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 Indicators—English  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 Data—For 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) Analysis—Within 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 Changes—Long-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 Habitats—Stober 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 Tumors—These  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 Seahurst—t 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 —  •     "0—3       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

-------