix A. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. 62 pp.
AEWS008F
Bingham, C.R. 1978. Benthic community structural changes resulting from
dredged material disposal, Elliott Bay disposal site. Aquatic Disposal
Field Investigations, Duwamish Waterway Disposal Site, Puget Sound, Washington.
Appendix G. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station,
Vicksburg, MS. 103 pp.
AEWS013F
Baumgartner, D.J., D.W. Schults, and J.B. Carkin. 1978. Chemical disposal
of dredged material in Elliott Bay. Aquatic Disposal Field Investigations,
Duwamish Waterway Disposal Site, Puget Sound, Washington. Appendix D.
Vol. I. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg,
MS. 65 pp.
AEWS014F
Harman, R.A., and J.C. Serwold. 1978. Recolonization of benthic macrofauna
over a deep-water disposal site. Aquatic Disposal Field Investigations,
Duwamish Waterway, Puget Sound, Washington. Appendix F. U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. 163 pp.
AEWS015F
Pavlou, S.P-, R.N. Dexter, and W. Horn. 1978. Release and distribution
of polychlorinated biphenyls induced by open-water dredge disposal activities.
Aquatic Disposal Field Investigations, Duwamish Waterway, Puget Sound,
Washington. Appendix E. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment
Station, Vicksburg, MS. 96 pp.
B-l
-------
AEWS016F
Sugai, S., W.R. Schell, and A. Nevissi. 1978. Chemical disposal of dredged
material in Elliott Bay. Aquatic Disposal Field Investigations, Duwamish
Waterway Disposal Site, Puget Sound, Washington. Appendix D. Vol. II.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.
24 pp.
AMTS002F
Am Test Laboratories. 1981. Duwamish Waterway navigation improvement
study: chemical testing of dredged material. Final Report. U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, Seattle, WA. 52 pp.
ARMS001F
Armstrong, J.W., R.M. Thorn, and K.K. Chew. 1980. Impact of
sewer overflow on the abundance, distribution, and community
of subtidal benthos. Mar. Environ. Res. 4:3-23.
a combined
structure
ARMS002F
Armstrong,
macrofauna
J.W. 1977. The impact of subtidal sewage outfalls on the intertidal
of five central Puget Sound beaches. Ph.D. Thesis. University
of Washington School of Fisheries, Seattle, WA. 216 pp.
BARR003F
Barrick, R.C. 1982. Flux of aliphatic and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
to central Puget Sound from Seattle (West Point) primary sewage effluent.
Environ. Sci. Techno!. 16:682-692.
BATE001F
Bates, T.S., and R. Carpenter. 1979. Organo-sulfur compounds in sediments
of the Puget Sound basin. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 43:1209-1221.
BECK002F
Becker, D.S., and K.K. Chew. 1983. Fish-benthos coupling in sewage enriched
marine environments. University of Washington School of Fisheries, Seattle,
WA. 78 pp.
BNWS002D
Battelle Northwest. 1983. Draft tables of chemical and biological analyses
of selected sediments from Puget Sound. U.S. EPA Region X, Seattle, WA.
27 pp.
BNWS004D
Cummins, J. 1984. Data tables and figures for bioassay, sediment chemistry,
benthic infauna, and station locations. Puget Sound Survey. U.S. EPA
Region X, Seattle, WA.
BOTH001F
Bothner, M.H. 1973. Mercury: some aspects of its marine geochemistry
in Puget Sound, Washington. Ph.D. Thesis. University of Washington Department
of Oceanography, Seattle, WA. 126 pp.
B-2
-------
BRCA013F
Brown and Caldwell. 1958. Metropolitan Seattle sewerage and drainage
survey. A report for the City of Seattle, King Co.,and the State of Washington
on the collection, treatment and disposal of sewage and the collection
and disposal of storm water in the Metropolitan Seattle area. Brown and
Caldwell, Seattle, WA. 558pp.
CALM001F
Calambokidis
J., J. Mowrer
and M.W. Beug. 1979. Selective retention
of polychlorinated biphenyl components in the mussel, Mytilus edulis.
Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 8:299-308.
CARD00 IF
Cardwell, R.D., and C.E. Woelke. 1979. Marine water quality compendium
for Washington state. Vol. I: Introduction. Washington Department of
Fisheries, Olympia, WA. 75 pp.
CARD002F
Cardwell, R.D., and
for Washington State.
Olympia, WA. 528 pp.
C.E. Woelke. 1979. Marine water quality compendium
Vol. II: Data. Washington Department of Fisheries,
CARP002F
Carpenter, R. , M.L. Peterson, and R.A. Jahnke. 1978. Sources, sinks,
and cycling of arsenic in the Puget Sound region, pp. 459-480. In: Estuarine
Interactions. M.L. Wiley (ed). Academic Press, New York, NY.
CHAP001F
Chapman, P.M., G.A. Vigers, M.A. Farrell, R.N. Dexter, E.A. Quinlan, R.M.
Kocan, and M.L. Landolt. 1982. Survey of biological effects of toxicants
.upon Puget Sound biota. I: Broad scale toxicity survey. NOAA Technical
Memorandum OMPA-25. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Boulder,
CO. 98 pp.
CHAP002F
Chapman, P.M., D.R. Munday, and J. Morgan. 1983. Survey of biological
effects of toxicants upon Puget Sound biota. II: Tests of reproduction
and impairment, plus Appendices A-E. National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, Washington, DC. 58 pp.
CHAP004F
Chapman,
larvae.
P.M., and J.D. Morgan. 1983. Sediment bioassays with oyster
Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 31:438-444.
CHAP008F
Chapman, P.M., R.N. Dexter, J. Morgan, R. Fink, P. Mitchell, R.M. Kocan,
and M.L. Landolt. 1984. Survey of biological effects of toxicants upon
Puget Sound biota. Ill: Tests in Everett Harbor, Samish, and Bellingham
Bays. NOAA Technical Memorandum NOS QMS 2. National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, Rockville, MD.
B-3
-------
CHAP009F
Chapman, P.M. 1984. Sediment bioassay tests provide toxicity data necessary
for assessment and regulation. (In press). In: Proc. from Eleventh Annual
Aquatic Toxicology Workshop, November 11-13, 1984, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
E.V.S. Consultants, Seattle, WA. 18 pp.
CHAP010F
Chapman, P.M., M.A. Parrel!, R.M. Kocan, and M. Landolt. 1982. Marine
sediment toxicity tests in connection with toxicant pretreatment planning
studies, METRO Seattle. E.V.S. Consultants, Vancouver, B.C. 15 pp.
CHAP011F
Chapman, P.M., and R. Fink. 1984. Effects of Puget Sound sediments and
their elutriates on the life cycle of Capitella capitata. Bull. Environ.
Contam. Toxicol. 33:451-459.
CHAP012D
Chapman, P.M., and R. Fink. 1983. Additional marine sediment toxicity
tests in connection with toxicant pretreatment planning studies, METRO
Seattle. E.V.S. Consultants, Vancouver, B.C. 28pp.
CHEW001F
Chew, K.K., C. Weller, R.G. Porter, D. Beyer, D. Holland, C. Jones, A. Alidina,
R.C. Anderson, R. Gustus, and F. Weinmann. 1971. Preliminary survey of
invertebrates and algae along the intertidal beaches of West Point, the
site of Metro's sewage treatment plant, Seattle, Washington. University
of Washington School of Fisheries, Seattle, WA. 62 pp.
CHEW002F
Chew, K.K., J.H. Beattie, D.R. Bryson, P.O. Clark, R.S. Grischkowsky, M.J.
Stansbury, B.K. Uchicla, R. Gustus, P- Lebednik, P. Leviten, and W.A. Spane.
"1973. A second survey of invertebrates and algae along the intertidal
beaches of West Point, the site of Metro's sewage treatment plant, Seattle,
Washington. University of Washington School of Fisheries, Seattle, WA.
52 pp.
CLAY001F
Clayton, J.R., S.P. Pavlou, and N.F. Breitner. 1977. Polychlorinated
biphenyls in coastal marine zooplankton: bioaccumulation by equilibrium
partitioning. Environ. Sci. Technol. 11:676-682.
COES004D
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1984. Elliott Bay
Draft Federal Environment Impact Statement. NEPA.
Engineers, Seattle, WA. 237 pp.
smal1 craft harbor.
U.S. Army Corps of
COES005F
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1983. East, West, and Duwamish Waterways
navigation improvement study. Final Feasibility Report. Final Environmental
Impact Statement. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle, WA. 800 pp.
B-4
-------
CREC001F
Crecelius, E.A., M.H. Bothner, and R. Carpenter.
arsenic, antimony, mercury, and related elements
Sound. Environ. Sci. Technol. 9:325-333.
1975. Geochemistry of
in sediments of Puget
CUMM007F
Cummins, J.M. 1973.
bottom sediments. U.S.
WA. 8 pp.
CUMM008F
Cummins, J.M. 1974. Oyster embryo bioassay of seawater and
from the Duwamish River, Elliott Bay, and Clam Bay, Washington.
Environmental Research Laboratory, Manchester, WA. 10 pp.
DEXT001F
Dexter, R.N., D.E. Anderson, E.A. Quinlan, L.S. Goldstein, R.M. Strickland,
S.P. Pavlou, J.R. Clayton, Or., R.M. Kocan, and M.L. Landolt. 1981. A
summary of knowledge of Puget Sound related to chemical contaminants.
NOAA Technical Memorandum OMPA-13. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Adminis-
tration, Boulder, CO. 435 pp.
Results of oyster embryo bioassay of Duwamish River
EPA Environmental Research Laboratory, Manchester,
sediments
U.S. EPA
DOME001F
Domenowske,
environment.
R. S., and R.I. Matsuda.
J. Water Pollut. Control
1969. Sludge disposal
Fed. 41:1613-1624.
and the marine
EPAX004F
Cummins, J.M., R.R. Bauer, and R.H. Rieck. 1976. Chemical and biological
survey of Liberty Bay, Washington. U.S. EPA Region X, Seattle, WA. 132 pp.
EPAX007F
"Blazevich, J.N., A.R. Gahler, G.J. Vasconcelos, R.H. Rieck, and S.V.W. Pope.
1977. Monitoring of trace constituents during PCB recovery dredging opera-
tions. Duwamish Waterway. U.S. EPA Region X, Seattle, WA. 147 pp.
EPAX009F
U.S. EPA. 1982. Organic analyses for Duwamish River surveys, September
1982. Unpublished data. U.S. EPA Region X, Seattle, WA. 10 pp.
U.S. EPA. 1983. Organic analyses for the Duwamish River surveys, July
1983. Unpublished data. U.S. EPA Region X, Seattle, WA. 10 pp.
EVSC011F
Chapman, P.M., R.N. Dexter, R.D. Kathman, and G.A. Erickson. 1985. Survey
of biological effects of toxicants upon Puget Sound biota. IV. Inter-
relationships of infauna, sediment bioassay and sediment chemistry data.
NOAA Technical Memorandum NOS DMA 9. National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, Rockville, MD. 58 pp.
EVSC012D
E.V.S. Consultants. 1984a. Additional amphipod bioassay analyses of sediments
to be dredged from the Duwamish East Waterway. Port of Seattle, Seattle,
WA. 6 pp.
B-5
-------
EVSC013F
E.V.S. Consultants. 1984b. Bioassay analyses of sediments to be dredged
from the Duwamish East Waterway. Port of Seattle, Seattle, WA. 11 pp.
Aazarenes in Puget Sound sediments.
FURL001F
Furlong, E.T., and R. Carpenter. 1982.
Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 46:1385-1396.
6AHL001F
Gahler, A.R., R.L. Arp, and J.M. Cummins. 1982. Chemical contaminants
in edible non-salmonid fish and crabs from Commencement Bay, Washington.
U.S. EPA Environmental Services Division, Seattle, WA. 117 pp.
GRIG001F
Griggs, D.T. 1979. The occurence of epidermal papillomas and fin erosion
in Duwamish River starry flounder (Platichthys stellatus). M.S. Thesis.
University of Washington School of Fisheries, Seattle, WA. 75 pp.
HAFF001F
Hafferty, A.J., S.P. Pavlou, and W. Horn. 1977. Release of polychlorinated
biphenyls (PCB) in a salt-wedge estuary as induced by dredging of contaminated
sediments. Sci. Total Environ. 8:229-239.
HAM100 IF
Hamilton, S.E. 1984. Sources and transport of hydrocarbons in the Green-
Duwamish River, Washington. Environ. Sci. Techno!. 18:72-79.
HAMI002F
Hamilton, S.E. 1980. Hydrocarbons associated with suspended matter in
the Green River, Washington. M.S. Thesis. University of Washington Department
of Oceanography, Seattle, WA. 141 pp.
HARM001F
Harman, R.A., and J.C. Serwold. 1974. Baseline study of sediment provinces
and biotopes of Elliott Bay and vicinity, Washington. Mar. Tech. Rep. No. 2.
57 pp.
HOC 001F
Harper-Owes. 1981. Duwamish Waterways navigation improvement
analysis of impacts on water quality and salt wedge characteristics
Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle, WA. 80 pp.
study:
U.S.
HOMW001F
Horn, W. 1979. Polychlorinated biphenyls in northern Puget Sound. M.S.
Thesis. University of Washington Department of Oceanography, Seattle,
WA. 201 pp.
KONA001F
Konasewich, D.E,
processes, and
NOAA Technical
Administration,
, P.M. Chapman, and E. Gerencher. 1982. Effects, pathways,
transformation of Puget Sound contaminants of concern.
Memorandum NOAA OMPA MESA. National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Boulder, CO. 357 pp.
B-6
-------
LAND101F
Landolt, M.L., and R.M. Kocan. 1984. Lethal and sublethal effects of
marine sediment extracts on fish cells and chromosomes. Heg. Meer. 37:479-491.
LENA001F
Lenarz, W.H. 1969. Analysis and evaluation of data obtained from automatic
water quality monitoring stations on the Duwamish Estuary. Ph.D. Thesis.
University of Washington School of Fisheries, Seattle, WA. 190 pp.
LEON001F
Leon, H. 1980. Benthic community impact study. Terminal 107 (Kellogg
Island) and vicinity. Final Report. Port of Seattle, Seattle, WA. 98 pp.
LIE 001F
Lie, U. 1968. A quantitative study of benthic infauna in Puget Sound,
Washington, U.S.A. in 1963-1964. Fisk. Skr., Ser. Hav. 14:229-556.
LONG001F
Long, E.R. 1982. An assessment of marine pollution in Puget Sound. Mar.
Pollut. Bull. 13:380-383.
LONG003F
Long, E.R. 1983. Multidisciplinary approach to assessing pollution in
coastal waters. Coastal Zone '83 1:163-178.
MALI001F
Mai ins,
and sole
D.C. 1982. Concentrations of organic toxicants in salmon, cod
from Puget Sound. Coast. Ocean Pollut. 1:52-53.
MALI002F
.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.
MALI003F
Mai ins, 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.
MALI004F
Malins, D.C., and H.O. Hodgins. 1981. Petroleum and marine fishes: A
review of uptake disposition and effects. Environ. Sci. Technol. 15:1272-1278.
6 pp.
MALI007F
Malins, D.C., S.-L. Chan, B.B. McCain, D.W. Brown, A.K. Sparks, and H.O.
Hodgins. 1981. Puget Sound pollution and its effects on marine biota.
Progress report to OMPA for the period May 1 to Sept. 30, 1980. National
Marine Fisheries Service, Seattle, WA. 74 pp.
B-7
-------
MALI008F
Mai ins, D.C. 1980. Pollution of the marine environment: a NOAA interdisci-
plinary team in Seattle searches for answers. Environ. Sci. Techno!. 14:32-38.
MALI009F
Malins, D.C., B.B. McCain, D.W. Brown, S.-L. Chan, M.S. Myers, J.T. Landahl,
P.6. Prohaska, A.J. Friedman, L.D. Rhodes, D.G. Burrows, W.D. Gronlund,
and H.O. Hodgins. 1984. Chemical pollutants in sediments and diseases
of bottom-dwelling fish in Puget Sound, Washington. Environ. Sci. Techno!.
18:705-713.
MASS001F
Massoth, G.J., R.A. Feely, and M.F. Lamb. 1982. Elemental composition
of suspended particulate matter in the lower Duwamish River and Elliott
Bay, VIA. NOAA Technical Memorandum OMPA-17. National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, Boulder, CO. 41 pp.
MCCA001F
McCain, B.B., M.S. Myers, and U. Varanasi. 1982. Pathology of two species
of flatfish from urban estuaries in Puget Sound. NOAA Northwest and Alaska
Fisheries Center, Seattle, WA. 100 pp.
MCCA003F
McCain, B.B., K.V. Pierce, and S.R. Wellings. 1977. Hepatomas in marine
fish from an urban estuary. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 18:1-2.
MET0007F
Harman, R.A., J.C. Serwold, and R.F. Sylvester. 1977. Distribution and
partial analysis of data of subtidal habitats near West Point. Final Reports.
Puget Sound Interim Studies. Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle, Seattle,
.WA. 150 pp.
MET0008F
Isaac, G.W., G.D. Farris, and C.V. Gibbs. 1964. Special Duwamish River
studies. Metro Water Quality Series No. 1. Municipality of Metropolitan
Seattle, Seattle, WA. 35 pp.
MET0010F
Metro. 1978. A profile of water quality in the Cedar-Green River basins.
Areawide water quality for King County, Washington, Cedar-Green River basins.
Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle, Seattle, WA.
MET0011F
Metro. 1978. Areawide water quality plan, pursuant to Section 208 of
P.L. 92-500 King County, Washington, Cedar-Green River basins. Municipality
of Metropolitan Seattle, Seattle, WA. Ill pp.
MET0013F
Miller, B.S., B.B. McCain, and R.C. Wingert. 1977. Ecological and disease
studies of demersal fishes near Metro operated sewage treatment plants
on Puget Sound and the Duwamish River. Final Report. Puget Sound Interim
Studies. Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle, Seattle, WA. 164 pp.
B-8
-------
MET0014F
Romberg, G.P., S.P. Pavlou, R.F. Shokes, W. Horn, E.A. Crecelius, P. Hamilton,
O.T. Gunn, R.D. Muench, and J. Vinelli. 1984. TPPS Technical Report Cl:
Presence, distribution, and fate of toxicants in Puget Sound and Lake Washing-
ton. Toxicant Pretreatment Planning Study. Metro Toxicant Program Report
No. 6A. Water Quality Division. 231 pp.
MET0019F
Armstrong, J.W., C.P. Staude, R.M. Thorn, and K.K. Chew. 1977. An assessment
of the effects of subtidally discharged municipal wastewater effluent on
of several Puget Sound beaches. Final Report.
Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle, Seattle,
the intertidal macrofauna
Puget Sound Interim Studies.
WA. 34 pp.
MET0021F
Staude, C.P., K.K. Chew, and R.M. Thorn. 1977. Changes in the intertidal
macrofauna and macroflora near the West Point sewage treatment plant, 1971
to 1975. Final Report. Puget Sound Interim Studies. Municipality of
Metropolitan Seattle, Seattle, WA.
MET0023F
Tomlinson, R.D., B.N. Bebee, A.A. Heyward, S.G. Munger, R.G. Swartz, S. Lazoff,
D.E. Spyridakis, M.F. Shepard, R.M. Thorn, K.K. Chew, and R.R. Whitney.
1980. Fate and effects of particulates discharged by combined sewers and
storm drains. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
MET0024D
Tomlinson, R.P., B.N. Bebee, and R.G. Swartz. 1976. Combined sewer overflow
studies. Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle, Seattle, WA. 98 pp.
MET0026F
Harper-Owes. 1983. Water quality assessment of the Duwamish Estuary,
Washington. Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle, Seattle, WA.
MET0029F
Comiskey,
C.E., T.A.
Farmer, C.C. Brandt, and G. P. Romberg. 1984. Toxicant
Pretreatment Planning Study Technical Report C2: Puget Sound benthic studies
and ecological implications. Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle, Seattle,
WA. 373 pp.
MET0031F
Galvin, D.V., G.P. Romberg,
Pretreatment Planning Study.
Seattle, Seattle, WA. 202 pp.
D.R. Houck, and
Summary Report.
J.H. Lesniak. 1984. Toxicant
Municipality of Metropolitan
MET0032F
Hubbard, T. 1984. Florida Street
of Metropolitan Seattle, Seattle, WA.
SW storm drain sampling.
6 pp.
Municipality
MET0033F
Hubbard, T. 1984. Southwest Lander Street storm drain sampling. Municipality
of Metropolitan Seattle, Seattle, WA. 4 pp.
B-9
-------
MET0035F
Wiatrak, P. 1978. Summary tabulation of estimates of City of Seattle
CSO frequencies, quantities, and durations. City of Seattle, Seattle,
WA. 6 pp.
MET0036F
Galvin, D.V., and R.K. Moore. 1982. Toxicants in urban runoff. Metro
Toxicant Program Report No. 2. Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle, Seattle,
WA. 160 pp.
MET0037F
Cooley, R. , and R. Matasci. 1984. Treatment plant evaluation. Toxicant
Pretreatment Planning Study Technical Report Al. Metro Toxicant Program
Report No. 4A. Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle, Seattle, WA. 108 pp.
MET0046F
Metro. 1985. Metals and organics data for Table 6-3: Effluent concen-
trations. In: Toxicant Pretreatment Planning Study Technical Report Al:
Treatment Plant Evalution. Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle, Seattle,
WA. 8 pp.
MET0047F
Farris, G.D., J.M. Buffo, K.L. Clark, D.S. Sturgill,
1979. Urban drainage storm water monitoring program.
Metropolitan Seattle, Seattle, WA. 112 pp.
and R.I. Matsuda.
Municipality of
MET0048F
Leiser, C.P. 1971.
Poll. Cont. Res. Ser.
Maximizing storage in combined sewer systems.
11022 ELK-12/71. 227 pp.
Water
MET0049F
Gal 1 , J.J. , S. Jones, and
zation: data appendices.
Report A3. Metro Toxicant Program Report No. 4C.
Seattle, Seattle, WA.
L.N. Curtis. 1984. Industrial waste characteri-
Toxicant Pretreatment Planning Study Technical
Municipality of Metropolitan
MET0052F
Cooley, R., R. Matasci, M.S. Merrill, Brown and Caldwell. 1984. Collection
system evaluation. Toxicant Pretreatment Planning Study Technical Report
A2. Metro Toxicant Program Report No. 4B. Municipality of Metropolitan
Seattle, Seattle, WA. 100 pp.
MET0053F
Farris, G.D. 1980. Letter to D. Nunnallee: Results of March 8, 1980
sediment survey in the West Duwamish Waterway, testing for lead and copper.
Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle, Seattle, WA 5 pp.
MET0054F
Metro. 1981. Metro 301(h) waiver application for the Alki Treatment Plant.
Part E. Section 1. Toxic Control Program. Municipality of Metropolitan
Seattle, Seattle, WA. 9 pp.
B-10
-------
MET0055F
Metro. 1981. Metro 301(h) waiver application for the Alki
Attachment A.2: Wastewater characteristics, pp. 69-89.
Metropolitan Seattle, Seattle, WA. 9 pp.
Treatment Plant.
Municipality of
MET0056F
Armstrong, J.W., R.H. Thorn, K.K. Chew, B. Arpke, R. Bohn, 0. Glock, R.
Hieronymus, E. Hurlburt, K. Johnson, B. Mayer, B. Sterens, S. Tettlebach,
and P. Waterstrat. 1978. The impact of the Denny Way combined sewer overflow
on the adjacent flora and fauna in Elliott Bay, Puget Sound, Washington.
Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle, Seattle, WA. 102 pp.
MET0058F
Metro. 1981. Metro's 301(h) waiver application for Duwamish Sewage Treatment
Plant. Section E.I. Chemical analysis. Toxic Control Program. Tetra
Tech, Inc., Bellevue, WA. 8 pp.
MET0059F
Metro. 1981. Metro's 301 (h) waiver application for West Pt. Sewage Treatment
Plant. Section E.I. Chemical analysis. Toxic Control Program. Tetra
Tech, Inc., Bellevue, WA. 8pp.
MILL001F
Miller, B.S. 1980. Survey of resident marine fishes at terminals 91 and
37 (Elliott Bay, Seattle, Washington). Final Report. April-July 1980.
University of Washington Fisheries Research Institute, Seattle, WA. 29 pp.
MILL002F
Miller, B.S., R.C. Wingert, and S.F. Borton. 1975. Ecological survey
of demersal fishes in the Duwamish River and at West Point, 1974. One
_year progress report. University of Washington Fisheries Research Institute,
Seattle, WA. 35 pp.
MILL003F
Miller, B.S., and S.R. Wellings. 1971. Epizootiology of tumors on flathead
sole (Hippoglossoides elassodon) in East Sound, Orcas Island, Washington.
Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 100:247-266.
MOUL001F
Moulton, L.L., B.S. Miller, and R.I. Matsuda. 1974. Ecological survey
of demersal fishes at Metro's West Point and Alki Point outfalls. Washington
State Sea Grant Program, Seattle, WA. 39 pp.
MOWR001F
Mowrer, J. , J. Calambokidis, N. Musgrove, B. Drager, M.W. Beug, and S.G.
Herman. 1977- Polychlorinated biphenyls in cottids, mussels, and sediment
in southern Puget Sound, Washington. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 18:588-
594.
MURR001F
Murray,
Geochim.
J.W., and G. Gill. 1978.
Cosmochim. Acta 42:9-19.
The geochemistry of iron in Puget Sound,
B-ll
-------
OLSE001F
Olsen, R.H., M.V. Almassy, and A.L. Wingert. 1975. A study of the suspended
particulate problem in the Duwamish Basin. EPA-910/9-75-010. Prepared
by Boeing Company for U.S. EPA Region X, Seattle, WA. 81 pp.
OTT 00ID
Ott, F.S., P.O. Plesha, R.D. Bates, C. Smith, and B.B. McCain. (In prep).
An evaluation of an amphipod bioassay using sediments from Puget Sound.
36 pp.
OH 002D
Ott, F.S. (In prep). Amphipod sediment bioassays: use of laboratory
manipulations of grain size and toxicants to interpret field data. Ph.D.
Thesis. University of Washington Fisheries Research Institute, Seattle,
WA. 250 pp.
PAUL001F
Paulson, A.J., R.A. Feely, and H.C. Curl. 1984. Behavior of Fe, Mn, Cu,
and Cd in the Duwamish River Estuary downstream of a sewage treatment plant.
Water Res. 18:633-641.
PAVL001F
Pavlou, S.P., and R.N. Dexter. 1979. Distributions of polychlorinated
biphenyls (PCB) in estuarine ecosystems: testing the concept of equilibrium
partitioning in the marine environment. Environ. Sci. Technol. 13:65-71.
PIER101F
Pierce, K.V., B.B. McCain, and S.R. Wellings. 1978. Pathology of hepatomas
and other liver abnormalities in English sole (Parophrys vetulus) from
the Duwamish River Estuary, Seattle, Washington. J. Nat. Lancer Inst. 60:1445-
1449.
PMEL001F
Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory. 1982. Estuarine and coastal
pollutant transport and transformation: the role of participates. FY-80-82
Summary Report. FY82 Annual Report. NOAA Pacific Marine Environmental
Laboratory, Seattle, WA. 228 pp.
PTOS001F
Seattle, Port of. 1976. Southeast harbor area [Seattle, WA]. Environmental
studies and assessment of impacts of possible developments. Port of Seattle,
Seattle, WA.
PTOS002D
Seattle, Port of. 1980. Appendix. Draft Environmental Impact Statement
on alternative uses for Terminal 91 (Piers 90, 91). Port of Seattle, Seattle,
WA.
RILE001F
Riley, R.G., E.A. Crecelius, and D.C. Mann. 1980. Quantitation 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.
B-12
-------
SCHE102F
Schell, w.R.
E.E. Collias, and A. Nevissi,
1976. Trace metal research:
trace contaminants from Duwamish River dredge spoil deposited off Fourmile
Rock in Elliott Bay. Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle, Seattle, VIA.
105 pp.
SCHE103F
Schell, VI.R., and R.S. Barnes. 1974. Lead and mercury in the aquatic
environment of western Washington State, pp. 129-165. In: Aqueous-Environ-
mental Chemistry of Metals. A.J. Rubin (ed). Ann Arbor Science, Ann Arbor,
MI.
SCHN002F
Schoener, A. 1984. Replicate fouling panels and their variability.
212. In: Marine Biodeterioration, An Interdisciplinary Study. J.D.
and R.C. Tipper (eds). F.N. Spon, London, UK.
pp. 207-
Costlow
SCOT001D
Scott, K.J., P.P. Yevich, and W.S. Boothman. 1983.
using the benthic amphipod Ampelisca abdita Mills.
Island, Kingston, RI. 23 pp.
Toxicological methods
University of Rhode
SHER002F
Sherwood, M.J., A.J. Mearns, D.R. Young, B.B. McCain, and R.A. Murchelano.
1978. A comparison of trace contaminants in diseased fishes from three
areas. National Marine Fisheries Service, Seattle, WA. 116 pp.
STAU001F
Staude, C.P. 1979. Changes in the intertidal macrofauna and macroflora
near Seattle's West Point Sewage Treatment Plant from 1971 to 1975. M.S.
Thesis. University of Washington School of Fisheries, Seattle, WA. 161 pp.
STIT001F
Stitch, H.F., A.B. Acton, and C.R. Forrester. 1976. Fish tumors and sublethal
effects of pollutants. J. Fish. Res. Board Can. 33:1993-2001.
STRI001F
Stevens, Thompson & Runyan, Inc. 1972. Study on effect of dredging on
water quality and sediment transport in the Duwamish Estuary. Prepared
for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle,
WA.
SWAR004F
Swartz, R.C., W.A. DeBen, and F.A. Cole. 1979. A bioassay for the toxicity
of sediment to marine macrobenthos. J. Water Pollut. Control Fed. 51:944-950.
SWAR005F
Swartz, R.C. 1983. Letter to K. Pierson: Pierson
neers. Criticism of sediment bioassay. U.S. EPA
Laboratory, Corvallis, OR. 12 pp.
study for Corps of Engi-
Environmental Research
B-13
-------
SYLV001F
Sylvester, R.O., J.S. Creager, and T.S. English. 1961. A study of the
Alki Point marine environment and its relationship to the discharge of
digested sludge. City of Seattle, Seattle, WA. 153 pp.
TAT0001F
Tatomer, C.J. 1972. Copper in sea water in the Seattle-Tacoma area and
in two Canadian inlets. M.S. Thesis. University of Washington Department
of Oceanography, Seattle, WA. 41 pp.
THOM101F
Thorn, R.M., K.K. Chew, and J.Q. Word. 1979. Abundance, biomass, and trophic
structure of the subtidal infaunal communities of the eastern side of central
Puget Sound. Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle, Seattle, WA.
THOM105F
Thorn, R.M., and K.K. Chew. 1980. The response of subtidal infaunal communities
to a change in wastewater discharge, pp. 324-340. In: Urban Stormwater
and Combined Sewer Overflow Impact on Receiving Water Bodies. Y.A. Yousef,
M.P. Wanielista, et al. (eds). EPA 600/14.
TOML001F
Tomlinson, R.D., B.N. Bebee, and R.G. Swartz. 1980. The distribution
of sediments and particulate contaminants from combined sewer and storm
drain overflows in Seattle's nearshore waters, pp.115-146. In: Urban
Stormwater and CSO Impact on Receiving Water Bodies. Y.A. Yousef, et al.
(eds). EPA 600/9-80-056 Dec. 1980.
TTB 05IF
Tetra Tech. 1985a. Commencement Bay Nearshore/Tideflats Remedial Investi-
"gation. 2 Volumes. Prepared for Washington Department of Ecology and
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Tetra Tech, Bellevue, WA. 642 pp.
TTB 052D
Tetra Tech. 1980. Technical evaluation of Municipality of Metropolitan
Seattle (METRO) West Point Treatment Plant Section 301(h) application for
modification of secondary treatment requirements for discharge into marine
waters. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. 378 pp.
URSC004F
Dexter, R.N., D.E. Anderson, and E.A. Quinlan. 1984. Long-term impacts
induced by disposal of contaminated river sediments in Elliott Bay, Seattle,
Washington. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station,
Vicksburg, MS. 224 pp.
USGS003F
Santos, J.F., and J.D. Stoner. 1977. Physical, chemical, and biological
aspects of the Duwamish River Estuary, King County, Washington, 1963-67.
Environmental Quality. Geological Survey Water Supply Paper 1873-C. U.S.
Geological Survey, Reston, VA. 74 pp.
B-14
-------
USGS004F
Welch, E.B. 1969. Factors initiating phytoplankton blooms and resulting
effects on dissolved oxygen in Duwamish River Estuary, Seattle, Washington.
Environmental Quality. Geological Survey Water Supply Paper 1873-A. U.S.
Geological Survey, Reston, VA. 62 pp.
UWD0005F
Pavlou, S.P-,
report: R/V Onar
Report 54. U.S. Environmental
K.A. Krogslund, R.N. Dexter, and J.R. Clayton. 1973. Data
cruises 434, 450, 469, 502. SYOPS Measurements. Special
Protection Agency, Washington, DC. 178 pp.
UWD0006F
Krogslund, K.A. 1975. Data report: R/V Onar cruises 552, 608, 615, 665;
R/V Hoh cruise 902. Hydrographic, chemical, and biological measurements.
Special Report No. 61. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington,
DC. 202 pp.
UWD0008F
Pavlou, S.P.
K.A. Kroglund. 1977- Polychlorinated
and methodology. Special
' OR. 252 pp.
Pavlou, S.P., R.N. Dexter, W. Horn, and K.A. Kroglund. 1977-
biphenyls (PCB) in Puget Sound. Baseline data and methodo
Report No. 75. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Newport
UWFR002F
Stober, Q.J., I. Mobrand, and R.E. Nakatani. 1976. Partial analysis of
subtidal benthic data collected near the West Point sewage outfall. Final
Report. Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle, Seattle, VIA. 24pp.
UWFR006F
Stober,
Duwamish
Q.J., and K.K. Chew. 1984.
Head. Final report for the
Renton sewage treatment plant project.
period 1 July to 31 December, 1984.
University of Washington Fisheries Research Institute, Seattle, WA. 370 pp.
UWFR012F
Thorn, R. , R. Albright, C. Simenstad, J. Hampel, J. Cordell, and K. Chew.
1984. Renton sewage treatment plant project. Seahurst baseline study.
Volume IV. Section 5. Intertidal and shallow subtidal benthic ecology.
University of Washington Fisheries Research Institute, Seattle, WA. 177 pp.
UWFR013F
Word, J.Q., P.L.
S. Hulsman, K. Li,
plant project.
benthic ecology.
Seattle, WA. 461
Striplin, K. Keeley, J. Ward, P. Sparks-McConkey, L. Bentler,
J. Schroeder, and K. Chew. 1984. Renton sewage treatment
Seahurst baseline study. Volume V. Section 6. Subtidal
University of Washington Fisheries Research Institute,
pp.
UWFR015F
Landolt, M.L., D.B. Powell, and R.M. Kocan. 1984. Renton sewage treatment
plant project. Seahurst baseline study. Volume VII. Section 8. Fish
health. University of Washington Fisheries Research Institute, Seattle,
WA. 160 pp.
B-15
-------
WDOE098F
Bernhardt, J.C. 1981. Effects of Renton Wastewater Treatment Plant effluent
on water quality of the lower Green/Duwamish River. Washington Department
of Ecology, Olympia, WA. 35 pp.
WDOE099F
Yake, W.E. 1981. The impact of effluent from the Renton Wastewater Treatment
Plant on the dissolved oxygen regimen of the lower Green/Duwamish River.
Washington Department of Ecology, Olympia, WA. 19 pp.
WDOE100F
Washington Department of Ecology. 1984. WDOE ambient data collected in
or near Elliott Bay/Duwamish-Green River. Washington Department of Ecology,
Olympia, WA. 28 pp.
WDOE110F
Joy, J. 12/30/80. Memo: Longfellow Creek water quality index calculation,
segment 04-09-05. Appendix: Water quality data, Longfellow Creek Rehabili-
tation Study. University of Washington Fisheries Research Institute, Seattle,
WA. 10 pp.
WDOE112F
Devitt, R. 05/25/72. Memo: Longfellow Creek, Seattle. Water sample
results. May 25, 1972. Washington Department of Ecology, Olympia, WA.
5 pp.
WDOE113F
Jeanne, G.S., II 08/01/73. Memo: Todd Shipyards treatment of wooden
dry docks with sodium arsenite. Water quality samples. Washington Department
of Ecology, Olympia, WA. 8 pp.
WDOE114F
Devitt, R.C. 11/24/72. Memo: Seattle Rendering. Water Quality Survey.
Data. Washington Department of Ecology, Olympia, WA. 5 pp.
WDOE115F
Devitt, R.C. 02/22/73. Memo: Ace Galvanizing and Advance Electroplating.
Study of industrial discharges. Washington Department of Ecology, Olympia,
WA. 13 pp.
WDOE116F
Washington Department of Ecology. 1979. NPDES waste discharge permit
for Seattle Steam Corporation (1319 Western Ave., Seattle). Washington
Department of Ecology, Olympia, WA. 6 pp.
WDOE117F
Washington Department of Ecology. 1979. NPDES waste discharge permit
for Seattle Steam Corporation (633 Post Ave., Seattle). Washington Department
of Ecology, Olympia, WA. 6 pp.
WELC001F
Welch, E.B. 1967. Factors initiating phytoplankton blooms and resulting
effects on dissolved oxygen in an enriched estuary. Ph.D. Thesis. University
of Washington School of Fisheries, Seattle, WA. 102 pp.
B-16
-------
WELL101F
Wellings, S.R.,
like particles in
934.
and R.G. Chuinard. 1974. Epidermal papillomas with virus-
flathead sole, Hippoglossoides elassodon. Science 146:932-
WELL102F
Wellings, S.R., C.E. Alpers, B.B. McCain, and B.S. Miller. 1976. Fin
erosion disease of starry flounder (PIatyichthys stellatus) and English
sole (Parophrys vetulus) in the estuary of the Duwamish River, Seattle,
Washington. J. Fish. Res. Board Can. 33:2577-2586.
WELL103F
Wellings, S.R., R.G. Chuinard, R.T. Gpurley, and R.A. Cooper. 1984. Epidermal
papillomas in the flathead sole, Hippoglossoides elassodon, with notes
on the occurrence of similar neoplasms in other pleuronectids.J. Nat. Cancer
Inst. 33:991-1004.
WHIT001F
White, H.H., and M.A. Champ.
ASTM 1983. STP 805:299-312.
1983. The great bioassay hoax, and alternatives.
WORD005F
Word, J.Q. No
Evans Hamilton,
date. Alki Point
Inc., Seattle, WA.
station locations. (Unpublished Data)
WORD006D
Word, J.Q., P.L. Striplin, K.L. Keeley, and K.K. Chew. Unpublished. Repli-
cation in marine benthic studies. Evans Hamilton, Inc., Seattle, WA.
B-17
-------
APPENDIX C
DOCUMENT IDENTIFICATION PREFIXES FOR
SAMPLING STATION LABELS
-------
APPENDIX C. DOCUMENT IDENTIFICATION PREFIXES FOR
SAMPLING STATION LABELS
Document Number Station Prefix Codes
ARMS001F
ARMS002F
BNWS004D
CHAP002F
EPAX009F
EVSC012D
EVSC013F
LEON001F
MALI002F
MALI003F
MALI009F
MCCA001F
MET0014F
MET0029F
MET0056F
OTT001D
OTT002D
PTOS002D
SUER002F
STAU001F
URSC004F
UWFR006F
WORD006D
AR1
AR2
B4
CP2
EP9
EV12
EV13
LEI
MA2
MA3
MA9
MCI
ME14
ME29
ME56
OT1
OT2
P2
SH2
ST1
UR4
UW6
W06
Note: Document numbers correspond to reference citations in Appendix B,
C-l
-------
APPENDIX D
SOURCE DATA
-------
TABLE D-l. AVERAGE POLLUTANT CONCENTRATIONS IN EFFLUENT
FROM WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANTS
Alkib
West Pointa
Al
Sb
As
Cd
Cr
Cu
Fe
Pb
Mn
Hg
Ni
Ag
Zn
Cyanide
Naphthalene
Fluorene
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
PCS 1242
PCB 1248
PCB 1254
PCB 1260
Phenol
Chloroform
Trichloroethylene
Benzene
Ethyl benzene
Toluene
Tetrachloroethylene
BODd
CODd
TSSd
1.05
0.0067
0.0037
0.0044
0.064
0.088
2.28
0.074
0.19
0.00028
0.051
0.0078
0.14
0.059
10.4
0.82
2.94
0.43
0.16
0.16
0.11
0.047
0. f7';
42.5
7.42
8.34
3.79
10.4
51.2
18.7
100
200
90
Rentona
0.19
0.0021
0.0018
0.0014
0.033
0.029
0.37
0.025
0.079
0.00028
0.031
0.0029
0.064
0.027
__
--
--
0.24
0.24
0.11
ND
C - " '
ND
2.82
2.61
2.79
0.19
0.34
3.88
10
50
10
Wet Season Dry Season
_
--
._
<0.025
<0.03
0.092
--
0.03
--
<0.002 ug/L
0.06
--
0.133
12.2 ug/L
ND
--
--
--
ND
ND
ND
ND
23
4
4
0.4
0.3
5
7
60
50
_ _
__
_.
<0.004
0.14
0.14
--
0.10
--
0.006
<0.02
0.131
0.007
8.78
<0.001
--
--
Total
<15 ppt
8.78
15.13
ND
13.89
ND
ND
14.25
Alkie
0.56
0.0009
0.0018
0.0028
0.000
0.016
0.93
0.0297
0.0661
0.0003
0.0543
0.0026
0.1146
--
0.76
0.02
0.225
0.011
0.73
0.73
0.08
0.13
1.61
2.92
0.01
0.03
0.59
--
__
--
~
NOTE: Metals, cyanides, conventionals, in mg/L. Organics in ug/L.
a Cooley and Matasci (1984).
b METRO (1981b).
c Trial and Michaud (1985).
d Treatment Plant Monitoring Program Data (1980-1984).
D-l
-------
TABLE D-2. COMPARISON OF DILUTED TREATMENT PLANT EFFLUENT
TO WATER QUALITY CRITERIA (UG/L)
West Point
(100:1)
Sb
As
Cd
Cr
Cu
Pb
Ni
Ag
Zn
Hg
CN
Phenol
Naphthalene
Fluorene
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
Chloroform
Trichloroethylene
Tetrachloroethylene
Benzerve
Ethyl benzene
Toluene
0.07
0.04
0.04
0.6
0.9
0.7
0.5
0.08
1.4
0.003
0.6
0.4
0.1
0.008
0.03
0.004
0.07
0.08
0.2
0.04
0.1
0.5
Alki
(100:1)
0.009
0.02
0.03
0.2
0.3
0.5
0.03
1.1
0.003
--
0.01
0.008
0.0002
0.002
0.0001
0.03
0.0001
0.0003
--
0.006
Water Qualitya
Criteria Renton
(Saltwater) (1:1)
--
--
4.5
18
4.0
25
7.1
--
58
0.1
2.0
--
--
--
--
450
--
5,000
2.1
1.8
1.4
33
29
25
31
2.9
64
0.3
27
ND
--
--
--
2.8
2.6
3.9
2.8
0.19
0.34
Water Qualitya
Criteria
(Freshwater)
1,600
--
0.025
0.29
5.6
3.8
9.6
0.12
47
0.2
3.5
2,560
620
--
1,240
21,900
840
--
--
a Chronic water quality criteria and lowest reported chronic toxicity concentrations
(U.S. EPA 1980).
D-2
-------
TABLE D-3. AVERAGE POLLUTANT CONCENTRATIONS IN METRO CSOsa
Parameter
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Beryll ium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Iron
Lead
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Zinc
Phenol
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
Chloroform
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
Trichloroethylene
Tetrachloroethylene
Benzene
Ethyl benzene
Toluene
BOD
COD
TSS
Michigan
6.22
0.0020
0.0097
0.00011
0.0046
0.043
0.063
5.23
0.24
0.11
0.00034
0.030
0.0048
0.21
2.33
0.33
0.33
3.59
1.57
5.67
15.2
1.00
2.67
16.7
51.2
107
114
Lander
5.35
0.0034
0.011
0.000089
0.0057
0.10
0.16
5.07
0.14
0.20
0.00020
0.080
0.0037
0.29
1.50
0.50
0.50
3.33
1.33
98.7
2.33
1.33
2.37
7.34
56.9
130
130
Denny Way
3.00
0.0024
0.010
0.000035
0.0026
0.026
0.075
2.40
0.17
0.062
0.00053
0.032
0.017
0.23
3.00
9.54
0.86
4.88
1.50
1.00
5.50
0.50
11.5
164
75.8
190
109
Hanford
5.37
0.0012
0.011
0.000068
0.0020
0.024
0.050
4.00
0.14
0.11
0.00040
0.027
0.0060
0.19
1.30
1.17
0.12
2.23
2.74
1.25
1.50
1.00
2.00
11.1
69.1
171
123
Note: Values shown are mg/L for conventionals and metals, and ug/L for organics.
a Cooley et al. (1984).
D-3
-------
TABLE D-4. COMPARISON OF AVAILABLE CHEMICAL DATA
FOR DENNY WAY CSO
Parameter
(mg/L)
Al
Cd
Cr
Cu
Pb
tig
Ni
Zn
TOC
Total Phosphate
Ortho Phosphate
NH3
N02 + N03
Oil & Grease
Chi or in a ted a
Hydrocarbons
(Part)
Cooley et al. (1984)
Min
2.3
0.00061
0.011
0.06
0.07
0.0004
0.02
0.17
__
--
--
.-
->
Max
3.8
0.004
0.030
0.10
0.22
0.0007
0.07
0.27
_
--
--
..
__
Avg
3.0
0.0026
0.026
0.075
0.17
0.00053
0.032
0.23
_
--
-.
..
--
Tomlinson Tomlinson
et al. (1980) et al . (1976)
Mean
2.62
.-
--
0.077
0.385
0.0006
--
0.285
20.8
1.23
--
..
--
16.0
0.001
Mean
__
0.004
0.02
0.09
0.5
0.001
0.02
0.27
V V
0.
0.
-.
0.
0.
80
12
25
27
-
BOD
COD
TSS
47
130
72
110
260
160
75.8
190
109 129
27
--
96
a Includes: HCH, lindane, heptachlor, heptachlor E, aldrin, dieldrin, endrin, DDT.
D-4
-------
TABLE D-5. COMPARISON OF AVAILABLE CHEMICAL DATA FOR HANFORD 2 CSO,
Parameter
(mg/L)
Cd
Cr
Cu
Pb
Hg
Ni
Zn
Total phosphate
Ortho phosphate
NH3
N02 + N03
BOD
SS
Cooley
Min
0.0001
0.016
0.04
0.06
0.0003
0.02
0.039
--
27
100
et al. (1984
Max
0.004
0.03
0.08
0.23
0.0005
0.04
0.31
--
97
180
)
Mean
0.002
0.024
0.05
0.14
0.0004
0.027
0.19
--
69.1
123
Tomlinson et al .
(1976)
Mean
0.008
0.04
0.13
0.61 .
0.001
0.04
0.41
1.97
0.42
0.98
0.21
47
225
D-5
-------
TABLE D-6. COMPARISONS OF CSO DATA WITH WATER
QUALITY CRITERIA (UG/L)
Maximum
Observed
Concentration
Mean
Observed
Concentration
Water Qualitya
Criteria
(Saltwater)
As
Cd
Cr
Cu
Pb
Hg
Ni
Ag
Zn
Cn
Phenol
Naphthalene
Chloroform
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
Trichloroethylene
Tetrachloroethylene
Benzene
Ethyl Benzene
Toluene
15
10
240
240
380
0.7
100
26
360
80
7
24
10
4
400
40
3
40
630
10.4
3.6
48
87
173
0.4
42
8
230
--
2
3
3
5
27
6
1
5
50
508
59
1,260
23
668
3.7
140
2.3
170
30
5,800
2,350
--
31,200
2,000
10,200
5,100
430
6,300
a Acute water quality criteria and lowest reported acute toxicity concentrations
(EPA 1980).
D-6
-------
TABLE D-7. RESULTS OF METRO (1985) STORM DRAIN SEDIMENT SAMPLING (PPM DRY WEIGHT)
Sample Site
S.W. Floridaa
S.W. Floridab
Junctionc
26th S.W.
Fox Street
S.W. Lander CSO/SD
(105)d
S.W. Lander CSO/SDe
S.W. Lander CSO/SOf
S.W. Lander SD (21")
Georgetown Flumeg
Georgetown Flumeh
Slip 4 CSO/SD
Slip 4 SD
1-5 Drain
Bellevue Street
Dusti
South Michigan
Street Dustj
Fourmile Rock
Criteriak
As
275
228
337
40.6
3,709
3,578
2,405
2,250
561
116
27.7
37.6
115
11
24
40
15
Cd
2.8
1.7
1.5
2.8
4.88
42
17
21
1.4
2.88
6.33
24.1
31.6
1.79
1.0
1.4
0.7
Cr
176.4
113
171.8
58.3
92.6
37
27
68
66
95.3
89.5
105
126
33.8
66
50
--
Cu
430.3
1,171
621.6
150.6
1,245
1,155
458
685
73
227
103
178
119
30.0
49
117
92
Ni
66.8
62.1
70.2
390.1
48.4
96
36
591
21
35.5
24.8
29.8
37.4
31.3
26
36
--
Pb
560.9
1,198.5
663.0
229.3
1,389
358,464
247,345
368,407
6,252
698
529
649
248
447
570
460
126
Zn
645.0
1,018.4
989.0
454.4
5,583
399
199
577
880
494
433
571
218
349
214
540
359
PCB
229
190
130
3
137
18
103
20
<1
...
0.6
PAH
136
57
161
19
...
-
...
...
...
7
10
11.88
Oil and
Grease
2,100
19,900
21,100
10,800
33,000
...
...
...
...
...
...
a S.W.-Florida at Longfellow Creek (upstream).
b S.W. Florida at S.W. 28th.
c Junction of S.W. Florida and S.W. 26th (downstream).
d At 13th S.W. (upstream).
e At 16th S.W.
f Near outfall.
9 Near origin of flume.
h Near midpoint.
i Street dust for residential areas in Bellevue (average) (Galvin and Moore 1982).
j Industrial area 4th Avenue South and South Michigan (Galvin and Moore 1982).
k Fourmile Rock criteria for open water disposal (individual maximums).
D-7
-------
APPENDIX E
SELECTED SEDIMENT CONTAMINATION DATA USED
FOR ELEVATION ABOVE REFERENCE ANALYSIS
-------
TABLE E-l. SEDIMENT CHEMISTRY FOR STATIONS GROUPED BY STUDY AREA:
CONCENTRATIONS (ORGANICS=PPB, METALS=PPM; DRY WEIGHT BASIS)
AND ELEVATION ABOVE REFERENCE VALUES.
Elliott by
Station
10014
(0030
fdoes
0066
0087
OO&B
AVERAGE
1406
1512
1603
1606
1612
1706
1610
ซ060
WO
c060
10041
10042
(0031
0032
AVERAGE
10046
10015
10040
b061
0090
0065
C061
ซ061
AVERAGE
11121
ฃ4
ฃ44
0063
U124
E37
10045
ฃ39
(0034
U117
ฃ5
U120
ฃ36
ฃ43
10016
ERH: Irjr ซigM bjiii
fcta LPAH
Cone
1908.0
2511.0
< 128.0
<3C.O
559.0
-------
TABLE E-l. (Continued).
Stition
ฃ35
E2
E3
*062
toti
0064
ฃ34
10039
ฃ1
0039
c062
A***
S,
ฃ42
0036
ฃ40
10038
E7
ฃ41
OVERUSE
Ell
0037
E12
10031
ฃ10
U133
E9.
0149
OVERAGE
ฃ17
Ell
ฃ16
ฃ21
ฃ22
E15
ฃ23
ฃ19
10019
ฃ24
ฃ13
ฃฃ0
E14
AYEIW6E
C160
$0061
ATM
S
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
S
S
5
5
6
7
7
7
-7
7
7
7
7
7
a
a
8
e
a
e
8
6
8
8
8
8
8
8
9
9
LPAH
Cone
212.0
< 717.0
< 1163.0
821.0
1560.0
1677.0
<102i.O
7701.0
14500.0
4540.0
8913.7
299.0
42000.0
1760.0
217.0
1550.0
1594.0
7906.7
4900.0
420.0
2660.0
155.0
KXN
EAB Cone
10230.0
< 2120.0
<2440.0
5.2 < 4306.0
17.6 < 4840.0
28.7 176810
-------
TABLE E-l. (Continued).
Stition
0060
S0057
10055
U135
11134
ซ0059
ง0054
flVERPSE
U119
0015
10044
U123
0150
*0062
ui:e
U125
1830
m 27
1230
10043
1630
U122
flVEWGE
U107
Ulll
U116
U112
U138
111 06
U115
U130
(0^56
U! 10
0014
U129
0011
U109
U114
U106
0128
0069
ftVERPSE
ATM
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
-12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
K
12
LPAH
Cone
< 343.0
< 2650.0
< 642.0
31.0
73.0
<568.0
<734.0
<7ฃ3.0
41.0
< 167.0
810.0
131.0
< 2.33.0
<6iO.O
57.0
153. &
< 191.0
46.0
<695.0
695.0
ซ9ei.O
235.0
<53i.5
46.0
36.0
41.0
38.0
11.0
13.0
52.0
34.0
< 694.0
35.0
-------
TABLE E-2. SEDIMENT CHEMISTRY DATA FOR STATIONS RANKED BY CHEMICAL
CONCENTRATION (ORGANICS=PPB, METALS=PPM; DRY WEIGHT BASIS).
Station
c060
b060
E5
E3
El
tz
E34
E35
E7
E42
E41
K
Ell
E10
E19
E24
E21
E17
El*
EI6
E18
E20
EI3
E23
E22
C160
UI2I
U106
UI14
U109
ui29
INK
a060
U130
UI10
uioa
WI2
UIII
UI19
in 16
UI27
UI07
U13S
t note
UII5
U1IS
UI34
U123
50085
UI25
ATM
I
I
4
5
5
5
5
5
6
6
6
6
7
7
9
12
12
12
12
12
1
2
12
12
12
12
12
11
12
11
12
10
3
12
11
10
11
1
11
IMH
Cone
11.0
13.0
27.0
27.0
29.0
30.0
34.0
34.0
35.0
3t.O
38.0
38. 0
41.0
41.0
46.0
46.0
51. 0
52.0
52.0
57.0
73.0
121.0
128.0
153.0
LPflH
EM
0.3
0.3
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.8
0.8
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
.0
.0
.1
.1
.3
.3
.3
.4
.8
3.0
3.1
3.8
Stjtion
C060
CI60
a060
U106
UI28
UI29
U112
UlOfl
U1IO
U130
10046
U107
1)111
UI09
UI16
UI27
UII9
U1I4
U115
E24
E16
E20
EI7
E18
E22
U118
U123
IOOB6
U134
U13S
UI25
10014
(0085
fOOII
10019
U122
UI24
U133
1830
10043
E23
0061
E2
0088
10040
E3
EIO
ฃ13
E5
10044
Arm
2
9
2
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
3
12
12
12
12
11
11
12
12
11
11
1
10
10
11
1
1
12
8
II
4
7
11
11
a
9
3
1
3
5
7
8
4
11
HMH
Cone
126.0
145.0
152.0
165.0
174.0
174.0
191.0
202.0
204.0
211.0
242.0
264.0
282.0
291.0
324.0
387.0
411.0
443.0
500.0
500. 0
500.0
500.0
500.0
510.0
570.0
580.0
S88.0
702.0
735.0
760.0
776.0
909.0
980.0
1110.0
1294.0
1581.0
1635.0
1650.0
1820.0
1891.0
2120.0
2161.0
2180.0
2440.0
2700.0
2713.0
2820.0
2B70.0
HPPH
EM
1.6
1.8
1.9
2.1
2.2
2.2
2.4
2.6
2.6
2.7
3.1
3.4
3.6
3.7
4.1
4.9
5.2
5.6
6.4
6.4
6.4
6.4
6.5
7.2
7.4
7.5
8.9
9.3
9.7
9.9
11.6
12.5
14.1
16.4
20.1
20.8
21.0
23.1
24.0
26.9
27.5
27.7
31.0
34.3
34.5
35.8
36.5
Station
E22
E24
UII5
10046
c060
C160
060
111 12
UI10
U109
UI29
10014
UII4
U127
UI06
UI08
ซOOB5
Dill
50066
Ell
U118
U107
UI24
UII9
U130
50061
UI16
10088
U128
U125
10045
10087
UII7
10044
E23
E44
E16
U120
10041
10056
UI35
W60
E9
10016
5001 1
50054
U123
U121
E3
U134
Am
B
a
12
3
2
9
2
12
12
12
12
1
12
II
12
12
1
12
1
7
11
12
4
11
12
9
12
1
12
II
4
1
4
11
8
4
8
4
2
12
10
2
7
4
12
10
11
4
5
10
PCB
Cone
1.0
2.3
5.4
8.1
22.0
23.0
28.0
35.0
35.8
37.0
40.0
40.0
40.0
42.0
45.0
49.0
50.0
50.0
52.0
59.0
60.0
60.0
63.7
65.0
68.0
74.0
95.0
99.0
123.0
125.0
139.0
147.0
150.0
150.0
152.0
158.0
161.0
162.0
170.0
170.0
171.0
177.0
197.0
197.0
198.0
200.0
199.0
pa
EM
0.2
0.4
0.9
3.7
3.8
4.7
5.8
6.0
6.2
6.7
6.7
6.7
7.0
7.5
8.2
8.3
8.3
8.7
9.8
10.0
10.0
10.6
10.8
11.3
12.3
15.8
16.5
20.5
20.8
23.2
24.5
25.0
25.0
25.3
26.3
26.8
27.0
28.3
28.3
28.5
29.5
32.8
32.8
33.0
33.0
33.2
Station
UI21
UI17
U120
U124
UI33
U134
U135
U122
UI25
U127
UII9
U123
U118
U106
UI2B
UIII
UI09
U1I6
U1I4
U110
U130
U115
U107
U129
U108
U1I2
50030
10086
10046
10085
E20
50087
E22
sOOBB
50061
10014
EI8
E2I
EI6
1630
50014
$0089
10019
CI60
E24
0128
1830
50015
1230
10042
ATM
4
4
4
4
7
10
10
11
11
II
11
11
11
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
11
12
12
8
9
8
12
11
11
11
2
C**PbปZn (
Cone
35.8
54.0
62.5
76.7
84.0
95.0
103.0
113.0
119.0
119.3
126.0
161.0
163.0
168.0
168.0
181.0
191.0
191.0
202.0
204.0
220.0
224.0
224.0
227.0
JHPbปZn
EJV
1.0
1.6
1.8
2.2
2.4
2.8
3.0
3.3
3.4
3,5
3.7
4.7
4.7
4.9
4.9
| 5.2|
5.5
5.5
5.9
5.9
6.4
6.5
6.5
6.6
Station
10014
10041
10042
10046
10015
10040
U1I7
10045
10016
UI21
U124
UI20
10038
10031
U133
10019
UI35
U134
10043
U122
U123
10044
U127
U1I8
UI19
UI25
U107
U115
UIII
UI16
U110
U12B
UI29
U106
U109
UI30
UI12
uioe
UII4
10039
a060
E22
C160
(0030
a062
b062
50060
50085
50063
E4I
ATM
1
2
2
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
6
7
7
8
10
10
11
11
11
11
11
11
It
11
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
5
2
8
9
1
5
5
10
1
4
6
At
Cone
0.5
3.0
3.3
3.4
3.7
4.3
4.9
6.1
7.1
7.2
At
EA8
0.2
0.9
.0
.0
.1
.3
.4
.8
2.1
2.1
-------
TABLE E-2. (Continued)
Station
10061
10089
50088
10015
1830
lOOll
a062
U133
UI22
10037
10060
10019
10040
UI24
50087
10059
$0062
10055
S0056
10043
1230
b062
10054
10044
10039
U121
1630
(II 17
10042
1406
10041
10064
10014
1512
10045
0128
b06t
E9
50039
0149
50065
c062
10031
10014
10034
1606
10030
0150
10057
1810
ATM
9
12
1
11
11
12
5
7
11
7
10
8
3
4
1
10
11
10
12
11
11
5
10
11
5
4
11
4
2
2
2
5
12
2
4
12
3
7
5
7
3
5
7
1
4
2
1
II
10
2
urn
Cone
155.0
155.0
162.0
167.0
191.0
197.0
212.0
217.0
235.0
299.0
343.0
420.0
460.0
465.0
559.0
568.0
620.0
642.0
694.0
695.0
699.0
717.0
734.0
810.0
821.0
909.0
982.0
1049.0
1060.0
1112.0
1150.0
1169.0
1265.0
1344.0
1370.0
1529.0
1550.0
1550.0
1560.0
1594.0
1661.0
1677.0
1780.0
1908.0
2222.0
2231.0
2511.0
2638.0
2650.0
2695.0
LPflH
EM
3.8
3.1
4.0
4.1
4.7
4.8
5.2
5.3
5.8
7.3
rrrj
10.3
11.3
11.4
13.7
14.0
15.2
15.8
17.1
17.1
17.2
17.6
18.0
19.9
20.2
22.3
24.1
25.8
26.5
27.3
28.3
28.7
31.1
33.0
33.7
37.6
38.1
38.1
38.3
39.2
40.8
41.2
43.7
46.9
54.6
54.8
61.7
64.8
65.1
66.2
Station
b060
10067
EI4
10041
0150
E2I
Ell
10039
10056
10045
1062
E4
b062
1606
UI17
UI2I
10014
1630
10063
10054
10042
0015
E9
E19
10037
10055
El
10031
1230
E4I
UI20
50059
E7
E15
C06I
10062
E35
1706
E34
E6
0149
10030
10039
10016
E42
061
M6I
10064
1810
c062
ATM
2
1
8
2
11
8
7
5
12
4
S
4
S
2
4
4
12
11
4
10
2
11
7
8
7
10
S
7
11
6
4
10
6
8
3
II
5
2
5
6
7
1
S
4
6
3
3
5
2
5
HPPH
Cone
3030.0
3044.0
3145.0
3420.0
3469.0
3640.0
3650.0
3880.0
4022.0
4260.0
4306.0
4700.0
4840.0
4970.0
5081.0
5085.0
5306.0
5338.0
5542.0
5610.0
5680.0
5828.0
5975.0
6652.0
6655.0
6878.0
7213.0
7710.0
8307.0
6400.0
6882.0
8909.0
6988.0
9150.0
9152.0
9834.0
10230.0
10249.0
10410.0
109310
11342.0
12923.0
13096.0
13710.0
15000.0
16696.0
17350.0
17683.0
18431.0
19104.0
EM
38.5
38.7
40.0
43.5
44.3
46.3
46.4
49.3
51.1
54.1
54.7
59.7
61.5
63.2
64.6
64.6
67.4
67. a
70.4
71.3
72.2
74.1
75.9
84.5
84.6
87.4
91.7
98.0
105.6
106.7
112.9
113. 2
114.2
116.3
116.3
125.0
130.0
130.2
132.3
138.9
144.1
164.2
166.4
174.2
190.6
212.1
220.5
224.7
234.2
242.7
Station
EI3
W62
10042
EI5
U122
E7
1830
10089
10030
E2
E14
10065
UI33
10040
10043
10039
E4I
1230
E12
1630
El
E40
E20
062
lOOSS
10019
10064
10037
E5
10063
1706
10015
C062
E10
c06t
10031
E43
0128
10014
E6
Eta
10038
1810
10059
0149
10060
E39
10039
sOOIS
E2I
ATM
a
S
2
a
11
6
II
12
1
5
a
3
7
3
11
5
6
II
7
11
5
6
8
5
10
6
S
7
4
4
2
3
5
7
3
7
4
12
12
6
8
6
2
10
7
10
4
5
11
a
pa
Cone
210.0
213.0
218.0
225.0
22B.O
240.0
248.0
260.0
262.0
270.0
270.0
293.0
310.0
314.0
320.0
338.0
350.0
352.0
353.0
377.0
380.0
400.0
410.0
442.0
443.0
446.0
450.0
458.0
460.0
466.0
479.0
492.0
515.0
515.0
517.0
533.0
560.0
565.0
580.0
590.0
600.0
665.0
742.0
768.0
605.0
913.0
920.0
1055.0
1070.0
1100.0
Pd
EM
35.0
35.5
36.3
37.5
38.0
40.0
41.3
43.3
43.7
45.0
45.0
48.8
51.7
52.3
53.3
56.3
58.3
58.7
58.8
62.8
63.3
66.7
68.3
73.7
73.6
74.3
75.0
76.3
76.7
77.7
79.8
82.0
85.8
65.8
86.2
68.8
93.3
94.2
96.7
98.3
100.0
110.8
123.7
128.0
134.2
152.2
153.3
175.8
178.3
183.3
Station
10062
10041
1606
1512
50011
10031
EI4
10043
10037
10016
E2
10044
10056
1612
10015
10032
10045
10065
E23
1810
El
10040
EI7
10034
10064
E4I
cO&O
E3
1706
E5
10063
E13
Ell
b060
E9
10059
E34
1406
E10
E36
10039
10039
10054
E7
E19
1060
EI5
10031
50057
E6
ATM
II
2
2
2
12
2
a
11
7
4
5
11
12
2
3
2
4
3
6
2
5
3
8
4
3
6
2
5
2
4
4
8
7
2
7
10
5
2
7
4
5
5
10
6
a
2
8
7
10
6
Cn*Pb+2n
Cone
229.0
231.0
232.0
233.0
243.0
247.0
252.0
252.0
253.0
257.0
262.0
262.0
266.0
267.0
268.0
269.0
282.0
284.0
286.0
291.0
310.0
320.0
342.0
349.0
349.0
349.0
351.0
354.0
360.0
363.0
364.0
382.0
383.0
400.0
405.0
405.0
409.0
413.0
416.0
423.0
434.0
444.0
449.0
452.0
492.0
524.0
572.0
600.0
610.0
625.0
OPbปZn
EM
6.6
6.7
6.7
6.8
7.0
7.2
7.3
7.3
7.3
7.4
7.6
7.6
7.7
7.7
7.8
7.6
8.2
8.2
8.3
8.4
9.0
9.3
9.9
10. 1
10.1
10.1
10.2
10.3
10.4
10.5
10.6
11. 1
11.1
11.6
11.7
11.7
11.9
12.0
12.1
12.3
12.6
12.9
13.0
13.1
14.3
15.2
16.6
17.4
17.7
18.1
Station
10086
E44
E34
50011
E24
E21
50061
E36
C061
0150
E20
50014
50087
50032
*06I
E23
1630
10062
1830
ฃ18
50088
10031
1606
c062
50054
1810
1406
b060
1706
1512
b061
E16
10056
1230
10039
50015
0128
EI9
EI7
1612
E7
10037
E37
1603
E35
El
E39
E9
10089
10059
Am
1
4
5
12
a
. a
9
4
3
11
8
12
1
2
3
8
11
11
11
8
1
2
2
S
10
2
2
2
2
2
3
8
12
11
5
11
12
a
8
2
6
7
4
2
5
5
4
7
12
10
Ai
Cone
7.3
7.4
7.8
7.9
8.0
6.0
8.2
8.7
8.8
8.8
9.0
9.0
9.1
9.3
9.4
9.8
10.0
10.0
10.5
11.0
11.0
11.0
11.0
11.0
11.0
11.5
11.9
12.0
12.3
12.5
13.0
13.0
13.0
13.5
14.0
14.0
14.0
14.3
15.0
15.0
15.7
16.0
16.3
16.7
17.5
17.9
18.0
18.0
18.0
19.0
Al
EM
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.3
2.4
2.4
2.4
2.6
2.6
2.6
2.6
2.6
2.7
2.7
2.8
2.9
2.9
2.9
3.1
3.2
3.2
3.2
3.2
3.2
3.2
3.4
3.5
3.5
3.6
3.7
3.8
3.8
3.8
4.0
4.1
.1
.1
.2
.4
.4
.6
.7
.8
[T7?|
5.1
5.3
5.3
5.3
5.3
5.t
-------
TABLE E-2. (Continued)
I
cr>
Station A
1706
1612
10063
1061
10016
10038
c06t
EI3
1603
III 20
E39
10036
10090
10032
E36
E4
E37
10015
E40
10031
El?
E43
E44
rซa IPAH
Cone
2 2705.0
2 2738.0
4 2862.0
3 3190.0
4 4090.0
6 4540.0
3 45*8.0
8 4900.0
2 6379.0
4 6473.0
4 6500.0
6 7701.0
3 8055.0
2 8569.0
4 9800.0
4 11400.0
4 12300.0
3 12968.0
6 14500.0
2 21303.0
7 42000.0
4 44600.0
4 64800.0
60th Percentlle
EAR Values
LPW
EM
66.5
67.3
70.3
78.4
100.5
111.5
111.7
120.4
156.7
159.1
159.7
189.2
197.9
210.5
240.8
280.1
302.2
318.6
356.3
523.4
1031.9
1093.8
1595.1
>33
Station
iste
toon
10057
EI2
ซ0060
E40
1406
10038
0128
E39
10036
1612
10034
10032
10090
10015
E36
E44
50063
1603
E37
E43
10031
Araa
2
12
10
7
10
6
2
6
12
4
6
2
4
2
3
3
4
4
3
2
4
4
2
IUBI
Core
20117.0
21319.0
21731.0
22633.0
23367.0
24200.0
2*895.0
25000.0
25743.0
26300.0
26722.0
29284.0
40750.0
42199.0
42778.0
46500.0
51200.0
62000.0
62210.0
66724.0
80100.0
126300.0
126530.0
WPH
EM
253.6
273.4
276.1
287.6
2%. 9
307.5
316.3
317.7
327.1
334.2
339.3
372.1
517.8
536.2
543.6
590.9
650.6
787.
790.
847.
1017.
1604.
1607.
>87.4
Station
10036
1612
10031
10062
E36
E37
10057
10032
EI9
1512
1406
E35
a06l
1603
E4
EI7
0150
10090
1606
10034
b06l
E42
E34
ATM
6
2
2
II
4
4
10
2
8
2
2
5
3
2
4
8
11
3
2
4
3
6
3
PCS
Cone
1104.0
llll.O
1201.0
1213.0
1300.0
1400.0
1404.0
1448.0
1650.0
1712.0
1930.0
2000.0
2143.0
2143.0
2200.0
2400.0
2415.0
2569.0
2624.0
2823.0
3208.0
3900.0
4600.0
pa
EM
184.0
183.2
200.2
202.2
216.7
233.3
234.0
241.3
273.0
285.3
321.7
333.3
357.2
357.3
366.7
400.0
402.3
428.2
437.3
470.3
534.7
650.0
766.7
>73.8
Station
M62
10055
10036
E35
E44
E40
c06t
C062
E12
a062
10060
E43
1603
0149
10038
a061
b061
0150
E37
E39
E4
10090
E42
Arw
5
10
6
5
4
6
3
5
7
5
10
4
2
7
6
3
3
II
4
4
4
3
6
CxPbtft
Cone
630.0
641.0
670.0
676.0
756.0
770.0
848.0
870.0
932.0
940.0
940.0
989.0
1076.0
1132.0
1152.0
1214.0
1274.0
1328.0
1574.0
2078.0
3334.0
6590.0
8039.0
i OrปPbป!n
EM
18.3
18.6
19.4
19.6
21.9
22.3
24.6
25.2
27.0
27.2
27.2
28.7
31.2
32.8
33.4
35.2
36.9
38.3
45.6
60.2
96.6
191.0
233.0
>n.7
Station
0063
E13
E6
10034
10064
S0036
EI4
10035
E5
EIO
10037
E43
Ell
0149
E40
E2
E3
E12
c060
10090
E15
E4
E42
ATM
3
8
6
4
5
6
8
10
4
7
10
.4
7
7
6
5
5
7
2
3
8
4
6
Aa
Cone
20.0
21.3
22.3
23.0
23.0
23.0
24.0
2*.0
26.0
26.5
28.0
28.4
28.5
30.0
34.5
36.0
38.0
40.0
44.0
58.0
80.5
304.0
1420.0
At
EM
5.9
6.3
6.6
6.8
6.8
6.8
7.1
7.1
7.6
7.8
8.2
8.4
8.4
8.8
10.1
10.6
11.2
11.8
12.9
17.1
23.7
89.4
417.6
>4.2
NOTES: Percentlies calculated on Measured values; blanks not counted
( I maximum reference value
60th percentUe threshold value. Stations below the line are above the 60th percentlle
Hhen detection limits were not available, values of "0"
were deleted and not Included In averages. When more than
one value was reported for a single station, the average
Is listed here. To avoid bias due to extensive sampling
at Army Corps of Engineers experimental disposal site.
an average value was calculated for the site (see text).
STATION PREFIX CODES
U * Duwamlsh Head Baseline Study, Stober and Chew (1984)
UUFR006F
m ป NOAA studies, Hal 1ns et al. (1980) MALI002F
E EPA Duwamlsh River Surveys, U.S. EPA (1982-1983)
EPAX009F
All remaining stations are from HETRO TPPS, Romberg et al. (1984)
MET0014F
-------
APPENDIX F
SELECTED BIOACCUMULATION DATA
Organics = ppb wet weight
Metals = ppm wet weight
-------
TABLE F-l. SELECTED BIOACCUMULATION DATA FOR ELLIOTT BAY
AND THE LOWER DUWAMISH RIVER e
SO* O 4) -ซ O * 90; Otll @ C*
D > W 00 > O 00 > >> 00 > 00 > LU 00 >
--ง --i 2=2 2;:'s 2::, 2=x 2=~
*- *j I * I
41 41 41 V- 41 <_i 41 UJ Cป C O> UJ
ซ> -O ซ0 "03 ซ O W "~ฑ!
22.; ~2j; ~s^ ..2- ..ซ?^ .5s ..ซ>*:
-
> trt O> <" *J Irt * 4JIAS 4.1 VI
* X~
Clฃ tl
0 ฃ"
Pollutant
Phenols
65 phenol
34 2,4-dimethylphenol
Substituted Phenols
21 2.4,6-trichlorophenol
22 para-chloro-meta cresol
24 2-chlorophenol
31 2.4-dichlorophenol
57 2-nitrophenol
58 4-nitrophenol
59 2,4-dinitrophenol
60 4.6-dinitro-o-cresol
64 pentachlorophenol
Organonitrogen Compounds
5 benzidine
28 3,3'-dichlorobenzidine
35 2,4-dinitrotoluene
36 2,6-dinitrotoluene
37 1.2-diuhenylhydrปzine
56 nitrobenzene
61 N-nitrosodimethylamine
62 N-nitrosodiphenylamine
63 N-nitrosodipropylamine
Low Molecular Height Aromatic
Hydrocarbons
1 acenaphthene < 9.60 < 7.20 < 0.24 < 3.01 < 2.30 < 12.50 4.60
55 naphthalene < 12.00 < 14.40 U < 14.20 < 2.30 16.60 18.40
77 acenaphthylene < 9.60 < 7.20 0 < 2.80 < 2.30 < 1.52 < 1.61
78 anthracene < 9.60 < 7.20 2.40 < 2.97 < 2.30 < 5.87 < 2.07
81 phenanthrene U U U < 2.16 < 2.30 < 9.59 < 1.84
BO fluorene < 9.60 < 7.20 < 1.20 < 2.84 < 2.30 < 4.80 < 1.84
High Molecular Height PAH
39 fluoranthene < 9.60 < 7.20 12.00 < 0.32 < 0.46 < 2.14 < 2.07
72 benzo(a)anthracene < 21.60 < 16.80 12.00 < 7.78 < 9.20 < 4.80 < 4.60
73 benzo(a)pyrene < 9.60 < 7.20 < 21.60 < 4.SO < 6.90 < 3.70 < 4.60
74 benzo(b)fluoranthene < 12.00 a < 9.60 a < 14.40 a < 4.50 a < 6.90 a < 3.70 a < 4.60 a
7s benzo(k)fluoranthene
76 chrysene < 12.00 < 9.60 14.40 < 3.17 < 4.60 < 2.63 < 2.30
79 benzo(ghiJperylene
82 dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
83 1ndeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene
84 pyrene < 9.60 < 7.20 4.80 < 3.17 < 0.46 < 2.40 < 2.07
Chlorinated Aromatic Hydrocarbons
8 1,2,4-trichlorobenzene
9 hexachlorobenzene 2.40 2.40 2.40 2.24 0.92 7.60 4 60
20 2-chloronaphthalene
25 1,2-dichlorobenzene < 2.40 b < 1.20 b < 4.80 b < 0.71 b < 2.30 b < 2.40 b < 1 61 b
26 1,3-dichlorobenzene
27 1,4-dichlorobenzene
Chlorinated Aliphatic Hydrocarbons
52 hexachlorobutadiene < 0.72 < 0.72 < 2.40 < 0.55 < 0.46 1.31 0 46
12 hexachloroethane
53 nexachlorocyclopentadiene
F-l
-------
TABLE F-l. (Continued;
eo > in
9\ -r-
0*0*
Irt ftl *t
C
" E 0
e 3 ป
uj a x
P OJ
a P
o
01 *"-*
*ฃ ^
c <- o
*- ^ J3
C UJ X
^
ฃ UJ
C *- L.
ซ- at
ฃฃ3
"o
*> |A
in i/)
C f-
2ฃ
C
a.
4-*
*
" ^ a " 'o *J
m "5 -^ vt wt ป*-
Z I t
2u,a >u>
:ซ=
*ฃ^
tซ tfl *-
c ป E
ฃ51
Hjlogenated Ethers
18 b1s(2-cMoroethyl (ether
40 4-chlorophenyl ether
41 4-bromophenyl etber
4)methane
Phthalates
66 b1s(2-eth>lhex>l)phthalate
67 butyl benzyl phthalate
68 di-n-butyl pnthalate
69 dl-n-octyl phtnalate
71) dlethyl phthalate
71 dimethyl phtnalate
PCBs
1U6-112 :PCBs < 2947.UO
Miscellaneous Oxygenated Confounds
12V TCDD (dloxin)
b4 Isophorone
3146.UO < 970.00
512.00
657.UO
6026.00
2118.00
Pesticides
B9 aldrln
90 dleldrln
91 chlordane
92 4,4'-DDT
93 4,4'-DOE
94 4,41-ODD
95 alpha-endosulfan
96 beta-endosulfan
97 endosulfan sulfate
98 endrin
99 endrin aldehyde
100 heptachlor
101 ne?tacnlor epoxlde
102 alpna-HCH
103 beta-HCH
1U4 delta-HCH
105 gamna-HCH
113 toxaphene
Volatile Halogensted Alkanes
6 tetrachloromethane
10 1,2-dichloroethane
11 1,1,1-trlchloroethane
13 I,l-d1chloroethane
14 1.1,2-trlchloroethane
Ib 1,1,2,2-tetracnloroethane
16 chloroethane
23 chloroform
32 1,2-dlchloropropane
44 dlcnloromethane
45 chloromethane
46 bromomethane
47 bromoform
48 dlcnlorobromomethane
51 chlorodibromomethane
0.24
0.96 c
21.60
1382.40 d
0.24
0.48
0.24
7.20 c
7.20
91.20 d
0.24
0.24
0.96
2.40 c
21.60
19.20 d
2.40
2.40
0.32
5.50 c
11.00
16.00 d
0.32
0.45
0.46
4.60 c
13.80
18.90 d
0.23
0.23
0.76
7.20 c
142.40
153.30 d
0.41
0.76
0.46
11.50 c
41.40
86.70 d
0.69
0.46
F-2
-------
TABLE F-l. (Continued)
U
O AI
00 > u~>
ง
* ^ -o
ฃ
sr E
~ "5> >
PPป Pollutant 5.5o
|
ซ
X
L.
CO > ซ0
s
-*
CD > O
Ch -*- O
*-
41 ซ-
O
4-> 4* ฃD
ซ
ฃ
C H- 0
^ C
ป ^> en
ฃฃฃ
f>
.-J,
O Oi
CO > >>
ff* ป- ซ
_ *- as
41 *J
ซ ~- O
O
&
ฃ UJ
VI t/i
C *- U.
.ป- , Oi
=n<_>
(0 C 3
X UJ O
O
CD
(7*
v>
c
i
u
01
>
^
Q* U
I/I 1
ฃ (
it a
^ 4
y> ซ
ฃJ
U
O V
CO >
eft ป-
r
J ^ 0
"o
= 4-ป *"
o
D ฃ
C ป-
ซ Z *9>
u * c
X uj
i
UJ
f
c.
ฃ
J=
irt
I
9
3
cr>
^
4->
O
C
i
u
a>
>
t\j
ป i
0ป yj
O <->
ฃ t-
f L.
0)
CTป4J
e *o
UJ 3
L.
O OJ
Si
L.
oj >
"o^
*j K
ฃ ^
ซ/!!/)
= E
= 5, 3
C 3
I UJ 0
Volatile Haloyenated AUenes
29 1,1-dichloroethylene
3U 1.2-trans-dichloroetn>'lene
33 1,3-dichloropropene
85 tetrachloroethylene
87 trichloroethylene
88 vinyl chloride
Volatile Aromatic Hydrocarbons
4 benzene
38 ethyl benzene
86 toluene
Volatile Chlorinated Aromatic
Hydrocarbons
7 cnlorobenzene
Volatile Unsaturated Carbonyl
Compounds
2 acrolein
3 acrylonitrile
Volatile Ethers
19 2-chloroethylvinylether
Metals
114 antimony
115 arsenic
117 beryllium
118 cadmium , I
119 chromium ฐ'"9
120 copper 3-slฐ
122 lead u
123 mercury
124 nickel u
12b selenium
126 silver u
127tha1Hum >ซ 400
128 zinc 2y'400
F-3
-------
TABLE F-l. (Continued)
--g
=*"ง
ซs-ง
ao u
9< t/>
-i
?5 a?
Su
1/1
'w o
PP*
Pollutant
-ซ
งCD C .
c at ,-,
o
i
ti .
:iง
ai -
E ป
*j c
o >
' w ^ w w ^*,
I *J ป- ^^ A ** *J ^^
: *-* ^ E *-" i" ป
I = ^^ O => 4ป^
Phenols
6b phenol
34 2,4-dlmethylphenol
Substituted Phenols
21 2,4,6-trichlorophenol
22 para-chloro-meta cresol
24 2-chlorophenol
31 2,4-dichlorophenol
57 2-nitrophenol
58 4-nitrophenol
b9 2,4-dinitrophenol
60 4,6-dinitro-o-cresol
64 pentachlorophenol
Oryanonltrogen Compounds
5 benzldlne
28 3,3'-dichlorobenzidine
35 2.4-din1trotoluene
36 2,6-dinitrotoluene
37 l,2-diphen^lhydra2lne
56 nitrobenzene
61 N-n1trosod1nethylam1ne
62 N-nltrosodlphenylamlne
63 N-nttrosodipropylamlne
Low Molecular Weight Aromatic
Hydrocarbons
1 acenaphthene
66 naphthalene
77 acenaphthylene
7ซ anthracene
61 phenanthrene
80 fluorene
Hiyn Molecular Weight PAH
39 fluoranthene
72 benzo(a)anthracene
73 benzo(a)pyrene
74 benzo(D)fluoranthene
75 benzo(V)fluoranthene
76 chrysene
79 benzo(ghiJperylene
62 d1benzo(a,h)anthracene
83 1ndeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene
ฃ4 pyrene
Chlorinated Aromatic Hydrocarbons
8 1,2,4-trlchlorobenzene
9 hexachlorobenzene
20 2-chloronaphthalene
25 1,2-dichlorobenzene
26 l,3-d1chlorobenzene
27 l.4-d1chlorobenzene
Chlorinated Aliphatic Hydrocarbons
52 hexachlorobutadiene
12 nexachloroethane
53 hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Halogenated Ethers
18 b1s(2-chloroethyl(ether
40 4-chlorophenyl ether
41 4-brom>phenyl ether
42 b1s(2-chloro1sopropyl)ether
43 bis(2-chloroethoxy)methane
4.300
5.UUO
4.300
5.000
4.300
5.000
4.300
5.000
4.300
5.000
U 5.800 U 5.800 U 5.800 U 5.800 U 5.800 U
U 4.800 U 4.800 U 4.800 U 4.800 U 4.800 U
U
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
3.000
1.600
2.700
2.900
3.400
3.400
7.600
18.000
12.500
6.200
6.200
18.00U
31.700
34.400
32. SOU
7.600
U
U
U
U
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
0
u
u
u
3
1
2
2
3
3
7
18
12
6
6
18
31
34
32
7
.000
.600
.700
.900
.400
.400
.600
.000
.500
.200
.200
.000
.700
.400
.801)
.600
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
u
u
u
u
u
3.000
1.600
2.700
2.900
3.400
3.400
7.600
18.000
12.500
6.200
6.200
18.000
31.700
34.40U
32.800
7.600
<
U
U
u
u
<
<
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
<
120.000
1.600
2.700
2.900
3.400
120.000
74.000
18.000
12.500
6.200
6.200
18.000
31.700
34.400
32.800
74 .000
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
u
u
u
3.000
1.600
2.700
2.900
3.400
3.400
7.600
18.000
12.500
6.200
6.200
18.000
31.700
34 .400
32.800
7.600
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
u
u
u
u
u
u
U 3.500 U 3.500 U 3.500 0 3.500 U 3.500 U
U 4.000 U 4.000 U 4.000 0 4.000 0 4.000 U
U 3.000 0 3.000 U 3.000 U 3.000 U 3.000 U
4.300
5.000
4.300
5.000
3.500 U
4.000 U
3.000 U
3.500 U
4.000 U
3.000 0
4.300
5.000
5.800 U 5.800 U 5.800
4.800 U 4.800 0 4.800
3.000
1.600
2.700
2.900
3.400
3.400
7.600
16.000
12.500
6.200
6.200
18.000
31.700
34 .400
32.800
7.600
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
3.000
1.600
2.700
2.900
3.400
3.400
7.600
18.000
12.500
6.200
6.200
18.000
31.700
34.400
32. BOO
7.600
0
U
0
U
U
U
U
U
U
0
U
u
0
u
0
0
3.000
1.600
2.700
2.90U
3.400
3.400
7.600
18.00U
12.500
6.2UU
6.200
1B.OOU
31.700
34.400
32.800
7.600
3.500
4.000
3.000
U 0.031 U 0.031 U 0.031 U 0.031 U 0.031 U 0.031 U 0.031 0 0.031
F-4
-------
TABLE F-l. (Continued)
s
ป
tn
PHI Pollutant 1
i.
ซ
o
M
*A
C
UJ
I
4
>ป
X
UJ
0
is
S!-l
o c 01
DC UJ O
s-:
is ซr
ซs
?c
A
o c
CX UJ
8
O
a.
=
CD
ft)
U
1
1J CO *
s
c
1
o
I/I
5
a*
c
UJ
ป
0. ซ- t
3 OC 5
1
O 1/1
>i 4ป a. *
A I/I
ฃ o Sp
a ac ul<
s s
tfi 9>
O C*
? "el
" vi ' *"3 r
S'fcl"' ITfc^
J<*| V O 3 "
(jLi 3C 3D <
ซD
-.2
U
t fcฐ-
ill
Phthalates
66 bis(2-ethy1hexyl)phthalate
67 butyl benzyl phthalate
66 di-n-butyl phthalate
69 di-n-octyl phthalate
70 diethyl phthalate
71 dimethyl phthalate
PCBs
1U6-112 IPCBs
Miscellaneous Oxygenated Compounds
129 TCOO (dioxin)
54 isophorone
Pesticides
B9 aldrin
90 dieldrin
91 chlordane
92 4,4'-uUT
93 4.4'-DUE
94 4,4'-ODD
95 alpha-endosulfan
96 beta-endosulfan
97 endosulfan sulfate
yu endrin
99 endrin aldehyde
100 heptachlor
101 heptachlor epoxide
102 alpna-HCH
103 beta-HCH
104 delta-HCH
105 gamma-HCH-
113 toxaphene
Volatile Halogenated Alkanes
6 tetrachloromethane
10 1,2-dichloroethane
11 1,1,1-trichloroethane
13 1,1-dichloroethane
14 1,1.2-trichloroethane
16 1,1,2.2-tetrachloroethane
16 chloroethane
23 chloroform
32 1,2-dichloropropane
44 dichloromethane
45 chloromethane
46 bromomethane
47 oromoform
4B dichlorobromomethane
bl chlorodibronomethane
Volatile Haloyenated AUenes
29 1,1-dichloroethylene
30 1,2-trans-dichloroethylene
33 1,3-dichloropropene
8s tetrachloroethylene
87 trichloroethylene
88 vinyl chloride
Volatile Aromatic Hydrocarbons
4 benzene
38 ethylbenzene
66 toluene
U 7.500 U 7.500
U 2.400 < 27.000
360.000 4500.000
U 3.600 U 3.600
U 3.700 U 3.700 U
20.000 < 57.000 U 7.500 U 7.500 U 7.500 U 7.500
27.000 < 57.000 < 16.000 < 130.000 U 2.400 U 2.400
820.000 2300.000 200.000 47000.000 1100.000 3000.000
9.000 U 3.600 U 3.600 U 3.600 U 3.600 0 3.600
3.700 U 3.700 U 3.700 U 3.700 U 3.700 U 3.700
290.000
24.3 486.000
76.000
23.000
U 1.500 U l.SOO U 1.500 U l.SOO U 1.500 U
54.000
1.500 U
4.000
1.500 U
6.000
1.500
U
U
U
0.090 U
0.102 U
7.000
0.089 U
0.090
0.102
1.300
0.069
U
U
0.090
0.102
0.900
4.200
U
U
0.600 U
0.102 U
4.500
0.089 U
0.090
0.102
1.600
0.089
U
U
U
O.U90 U
0.102 U
2.000 U
0.089
0.090 0
0.102 U
0.076 0
0.800 U
0.090
0.102
0.076
0.089
0 0.057 0 0.057 U 0.057 U 0.057 U 0.057 U 0.057 U 0.0b7 U 0.05?
U 0.088 U 0.088 U 0.088 U 0.088 U 0.088 U 0.088 U O.Obb 0 0.088
F-5
-------
TABLE F-l. (Continued)
f. ซ
ง*> 00 U
> oป v>
*:J 1*|
*J ป/l -O *V trt >,
flJ *
ป- ซ 9 .O - C
PHf Pollutant ฃฃu' KWO
la
=jl
4-ป O
* tfl ซ
L. tn Q.
O) i-
OC UJ <
^*
*W ftf O
tl> ป/ป
L. *n a.
o c1 ฃ
QC UJ a
^
O
*J
O Q. >ป
tfi Q
L. L.I
* O> >>
s c c
oe 2 ID
in
* *^
i. t-|O.
** O>[
i i
O ป
** . M C
? i.lฃ! ฃ* *. a!
ac ua K B <
CD
'm S
** ซ ^
u
b. U 0.
|2a
l^i
Volatile Chlorinated Aromatic
Hydrocarbons
7 chlorobenzene
Volatile Unsaturated Carbonyl
Compounds
2 acrolein
3 acrylonitrile
Volatile Ethers
19 2-chloroethylvinylether
Hetals
114
115
117
118
119
12U
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
antimony
arsenic
beryllium
cadmium
chromium
copper
lead
ercury
nickel
selenium
silver
thallium
zinc
U
1
b
U
1
U
30
U
.907 U
.090 U
.450
.210
.70U
0.005
6.125
0.000 U
U.003 <
0.025
0.566
0.022
0.125
0.025
0.493
0.003
0.021
4.996
0.008 U
27.500
U
0.005
0.066
0.543
0.032
0.131
0.038
0.346
O.OU5
0.022
7.10U
0.003 U
0.377
0.000
0.003
0.054 U
0.645
0.043
0.062
0.021
0.58C
0.001
0.018
2.BU1
0.004
5.636
0.002
0.086
0.030
9.087
0.171
0.141
0.051
0.639
0.4b8
0.070
51.707
0.004
4.216
0.001 U
0.027
0.053
11.450
0.073
0.038
0.040
0.601
0.357
0.120
6U.357
0.011
6.299
0.001
0.174
0.069
14.373
0.080
0.2b2
0.133
0.892
0.572
O.U49
54.014
0.011
2.232
0.001
0.125
3.381
3.630
0.498
0.023
1.002
0.487
0.416
0.013
17.827
0.020
1.860
0.001
U.13b
1.550
3.028
0.471
0.028
1.056
0.326
0.642
0.02b
15.686
'Values are for benzofluoranthenes, presumably both (b) and (k) isomers.
6Autnor does not specify which isomer of dichlorobenzene.
cvalues are for a-chlordane only.
"Values are for both 2.4' and 4,4' Isomers.
"Organic compounds reported as ppb wet weight. Metals reported as ppm wet weight.
Blank Indicates that analysis was not conducted for that chemical.
''First nuMber in parentheses is the number of Individual organisms per simple.
Second nunber 1s the number of replicate samples represented by values in table.
*N" Indicates that information on sample size was not available.
F-6
-------
TABLE F-2. SELECTED BIOACCUMULATION DATA FOR
PUGET SOUND REFERENCE AREASf
ppป
65
34
21
22
24
31
57
bซ
b9
60
64
5
28
35
3b
37
56
61
62
63
1
65
77
7b
til
bO
39
72
73
74
75
76
79
b?
b3
04
b
V
20
2b
26
27
c
i
*
i
Pollutant j
Phenols
phenol
2, 4-dinethyl phenol
Substituted Phenols
2,4,6-trichlorophenol
uara-chloro-meta cresol
2-chlorophenol
2.4-dlchloropnenol
2-nitrophenol
4-nitrophenol
2,4-dinitrophenol
4.6-dinitro-o-cresol
pentichlorophenol
Organonitroyen Compounds
benzidine
3.3'-dichlorobenzidine
2,4-dinitrotoluene
2,6-dinitrotoluene
1,2-diphenylhydrazine
nitrobenzene
N-nitrosodimethylamlne
N-nitrosodi phenol ami ne
N-nitrosodi propel ami ne
Low Molecular Ueiyht Aromatic
Hydrocarbons
acenaphthene <
naphthalene <
acenaphthylene <
anthracene <
phenanthrene <
fluorene <
High Molecular Height PAH
fluoranthene <
benzo(a Janthracene <
benzojajpyrene <
benzo(b)fluoranthene <
benzo(k)f luoranthene
Chrysene <
benzo(ghi)perylene
dibenzo(a,h)antnracene
indeno(l,2,3-cd)Myrene
yyrene <
Chlorinated Aroaattc Hydrocarbons
1,2,4-trichlorobenzene
hexachlorobenzene
2-chl oronaphthal ene
1,2-dicfilorobenzene
1,3-dichlorobenzene
1,4-dichlorobenzene
L. L.
> * S K
i ป eo >
^ *. 9>
CJ C *- OI
l<- 0
e ป> o *ป
, v, ,. ซJ * 01
11 'O * _
ฃ ซD -C C
""x.s c-~.2
" *O1 U 1 3> t**^
!ฃฃฃ 5-SS-
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
1.20 < .050 U
1.2U < .UbU <
1.20 < .050 U
1.40 < .260 U
1.20 < .050 U
1.20 < .050 U
1.40 < 1.260 U
4.00 < 2.100 U
2.00 < l.bVO U
2.00 a < 1.690 a U
U
1.80 < 1.68U U
U
U
u
1.40 10.500 U
U
2.00 2.100 U
U
4.40 b < 0.400 b U
U
U
.$?
tA *- E
S-i
"I*"-5
.c"o ซ-ป
U irt L. o
fZ3~
50.000
50.0UO
100.000
50.000
50.000
50.000
50.000
200.000
200.000
200.000
20U.OOO
100.000
50.000
50.000
50.000
50.000
50.000
25.000
92.500
25.000
25.000
25.000
25 .000
25.000
26.000
25.000
25.000
25.000
25.000
25.000
50.000
25.000
25.000
50.000
25.CHXJ
25.000
50.000
50.000
50.UOO
U
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
0
u
u
u
u
u
u
0
u
u
0
u
u
u
u
u
u
0
u
0
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
1
CM U
B v>
21
-JS1
5-
ซ-ฃ
ฃ tl
fciS.2
^ฃ"1
5C -- -4
UJ =>C-
10.000
20.UUO
BO. 000
40.000
10.000
40.000
20.000
2000.000
4100.000
250.000
40.000
50.000
20.000
5.000
10.000
500.000
30 .000
500.000
10.000
2.000
2.000
5.000
5.000
5.000
30.000
70.000
40.000
200.000
60.000
60.000
300.000
240.000
300.000
20.000
20.000
l.OOJ
5.000
5.000
5.000
5.000
U
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
af
S1
^N ป
II
i
J= 0 **
S-.2.S
t- c c o
ซซ ป
t-<-ฑ
" 0> 1. "
^ฃ3=
20.00
20.00
20.00
20.00
20.00
20.00
20.00
100.00
100.00
26.00
68.00
20.00
20.00
10.00
20.00
10.00
20.00
10.00
54.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
20.00
10.00
10.00
20.00
20.00
20.00
A
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
I
u
~?
5 .
-1?
us
4J *l >t
41 VI L.
tl ซl
U C > n,
ซ 0> O.X
2?SZ.
3SE*
10.000
20.000
80.000
40.000
10.000
40.000
20.000
2000.000
4100.000
250.000
40.000
50.000
20.000
5.000
10.000
500.000
30.000
500.000
10.000
2.000
2.000
5.000
5.000
5.UUO
30.000
70.000
40.000
200.000
60.000
60.000
300.000
240.000
300.000
20.000
20.000
1.000
5.000
5.000
5.000
5.000
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
0
u
u
u
0
u
u
0
u
u
0
u
0
u
u
u
u
u
u
ซ
ซ "u
in u-.
31
ฃ. a. *J
U Q. b
ฃ" =
-fcf.5
i g t~.
t> 0 > ,
- u I--J
23.00
20.0U
20.00
20.00
20.00
20.00
20. OP
100.00
100.00
Zb.OO
BO. 00
20.00
20.00
10.00
20.00
10.00
20.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
20.00
lo. oo
10.00
20.00
33.00
20.00
F-7
-------
TABLE F-2. (Continued)
ป- tt c
_ O
O ft
** * ป
*i r>
Pollutant
e ซ->
ซ5ฃ
Us
21
55
S8
" *
- C C
U 0>
* ฃ f>
-
ueo
Chlorinated Aliphatic Hydrocarbons
52 fiexachlorobutadiene
12 hexachloroethane
53 hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Halogenated Ethers
18 bis(2-chloroethyl(ether
40 4-chlorophenyl ether
41 4-bromophenyl ether
42 bisU-chloroisopropyl (ether
43 bis(2-chloroethoxy(methane
Phthalates
66 bis(2-ethylhexyl(phthalate
67 butyl benzyl phthalate
68 di-n-butyl phthalate
69 di-n-octyl phtnalate
7U diethyl phthalate
71 dimethyl pnthalate
PCBs
106-112 IPCBs
Miscellaneous Oxygenated Compounds
129 TCOU (dioxin)
54 Isophorone
Pesticides
B9 aldrin
90 dieldrin
91 chlordane
92 4,4'-ODT
93 4,4'.DOE
94 4,4'-DDi)
95 alpha-endosulfan
96 beta-endosulfan
97 endosulfan sulfate
9t) enonn
99 endrin aldehyde
10U heptachlor
101 heptachlor epoide
102 alpha-HCH
103 beta-HCH
104 delta-HCH
105 yarma-HCH
113 toxaphene
Volatile Haloyenated Alkanes
6 tetrachloromethane
lu 1,2-dichloroethane
11 1.1,1-trichloroethane
13 1,1-dicnloroethane
14 l.l.if-trichloroethane
IS 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane
16 chloroethane
23 chloroform
32 1,2-dichloropropane
44 dichloromethane
4b chloromethane
46 bromometnane
47 bromoform
4B dichlorobromomethane
51 chlorodibronofflethane
0.20
0.210
U bO.OOO
0 100.000
30.000
10.000
500.000
40.00 U
40.00 U
U
30.000
10.000
500.000
40.00
40.00
U
U
U
U
U
50.000
25.000
50.000
50.000
50.000
U
U
U
U
U
S
200
40
S
S
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
U
U
U
U
U
20.00
10.00
10.00
20.00
20.00
U
U
U
U
U
5
200
40
5
S
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
U
U
U
U
U
20.00
10.00
10.00
20.00
20.00
U 25
U 25
< 512
U 25
U 25
V 25
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
U
U
U
U
U
U
10
20
3
10
so
S
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
U
U
U
35.00
10.00
21.00
18. 00
10.00
10.00
U
U
U
U
U
U
10
20
3
10
so
5
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
U
U
U
1331.00
10.00
S40.00
53.00
10.00
10.00
594.00
336.000
260.000 < 13.000
U 25.000
36.00 U 10.000 22.00
U 10.00 U 10.00
< 0.08 < 0.042 U
U
< 0.08 c < 0.042 c U
12.00 6.300 U
20.00 d 12.600 d U
U
U
U
U
U
U
< 0.08 < 0.105 U
U
U
U
U
< 0.08 < 0.063 U
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
U
0
U
<
U
U
U
U
0
0
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
0
U
0
0
0
U
U
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
3.000
r.ooo
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
10.000
10.000
10.000
10.000
10.000
10.000
10.000
10.000
10.000
10.000
10.000
10.000
10.000
10.000
10.000
U
U
U
e 0
e U
e U
U
U
U
U
U
0
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
0
U
U
&0.00
Si) .00
SO .00
SO .00
50.00
50.00
SO. 00
t>0.00
so.oo
SO. 00
SO.OO
so.oo
so.oo
50.00
so.oo
so.oo
so.oo
S.OO
10.00
S.OO
5.00
5.00
S.OO
10.00
S.OO
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
S.OO
S.OO
U
U
U
U
U
0
U
0
0
U
U
U
0
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
0
U
U
U
U
.000
.000
.000
.000 e
.000 e
.000 e
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
10.000
10.000
10.000
10.000
10.000
10.000
10.000
10.000
10.000
10.000
10.000
10.000
10.000
10.000
10.000
U
U
U
U
0
0
U
U
U
0
0
U
0
U
U
0
U
50.00
so.oo
50.00
50.00
50.00
50.00
50. OU
50.00
so.oo
50.00
so.oo
50.00
50.00
50.00
50.00
so.oo
SO. 00
F-8
-------
TABLE F-2. (Continued)
PPI
29
30
33
65
87
bb
4
3b
8b
* "5 2 * "o *< ฃ"o +>
1 ^ ป - * ~
J,.c "> ซ*ฃ *~ *
Pollutant 2ฃฃ rฃ" i^uu
Volatile Kalogenated Alkenes
1.1-dichlorocthylene
1 ,2-trans-dichloroethylene
1,3-dichloropropene
tetrachloroethylene
trichloroethylene
vinyl chloride
Volatile Aromatic Hydrocarbons
benzene
ethyl benzene
toluene
U
U
U
U
u
0
u
u
u
(V* U
-**
-o"
i. ซ >
1 O
*. _
-------
APPENDIX G
HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT METHODS
-------
APPENDIX G
HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT METHODS
The following sections describe the procedures used to calculate tissue
contamination guidelines and the associated uncertainties. U.S. EPA (1980,
1984a, 1985a,b) provides detailed descriptions of health risk assessment
models and approaches outlined below.
DERIVATION OF MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE TISSUE CONTAMINATION GUIDELINES
Carcinogenic Risk Model
Excess lifetime risk (R-j) of cancer due to exposure of an individual
to chemical i is calculated as the product of a carcinogenic potency factor
(B-j, in kg-day-mg-1) and an exposure estimate (E-j, in mg-kg-l-dayl, or
mg of chemical i per kg of consumer's body weight per day):
RI = BiEi (1)
and:
V
E1 = (2)
W
where:
C-j = average concentration of carcinogenic chemical i in edible tissue
of a seafood organism (mg/kg)
I = average seafood ingestion rate per human (kg/day)
W = average human weight (kg).
W is assumed to be 70 kg for the "reference man" (EPA 1980). Carcinogenic
potency factors listed in Table 6-1, were obtained from U.S. EPA (1985a) .
6iven a reference-risk level (R-j*) and an average consumption rate
(I*), the corresponding tissue-concentration guideline (C-j*) of a single
chemical can be calculated by combining Equations 1 and 2 and solving for
C-j* as follows:
R.*W
6-1
-------
TABLE 6-1. CARCINOGENIC PRIORITY POLLUTANTS RANKED BY POTENCY FACTORS
Pollutant
129 TCDD (dioxin)
5 benzidine
119 chromium VI
90 dieldrin
61 N-nitrosodimethylamine
115 arsenic
73 benzo{a)pyrene
89 aldrin
102 alpha-HCH
118 cadmiumc
106 PCB-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-dichloroethylene
18 bis(2-chloroethyl)ether
113 toxaphene
124 nickel (subsulfide, refinery
37 1 ,2-diphenylhydrazine
92 4,4'-DDT
93 4,4'-DDE
94 4,4'-DDD
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 tetrachloroethylene
4 benzene
21 2,4,6-trichlorophenol
88 vinyl chloride
12 hexachloroethane
87 trichloroethylene
62 N-n1trosodiphenylamine
44 dichloromethane
CAS Number
1746-01-6
92-87-5
60-57-1
62-75-9
50-32-8
309-00-2
319-84-6
53469-21-9
11097-69-1
11104-28-2
11141-16-5
12672-29-6
11096-82-5
12674-11-2
76-44-8
319-85-7
91-94-1
118-74-1
57-74-9
58-89-9
75-35-4
111-44-4
.8001-35-2
dust)
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
79-01-6
86-30-6
75-09-02
Level of Evidence
Potency8 Humans Animals
156000.00000 I S
234.00000 (W) S S
41.00000 (W) S S
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
0.01100
0.00492
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
L/S
S
0.00063 (I) L
a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1985a), Table 9-66.
All slopes calculated as upper 95 percent confidence limit of slope (q,*)
based on animal oral data and multistage model except:
(B) ซ 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.
G-2
-------
That is, the tissue concentration guideline for chemical i is equal to
the reference-risk level (10"5) times the reference body weight (70 kg)
divided by the product of carcinogenic potency of chemical i and the assumed
average ingestion rate (20 g/day) . Note that values for I* and R* are
established by regulatory policy decisions. In this case, regulatory policy
dictates that a recreational angler should be able to eat an average of
20 g/day (one serving per week) for 70 yr without experiencing excess risks
of cancer higher than 10"5. The assumed values for consumption rate (I*)
and risk (R-j*) are discussed in a following section. As discussed later,
effects of chemical mixtures and food preparation methods are not addressed
in this study.
As long as the calculated risk is less than 10"2, the potencies obtained
from the linearized multistage model (U.S. EPA 1980) are considered as
adequate for estimating the upper bound of risk. Unless available evidence
for a specific chemical indicates that an alternative model is suitable,
U.S. EPA (1980, 1984a) recommends this model for estimating a "plausible
upper limit" to cancer risk. Although mechanisms of carcinogenesis are
largely unknown, the linearity of the tumor initiation process has been
demonstrated. All exposure-response models based on upper confidence limits
are essentially linear in the "low-dose" region of interest for cancer
induction (Guess et al. 1977).
Reference-Risk Value
A reference-risk of 10"5 (lifetime cancer risk of 1 in 100,000) was
used to calculate tissue contamination criteria. A risk value of 10"5
was chosen because it is the upper limit on risk selected by U.S. EPA (1980)
to develop water quality criteria. Note that U.S. EPA has avoided defining
a single "acceptable risk" in deriving water quality criteria for carcinogens,
because methods are not available for establishing the presence of a threshold
for carcinogenesis. Thus, the reference-risk level and corresponding tissue
contamination guidelines presented in this report should not necessarily
be interpreted as "safe" levels, but rather as reference values. However,
reference-risk values and corresponding tissue concentrations used as guidelines
are not necessarily related to risks and tissue contamination levels in
reference areas used for comparison with the study area.
Seafood Ingestion Rate
The average ingestion rate used to calculate tissue contamination
guidelines was 20 g/day (which equals approximately 0.33 Ib/wk, or about
one average serving per week). By choosing this ingestion rate, one essentially
establishes a policy that the typical recreational angler, whose trip frequency
is about once per week (McCallum 1985), would be protected from adverse
health effects. Note that many anglers may not fish throughout the year
and that all trips are not successful. Because the ingestion rate of 20
g/day selected for the present analysis is assumed to apply to the entire
year, it is probably an overestimate of the actual long-term average con-
sumption. Average ingestion rates calculated by Landolt et al. (in press)
for seasonal fisheries are just below 20 g/day (generally 10-15 g/day).
6-3
-------
Note that assuming an ingestion rate of 20 g/day may not protect the
most frequent anglers or a subsistence-level population. However, it is
expected that this portion of the local angler population is very small.
Noncarcinogens
By substituting the ADI for a noncarcinogenic chemical in Equation
2 and specifying an average ingestion rate (I*), the tissue contamination
guideline may be calculated as follows:
As before, average body weight (W) is assumed to be 70 kg and the average
ingestion rate (I*) is 20 g/day.
Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI) values listed in Table G-2, were obtained
from U.S. EPA (1980) and the Environmental Criteria and Assessment Office,
U.S. EPA, Cincinnati, Ohio. Although ADI values were published as part
of water quality criteria development (U.S. EPA 1980), some of these values
are now being revised. Values used in this assessment are the current
values, but they are subject to revision. Note that a tissue concentration
guideline was not calculated for fluoroanthene. The ADI for fluoroanthene
is based on the dermal route of exposure and may not be applicable to exposure
by ingestion.
UNCERTAINTIES
Uncertainties are inherent in all risk assessments (e.g., Crouch et
al. 1983; U.S. EPA 1984a,b, 1985a,b). Uncertainties in the present analysis
arise from the following factors:
1. Uncertainties in estimating carcinogenic potency factors
or ADIs, resulting from
Uncertainties in extrapolating from toxicologic data
obtained from laboratory animals to humans
Uncertainties in high- to low-dose extrapolation of
bioassay test results, which arise from practical
limitations of laboratory experiments.
2. Uncertainties in the selection of 20 g/day as an average
consumption rate. The distribution of long-term average
consumption rates for recreational anglers in Elliott Bay
is unknown.
3. Uncertainties in measuring tissue concentrations of con-
taminants.
G-4
-------
TABLE 6-2. ACCEPTABLE DAILY INTAKE (ADI) VALUES FOR PRIORITY POLLUTANTS
PP# Pollutant
126 silver
123 mercury
60 4,6-dinitro-o-cresol
127 thallium
42 bis(2-chloroisopropyl)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 bromomethane
124 nickel
38 ethyl benzene
64 pentachlorophenol
31 2,4-dichlorophenol
65 phenol
121 cyanide
54 isophorone
44 dichloromethane
86 tol uene
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 #
534-52-1
39638-32-9
72-20-8
51-28-5
10061-02-6
115-29-7
115-29-7
1031-07-8
206-44-0
77-47-4
95-50-1
541-73-1
106-46-7
108-90-7
107-82-8
74-83-9
100-41-4
87-86-5
120-83-2
108-95-2
78-59-1
75-09-02
108-88-3
71-55-6
74-87-3
98-95-3
117-81-7
87-74-2
131-11-3
84-66-2
ADI
mg/day
0.016
0.02
0.027
0.0373
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
1.6
2.1
7.0
7.0
7.6
10.5
13
29.5
37.5
38
40
42
88
125
700
875
ADI
mg/ kg/day
0.0002
0.0003
0.0004
0.0005
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
0.02
0.03
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.150
0.2
0.4
0.5
0.5
0.6
0.6
1
2
10
10
Criteria
Page
C-125
C-106
C-93
C-39
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-24
C-37
C-32
C-37
C-20
C-51
C-77
C-30
C-57
C-57
C-57
C-57
Reference: U.S. EPA (1980); priority pollutant numbers are shown in first column
of table. For each ADI, page citation for Water Quality Criteria document is shown
in last column. Blanks in page citation column indicate that ADI values are errata
to water quality criteria (U.S. EPA Environmental Criteria and Assessment Office
1984 pers. comm.).
6-5
-------
4. The efficiency of assimilation (or absorption) of contaminants
by the human gastrointestinal system is unknown. It is
assumed to be 100 percent in this study.
5. Uncertainties associated with variation of exposure factors
among individuals, such as
Variation in seafood species composition of the diet
and selection of indicator species for health risk
assessment
Variation in seafood preparation methods and uncertainties
associated with changes in chemical concentrations
due to cooking.
Variance in estimates of carcinogenic potency or ADIs (#1 above) account
for one major uncertainty component in this study. Chemical potencies
are estimated only on an order-of-magnitude basis, whereas analytical chemistry
of tissues is relatively precise (on the order of +20 percent). Nevertheless,
uncertainties may also arise from failure to anaTyze for specific chemicals.
For example, edible tissue samples collected in past studies of the Elliott
Bay system were not analyzed for the following priority pollutants:
0 Substituted phenols
Organonitrogen compounds other than 1,2-diphenylhydrazine
and N-nitrosodiphenylamine
1,2,4-trichlorobenzene
Hexachlorobenzene
2-chloronaphthalene
Hexachloroethane
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
0 Halogenated ethers
2,3,7,8-TCDD
0 Selected pesticides
0 Volatile organic compounds.
Based on previous studies in Puget Sound and elsewhere, some of these compounds
are not expected to bioaccumulate substantially (e.g., substituted phenols
other than pentachlorophenol, halogenated ethers, and volatile organic
compounds). Local sources of the other compounds (except pentachlorophenol)
have not been identified.
6-6
-------
Because of data limitations, variance of the calculated tissue contami-
nation guidelines can not be estimated precisely. However, uncertainty
analysis conducted by previous researchers illustrates the variability
of risk estimates and potency factors. For example, the coefficient of
variation for the mean value of potency generally ranged from 2 to 105
percent for each drinking water contaminant studied by Crouch et al. (1983).
This uncertainty arises mainly from error associated with experimental
bioassay data. Among species, the potency of a given chemical may vary
only slightly or up to approximately 1,000-fold, depending on the chemical
in question (Clayson et al. 1983). Thus, the uncertainty associated with
extrapolating estimates of potency from laboratory animals to humans may
be much greater than the uncertainty associated with animal bioassay tech-
niques. By comparison, the range of potencies among carcinogens covers
7-9 orders of magnitude (Clayson et al. 1983; U.S. EPA 1984b). Therefore,
despite uncertainties in estimates of carcinogenic potencies for individual
chemicals, the much greater range of potencies among chemicals implies
that rank-ordering of chemicals by their potencies may be useful for risk
management. Risk assessment techniques may be a powerful tool for identifying
problem chemicals in areas contaminated by complex chemical mixtures.
The uncertainty associated with the choice of indicator species is
probably less than that attributed to estimates of chemical potency. To
evaluate the use of English sole as an indicator species for assessment
of human health risks, data on PCBs and total arsenic in muscle tissue
of Puget Sound fishes were examined. Only two recent studies (Gahler et
al. 1982; Landolt et al. in press) reported data for English sole as well
as several species (e.g., Pacific hake, Pacific cod, walleye pollock, and
rockfish) that are frequently consumed by recreational anglers in Elliott
Bay. The mean contaminant concentration in muscle of each recreational
species was divided by the corresponding mean concentration in English
sole (Tables G-3 and G-4).
PCB concentrations in muscle of recreationally caught species varied
from 0.2 to 5.5 times those in English sole collected by Gahler et al. (1982)
(Table G-3). Excluding the values from Discovery Bay, which are based
on a quantisation limit for English sole, the average relative concentration
of PCBs in recreational species is about 0.5. Two species, white-spotted
greenling in Hylebos Waterway and walleye pollock in Discovery Bay, exhibited
higher PCB concentrations than English sole. Arsenic concentrations in
muscle of recreational species varied from 0.1 to 1.1, with a mean relative
concentration of 0.4.
Mean concentrations of PCBs in sportfish were 0.056-5.19 times those
in English sole using data from Landolt et al. (in press) (Table G-4).
A relative concentration of 9.8 was found for one Pacific cod sample (single
individual). The relative concentration of arsenic in sportfish was 0.14-6.85
times that of English sole. Based on data from Landolt et al. (in press),
the average relative concentration of PCBs among sportfish species was
2.5 times the English sole value (excluding the single cod sample). In
contrast, the corresponding relative concentration based on data from Gahler
et al. (1982) was 0.5.
G-7
-------
TABLE G-3. RELATIVE CONCENTRATIONS OF PCBs AND ARSENIC IN MUSCLE OF
RECREATIONALLY-HARVESTED SPECIES OF FISH IN
COMMENCEMENT BAY AND DISCOVERY BAYa
en
i
00
PCBs
Species
Pacific cod
Pacific hake
Pacific tomcod
Rockflsh
Walleye pollock
White- spotted
green ling
English sole
(ppm wet weight)
Hylebos City
Waterway Waterway
0.2
(n=2)
0.2
(n=5)
0.2
(n=2)
0.9
(n-5)
1.6
(n=3)
0.55 0.19
(n=5) (n=5)
Old Town
Dock
0.4
(n=l)
0.8
(n=5)
0.5
(nปl)
0.2
(n=5)
0.12
(n=3)
Pt. Defiance Discovery
Dock Bay
U0.8
(n=l)
0.2 5.5
(n=5) (n=5)
0.33 <0.013
(n=3) (n=5)
Hylebos City
Waterway Waterway
0.4
(n=2)
0.1
(n=5)
0.1
(n=3)
0.2
(n=5)
0.1
(n=3)
4.9 5.1
(n=5) (n=5)
Total Arsenic
Old Town
Dock
1.1
(n=l)
0.2
(n=5)
0.2
(n=l)
0.6
(n=5)
2.9
(n=3)
Pt. Defiance Discovery
Dock Bay
1.1
(n=l)
0.2 0.5
(n*5) (n=5)
8.6 3.2
(n=3) (n=5)
8 The ratio of the mean contaminant concentration In a species to the value
observed for English sole Is shown 1n the table. For English sole, the
mean concentration Is given.
U - Undetected at the detection limit shown.
Reference: Based on data from Gahler et al. (1982).
-------
TABLE G-4. RELATIVE CONCENTRATIONS OF PCBs AND ARSENIC IN MUSCLE OF
RECREATIONALLY HARVESTED SPECIES OF FISH IN SOME PUGET SOUND EMBAYMENTSa
o
to
Species
Sableflsh
Squid
Pacific Cod
Pacific Hake
Pacific Tomcod
Rock Sole
Rockflsh
English Sole
(ppm wet weight)
PCBs
Elliott Sinclair Inlet/ Commencement
Bay Edmonds Bremerton Bay
2.36
(n-12)
3.54 1.48
(n-5) (n=l)
9.8 5.19 0.056
(n-1) (nซ3) (n=3)
0.028 0.042 0.113 0.120
(n-5) (nซ5) (nซ4) (n-4)
Elliott
Bay
0.46
(n-13)
0.53
(n-D
0.75
(n-6)
0.32
(n-1)
3.79
(n=4)
Edmonds
4.81
(n-5)
1.38
(n-3)
2.15
(n-D
1.40
(n-7)
0.94
(n=4)
1.88
(n=6)
Total Arsenic
Sinclair Inlet/
Bremerton
6.85
(n-4)
1.33
(n-6)
6.38
(n=6)
Commencement
Bay
0.34
(n-2)
0.14
(n-2)
0.80
(n-2)
17.79
(n-4)
ป The ratio of the mean contaminant concentration 1n a species to the value
observed for English sole 1s shown In the table. For English sole, the
mean concentration 1s given.
Reference: Based on data from Landolt et al. (1985).
-------
Relative concentrations among species may vary in relation to geographic
location, contaminants of concern, degree of contamination, and the feeding
habits of the selected species. Also, results may vary substantially among
analytical labs (e.g., by a factor of 5-10). Several of these factors
could account for the difference in average relative concentration between
studies discussed above. The results in Tables G-3 and G-4, suggest that
selected contaminant concentrations in English sole muscle are within an
order of magnitude of those found in individual species of common sportfish.
6-10
-------
APPENDIX H
NUMBERS OF STATIONS IN STUDY AREA SEGMENTS
-------
TABLE H-l. NUMBER OF STATIONS IN EACH STUDY AREA
SEGMENT BY INDICATOR CATEGORY
Segment
1A
IB
1C
2A
2B
3A
3B
3C
4A
4B
4C
4D
5A
5B
6A
6B
7A
7B
8A
8B
8C
80
8E
8F
9A
10A
11A
11B
11C
12A
12B
Sediment Chemistry9
2
2
4
13
1
4
1
2
3
11
3
3
10
1
4
5
9
3
3
4
2
3
3
3
0
10
5 (32b)
3
4
14
1
Bioassay
Amphipod Oyster
1
2
1
9
1
0
0
4
2
2
1
1
11
1
3
1
5
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
9
3
1
4
13
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
10
0
0
1
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
In fauna
0
3
2
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
3
0
0
1
20
0
a All chemical indicators (LPAH, HPAH, PCBs, metals) were measured at most,
but not all, stations.
b PCBs only.
H-l
-------
MAPS
-------
COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW (MAJOR)
COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW (MINOR)
COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW/STORM DRAIN
STORM DRAIN (8" to 24")
STORM DRAIN (25" to 48
STORM DRAIN (> 48")
TREATMENT PLANT OUTFALL
OTHER POTENTIAL SOURCES
DIAGONAL WAV
~J S. DIAGONAL
GEORGETOWN
\ DISPOSAL /
V AREA ,'
ELLIOTT
BAY
TON STA
PARK
P,ERซ SEATTLE
VIEWPOINT
ER 2
FISHING PIEfl S.W. FLORIDA ST
Public access points and
recreational areas
MAPI
0 EXISTING PUBLIC ACCESS
O FISHING
Q PROPOSED PUBLIC ACCESS
A FUTURE PUBLIC ACCESS
II minium CITY PARKS
8 PROPOSED WILDLIFE REFUGE
RECREATIONAL SHELLFISH
HARVEST AREA
GEODUCKS
KELP
EELGRASS
-------
COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW (MAJOR)
* COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW (MINOR)
# COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW/STORM DRAIN
- 48")
O TREATMENT PLANT OUTFALL
S) OTHER POTENTIAL SOURCES
'..--(.< Tฃ~
GEORGETOWN
CHEM PRO SMITH
COVE
f~\- ('i'lNTERBAY
ELLIOTT
BAY
SWHINDST
-------
COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW (MAJOR)
COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW (MINOR)
COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW/STORM DRAIN
STORM DRAIN (8" to 24")
STORM DRAIN (25" to 48")
STORM DRAIN (> 48")
TREATMENT PLANT OUTFALL
OTHER POTENTIAL SOURCES
> DISPOSAL /
V AREA ,'
a
[A a
DO- 25%
26 - 50%
Sediment grain size (percent fines) in
Elliott Bay and the lower Duwamish River
-------
COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW (MAJOR)
COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW (MINOR)
COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW/STORM DRAIN
48")
TREATMENT PLANT OUTFALL
OTHER POTENTIAL SOURCES
GEORGETOWN
DISPOSAL /
.. AREA ,'
E L L I O
BAY
Sediment Chemistry: Percent total organic
carbon in Elliott Bay and the lower
Duwamish River MAP 4
A 0 - 1%
A 1.1 - 2%
A 2.1 - 3%
3.1 - 5%
5.1 - 10%
10.1 - 20%
-------
COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW (MAJOR)
COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW (MINOR)
COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW/STORM DRAIN
STORM DRAIN (8" to 24")
STORM DRAIN (25" to 48")
STORM DRAIN (> 48";
TREATMENT PLANT OUTFALL
OTHER POTENTIAL SOURCES
EP9-9A
HE29-OH9
DIAGONAL WAY
\^
122ฐ 20'
I
19
GEORGETOWN
47ฐ 33'
36'
47ฐ 35'
Sediment Chemistry: Sampling stations for selected
data sets in Elliott Bay and the lower Duwamish River
MAPS
A SAMPLING STATION
It
-------
* COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW (MAJOR)
* COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW (MINOR)
* COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW/STORM DRAIN
- 48")
TREATMENT PLANT OUTFALL
OTHER POTENTIAL SOURCES
GEORGETOWN
32'
47ฐ 35'
Sediment Chemistry: Elevations above reference
for low molecular weight polynuclear aromatic
hydrocarbons in Elliott Bay and the lower
Duwamish River MAP 6
O NOT SIGNIFICANT
SIGNIFICANT, <10 X REFERENCE
A SIGNIFICANT, 10 - 100 X
SIGNIFICANT, 100 - 1000 X
I SIGNIFICANT, >1000 X
-------
COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW (MAJOR)
COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW (MINOR)
COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW/STORM DRAIN
STORM DRAIN (8" to 24")
- 48")
TREATMENT PLANT OUTFALL
OTHER POTENTIAL SOURCES
DIAGONAL WAY
122ฐ 20'
GEORGETOWN
-37'
47ฐ 35'
Sediment Chemistry: Elevations above reference
for high molecular weight polynuclear aromatic
hydrocarbons in Elliott Bay and the lower
Duwamish River MAP?
O NOT SIGNIFICANT
SIGNIFICANT, <10 X REFERENCE
A SIGNIFICANT, 10 - 100 X
SIGNIFICANT, 100 - 1000 X
SIGNIFICANT, >1000 X
-------
COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW (MAJOR)
COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW (MINOR)
COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW/STORM DRAIN
STORM DRAIN (8" to 24")
STORM DRAIN (25" to 48")
STORM DRAIN (> 48")
TREATMENT PLANT OUTFALL
OTHER POTENTIAL SOURCES
GEORGETOWN
DISPOSAL /
>_ AREA ,'
ELLIOTT
BAY
P,Enซ SEATTLE
RENCE = 6 ppb
DEPTH CONTOURS IN FEET BELOW MUW
SPOKANE ST BRIDGE
Sediment Chemistry: Elevations above reference
for PCBs in Elliott Bay and the lower
Duwamish River MAPS
O NOT SIGNIFICANT
SIGNIFICANT, <10 X REFERENCE
A SIGNIFICANT, 10 - 100 X
SIGNIFICANT, 100 - 1000 X
SIGNIFICANT, >1000 X
-------
COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW (MAJOR)
COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW (MINOR)
COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW/STORM DRAIN
STORM DRAIN (8" to 24")
STORM DRAIN (25" to 48')
STORM DRAIN (> 48")
TREATMENT PLANT OUTFALL
OTHER POTENTIAL SOURCES
DIAGONAL WAY
122ฐ 20'
I
It
GEORGETOWN
47ฐ33'
32'
37'
1ENCE = 34.5 ppm
DEPTH CONTOURS IN FEET BELOW ULLW
47ฐ 35'
Sediment Chemistry: Elevations above reference
for copper, lead, and zinc in Elliott Bay and
the lower Duwamish River
MAP 9
O NOT SIGNIFICANT
SIGNIFICANT, <10 X REFERENCE
A SIGNIFICANT, 10 - 100 X
SIGNIFICANT, 100 - 1000 X
I SIGNIFICANT, >1000 X
-------
COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW (MAJOR)
COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW (MINOR)
COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW/STORM DRAIN
STORM DRAIN (8" to 24")
STORM DRAIN (25" to 48")
STORM DRAIN (> 48")
TREATMENT PLANT OUTFALL
OTHER POTENTIAL SOURCE!
GEORGETOWN
ELLIOTT
BAY
REFERENCE = 3.4 ppm
TO SPOKANE ST BRIDGE
Sediment Chemistry: Elevations above reference
for arsenic in Elliott Bay and the lower
Duwamish River MAP1Q
O NOT SIGNIFICANT
SIGNIFICANT, <10 X REFERENCE
A SIGNIFICANT, 10 - 100 X
SIGNIFICANT, 100 - 1000 X
SIGNIFICANT, >1000 X
It
-------
COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW (MAJOR)
COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW (MINOR)
COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW/STORM DRAIN
<*) STORM DRAIN (8" to 24')
- STORM DRAIN (> 48")
TREATMENT PLANT OUTFALL
OTHER POTENTIAL SOURCES
ISLAND -* \I SLIP
GEORGETOWN
E L L I O T 7
BAY
P,ERซ SEATTLE
Bioaccumulation and Fish Pathology: Subtidal and
intertidal sampling stations for selected data sets in
Elliott Bay and the lower Duwamish River
MAP 11
^^H FISH TRAWL/PATHOLOGY
BIOACCUMULATION
(I I) DATA WERE POOLED
-------
COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW (MAJOR)
COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW (MINOR)
* COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW/STORM DRAIN
48")
O TREATMENT PLANT OUTFALL
OTHER POTENTIAL SOURCES
12-*ซD
^^ TERMINAL 3C
Sediment Bioassays: Sampling stations for selected
data sets in Elliott Bay and the lower Duwamish River
MAP 12
AMPHIPOD BIOASSAYS
0 OYSTER BIOASSAYS
-------
COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW (MAJOR)
COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW (MINOR)
COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW/STORM DRAIN
STORM DRAIN (8" to 24")
STORM DRAIN (25" to 48")
STORM DRAIN (> 48")
TREATMENT PLANT OUTFALL
OTHER POTENTIAL SOURCES
GEORGETOWN
"ER4B SEAT!
AMPHIPOD REFERENCE = 7%
OYSTER REFERENCE = 6%
DEPTH CONTOURS IN FEET BELOW MLLW
0 5000
SPOKANE ST BRIDGE
Sediment Bioassays: Elevations above reference
for amphipod and oyster bioassays in Elliott
Bay and the lower Duwamish River
MAP 13
AMPHIPOD EAR (% MORTALITY)
O 0 - 1.8 (0 - 12.5, N.S.)
| 1-8 - 3.6 (12,5 - 25) Q (N.S.)
^^ 3.6 - 7.1 (25 - 50)
7.1 (2 50)
OYSTER EAR (0% ABNORMALITY)
O V < 1 (< CONTROL. N.S.)
(^ < 4.1 (< 25)
fc 4.1 - 8.2 (25 - 50)
8.2 (ป 50)
-------
COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW (MAJOR)
COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW (MINOR)
* COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW/STORM DRAIN
- 48")
O TREATMENT PLANT OUTFALL
OTHER POTENTIAL SOURCES
RZ-K19 0,0.5,1.8 ST1-BB1.BB2.8BJ
GEORGETOWN
UW6-BYI/200E
UW6-BVI 400E /
Benthic Infauna: Subtidal and intertidal sampling
stations for selected data sets in Elliott Bay and the
lower Duwamish River
MAP 14
INTERTIDAL
SUBTIDAL
-------
COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW (MAJOR)
COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW (MINOR)
COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW/STORM DRAIN
STORM DRAIN (8" to 24")
STORM DRAIN (25" to 48")
STORM DRAIN (> 48")
TREATMENT PLANT OUTFALL
OTHER POTENTIAL SOURCES
GEORGETOWN
DISPOSAL /
^ AREA x'
ELLIOTT
BAY
REFERENCE CONDITIONS SEE TEXT
SPOKANE ST BRIDGE
Benthic Infauna: Elevations above reference
for total abundances in Elliott Bay and the
lower Duwamish River MAP 15
O < 1.00 x REFERENCE
1.00 - 1.11 x.
A 1.12 - 4.90 x
5.00 x
-------
COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW (MAJOR)
COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW (MINOR)
COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW/STORM DRAIN
STORM DRAIN (8" to 24")
STORM DRAIN (25" to 48")
STORM DRAIN (> 48"
TREATMENT PLANT OUTFALL
OTHER POTENTIAL SOURCES
GEORGETOWN
> DISPOSAL
^ AREA ,'
ELLIOTT
BAY
FOR REFERENCE CONDITIONS SEE TEXT
SPOKANE ST BRIDGE
Benthic Infauna: Elevations above reference
for total number of taxa in Elliott Bay and
the lower Duwamish River
MAP 16
O < LOO x REFERENCE
1.00 - 1.11 x
A 1-12 - 4.90 x
5.00 x
-------
COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW (MAJOR)
COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW (MINOR)
COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW/STORM DRAIN
STORM DRAIN (8" to 24")
STORM DRAIN (25" to 48')
STORM DRAIN (> 48")
TREATMENT PLANT OUTFALL
OTHER POTENTIAL SOURCES
GEORGETOWN
ELLIOTT
BAY
En" SEAT!
FOR REFERENCE CONDITIONS SEE TEXT
DEPTH CONTOURS IN FEET BELOW MLLW
Benthic Infauna: Elevations above reference
for amphipod abundances in Elliott Bay and
the lower Duwamish River
MAP 17
< 1-00 x REFERENCE
1.00 - 1.11 x
1-12 - 4.90 x
> 5.00 x
-------
COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW (MAJOR)
COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW (MINOR)
COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW/STORM DRAIN
STORM DRAIN (8" to 24")
STORM DRAIN (25" to 48")
STORM DRAIN (> 48")
TREATMENT PLANT OUTFALL
OTHER POTENTIAL SOURCES
GEORGETOWN
ELLIOTT
BAY
FOR REFERENCE CONDITIONS SEE TEXT
SPOKANE ST BRIDGE
Benthic Infauna: Elevations above reference
for dominance index values in Elliott Bay
and the lower Duwamish River MAPI8
O < 1.00 x REFERENCE
1.00 - 1.11 x
A 1-12 - 4.90 x
5.00 x
-------
* COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW (MAJOR)
# COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW (MINOR)
* COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW/STORM DRAIN
<*) STORM DRAIN (8" to 24")
48")
O TREATMENT PLANT OUTFALL
S OTHER POTENTIAL SOURCES
ES ฎ ฉ (M
RS ฎ ฉ (M
GEORGETOWN
ELLIOTT
BAY
BAY REFERENCE = 0, 2.1, 0.5% ENGLISH SOLE
BAY REFERENCE = 0, 8.0, 0% ROCK SOLE
RIVER REFERENCE = 0, 0,
Fish Pathology: Elevations above reference
for liver lesion prevalences in Elliott Bay
and the lower Duwamish River MAP19
NOT SIGNIFICANT
SIGNIFICANT, < 50 x REFERENCE
SIGNIFICANT, 50 - 100 x
SIGNIFICANT, > 100 x
ES - ENGLISH SOLE
RS = ROCK SOLE
SF - STARRY FLOUNDER
N - NEOPLASMS
P ซ PRENEOPLASMS
M - MEGALOCYTIC HEPATOSIS
~~) - DATA WERE POOLED
------- |