EPA-440/5-77-015B
        EVALUATION OF
   THE PROBLEM POSED BY
   IN-PLACE POLLUTANTS
    IN BALTIMORE HARBOR
     AND RECOMMEDATION
   OF CORRECTIVE ACTION
            United States
      Environmental Protection Agency
   Office of Water Planning and Standards
         Washington, B.C. 20460

-------
                EPA Review Notice
This report has been reviewed by the Environmental
Protection Agency and approved for publication.
Approval does not signify that the contents neces-
sarily reflect the view and policies of the
Environmental Protection Agency, nor does mention
of trade names or commercial products constitute
endorsement or recommendation for use.

-------
EPA 440/5-77-015B
       Evaluation of the Problem Posed by
    jln-Place Pollutants in Baltimore Harbor
    and Recommendation of Corrective Action
                    United States
            Environmental Protection Agency
          Office of Water Planning and Standards

-------
                   TABLE OF CONTENTS
                                                           Page
1.0    EXECUTIVE SUMMARY . . .	    1

2 .0    INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE OF STUDY	    3
2. 1    THE AREA INVESTIGATED	    5

3. 0    APPROACH.	    8
3. 1    GEOCHEMISTRY	    9
3. 2    BIOASSAY	   11
3.3    POTENTIAL, CORRECTIVE ACTIONS	   12

4. 0    DESCRIPTION OF IN-PLACE POLLUTANTS	   13
4. 1    SOURCES AND QUALITY OF DATA AVAILABLE	   13
4. 2    POLLUTANT CONCENTRATIONS AND THEIR
       HORIZONTAL AND VERTICAL DISTRIBUTION	   17
4. 3    ESTIMATED QUANTITIES	   35

5. 0    THE EFFECTS OF IN-PLACE POLLUTANTS	   40
5. 1    SEDIMENT AND INTERSTITIAL CHEMISTRY	   41
5. 2    BENTHOS	   43
5. 3    PELAGIC FISH AND PLANKTONIC ORGANISMS	   49

6. 0    EFFECTIVENESS AND PERMANENCE
       OF POTENTIAL CORRECTIVE ACTIONS	   51
6. 1    BLANKETING AS A CORRECTIVE ACTION	   53
6.2    INACTIVATION AS A CORRECTIVE ACTION	   55
6. 3    REMOVAL AS A CORRECTIVE ACTION	   56
6. 4    LEAVING UNDISTURBED		   64
                                 -ii-

-------
                   TABLE OF CONTENTS
                                                            Pace
7. 0    FEASIBILITY AND COSTS OF
       POTENTIAL CORRECTIVE ACTIONS	  65
7. 1    BLANKETING	  66
7. 2    INACTIVATING	  67
7. 3    REMOVING	  68
7.4    LEAVING UNDISTURBED	  71

8. 0    CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS	  73
8. 1    CONCLUSIONS	  73
8. 2    RECOMMENDATIONS	  77
                                 -in-

-------
                        LIST OF TABLES


Table                                                             Page

 4-1    Averages of Sediment Analyses Concentrations	18

 4-2    Averages of PCB Concentrations.	19

 4-3    Averages of Interstitial Water Metal Concentrations	21

 4-4    Averages of Elutriate Test Metal Concentrations	23

 4-5    Average Concentrations of
        Sediment Analyses for Core Samples	25-31

 4-6    Elutriate Test Analyses for Sampling Sites	33

 4-7    Metal Concentrations of Filtered Water	34

 4-8    Sources of Heavy Metals
        Entering Baltimore Harbor  (Helz, 1976)	36

 4.9    Percent Retention of Trace  Elements
        in Estuarine or Coastal Sediments (Helz,  1976)	37

-------
                       LIST OF FIGURES





Figure                                                           Page




 2-1    Baltimore Harbor and Vicinity	   6




 2-2    Baltimore Harbor Sampling Sites	   7




 5-1    Toxic Zones	  44
                                   -v-

-------
1. 0       EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This study: (1) describes the in-place pollutants within Baltimore Harbor,
(2) analyzes the pollutants for their effect upon the environment, (3) investi-
gates potential corrective actions for feasibility and cost,  (4) examines the
effectiveness and permanence of potential corrective actions, (5) derives
conclusions and makes recommendations, and (6) recommends the course
of action which is most realistic given the conditions of the Harbor's require-
ments and use.

Following a comprehensive review of prior  related work, a field program
was developed  and carried out to confirm and extend the results  of earlier
investigators.  In the field program,  core borings were taken from twenty
sites.  Each core was divided into sections  to test the levels of concentra-
tions  of selected pollutants to depths of 10 feet below the sediment/water
interface.  The individual samples were analyzed for nine heavy metals,
total hydrocarbons  by hexane extract,  PCB's, and interstitial water metals.
In addition, elutriate tests were made,  and  surface  sediments from nine of
the twenty sites were used in a bioassay of two finfish and one clam species.

0   The analytical techniques used to determine the existence and
    degree of pollution,  such as the bulk sediment analyses,  the
    elutriate tests,  interstitial water metal analyses, PCB con-
    centration analyses, and the bioassay did not correlate one
    with another to indicate pollutants or toxic elements consistently
     or predictably. The two analytical techniques that did corre-
    late were the bioassay and the  sediment analyses for heavy
    metal, hexane extract,  and PCB concentrations.  The elutriate
    test showed that the entire Harbor is classified as polluted,
    the elutriate being greater than 1.5 times the overlying filtered
    water metal concentration.  Neither the elutriate test nor the
     interstitial water metal concentration analyses indicated con-
     sistent zones of intensity or correlated with the areas known
     to contain very high levels of toxic materials.

0    The biota  within the Harbor are being stressed by the in-place
    pollutants. The benthic organisms suffer the greatest amount
     of damage, intensity varying according to locatipn within the
     highly, moderately, low,  or  slightly toxic zones. The pelagic
     species are damaged to a much lesser  extent.  The  cause of
     damage, whether from in-place pollutants or from those pres-
     ently being discharged,  is  unknown.
                                   -1-

-------
In-place pollutants are a direct result of waste discharges that are
incorporated into the sediments.  Although the exact quantities and
chemical composition of the present discharges are not known, NPDES
permit authorizations indicate that  significant quantities of heavy metals
and total suspended solids are being added to the Harbor  each day.  The
last total inventory of heavy metals and toxic chemicals,  published in
1973, showed a daily Harbor influx of 86 tons.   Until the  goals of P. L.
92-500 are achieved and discharges of toxic  materials  are greatly reduced
or eliminated, any action such as removal of the in-place pollutants would
result in but a temporary solution.

0    Of the potential corrective actions, "leaving the pollutants in
    place" is recommended as the  preferred choice, at least until
    the influx of pollutant loads is greatly reduced or eliminated.

0   Removal of the in-place pollutants by dredging may be an
    effective and feasible action to be taken  in the future, after the
    discharge of pollutants has been  eliminated.  Dredging should
    be contemplated only after an appropriate amount of time has
    passed after the elimination of incoming pollutants; natural
    recovery to the biota of the Harbor may be  possible and may
    well take place through blanketing of the in-place pollutants
    with clean sediment and natural loss of heavy metals to the
    water column.

*   Placement in a diked disposal area such as the Hart-Miller
    Island disposal site is feasible  and is acceptable under Mary-
    land State law.  Costs to dredge and place 79 million cubic
    yards are estimated at 74 million dollars.   To construct a
    diked disposal site for that quantity of material would cost 54. 5
    million dollars --a total estimated expenditure of 128. 5 million
    dollars.
                                  -2-

-------
2.0       INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE OF STUDY


The purpose of this study, authorized by EPA Contract Number 68-01-1965,
was to perform an "Evaluation of the Problem Posed by In-place Pollution
in Baltimore Harbor and Recommendation of Corrective Action Responsive
to the Mandate of Section 115 PL 92-500".  EPA's statement of work
required that:

          The Contractor  shall furnish the necessary personnel,
          materials, services, facilities ..., and otherwise do
          all things necessary for  or incident to the performance
          of the work set forth below:

          A.  The Contractor shall collect and/or generate by
              measurement, sampling, and analysis, the infor-
              mation necessary to describe the problem area
              and provide the basis  for a viable program of
              dredging and disposal or other corrective action
              for Baltimore Harbor, Baltimore, Maryland.
              The following minimum requirements should be
              addressed in the study and included in the report:

              1.   Describe the harbor sediment for its pol-
                   lutional characteristics, including vertical
                   and horizontal distribution,  and the volume
                   of polluted sediment involved in the problem
                   area...

              2.   Give an analysis of the environmental effect
                   of the polluted sediment and/or why it is a
                   problem (i. e.,  can it be left alone, is it part
                   of an area to be dredged,  is it adversely affect-
                   ing water quality and water use?).

              3.   Determine the probable effectiveness and per-
                   manence of any corrective action.  Will the
                   pollutant sources continue to affect the harbor
                   sediments?

              4.   Investigate the  various alternative corrective
                   actions and detail their feasibility and cost.
                                     -3-

-------
              5.  Recommend a course of action that is realistic
                  with regards to harbor  requirements and use.

Six months were allowed for field work,  taking of samples,  laboratory work
and the preparation of a draft  report.  To encompass the maximum area of
Baltimore Harbor within the allotted time,  the field work and the sampling
process were designed to build on and supplement prior work which has been
performed on the sediments and water column of the Harbor by the authors
and by others.  Correlation between the findings  of the current work and
prior work was made wherever possible.
                                    -4-

-------
2. 1       THE AREA INVESTIGATED
In order to evaluate the problem posed by in-place pollutants in Baltimore
Harbor,  sampling and other work was concentrated in the Harbor area
proper.  Figure 2-1 shows the general location of Baltimore Harbor and
the Chesapeake Bay.  Figure 2-2 shows the location of sampling sites used
in this investigation along with major sub-divisions of the Harbor and their
commonly used names.  Since various sources use differing delineations
when referring to the segments of Baltimore Harbor, this report follows
the map and section names outlined in Villa and Johnson's report for EPA
dated January 1974.
                                 -5-

-------
              BALTIMORE   HARBOR

                       AND

                     VICINITY
STUDY AREA
                   ANNAPOLIS.
           WASHINGTON D'"7
                          -6-

-------
                              WARBOE-
                                            If c  spaee.ovfs:fr.
SAMPLE;  SITE*




BIOA55AY SAMPLE. S/7E5
                                 -7-
                                                           2 -2

-------
3.0       APPROACH
The initial step was to review and consider for applicability all available
published and unpublished work relating to in-place pollutants in Baltimore
Harbor.   A bottom-sampling field program was then devised and carred
out to both confirm and extend the results of prior work.  Chemical
analyses were made to determine the nature of the pollutants in the core
samples  and their concentrations.  A bioassay was performed to deter-
mine the gross toxicity of the in-place sediments.  From the work done
in this sampling and analysis program,  correlated with previous studies,
the extent of the vertical and horizontal distribution of the polluted sedi-
ments in the Harbor was derived.  The technical,  economic, and other
implications of each potential corrective action were then evaluated, and
conclusions and recommendations were derived and a realistic course of
action proposed.
                                 -8-

-------
3. 1       GEOCHEMISTRY
To measure the concentrations and distribution of heavy metal and other
pollutants present in Baltimore Harbor sediments,  twenty sites were chosen
for sampling and chemical analysis.  Core borings  were taken between
June 9- 15, 1976, using the R. V. AQUARIUS,  a 65-foot motor vessel
belonging to the University of Maryland Center for  Environmental and
Estuarine Studies.  The vessel is fully equipped with modern scientific
equipment for conducting research and studies within the Chesapeake
Bay and its tributaries.  The sampling sites were selected with regard to
the location of the main  shipping channels and to locations where previous
work had been performed. The sites sampled in this study cover the same
general areas as those used  in the Villa and Johnson study (1974).  The
sampling and  analysis program included the same heavy metals analyzed
in the 1974 study.  In addition, the investigation added  arsenic, hexane
extract, PCB's,  and an  analysis of interstitial water metal concentrations.
Also,  the standard elutriate  test for metal was conducted.

A 15-foot gravity piston corer was used to obtain sediment samples at
each of the twenty sampling sites (See Figure 2-2 for locations. ).  These
samples were fractioned into eight layers of individual samples,  from
0, 16 to 10  feet; and the following analyses were performed:

0   Sediment  Analyses
    Analyses  were made for percent moisture  content; total hydro-
    carbons by hexane extract; and nine heavy metals:  arsenic (As),
    mercury  (Hg), cadmium (Cd), chromium (Cr),  copper (Cu),
    manganese (Mn),  nickel (Ni), lead (Pb), and zinc (Zn).  These
    were done at each of the eight layers  obtained.   The individual
    sample analyses  and the procedure used are contained in
    Appendix  C.

    Interstitial Water
    Samples for  interstitial  water analyses were obtained from two
    levels, or depths,  of sediment; 5-10  cm and 40-45 cm.  The
    individual analyses  and the procedure used to obtain the samples
    are contained in Appendix C.

    Elutriate  Test
    Samples for  the elutriate test were taken from  the same eight
    sediment  layers,  or depths, of the core as for  the sediment
    analysis and were analyzed for the same nine heavy metals.
    The individual sample analyses and the procedure  used to
    obtain the samples are contained in Appendix C.

                                 -9-

-------
0   PCB Analyses
    Samples for PCB analyses were obtained from the first four
    depths of sample material, 0. 16, 0. 5, 1. 0, and 2. 0 feet.
    The results of the PCB analyses and individual sample data
    are contained in Appendix D.

0   Particle Size  and Surface Area Analyses
    Sediment samples were taken from the top layer at a depth of
    0, 16 feet and  from the bottom layer,  10. 0 1 2 feet.  Samples
    were analyzed for average particle size and specific  surface
    area.  The analyses for individual samples is contained in
    Appendix C.

 0    Filtered Water
     Water samples were obtained at each of the twenty sampling
     sites.  Samples were obtained in three fractions taken from
     the lower, middle,  and upper third of the water depth.  The
     water was then mixed, filtered and analyzed for the nine heavy
     metals to provide a basis for the chemical analyses of the over-
     lying water fraction in the elutriate test.  The analyses for the
     individual samples and procedure used to obtain the samples
     are contained in Appendix C.

 The results  of these chemical analyses and tests provided the basis for
 describing the in-place pollutants in Baltimore Harbor in terms of their
 concentration and for their horizontal and vertical distribution as presented
 in Section 4. 2.  It also provided a basis for interpretative work  in describing
 the effects of the  in-place pollutants contained in Section 5. 0.  The overall
 results of interpretative analyses for corrective actions are contained in
 Sections 6 and 7 and in the Conclusions and Recommendations of this report.
 Appendix C contains the detailed  analyses and individual results of chemical
 and physical analyses of the samples  obtained in the field.
                                 -10-

-------
3.2       BIOASSAY
At nine pre-selected sites (See Figure 2-2 for locations. ) a grab sampler
was used to obtain approximately 30 gallons of sediment from the upper-
most one foot of bottom material to be used  in the bioassay.  The proce-
dure used in preparing these samples for the bioassay is contained in
Appendix E.

A bioassay was performed using two species of finfish,  mummichog,
Fundulus heteroclitus,  and spot, Leiostomus xanthurus, and one species
of clam, Mya arenaria.  The purpose of the  bioassay was to determine the
gross toxicity of the sediments that were taken from several different  areas
within the Harbor.  Previous studies had classified portions of the Harbor
as "high, " "moderate," "slight,"  and "low"  in toxic effects on the basis of
the  distribution and abundance  of benthic  macro-invertebrates.  The bioassay,
therefore, was designed to indicate relative  gross toxicity from one sampling
site location to another.  The interpretation of the bioassay results are con-
tained in Sections  5. 2 and 5. 3, and in the Conclusions and Recommendations
of this report.  The method used for performing the bioassay and specific
findings  are contained in Appendix E.
                                 -11-

-------
3. 3       POTENTIAL CORRECTIVE ACTIONS
From the geochemical and bioassay findings and from engineering studies
and reports, all corrective actions having reasonable potential for appli-
cation were evaluated.  These included blanketing, the deposition of layers
of plastic material over the polluted bottom sediments to preclude the trans-
fer of the pollutants from the sediments to the water column; inactivation of
the polluted sediments by chemical means; and removal  of the polluted sedi-
ments by dredging.  In addition, while not in a sense a corrective action, the
effect of leaving the sediments  undisturbed also was evaluated.   See Sections
6. 0 and 7. 0 for further discussion.

Each potential corrective action was evaluated with respect to the environ-
ment of Baltimore Harbor, which is an active shipping port in a highly
industrialized center.  The Conclusions and Recommendations of this report
reflect a  course  of action that is considered to be the most realistic with
regard to harbor  requirements and use and the current and projected future
discharges  of industrial and community pollutants into the Harbor waters.
                                   -12-

-------
4.0       DESCRIPTION OF IN-PLACE POLLUTANTS

4. 1       SOURCES AND QUALITY OF DATA AVAILABLE
An extensive literature review was made early in the investigation to both
ascertain the extent of current knowledge about pollutants in Baltimore
Harbor;  and to assist in the design of the field sampling program.  In
addition,  certain proprietary reports  and unpublished works were made
available to this study, which were helpful.  The following is a list of
published material reviewed, together with summary comments, perti-
nent to this study.  The reader is cautioned that data formats and data
values will be found to differ in these publications.  Differing methods for
sample preparation,  differing analytical methods,  differing collection and
storage procedures,  etc. , all combine to modify the final values by factors
of 2 to 100 and more (Sommer,  1974,  and Bricker, 1975).   It will noted
also that no literature could be found which contained information pertain-
ing to heavy metals in interstitial waters or  elutriate tests on samples
from Baltimore  Harbor.

Sediment Geochemistry
    Villa and Johnson, 1974, EPA, Region HI
    The most comprehensive source of sediment geochemical data
    is by Villa and Johnson.  Most of their samples were taken near
    the surface (5 - 15 cm),  24 of the  176 sites were sampled at 30 -
    40 cm depth.  These cored samples were analyzed for Pb, Cd,
    Cr,  Cu,  Mn, Ni,  Zn,  and Hg. This study served as the basis
    for the design of the present report; i. e., techniques and site
    selection are comparable so that the reports can be compared
    equitably.  The values for the horizontal distribution  of the
    heavy metals from this most  recent study (1976) agree in almost
    every case with the high and low concentrations of the same
    metals from the same site locations from the Villa and Johnson
    study.

    Cronin,  et al,  1974, Chesapeake  Bay Institute
    and Chesapeake Biological Laboratory
    Analyses of Zn, Mn, Cd, Cu,  Ni,  and Fe, made at 23 sites in
    the Harbor found large local spatial variations  in the  metal con-
    centrations.  This report found Zn, Cu,  and Cd levels to be much
    higher in the Harbor than in the Bay, 4 to 14 times the maximum
    levels found in the Upper Bay.  The maximum concentrations of
    Mn, Fe, and Ni were found to be less in the Harbor than in the
    Bay.

                                  -13-

-------
Biggs, 1968, Chesapeake Biological Laboratory
Biggs analyzed for Cu, Pb, Zn, Cd, and Cr in sediment samples
taken from the Harbor in the vicinity of Dundalk Marine Terminal.
He found all of these metals to be of higher concentrations than
metals in sediments off Poplar Island,  a potential dumping area.
Cr varied, at Dundalk, from 94 - 423 ppm, Cu from 65 185 ppm,
Cd from 2. 84 -  15. 58 ppm, and Zn from 303  - 2390 ppm for sur-
face samples.  Biggs attributed the metal levels to industrial
activity and suggested that the metals are concentrated as metal
sulfides in the sediment.

Sommer and Diachenko, 1974, Geological Society of America
This study contains the only data on heavy metals in interstitial
water in the Chesapeake Bay.

Koo,  1975,  Center for Environmental and Estuarine Studies
Contains a physical analysis of sediments in the Harbor obtained
from a sieve analysis  for percentages  of sand,  clay,  and silt for
28 stations.  These data indicate a majority of the sediment to
be of silt size with the sand fraction becoming important  at the
mouth of the Harbor.

Per Hall, Pulleritz -  Zollman, 1974, Interstate Division
of Baltimore City
This report on construction in Baltimore Harbor contains the
only known information on sediment composition to depths of
80 feet and includes 16 components,  many of which are not
covered in any other available report.   Sediment samples taken
from very deep corings and analyzed for heavy metals may indi-
cate possible natural background levels which would be of interest
in establishing standards for  pollution  levels.

Green Associates and Trident Engineering Associates, 1970,
Maryland Department of General Services
This report contains abundant information on comparative
chemical extraction techniques applied to sediments and a com-
prehensive study of the dredged spoil disposal problem.  Poten-
tial disposal areas from the mouth of the Susquehanna River to
Tangier Island were investigated.  The chemical and physical
characteristics of the channel bottom sediments were examined
as were the pertinent  characteristics of the movement of the
waters in Chesapeake Bay.  Preliminary designs were made for
containments at the five sites having the greatest overall poten-
tial as diked disposal  areas.
                             -14-

-------
Biota
    H. T. Pfitzenmeyer under Koo, 1975, Center
    for Environmental and Estuarine Studies
    H. T. Pfitzenmeyer briefly reviewed literature pertaining to the
    biology  of Baltimore Harbor prior to 1971.  He stated that natural
    resources of the Harbor rapidly declined before the turn of the
    century. In 1884 there were 3,800, 000 square yards of oyster
    bars within the Harbor, northwest of a line from Old Road Bay
    to Sellers Point.  In 1907 the northern limit of all oyster grounds
    was Rock Point at the entrance to the Harbor.  Bottom grounds
    above Bodkin Point were not recommended for oyster culture.

    Yates, 1913, U. S.  Coast and Geological Survey
    Yates made  a study of oyster bars in Chesapeake Bay in 1906-1912.
    No oyster bars were shown for Baltimore Harbor.

    Davis, 1948, Chesapeake Biological Laboratory
    Davis also studied this copperas-polluted area of Curtis Bay and
    confirmed the Olson,  et al, findings,  but  he found more diatoms
    present  per liter in the polluted area than in the relatively unpol-
    luted area.

    Garland, 1952, Chesapeake Biological Laboratory
    Garland made the first extensive water quality survey of Baltimore
    Harbor and the Patapsco estuary.  He  stated that in  some seasons
    of the year fishing was good at the entrance to the  Harbor, but
    within the Harbor fishing and crabbing had diminished during the
    previous quarter of a century and had virtually stopped.  This,
    he concluded,  resulted from waste discharges.

    Hohn and Hellerman,  1966, Transactions of American Micro. Soc.
    Hohn and Hellerman studied diatoms in Lewes-Rehoboth Canal,
    Delaware, and Chesapeake Bay area of Baltimore.   They described
    four new species from Curtis Bay,  a major tributary of the Harbor,
    in the vicinity of Sledds Point.  These were Diploneis hormopunctata,
    Navicula agmastriata,  N.  cumvibia and N. taraxa.

    Koo, 1975,  Center for Environmental and Estuarine Studies
    Chesapeake Biological Laboratory conducted a  comprehensive
    biological study of Baltimore Harbor in 1970-1971.  Four major
    biological groups were studied:  fish eggs and larvae by W.  L.
    Dovel; invertebrate  benthos by H. T. Pfitzenmeyer;  adult fish
    by M. L. Wiley; and blue crabs by R.  L.  Lippson and R. E.
    Miller.  The results were summarized and edited by T.  S. Y. Koo.

                               -15-

-------
    Villa and Johnson,  1974,  EPA,  Region HI
    Villa and Johnson studied the heavy metal contamination of Balti-
    more Harbor sediments.  They indicated that heavy metal con-
    tamination might be a major contributing factor to the biological
    deterioration of benthic communities of the Harbor.
Water Column Chemistry
    Garland,  1952,  Chesapeake Biological Laboratory
    Garland evaluated the water quality in terms of -waste disposal,
    past and present,  and projected future usage.

    Stroupe,  1961,  Chesapeake Bay Institute
    Stroupe studied the flushing mechanism of the Harbor and its
    effect on waste  discharge and biological conditions..

[These two studies are the standard references to water quality in Baltimore
 Harbort   However, neither report is truly applicable to this study. ]

    Ryan, 1953, Maryland  Department of Geology, Mines,
    and Water Resources
    This  major study of the Bay sediments included only three sites
    that could be  considered in the Harbor.  These samples were
    analyzed  by conventional sieve and wet techniques for size frac-
    tionization.  The samples were all over 98 percent silt and clay.
                                  -16-

-------
 4. 2       POLLUTANT CONCENTRATIONS AND THEIR
           HORIZONTAL AND VERTICAL DISTRIBUTION

 4. 2. 1     Horizontal Distribution

 4. 2. 1. 1   Horizontal Distribution - Sediment Analysis


 The pollutants identified and analyzed in this study consisted of nine heavy
 metals, hexane extract,  and PCB's.  For ease of reference, the average
 concentrations of the nine heavy metals and the hexane extract observed
 at the  twenty sampling sites have been summarized in Table 4-1.  At each
 site, the core sample was divided into eight layers of sediment by depth,
 0.16,  0.5,  1.0,  2.0,  3.0,  5.0,  7.0,  and 10. 0 feet to portray the vertical
•distribution  of metal concentrations.  The concentration of each metal
 for each of the eight sample depths was then totaled and averaged.  Although
 an average figure for the eight samples does not  represent a precise
 description of the representative sample,  it displays conveniently the
 variable concentrations from one site location to another and offers  an
 overall view of the horizontal distribution.  The individual  analysis of the
 concentration of each metal by depth  and  site location may  be found in the
 tables  in Appendix C.

 Table 4-1 shows that most of the highest concentrations of heavy metals
and hexane extract occur in Sites 1, 2, and 3,  all three of which are located
in the Northwest Branch of Baltimore Harbor.  (See Figure  2-2 for site
locations. )  Site 4, located in Colgate Creek,  and Site 5,  located in Bear
Creek,  also  have high concentrations of heavy metals  and hexane extract.
All of these sites, containing very high concentrations of pollutants in
sediment metal distribution,  PCB's,  and  hexane extract, also contain the
highest toxic materials as determined by  the bioassay.

Site  9, located in Curtis Bay, and Site 13, in Old Road Bay, also contain
relatively high concentrations of heavy metals.  The sites located in the
upper portions of the Harbor, Northwest Branch, and  Middle Branch, and
the sites located within the creeks have the majority of high heavy metal,
hexane  extract, and PCB concentration.   (See Table 4-2 for PCB  average
concentrations. )
                                 -17-

-------
                               TABLE 4-1

                AVERAGES* OF SEDIMENT ANALYSES
                     CONCENTRATIONS IN mg/kg
Site
1
2
3
4
5
6
71
8
9
10
II2
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Total
Hydro-
Carbons
Extract
7,539
26, 295
25.922
11.889
12.292
1. 173
980
6,572
9.506
4,233
253
363
313
2, 155
8,463
2,011
4.233
1,918
4,791
10,606
Metals mg/kg
As
45
75
124
187
57
15
26
100
248
62
9
16
15
26
31
31
44
65
47
68
Hg
3.20

2.70
2.60
1.40
0.25
0.20
0. 19
0.78
1^30
0.66
0.04
0. 11
0.80
0.52
0.65
0.48
0.45
0.73
0.74
1.48
Cd
5
11
_8_
111
11
1
2
2
3
3
2
1
4
2
6
2
2
3
3
3
Cr
1, 115

1,848
1.037
621
926
76
183
300
342
298
23
28
137
147
596
178
270
348
288
362
Cu
426
1,235
j_. 66 1
427
164
44
61
164
291
196
14
25
74
80
186
104
117
226
228
408
Mn
294
331
333
419
693
906
810
949
767
325
910
1,390
511
1, 180
558
L423
917
1. 341
796
417
Ni
54
88
87
53
56
40
49
48
59
57
42
40
29
46
45
52
48
54
65
64
Pb
99
800
941
681
455
93
113
148
467
147
17
14
406
118
233
162
164
196
164
272
Zn
651
971
921
724
1.712
340
428
676
545
380
91
197
L458
466
961
466
477
726
661
478
*No bottom sample taken
*No middle or bottom samples taken

*A11 figures  represent the average of  the
 concentrations for all samples per  sita.
Highest concentration
Second highest concentration
Third highest concentration

-------
                                  TABLE 4-2

                    AVERAGES1 OF PCB CONCENTRATIONS
Site
12
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Average PCB
Concentrations (mg/kg)
>22.58
1.26
1.75
1.36
2.17*
0.21***
0.27***
0.25**
0.48
0.59
<0.05
0.18***
0.49
0.15**
1.16
0.12*
0.45
0.52
0.37
0.43*
  All figures represent the average of the
  concentrations for all samples per site.
2 Aroclor 1260 was masking 1248 values so that
  total values may be substantially higher for
  this one sample set.

•ss^s  Highest concentration
=*=  Second highest concentration
	  Third highest concentration
  *Average of three out of four  samples.
   One sample below detection limits.
 **Average of two out of four samples.
   Two samples below detection limits.
***One sample only.
   Three samples below detection limits.
                                         -19-

-------
The results of the sediment metal analyses  correlate well with those of
the bioassay.  Generally those areas containing high concentrations of
heavy metals, PCB's, and hexane extract are also those areas determined
as highly toxic from the bioassay.  Pollutant concentrations,  except for
Mn,  decrease gradually toward the  mouth of the Harbor and the entrance
to the Bay.  The values  for the horizontal distribution of the heavy metals
agree in almost every case -- Hg is one exception -- with the high and
low concentrations of eight of the same metals reported by Villa and
Johnson (1974).  This  correlation is remarkable considering  that dredging,
storms, and ship traffic would have left their imprint during  the three years
between sampling programs.   This  lack of dispersion may indicate the
stability of the metal within the sediment or that industrial output is suf-
ficient to replace quickly any metal concentrations removed or transferred.
4. 2. 1. 2  Horizontal Distribution - Interstitial Water Metal Levels

The analysis of interstitial water was considered vital to this  study
because of its impact on the evaluation  of alternative methods of action.
The interstitial water may be the major source of the releasable metals
during dredging, and no data existed prior to this study on these fluids in
Baltimore Harbor.  Interstitial water data are very dependent on the manner
in which the sample is  collected (Bricker, 1975; Sommer and Diachenko,
1974); great care must be taken in preventing oxidation of anoxic sediments,
as iron may precipitate and scavenge or adsorb trace metals  out of  solution.
Sample preparation and analytical techniques are contained in Appendix C.

The distribution of interstitial water concentrations for the nine heavy
metals is displayed in  Table 4-3 which is an average of the two samples
taken from 5-10 cm and 40-45 cm depths of the core.  Individual sample
analyses for each station  are given in Appendix C.  The distribution pattern
 of the first, second, and third highest concentrations depicted in Table 4-3
 shows that the horizontal  distribution of interstitial water is  quite hetero-
 geneous and that it does not correlate with the sediment analyses or the
 bioassay to define areas or sites of high pollutant concentrations.  The  con-
 centration  of metals in the interstitial water, unlike that in the  sediment,
 does not generally decrease toward the Outer Harbor and the Bay.
                                    -20-

-------
                                      TABLE 4-3
                    AVERAGES* OF INTERSTITIAL WATER-METAL

                    	CONCENTRATIONS IN  Ug/1	
Site
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
As
34*
<50
71
91_
<25
<100
<100
152

56
59
<50
<100
<50
<50
<50
<100
50*
200*
78
67
Hg
2
5
2
<1
<1
9
6.
<1
1*
<1
3
<2
3
3
3
11
2
2
3
2
Cd
<2
<25
<25
<2
<2
=H*
=41
<2
12
<2
<25
2
<25
<25
<25
IL*
<25
<25
25*
25.
Cr
186
94
44
21
256
i.
<38
38*
36
59
45
<100
60
<38
<38
38*
<38
<38
<38
38*
<38
Cu
16*
50*
<50
12*
10*
750*
50
7*
<17
7
84*
27
<50
<50
<50
<50
<50
<50
<50
<50
Mn
1,755
1,700
2,700
1, 120
310*
6.650
2,340
1,275
220
1,835
3.000
2, 115
855
385
420
1,030
1,015
325
565
900
Ni
<5
<75
100*
5*
<5
100*
<75
<5
915
<5
1,500
70
<75
<75
175*
150*
75*
88
<75
<75
Pb
88
570*
<290
41
157
2,550
360*
4. 535

<170
193
<500
1,650
<290
1, 100*
360*
580
1,470
<290
290*
290*
Zn
1,055
1,800
'"
370
165
87
3,850
1,000
210
115
580
260
435
305
865
255
1. 150
550
180
180
165
* Single sample,  not an  average.
  All others below detection limits.

+ All figures represent  the average of
  the concentrations for all samples per site.
                                               -21-
Highest concentration

Second highest concentration

Third highest concentration

-------
4. 2. 1. 3   Horizontal Distribution - Elutriate Test

The elutriate test (Lee and Plumb,  1974), developed by the Army Corps
of Engineers, is used to indicate probable metal release  as a result of
dredging and disposal operations.  This test attempts  to determine the
amount of toxic metals released into the water column from --or  removed
from the water  column by -- the sediment.  Metals  are presumed  to have
been released from the sediment when their concentrations are higher in
the elutriate than in the reference water; conversely,  they are presumed
to have been removed by the sediment when their concentrations are
higher in the original reference water than  in the elutriate.  The Army
Corps of Engineers suggests that concentration of each dissolved metal
not exceed 1, 5 times its  original concentration in the  filtered water column
(Bricker,  1975).

Table 4-4  shows that the horizontal distribution of heavy metals is hetero-
geneous with little or no correlation to the metal concentrations found in
the sediment and interstitial water analyses,  or by  the bioassay.  Addi-
tional discussion on this relationship is contained in Section 5. 0, "Effects
of In-Place Pollutants. "
 4.2. 1.4   Horizontal Distribution -  Bioassay

 The bioassay was conducted with sediments from eight sampling sites out
 of a total of nine.  (Site 9 was not completed for all bioassay work due to
 an extreme  change in pH of the sediment.  See Appendix E for further dis-
 cussion. )  The bioassay and previous work with the community  structure
 and diversity of benthic macro-invertebrates show a definite division of
 the horizontal distribution of toxic zones or sites.  Generally, the same
 sampling sites that have high concentrations of heavy metals, PCB's,  and
 hexane extract,  as  shown in  Tables 4-1 and 4-2, are also the sites within
 the zones  of high toxicity determined by the bioassay.

 Site 5 in Bear Creek was the most toxic for both the finfish and the clam
 species of the bioassay.  Site 4 in Colgate Creek was the second most
 toxic for finfish and Site 10,  in Middle Branch, the third most toxic.
 Site 2 in the Northwest Branch was  the second most toxic for the clam
 and Site 1,  also in the Northwest  Branch,  the fourth most toxic.  There is
 a general decrease in toxicity toward the mouth of the Harbor,  next to
 the Bay.
                                    -22-

-------
               TABLE 4-4
     AVERAGES"*" OF ELUTRIATE
TEST-METAL CONCENTRATIONS IN yg/1
Site
1
2
3
4
5
6
71
8
9
10
II2
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
As
<25
44**
41**
26
<25
32*
33**
<25
50*
44*
tt
<25
30*
32*
<25
<25
<25
25*
<25
25*
Hg
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
1*
1*
<1
JL

-------
4.2.2     Vertical Distribution
4.2.2. 1   Vertical Distribution-Sediment Analysis

It would be difficult to graphically display pollutant concentrations from
twenty sites,  each containing a core sample divided into eight levels and
analyzed for nine  heavy metals and hexane extract at each of the eight
depths.  Thus, the eight samples per site were averaged into three layers:
the top layer consisting of the three samples from 0. 16,  0. 5, and 1. 0
feet; middle layer of 2. 0,  3. 5, and 5. 0 feet; and  the bottom layer of 7. 0
and 10. 0 feet ( see Table 4-5).  This reduces the vertical distribution to
three columns of figures instead of eight and also nearly represents the
homogeneous concentrations of the top, middle,  and bottom layers that
would be of interest if removal by dredging were contemplated for depths
of 1.0,  5. 0,  or 10 feet.

Table 4-5 shows a general major decrease in most metals,  hydrocarbons,
and moisture content at the sub-surface depth  of about 5 ft.  t 2 ft.
[5 ft. t  2 ft.  (corrected core depths utilizing Piggot's (1941) correction
factors,  due to compaction,  would change  core depths by approximately
+0. 30 - 0. 9 ft. from 1 to 10 ft; 5 1 2 ft. would then read 5. 5 t 2 ft.)]

There are some  exceptions where the  bottom layer contains concentrations
higher than found in the upper two layers,  e. g.,  Site 3 in the Northwest
Branch for Hg and Pb; Site 4, 5,  and 8 for Mn; Site 9 in Curtis Bay for As,
Hg, Cu,  and Pb; Site 10 in Middle Branch  for As and Mn; and Sites 15, 16,
and 18 for Mn.  The vertical distribution of concentrations shows the same
general trend as horizontal distribution --a decreasing concentration of
heavy metals except for Mn toward the mouth of  the Harbor.
 4. 2. 2. 2   Vertical Distribution - Interstitial Water Metal Levels

 Because the sampling for interstitial water was taken from depths of only
 5-10 cm and 40-45 cm, vertical distribution is limited to interpretation for
 variations or consistencies within a narrow range.  The individual sample
 results are contained in the tables  of Appendix C for the twenty sampling
 sites.  These data indicate that maximum concentrations are very often
 found at the lowest core interval, probably indicating a gradient increasing
 with depth.  The sites with the highest levels are on the western side of
 the Harbor. Pb and Cu are highest near the Bay mouth; Ni,  Cd, and As
                                    -24-

-------
                                                   TABLE 4-5
                                        AVERAGE CONCENTRATIONS OF
                                   SEDIMENT ANALYSES FOR CORE SAMPLES
Trident
No.
Site 1
Top layer
Site 1
Middle layer
* Site 1
Bottom layer

Site 2
Top layer
Site 2
Middle layer
* Site 2
Bottom layer

Site 3
Top layer
Site 3
Middle layer
Site 3
Bottom laver
Sample
Type
sediment
sediment
sediment

sediment
sediment
sediment

sediment
sediment
sediment
Moisture
63.07
51.35
43.70

71.71
61.05
60.92

58.28
63.81
58. 22
Total
Hydro-
Carbons
Hexane
Extract
nig /kg
13,800
8,067
750

43,333
35,233
320

29,966
19,600
28,200
Mean Values of Top, Middle, and Bottom
Core Sample Chemical Analysis
Metals mg/kg
As
71
59
5

115
100
10

109
146
118
Hg
4.37
5.01
0.23

4. 16
3.91
0. 11

1.40
2.75
3.67
Cd
8
5
1**

20
12
1**

6
9
8
Cr
2,177
1,037
130

3,400
2,023
120

923
1,467
720
Cu
757
497
23

2,300
1,373
31

2, 133
1,500
1,350
Mn
320
343
220

497
207
290

320
343
335
Ni
67
56
39

147
79
37

121
70
71
Pb
172
98
26

1,143
1,243
13

653
910
1,260
Zn
1,240
657
56

1,800
1,043
71

780
1,228
755
co
w
i
                  Core Depths

        Top layer - 0. 16,  0. 5,  1. 0 feet

        Middle layer - 2.0, 3.0, 5. 0 feet

        Bottom layer - 7. 0,  10. 0 feet
 *  Single sample

**  Average figure contains one or more sample
    analyses where detection limit has been used
    as the concentration.
                             Continued  . . .

-------
                                             TABLE 4-5 (Continued)




Trident
No.
Site 4
Top layer
Site 4
Middle layer
* Site 4
Bottom layer

Site 5
Top layer
Sitp 5
Middle layer
* Site 5
Bottom layer

Site 6
Top layer
cif-f, A
Middle layer
* life* A
Bottom layer




Sample
Type

sediment

sediment

sediment


sediment

sediment

sediment


sediment

sediment

sediment




Moisture
%

70.60

65. 01

46.34


78.08

60.25

56.91


57.42

58.25

49.49
Total
Hydro-
Carbons
Hexane
Extract
mg/kg

16,267

16,900

2,500


33,066

3,410

400


2,913

260**

345
Mean Values of Top, Middle, and Bottom
Core Sample Chemical Analysis

Metals mg/kg

As

111

419

30


111

40

21


27

9

10

Hg

1. 11

2. 74

0.28


0.56

0. 18*=

0. 02**


0.47

0.06

0. 07

Cd

84

229

20


29

3**

I **


2

1**

1**

Cr

813

910

140


2,467

217

95


130

54

43

Cu

580

640

61


403

78

12


104

14

14

Mn

333

383

540


380

600

1, 100


840

1, 003

875

Ni

64

62

32


82

48

37


70

21

30

Pb

620

963

460


1, 107

238

19


251

14

13**

Zn

1,510

283

380


4,333

716

86


847

84

87
          Core Depths

Top layer - 0. 16, 0. 5, 1. 0 feet

Middle layer - 2.0, 3.0, 5.0 feet

Bottom layer - 7. 0, 10. 0 feet
 *  Single sample

**  Average figure contains one or more sample
    analyses where detection limit has been used
    as the concentration.
                                                                                             Continued . . .

-------
                                            TABLE 4-5 (Continued)
Trident
No.
Site 7
Top layer
Site 7
Middle layer

Site 8
Top layer
Site 8
Middle layer
* Site 8
Bottom layer

Site 9
Top layer
Site 9
Middle layer
* Site 9
Bottom layer
Sample
Type
sediment
sediment

sediment
sediment
sediment

sediment
sediment
sediment
Moisture
%
61.85
42. 58

67.99
65.30
54.23

77.49
69.27
65. 19
Total
Hydro-
Carbons
Hexane
Extract
mg/kg
1,800
160**

11,600
6,167
1,950

5,467
12,500
10,550
Mean Values of Top, Middle, and Bottom
Core Sample Chemical Analysis
Metals mg/kg
As
40
11

121
158
20

68
110
566
Hg
0.34
0.04

0.71
1.37
0.25

0.73
2.54
6.64
Cd
2
1**

4
2
1

3
3
2
Cr
313
52

653
207
39

357
333
336
Cu
108
13

200
242
51

283
270
321
Mn
900
720

680
647
1,520

1,573
323
405
Ni
74
24

55
55
35

80
44
52
Pb
215
1 1 **

330
81
32**

192**
393
815**
Zn
787
68

1. 147
760
120

697
453
486
          CorejDepths

Top layer - 0. 16, 0. 5, 1.0 feet

Middle layer - 2. 0, 3. 0,  5. 0 feet

Bottom layer - 7. 0,  10. 0 feet
 *  Single sample

**  Average figure contains one or more sample
    analyses where detection limit has been used
    as the concentration.
                                                                                             Continued . . .

-------
                                                    TABLE 4-5 (Continued)




Trident
No.
Site 10
Top laver
Site 10
Middle layer
* Site 10
Bottom layer

Site 11
TOD layer

Site 12
Top layer
Site 12
Middle layer
Site 12
Bottom layer




Sample
Type

sediment

sediment

sediment


sediment


sediment

sediment

sediment




Moisture
%

56.83

50.83

46.36


49.53


58. 13

58.72

59.01
Total
Hydro-
Carbons
Hexane
Extract
mg/kg

5,600

4,000

3, 100


253**


750**

290**

50**
Mean Values of Top, Middle, and Bottom
Core Sample Chemical Analysis

Metals mg/kg

As

42

50

93


9


18

17

12

Hg

0.57

0. 75

0.66


0. 04


0. 16

0. 13*

0. 05*

Cd

4

3

1


2


1

1

1

Cr

467

227

200


23


44

29

12

Cu

207

220

160


14


40

25

9

Mn

317

287

370


910


1,610

1,230

1,330

Ni

73

51

48


42


44

44

32

Pb

173

139

130


17**


19**

12**

10**

Zn

583

337

220


91


333

170

88
CD
                Core Depths

      Top layer - 0. 16, 0. 5, 1.0 feet

      Middle layer - 2. 0,  3.0,  5. 0 feet

      Bottom layer  - 7. 0,  10. 0 feet
 *  Single sample

**  Average figure contains one or more sample
    analyses where detection limit has been used
    as the concentration.
                                                                                              Continued . . .

-------
                                                   TABLE 4-5 (Continued)




Trident
No.
Site 13
Top layer
Site 13
Middle layer
Site 13
Bottom layei

Site 14
Top layer
Site 14
Middle layer
Site 14
Bottom layer

Site 15
Top layer
Site 15
Middle layer
Site 15
Bottom laye




Sample
Type
sediment

sediment

sediment


sediment

sediment

sediment


sediment

sediment

sediment




Moisture
%
59.09

43.57

40.80


58.69

58.96

54.35


63.81

53.54

53.88
Total
Hydro-
Carbons
Hexane
Extract
mg/kg
713

127**

100**


2,767

3,467**

230


21,333

3,617

440
Mean Values of Top, Middle and Bottom
Core Sample Chemical Analysis

Metals mg/kg

As
35

7

4


27

40

11


63

23

7

Hg
2. 32

0.05

0. 04


0.65

0.57

0. 33


1.27

0.46

0.23

Cd
9

1**

1#*


2

3

1**


13

4

1

Cr
333

44

34


190

203

48


1,400

330

58

Cu
200

12

10


99

125

16


447

104

8

Mn
1,166

193

175


1,340

950

1,250


610

203

860

Ni
54

17

16


53

52

32


66

36

33

Pb
1,197

12**

10**


97

237

20


553

123

22

Zn
4,267

58

48


467

833

97


2, 300

483

99
to
                Core Depths

      Top layer - 0. 16, 0. 5,  1,0 feet

      Middle layer - 2.0, 3.0, 5.0 feet

      Bottom layer - 7. 0,  10. 0 feet
 *  Single sample


**  Average figure contains one or more sample
    analyses where detection limit has been used
    as the concentration.
                                  Continued . . .

-------
                                                   TABLE 4-5 (Continued)
Trident
No.
Site 16
Top layer
Site 16
Middle layer
Site 16
Bottom layer

Site 17
Top layer
Site 17
Middle layer
Site 17
Bottom layer

Site 18
Top layer
Site 18
Middle layer
Site 18
Bottom layer
Sample
Type
sediment
sediment
sediment

sediment
sediment
sediment

sediment
sediment
sediment
Moisture
%
61.47
60.58
58. 19

59.32
61.04
54.55

65.97
60.21
54.51
Total
Hydro-
Carbons
Hexane
Extract
mg/kg
3,900
2,033**
100**

4,800
7,800
100**

1,323
3,430
1,000
Mean Values of Top, Middle, and Bottom
Core Sample Chemical Analysis
Metals mg/kg
As
38
46
8

39
81
13

109
79
8
Hg
0.51
0.64
0.30

0.52
0.75
0.07
i
1.08
1.02
0.09
Cd
2
2
2

2
4**
1**

5
2**
1**
Cr
275
209
51

353
420
37

707
266
70
Cu
143
152
17

157
172
21

430
221
26
Mn
1,423
1,297
1,550

1,073
717
960

493
980
2,550
Ni
60
59
37

54
48
43

60
53
48
Pb
170
307
10**

187
277
28

323
236
29
Zn
657
647
93

540
790
100

1,567
514
96
OJ
o
I
                Core Depths


      Top layer - 0. 16,  0. 5,  1.0 feet


      Middle layer - 2.0, 3.0, 5.0 feet


      Bottom layer - 7. 0,  10. 0 feet
 *  Single sample



**  Average figure contains one or more sample

    analyses where detection limit has been used

    as the concentration.


                               Continued . . .

-------
                                                  TABLE 4-5 (Continued)
Trident
No.
Site 19
Top layer
Site 19
Middle layer
* Site 19
Bottom layei

Site 20
Top layer
Site 20
Middle layer
Site 20
Bottom laye
Sample
Type
sediment
sediment
sediment

sediment
sediment
sediment
Moisture
%
59.87
58. 14
53.32

63.59
55.86
53.46
Total
Hydro-
Carbons
Hexane
Extract
mg/kg
6,600
4,473
3,300

10,667
13,300
7,850
Mean Values of Top, Middle, and Bottom
Core Sample Chemical Analysis
Metals mg/kg
As
70
58
14

59
96
48
Hg
0.83
0.80
0.58

1.20
2.10
1. 13
Cd
4
4
1

4
3
2**
Cr
393
310
160

503
400
182
Cu
350
239
96

380
440
403
Mn
817
840
730

430
417
405
Ni
72
77
45

70
68
55
Pb
233
176
'84

243
393
179
Zn
937
877
170

627
693
115
I
OJ
                Core Depths

      Top layer - 0. 16, 0. 5, 1. 0 feet

      Middle layer - 2. 0, 3.0, 5. 0 feet

      Bottom layer - 7. 0, 10. 0 feet
 *  Single sample

**  Average figure contains one or more sample
    analyses where detection limit has been used
    as the concentration.

-------
are highest in the center; Cr is high at the head and mouth of the Harbor;
and Mn,  Zn, and Hg seem to be dispersed throughout the area.

There is little to no correlation in the samples between concentrations of
the interstitial metal levels  and those found in the sediment analysis and
the elutriate test.  In general,  unlike the sediment analysis and elutriate
test,  the interstitial water analysis indicates  no reduction of concentrations
for the sites in the mouth of the Harbor.  The  relationship between inter-
stitial water and the elutriate test is further discussed in Section 5.0,
"Effects of In-Place Pollutants."
4. 2. 2. 3  Vertical Distribution - Elutriate Test

As  noted above, the Corps of Engineers' elutriate test standard for con-
sideration of dredging/disposal is that the concentration of a dissolved
metal not exceed 1. 5 times its original concentration in the filtered water.
At all depths of every site sampled, the entire Harbor exceeds this standard
for one or more of the heavy metals.   Table  4-6 indicates that every heavy
metal analyzed (except Pb that was below detection limits) exceeds 1. 5 x
filtered water  in the bottom layer of 7 to 10 feet almost as often as in the top
or middle layers.  The individual sample concentrations contained in
Appendix C show that several of the metals,  particularly Mn, increase in
concentration with depth of sample.

At no depth of  any  site sampled is there any correlation in concentrations
of heavy metals between those measured by the elutriate test and those
found in the bulk sediment analysis.  Review of the individual elutriate
sample analyses in Appendix C shows that the elutriate exceeds the ref-
erence water by as much as 5 and 6 times, e. g. , Zn exceeds the filtered
water by 5. 53  times  at Site 13-4  and by 6. 66  times at Site 13-3.  As seen
in  Table  4-7,  the filtered water concentrations vary only slightly from one
site to  another.  The wide variations of the elutriate could thus not be attrib-
uted to variations of the  background water.  Based on the standard of
1. 5 x the filtered water, the results of the elutriate test indicate that the
entire  10 feet  of sediment sample for every  site would be classified as
polluted.
                                    -32-

-------
                                  TABLE 4-6
                        ELUTRIATE TEST ANALYSES
                            FOR SAMPLING SITES
1,5 to 3.5 - Range where the  elutriate test
             exceeded 1.5 times the  filtered
             water to 3.5 times or more.

Core Depths
T - Top Layer - 0.16, 0.50, 1.0 feet
M - Middle Layer - 2.0,  3.0,  5.0 feet
B - Bottom Layer - 7.0,  10.0  feet
-33-
* Entire site contained  samples
  below detection limits of atomic
  absorption analyses.

+ Individual samples within a  site
  that contained samples below detec-
  tion limits of flameless atomic
  absorption analyses.

-------
                                 TABLE 4-7

                        METAL, CONCENTRATIONS OF
                         FILTERED WATER* IN yg/1
Site
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
As
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
Hg
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
Cd
8
8
10
8
7
7
9
9
9
9
6
7
6
8
8
8
8
9
10
12
Cr
19
17
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
17
<5
38
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
Cu
14
13
17
14
12
14
15
12
11
14
19
12
12
15
15
18
16
17
17
14
Mn
380
320
450
410
420
270
410
450
390
360
330
300
90
380
380
450
410
420
540
450
Ni
43
36
50
36
47
43
36
36
85
36
94
29
32
36
36
43
36
39
50
50
Pb
<50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
Zn
20
19
24
39
73
78
32
31
31
24
84
32
15
22
48
23
26
24
30
68
* All figures represent a single sample.
                                       -34-

-------
4. 3       ESTIMATED QUANTITIES
There are three known sources of data that estimate or list quantities of
pollutants discharged into Baltimore Harbor:  Helz (1976) surveyed data
and estimated quantities of heavy metals that flow into and out of the Harbor;
Quirk, Lawler,  and Matusky (1973) estimated total tonnages of pollutants
being discharged to  the Harbor;  The National Pollutant Discharge Elim-
ination System (NPDES) permits maintained by the State of Maryland
authorize quantities of material for community and industrial discharges.
 - 3. 1     Helz (1976)
Helz tabulated the metric tons/year of heavy metals entering the
northern Chesapeake Bay and the Patapsco Estuary (Baltimore Harbor)
(See Table 4-8).  He states, "For each metal, the percentage of the
total input ascribable to human activities is presented in the bottom line
of Table 2 [our Table 4-8].   The figures are for the entire northern
Bay system, including the Patapsco.  Only industrial discharge, waste-
water,  storm drainage  and  the high inputs to the Patapsco from rain and
dust have been considered as due to human activities; one exception is
Pb for which the rain and dust input to the main  stem was also included
because most of this is believed to derive from gasoline combustion. "
An important  result of this  data inventory was that relatively small
percentages of some metals entering Baltimore Harbor remain  in Bal-
timore  Harbor.   Of the totals entering the Harbor, only the following
percentages remain: 76% of Cr,  30%  of Mn, 32% of Fe, 10% of  Ni, 24%
of Cu,  30%  of Zn, 21% of Cd, and 35% of Pb (See Table 4-9.) (Helz,
1976).
                                   -35-

-------
TABLE 4-8
SOURCES OF HEAVY METALS
ENTERING BALTIMORE HARBOR
IN METRIC TONS PER YEAR
(From Helz 1976 Survey)
Northern Chesapeake Bay
Excluding the Patapsco
Estuary
Rivers
Salt Water Advection
Shore Erosion
Municipal Wastewater
Rain
Atmospheric Fallout
Subtotal
Patapsco Estuary
(Baltimore Harbor)
Rivers and Storm
Drainage
Excess Sediment
Municipal Wastewater
Rain
Atmospheric Fallout
Direct Industrial
Discharge
Subtotal
Total
Minimum Percent
Anthropogenic
Cr Mn Fe
70 7000 70000
3 20 70
23 70 27000
20 10 100
20 20
—
116 7120 97190
0.5 50 500
4 13 4200
40 20 200
— 27
—
100 440 20000
145 525 24007
261 7645 122097
63 6 20
Co Ni Cu Zn Cd Pb
150 300 150 1000 3 100
30 100 50 130 5 4
4 9 8 36 0.7 10
0.5 5 30 40 2 10
10 90 200 — - 100
200
184.5 424 328 1406 10.7 424
1 6 10 70 0.02 50
0.7 1 2 4 0.07 0.9
1 10 60 80 5 20
2 6 30 — 20
50
58 240 470 1.6 76
2.7 77 318 654 6.7 217
187 501 646 2060 17.4 641
1 15 51 29 50 74
-36-

-------
                             TABLE  4-9


            PERCENT RETENTION OF TRACE ELEMENTS
               IN ESTUARINE OR COASTAL SEDIMENTS
                       (From Helz 1976 Survey)
Pa taps co Estuary

Chesapeake Bay System

Southeastern U. S. Estuaries-*

World2
 Windoat (in press)
2Horn and Adams (1966)
                                 Cr   Mn   Fe   Ni   Cu   Zn   Cd   Pb
76    30    32   10   24    30   21    35

68    26    89   16   20    26   22    23
66
     64  >100
         22
17
29    8   13    44   24
                                 -37-

-------
4.3.2  Quirk,  Lawler and Matusky (1973)
A second source of data,  Quirk,  Lawler and Matusky, lists the following
substances as being discharged into the Harbor from all sources.


           Substance                  Tons/Day (Short Tons)

           Iron                         55.5
           Sulfates                      13.5
           Antimony                     4. 1
           Chlorides                     3.0
           Tin                           3.0
           Phenols                       2.5
           Zinc                          1.7
           Sulfides                       0.89
           Arsenic                       0.82
           Chromium                    0.78
           Copper                        0.75

                 Total                  86. 4  tons/day
 4. 3. 3     National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permits
 An effort was made during the study to determine the pollutant loads that
 presently are being discharged into the Harbor.  The Maryland State
 Department of Natural Resources and the EPA regional office in Phila-
 delphia both maintain the same NPDES permit file that lists the individual
 authorized loadings for both commercial and industrial dischargers and
 the periodic chemical analyses performed by the industrial dischargers.

 Unfortunately, the manner in which both the authorized loadings and the
 periodic chemical analyses files are maintained in the computer system
 does not include a program that can be called to summarize or total all
 factors, or even one column of figures. The file  is maintained on a state-
 wide basis, and to find the discharge authorizations for Baltimore Harbor
 alone, one would have to manually sort through a computer listing of 423
 industries by name under the counties whose watersheds flow into the
 Harbor and obtain the permit number of those industries.
                                    -38-

-------
 Once the permit numbers were obtained for those industries located in the
 Baltimore Harbor watershed, one would have to go to another computer
 listing that maintains the authorized discharge parameters numerically.
 To obtain valid data, the permit would also have to be screened to determine
 whether it was an initial or final authorization.  The discharge permitted
 under a  final authorization could be quite different from the initial author-
 ization.  Both classifications are printed out on the  same computer listing.
 In another report format, the actual chemical analyses of the discharges,
 as recorded by the industry, are reported on an individual basis.

 Determination of the loadings authorized by NPDES permit or of the actual
 loading being discharged into Baltimore Harbor from community and indus-
 trial sources was not a task of this project.  Since an excessive amount of
 time would be required to obtain total loadings, and the information, once
 summarized, would be of questionable value inasmuch as total metal
 loadings only are reported and these are broken down to individual heavy
 metals for only a very few industries,  further  effort  in this direction was
 discontinued.

 From the NPDES computer listings, a few of the larger commercial and
 industrial permit authorizations were totaled to show, as a sample,  part
 of the loadings being, or authorized to be,  discharged into Baltimore
 Harbor. These partial summaries for the month of January 1977 are as
 follows:
  Domestic -- Total suspended solids  of 276, 816 Ibs/day as a
               weekly average from 47 major sources out of 690 total.

  Industrial -  Total suspended solids  of 879, 372 Ibs/day maximum
               from 65 industries  out of a total of 184.
               Total metals of 238, 378 Ibs/day maximum from 9
               major industries out of a total of 184.
Although these discharges permitted in 1977 may be considered to be
typical at present,  the EPA objective is "zero discharge" by 1985.
Achievement of the goals of P. L. 92-500 -- "Wherever obtainable. ..
water quality by 1983 will be improved enough to allow for the propagation
of fish and for  recreation in and on the nation's water... and... by  1985
elimination of all discharges of pollution into navigable  waters" -- will
eventually eliminate most or all of the pollutants presently being discharged
into the Harbor.

                                   -39-

-------
5.0       THE EFFECTS OF IN-PLACE POLLUTANTS
The in-place pollutants were evaluated with respect to their effect on the
benthos, the pelagic, and planktonic biota of the water column within the
Harbor and the biota further afield in the Chesapeake Bay.  This division
is necessary as it has been  found from this study and others that the in- ,
place pollutants in Baltimore Harbor affect these three biological structures
in different degrees of intensity and in different manners.

Within this study, the effects upon the benthic and pelagic biota within the
Harbor were evaluated from the findings of former studies of the community
structure and diversity of benthic  macro-invertebrates and from this study's
bioassay on finfish and clam species.  The bioassay  was conducted with
sediments from the sampling sites where chemical analyses were con-
ducted for nine heavy metals, hexane  extract,  PCB's, interstitial water,
and the elutriate test.  The  sections which follow describe the effects  of
the pollutants on the biota within the limits of the analytical techniques
employed and for the toxic elements analyzed.
                                    -40-

-------
 5. 1       SEDIMENT AND INTERSTITIAL CHEMISTRY
 The commonly used procedure that approximates the sediment-releasable
 metal level is the elutriate test.  The elutriate test results indicate that
 the sediment has a  significant effect on the overlying water column when
 the sediment is mixed with the water.  Every  site tested by the elutriate
 procedure released metals to the water at all  core depths in excess of the
 Corps of Engineers' suggested limit, i.e., 1.  5 times the ambient concen-
 tration.

 The release of metals appears to be very complex and is not explainable
 by a simple  relationship between high sediment-metal concentrations and
 high elutriate-metal concentrations.  Many samples of high metal-pollutant
 concentrations in the  sediment released less metals than those sediment
 samples of a lower  metal content.  The pollutant may be partitioned between
 various mineral components,  the interstitial water,  and the organic portions
 in such a way that the effect on the water column by  sediment disruption
 cannot be predicted from bulk chemistry or even from the elutriate test.

 Within the limits of this  study, one conclusion seems warranted: release
 of metals contained in the sediment will occur on mixing with the over-
 lying water.   Neither the residence time of these metals in the water column
 nor the per cent of removal from the sediment is known.  The release of
 metals may well be a continuous process.  As  measured by the elutriate
 test,  the release of metals is  approximately 2-4 orders of magnitude less
 than the metal concentration of the sediment levels.   This suggests that
 a sufficient source of metals in the sediment moves to the water over long
 periods of time (with physical mixing) and returns to the sediment in a new,
 less-soluble form.  This new  form of metal pollutant may again be solu-
 bilized in the interstitial water or in the sediment at some later date.

 Interstitial water-metal concentration analyses often indicate that the con-
 centrations of the metals in the interstitial water are higher than those  in
 the elutriate solutions from which they get their metals.  The high levels
 are much higher than can be accounted for by dilution during the elutriate
 test (4:1 dilution ratio).  Many of these metals are thought to be released
 from  the sediment during the elutriate procedure; the high interstitial (or
 low elutriate) values may be indicative of oxidation and precipitation during
the elutriate  analysis, with subsequent loss of  dissolved metals for analyses.
 This interpretation would indicate that the  elutriate test, for anoxic sediments,
would tent to underestimate the concentrations of those elements that tend
to be  scavenged or precipitated with hydrous Fe and  Mn oxides.
                                   -41-

-------
The determination of the effects of in-place pollutants on the biota based
on interpretation of sediment and interstitial chemistry is  complex and
equivocal when one analytical technique is employed as a standard or
criteria for quantifications and qualifications of biota toxicity.  As reviewed
in the preceding  sections, the results of the sediment analyses and the
elutriate test indicate that, based on the standards established for each
analytical technique, the sediments in Baltimore  Harbor are polluted.

Quantification of toxicity is difficult to establish when evaluated by an
analytical technique that may not be measuring the pollutant available
to the organism.  In addition, unknown factors  such as time relationships
of exposure, temperature, pH,  salinity,  etc. may change  or alter the
availability of toxic substances to biota in a field  condition.  While these
factors may be measured and controlled in a laboratory experiment, it
is extremely difficult to duplicate the conditions to be found in the field.
The effects of the in-place pollutants on the benthic and pelagic biota are
discussed in the  following sections separately.
                                    -42-

-------
 5.2       BENTHOS
 Based on the results of former studies  of the community structure and
 diversity of benthic macro-invertebrates and on the results of the bioassay
 from this study, it is concluded that toxicity may be correlated to a signif-
 icant degree with the high levels of pollutants contained in the sediments of
 Baltimore Harbor.  The present benthic community structure and diversity
 reflect the toxicity of in-place pollutants in the sediments.  Using gross
 toxicity as the principal criterion, the sediments in Baltimore Harbor were
 divided into four toxic zones:  highly toxic,  moderately toxic,  low toxic,
 and slightly toxic (see Figure 5-1).  The criteria and detailed division of
 these four toxic zones and their relationship to the benthic macro-inverte-
 brates  in the Harbor are contained in Appendix E.
Highly Toxic Zone

The highly toxic zone includes the middle section of the Northwest Branch,
Site 2} Colgate Creek, Site 4; Bear Creek, Site 5; Curtis Bay, Site 9*. and
a part of Inner Harbor (no sample site at this location).   In this zone Site 5
was the most toxic, and Sites 2 and 4 were the next most toxic for both fin-
fish and the clam species of the bioassay.  (See Figure 2-2 for the location
of sampling sites.) In this zone the surface layer of sediments contained
high concentrations of PCB (0. 64 - 5. 60 mg/kg) and hexane extracts (oil and
grease)  (15, 500 - 48, 500 mg/kg, except for Curtis Bay where the hexane
extracts were 4, 200 mg/kg).   The bulk concentrations of heavy metals in
the sediments were also high, as can be seen in Table 4-1.  In this zone
the species diversity indexes of benthic organisms were  less than 0. 69.
Only pollution-tolerant Annelida, such as LimnodTilus sp., Heteromastus
filiformis, Scolecolepides viridis, and Streblospio benedicti were common
in this zone.  Insecta and Arthropoda were absent or nearly absent.
Moderately Toxic Zon.e

The moderately toxic zone includes most of Inner Harbor, Site 10; the
upper and lower  reaches of Northwest Branch, Sites 1 and 3; and the
Patapsco River portion of the Harbor, Sites 16, 17,  and 20.  In this zone
the surface layer PCB and hexane extracts were moderately high,
<0. 05 - 2. 27 mg/kg1 for the former and from 3, 900 to 58, 400 mg/kg for
the latter.

iThe PCB  concentration for  Site 1 is not included in this rage of concen-
 trations as the sensitivity of detection limit was exceeded by a background
 masking.   Therefore,  the quantity indicated is probably incorrect.
                                   -43-

-------
  TOXBC  ZONE
                                                                          "INUCR
                                                                 SaW*
                                                             gJg^S? ..
                                                             "C-v>; .•:•;- .;.   •  tA
                                                                       ' >*•.
                       wixii
                      :;:*;:;'
                      •:«•:•:/•
Figure 5-1   Distribution of toxic zones and mummichog 24-hour TLm values for
             suspended  solids in Baltimore Harbor  (numbers in squares, real values
             obtained from the bioassay; numbers not in square obtained from con-
             version of  species diversity inde||s of benthic invertebrates).

-------
 Site 1 was the third most toxic for the clam, and Site 10 was the fifth
 most toxic for clam and the fourth most toxic for finfish.  In this zone
 the species diversity indexes of the benthic macro-invertebrates were
 between 0. 70 - 1. 09.  The community structure was still dominated by
 pollution-tolerant Annelida, but a few species of Arthropoda,  Insecta,
 and Mollusca were occasionally present.  In addition to those species
 of Annelida commonly found in the highly toxic zone,  one species of Mol-
 lusca, Macoma balthica, was fairly abundant in this zone.
 Low Toxic Zone

 The low toxic zone is located in the middle portion of the Harbor, Sites 6,
 8,  14,  15, 16, and 19.  In this  zone, the concentrations of in-place pol-
 lutants ranged from 0. 11 - 2. 32 mg/kg for surface PCB's and from'2400
 to 21,000 mg/ g for  surface hexane extracts.  The heavy metal concen-
 trations were generally low except for Mn at Site 16, which was the highest
 average for all samples. In this zone, Annelida were still a dominant
 group  of the benthic macro-invertebrates, but  some species of Insecta,
 Mollusca, Arthropoda, Coelenterata, and Nemertea were also commonly
 present.  They were represented by Macoma balthica of Mollusca,
 Rithropanopeus harrisi of Arthropoda, and Micrura leidyi of Nemertea.
Slightly Toxic Zone

The slightly toxic zone includes Outer Harbor,  Stony Creek, and Old Road
Bay,  Sites 7,  11,  and 12.  In this zone the surface concentrations for PCB's
and hexane  extracts were lowest in the Harbor, less than 0. 05 - 0. 07 mg/kg
for the former and 400 - 2, 900 mg/kg for the latter.  The average heavy
metal concentrations were relatively low, except for Mn at Site 12 where
it was the second highest for all sites.  The species diversity indexes of
the benthic macro-invertebrates were higher than 1. 50.  Mollusca,  Arthro-
poda and others were as common or  as abundant as those pollution-tolerant
species of Annelida. . In this zone Macoma balthica,  Macoma phenax and
Rangia cuneata of Mollusca;  Leptochierus plumulosus, Cymadusa compta,
Corophium lacustre,  and Cyathura polita of Arthropoda;  and Micrurus leidyi
of Nemertea are either as common or as abundant as those pollution-tolerant
species of Annelida found in  the highly and moderately toxic zones.
                                   -45-

-------
The bottom-dwelling and bottom-feeding species of fish which depend on
benthic macro-invertebrates as their foods are virtually absent from the
entire Harbor.  These include winter flounder,  Atlantic croaker, and
hogchoker which are normally very common in Chesapeake Bay estuaries.
These species of fish are affected strongly by in-place pollutants directly
and/or indirectly.

In-place pollutants in sediments occur primarily in two forms,  particle-
associated and dissolved.  Their concentrations vary vertically and hori-
zontally in Baltimore Harbor as outlined in Section 4. 0.  The in-place
pollutants in the deep layer of the sediments, which are anaerobic and
abiotic,  do not seem to directly affect the water quality and biotic life in
the Harbor.  However, this layer becomes a reservoir for the  pollutant
which, if sufficiently disturbed, may become available to the biota.  The
greatest concern in terms of the ecosystem of the Harbor is with the in-place
pollutants in the present upper layer of sediments where the benthic organ-
isms live and where these pollutants may be released into the water column.
5.2. 1     Interstitial Water Metal Concentrations
Pollutants dissolved in the interstitial water are mobile and chemically
active, and it was assumed that the pollutants in this form had a more sig-
nificant effect  on aquatic life than the particle-related forms that are fairly
stable.  Benthic organisms that live in and on the sediments  are in contin-
uous contact with the interstitial water,  and they are the organisms to be
directly affected by this dissolved form  of in-place pollutants in the sediments.
On the basis of this consideration, the toxicity level of interstitial water in
the Harbor was assessed in accordance  with the hazard levels of heavy
metals in water for marine organisms suggested by EPA (1973):  0. 1 mg/1
for Cr, Mn, Ni, and Zn; 0. 05 mg/1 for As, Cu, and Pb; 0, 01 mg/1 for Cd;
and 0.0001 mg/1 for Hg.  The concentrations at or exceeding the hazard
limits are: As at Site 9; Hg at Sites 1, 2, 6,  and 7; Cd  at Site 9; Cr at
Sites 2,  4, and 5; Cu at Sites 2 and 7;  Ni at Sites 6 and 9; and Mn,  Pb, and
Zn at all sites studied.  On the basis of  these standards  set for hazard
levels, the interstitial water in the Harbor sediments-at all bioassay sites
is hazardous to aquatic  life.
                                    -46-

-------
Species diversity indexes for benthic macro-invertebrates significantly
correlate with the gross toxicity of sediments as determined from the
24-hour TLm value of the Mummichog in the bioassay.  (See Appendix E
for specific correlation and determinations. )  However, the high concen-
trations of Pb, Cr,  Zn, and Mn in interstitial waters from the same sites
showed no correlation with the  results of the bioassay.  Therefore,  these
heavy metals  dissolved in interstitial waters,  assumed to be an important
factor in biota toxicity, apparently are not the decisive factors determining
direct toxicity or, probably,  species diversity.
5.2.2     Sediment-Metal Concentration
The bulk concentrations of heavy metals in the Harbor sediments mentioned
previously in the toxic zones are much higher than those present in the
interstitial water.  The average bulk concentrations of. heavy metals in the
surface layer at the nine bioassay  sampling sites are more than those in
the interstitial water by the following:  27,481 times for Cu,  4,481 times
for Cr, 2, 100 times for Zn,  871 times for Pb, 631 times for Ni, and 503
times for Mn.  Almost all of the heavy metals in the Harbor  sediments are
in the particle-related form.   Benthic macro-invertebrates live in and on
the sediments and may take in these particle-related heavy metals through
ingestion or  sorptive mechanisms.

Correlation analyses between the gross toxicity of the Harbor sediments
and the bulk  concentrations of  heavy metals in the sediments  show that the
correlation coefficients are -0.42  for Pb, -0. 39 for Cr, -0.21 for Zn,
-0.51 for Cd, -0.41 for Hg,  -0. 18 for Ni,  -0.43 for Cu, -0.22 for As, and
0. 46 for Mn.  All are at insignificant  levels, but higher than those for the
interstitial water.  The heavy  metals  associated with particles are much
more important in causing damaging effects on benthic organisms than
those dissolved in water.
5. 2. 3     PCB's and Hexane Extract Concentrations
PCB's are soluble in oil but only slightly soluble in water.  Bulk concen-
trations in the Harbor sediments at twenty widely distributed sites were
all considerably higher than the hazard limit of 0. 002 yg/1 for freshwater
                                   -47-

-------
suggested by EPA (L973).  (Marine organisms are much more sensitive
to PCB's than freshwater organisms.)  Because the PCB analysis for
this study was performed from sediment samples only,  the concentrations
of PCB's in the interstitial water are unknown.  Therefore, it is not known
if concentraions of PCB's  in this medium are hazardous to aquatic life  in
the water column.

PCB concentrations in the Harbor sediments correlate  significantly with
hexane extracts,  tending to be higher in the surface layer than in the deep
layer.  Because PCB's are associated mainly with oil and grease, extremely
high concentrations of hexane extracts in the Baltimore Harbor sediments
suggest correspondingly high concentrations of oil and grease.  The benthic
organisms living in such sediments will be affected by the oil and grease
and the in-place pollutants, PCB's, which they contain.  Hexane extracts
and PCB's are moderately correlated with the gross toxicity of the Harbor
sediments.

Therefore,  it appears that those in-place pollutants associated with particles
and those pollutants associated with grease and oil in the Harbor sediments
are major factors  causing damaging effects on the benthic macro-invertebrates
and the bottom-dwelling and -feeding fish.  These, perhaps in combination
with other toxic conditions, adversely affect benthic populations throughout
the Harbor to a varying but serious degree.
                                    -48-

-------
 5. 3       PELAGIC FISH AND PLANKTONIC ORGANISMS
 The community structure, diversity,  and distribution of pelagic fish and
 phytoplankton are much less related to the  sediment toxicity than are the
 benthic macro-invertebrates and bottom-dwelling fish.   (See Appendix E
 for distribution charts. )

 The species diversity of fish, particularly those living in shallow shore
 water,  tended to decrease going from  the slightly toxic zone to the highly
 toxic zone; but this trend was not so obvious as that in the benthic inver-
 tebrates.  Certain species of fish,  such as  silversides in water near shores,
 and white perch,  rock fish, and alewife in the off-shore water in the Harbor,
 were common and abundant over all toxic benthic zones.   However,  some
 fish had lesions on their skins and fins, indicating the presence of a degree
 of environmental stress.  Planktonic larva  and juvenile fishes were fairly
 evenly  distributed in the Harbor regardless of toxic zones.  As they feed
 mainly on planktonic foods, they demonstrate no gross effect from the in-
 place pollutants in the sediments.  It is possible that the  in-place pollutants
 in the sediments are being released into the water column and thus are
 affecting the water quality and aquatic  life since both emigration from the
 sediments and the effects of resuspension can introduce such pollutants.

 It appears that the present community  structure, diversity,  and distri-
 bution of pelagic fish and planktonic  organisms may be affected by the
 pollutants present in the water column as  a  result of domestic and indus-
 trial waste discharges and by those released from the in-place sediments.
 It is not possible to  estimate  the relative importance of these two sources.

 The highly and moderately toxic zones  within Baltimore Harbor depicted
 in this study are those where in-place  pollutants have caused or may poten-
 tially cause significant damage  to the Harbor ecosystem.   The chemical
 compositions of the  in-place pollutants in the Harbor sediments are extremely
 complicated.  There is no single chemical parameter among those examined
 in this study that can be used to indicate sediment toxicity.  There is  no way,
 from the few chemical parameters studied,  to know  all of the pollutants in
the sediments, to predict their toxicity, or to assess their impact on the
Harbor ecosystem.

 The gross toxicity of the Harbor sediments determined by the bioassay
and the  biological indicator represented by the species diversity index of
the Harbor's benthic macro-invertebrates provides useful information
                                   -49-

-------
regarding the total toxicity of the in-place pollutants and their biological
effects in Baltimore Harbor.  These analytical techniques are considered
to be the most accurate in describing areas that may be considered in the
future for removal of the sediments that are considered to be highly toxic
and where the benthic macro-invertebrates  have already been severely
damaged.  These areas are located in Northwest Branch, Colgate Creek,
Bear Creek, Curtis  Bay, and a part of Inner Harbor.  The moderately
toxic zone undoubtedly is also a problem area but less so than the highly
toxic.
                                    -50-

-------
 6. 0       EFFECTIVENESS AND PERMANENCE OF POTENTIAL
           CORRECTIVE ACTIONS
It is clear from the results of the tests made in this study and from the
information derived from previous work that the sediments at the major-
ity of the sites in Baltimore Harbor exceed  relevant established criteria
for pollutant levels.  Given this condition and given the provisions of
Section 115,  P. L.  92-5001,  it becomes pertinent to  examine the  correc-
tive actions which have potential for solving the problem.  These, essen-
tially, are four in number, and they are  reviewed in Sections 6. 1 through
6. 4 which follow.

The results of any corrective  action applied to in-place pollutants which
were deposited over a period of time measured in decades will be But
temporary if similar or other pollutants  are permitted to be discharged
into the Harbor or the tributaries which flow into it.  Thus, to fully grasp
the effectiveness and permanence of any  proposed action, one must  first
consider  the question of the  current influx of pollutants to the Harbor and
the projected changes and trends in these influxes.

This question is  one of overriding importance in understanding the problem
in Baltimore Harbor since the Harbor  receives effluent from numerous
industrial sites and drainage from more  than 600 square miles of land  area,
discharging a mean of 550 cfs  of water into  the Harbor.  It has been esti-
mated that more  than 86 tons of contaminants enter the Harbor each day
(Quirk, Lawler,  and Matusky; 1973).  Therefore,  any  corrective action
would soon be made ineffective by the addition of new pollutants replacing
those previously  removed or otherwise disposed of.  The present daily
input of pollution must be eliminated or drastically reduced in order to
achieve a clean Harbor; else any corrective treatment of the sediments
would soon be negated.

The physical circulation pattern in the Harbor is dependent upon phenomena
occurring in the adjacent Chesapeake Bay.  According to Stroupe, et al,
1961, the primary factor  contributing to the renewal of water in Baltimore
 1P.L,  92-500, "In-Place Toxic Pollutants",  "Sec.  115.  The Adminis-
  trator (EPA) is  directed to identify the location of in-place pollutants
  with emphasis on toxic pollutants in harbors and navigable waterways
  and is authorized, acting through the Secretary of the Army, to make
  contracts for the removal and appropriate disposal of such materials
  from critical port and harbor areas,.. ",
                                   -51-

-------
Harbor is a density-induced, three-layered flow pattern.  This circula-
tion pattern of the Harbor's  water must be taken into consideration when
evaluating corrective actions such as dredging and disposal and what
effect this action might have on both the Harbor and the  Chesapeake Bay
waters  as  a result of  the dispersion of polluted sediments into the water
column.

Pollutants in the sediments are highly heterogeneous in  distribution and
concentration, although all twenty sites of the materials sampled are
contaminated  by criteria of the elutriate test standard of 1. 5  times the
concentration of the overlying water.  Previous observations by EPA and
others and the chemical sampling conducted under this program all
demonstrate that subsections of the Harbor vary greatly in pollution
burden and suggest that highly localized deposits may also exist.  It is
also clear that wind, tidal action, vessel traffic,  and the effects of
dredging have dispersed extensively some of the surface sediments and
associated chemicals within the Harbor.

In addressing possible  corrective actions, the size of the  area to be
treated or quantities of material to be removed are important consider-
ations. The Harbor is a shallow embayment consisting  of approximately
34  square miles of the  lower portion of the Patapsco River and ends at  a
line between North Point and Rock Point.  With a mean  depth of 15. 8 feet,
the Harbor contains 15 billion cubic feet of water (Quirk,  Lawler,  and
Matusky;  1973).

 Using the elutriate test results to determine which sampling  sites  contain
 contaminated material and to what depths,  it can be  seen from Table 4-6
 that all twenty  sampling sites contain contaminated sediments.  The num-
ber of heavy metal contaminants per site varies from two to  seven of the
 nine metals analyzed,  and they are distributed at all depths taken in the
 core samples,  from 0. 15 to 10. 0 feet.  These findings  indicate that con-
 taminants in  the form of one or more of the heavy metals analyzed are
 present throughout the Harbor at all vertical levels.

 If only the areas of higher pollutant concentrations are  to be  considered
 for correction, the proper analytic technique to identify these areas must
 be determined.  As mentioned in Section 5.0,  the  chemical and bioassay
 analyses performed for the sediments, the interstitial water, and  the
 elutriate test do not correlate  to show clear evidence of a definite  zonal
 distribution of  pollutants.  Within this study, the results  of the elutriate
 test and of the  bioassay have been used to define kinds and degrees of
 contaminated material since these techniques  are  the only two presently
 accepted by Federal and State  agencies for dredging and disposal con-
 siderations.
                                    -52-

-------
 6.1       BLANKETING AS A CORRECTIVE ACTION
A recent development in reducing turbidity during diving and similar
operations may prove significant as a corrective action to water pol-
lution.   This development, known as blanketing,  involves depositing
plastic in thin layers over material that might be easily disturbed.
The United States Naval Civil Engineering Laboratory in Port Hueneme,
California, has experimented with forcing chemicals through a  shaped
nozzle to form a layer  of flexible, nontoxic plastic to seal sediments to
the bottom in a working area. Because of the possible advantages of
sealing contaminated sediments  in place by this method,  it was  analyzed
further to determine its applicability to Baltimore Harbor.  Additional
information on the process and technique  can be found in Appendix F.
d. 1. 1     Effectiveness and Permanence
The  success of an effort to seal the contaminated sediments in Baltimore
Harbor in place with a plastic layer would depend upon the feasibility of
locating the film permanently and avoiding damage by external forces.
In considering these problems,  the following difficulties emerge:

      0 Ship channel maintenance  and improvement dredging would
        remove the plastic strips  from alongside piers, channels,
        and vicinity of channels;

      0 The screw currents of ship traffic would disrupt the strips
        of plastic, expecially in and near channels.  Evidence of the
        tendency for screw currents to disrupt the bottom can be
        seen wherever ships' passages leave a trail of increased
        turbidity.  On occasion, ship traffic to certain terminals
        in Baltimore Harbor  may have only a few feet clearance
        below the hull or may even make contact with bottom muds
        as an accepted procedure;

      * Anchoring by vessels of any size, ranging from small
        pleasure craft up to and including commerical vessels,
        would defeat the purpose of the plastic layer.  Since the
        effectiveness of an anchor depends upon its ability to dig
        into the bottom and obtain  a purchase, almost every
                                   -53-

-------
        conceivable anchor would penetrate the plastic layer.
        Anchors in use on the Harbor range from a few pounds
        in weight up,to 30, 000 pounds:

     0  The debris brought into the Harbor by storms can range
        from the tree stumps and branches brought in by spring
        freshets to the heavy debris brought downstream by
        heavier storms like Hurricane Agnes.  Much of this
        debris has the  potential to tear and otherwise disrupt
        a plastic sealant layer on the bottom of the Harbor;

     0  In addition to the disruptive agents cited above,  currents
        in parts of the  Harbor would also contribute to disturb-
        ing the plastic  strips laid on the  Harbor bottom.  Each  of
        the boundaries of the strips,  in addition to any tears or
        other openings in the plastic, would offer  an opportunity
        for Harbor currents to get under the strip and further
        disturb its position;

     0  Many modern vessels rely on taking in water through hull
        openings for the operation of the ship.  These openings
        can be as small as two or three  inches or as large as five
        or six feet in diameter.  Blocking such openings with
        plastic sheeting can put the ship out of operation and cause
        serious damage to machinery.

In the light of these difficulties, it is concluded that blanketing could be
effective only in isolated areas for special applications,  out of the normal
Harbor  traffic patterns and not subject to heavy storm runoff.   Of the
sites sampled, only one (Site 10), located in the Middle Branch area and
in relatively  shallow water off to the side of the sand bars of the Patapsco
River, meets these  criteria.  However,  this site would experience heavy
current flows with accompanying debris in the event of another  storm
comparable to Hurricane Agnes; so, even here,  the use  of plastic blan-
keting is questionable.

In view of these considerations, blanketing with a plastic layer  is not con-
sidered an effective method to correct the problem of contaminated  sedi-
ments in Baltimore  Harbor.
                                   -54-

-------
 6. 2       INACTIVATION AS A CORRECTIVE ACTION
 Inactivating or neutralizing the toxic materials contained in sediments
 has not, according to available data, been accomplished in a field situ-
 ation where millions of square feet of bottom area and multiple  chemi-
 cal compounds are involved.  Probably the best known examples of
 neutralization or inactivation of toxic substances in field conditions are
 to be found in the treatment of mine drainage spoils.  In mine drainage
 spoil material or acid mine drainage water, various processes  or treat-
 ments have been used to neutralize or reduce chemical parameters such
 as  pH,  acidity, alkalinity, and sulfates and have reduced to acceptable
 effluent levels compounds of iron, calcium,  magnesium, manganese,
 and aluminum.  The processes or treatments are usually specific for
 individual or specifically known compounds and are applied to the efflu-
 ent rather than the spoil material.  Typically, mine spoil is simply
 treated with lime to neutralize the acidity and the mine drainage water
 is then further treated, if necessary, for aquatic life or for potable water
 uses.
 6.2. 1     Effectiveness and Permanence
Within this study, chemical analyses were performed on samples from
sediments, water column,  and interstitial water,  and for the elutriate
test.  The analyses show that the sediment samples from all twenty sites
and from one or more core depths contain at least two heavy metals that
exceed the elutriate test level of 1, 5 x the overlying filtered water con-
centrations.  It is highly likely that they contain significant quantities of
additional chemical contaminants whose  compositions are unknown because
they were not analyzed.

Only four sampling sites,  numbers 1,  2,  3, and 7 (see Table 4-6) do not
contain heavy metal concentrations that exceed the elutriate test in the
bottom strata of seven to ten feet of sediment.  The  depth of containment
of the heavy metals  analyzed in all the other  sites is  such that any treat-
ment or inactivation attempted on surface sediments would  be relatively
ineffective on those  contained in lower depths.  Due  to the volumes and
depths of contaminants in the Harbor  sediment and improbability of an
effective treatment, inactivation of the toxic materials is not considered
an effective or permanent  corrective method.
                                    -55-

-------
6. 3        REMOVAL AS A CORRECTIVE ACTION
 The removal of all or part of the sediments considered to be either highly
 or moderately polluted in Baltimore Harbor is physically possible, although
 the depths of the contaminants beyond 10 feet are unknown.  There are
 several alternative methods of dredging and a number of theoretically pos-
 sible alternative receiving sites for disposal  of the dredged materials
 which are contained in detail in the following  sections.
 6. 3. 1     Volumes to be Removed
 The depth to which Baltimore Harbor would have to be dredged to be able
 to reach an "uncontaminated" stratum is unknown.  In this study, the
 elutriate test was used to determine when heavy metal concentrations
 exceeded the  established criteria and could be called "contaminated."
 At every sampling site, several of the heavy metal concentrations exceeded
 the elutriate test criteria to a depth of at least 5 feet.  In 15 of the 20 sites,
 the elutriate test was exceeded to a depth of 10 feet.

 Per Hall,  Pullerits,  Zollman,  1974, found concentrations of heavy metals,
 particularly lead and zinc, in quantities exceeding former criteria for
 open water disposal (0. 005 by per  cent of dry weight for lead and zinc) to
 depths of 70 to 80 feet below the sediment surface level.  It is not known
 whether the natural background levels for these two metals could become
 available to organisms in  the water column.  The importance of this
 example is that it points out that some heavy metals may occur in natural
 background levels in certain geographic locations in quantities that
 exceed  one or more standards established for toxicity criteria.


In general, this study has  found that the upper five feet of sediment contain
higher concentrations of heavy metal in the sediment analysis but do not
always  show the highest quantities  of the same metal in the elutriate test.
For  example,  at Site 1,  Cu exceeds the elutriate test in only one core sample,
No.  1-5 (see Appendix C,  sediment sample tables). In the sediment samples
for  Site 1,  the mg/kg ratio for Cu is greater at five of the other core samples;
yet  these test lower than Sample No. 1-5 in the elutriate test.  A discussion
of the probable cause of this inconsistency in correlation is contained in
Section 5. 1.   The results  of these analyses are significant, and any criteria
                                 -56-

-------
established for dredging to remove pollutants should be carefully evaluated
in terms of the type of chemical analysis performed and the meanings of
the analysis for biological considerations.

Baltimore Harbor has a surface area of approximately 34 square miles,
or 950 million square feet.  It is estimated that approximately one-half
the Harbor's sediment surface area,  some 475 million square feet,  con-
tains material that is  either highly or moderately polluted.  Dredging
this area to a depth of ten feet would require the removal  of about 176
million cubic yards of material.  Even  dredging to a depth of five feet
would require the removal of 88 million cubic yards  of material.  This
estimate of the volume that may be termed significantly polluted is based
on the "Distribution of Toxic Zones" map, Figure 5-1, that indicates that
approximately one-half of the Harbor's  surface area is classified in the
highly and moderately toxic  zones.

The sample sites in this study were distributed fairly evenly throughout
the entire Harbor,  and as previously  stated, material termed contami-
nated according to  the elutriate test criteria was found at  all sites and
at various  depths of the core samples.  If the elutriate test results alone
were used to determine contaminated sediments, then, the entire Harbor
would be classified as contaminated because it exceeds the 1. 5 times the
overlying water concentration of the metals analyzed.  Because dredging
to this volume  may well be not feasible, new standards for classifying
degrees of pollution are needed.  At present a recommendation would be
to design a dredging program to remove effectively only the mosi highly
contaminated sediment.   Such new standards should identify the concen-
trations of heavy metals, hydrocarbons, PCB's, or other contaminants
that exceed the established limits,  classifying the material in question as
"significantly or highly contaminated" as compared to samples containing
lesser quantities of contaminants and classified as "low or slightly con-
taminated. "

To determine the exact location and distribution of the zones of high con-
centrations of pollutants, additional sampling would be required in areas
where sampling sites within this study did not extend, such as up into the
creek areas and between the sampling sites within the Harbor.   A deter-
mination could then be made of the specific areas of the Harbor containing
sediments  classified as  "highly toxic" and that may be considered for
dredging and removal.  The classification of material would depend  upon
the establishment of a definition and standard that outlines the analysis
techniques to be used and the levels or  concentrations of measured con-
taminants to be considered as "high"  or "low" toxicity.
                                   -57-

-------
6.3.2     Dredging Techniques
From studies conducted by the Corps of Engineers and others (see
Appendix F),  there is evidence that dredging can be accomplished with
certain improved techniques and equipment that will greatly reduce exten-
sive plumes or disturbance to the sediments and the release of contaminated
materials into the water column.  Newly developed dredging equipment,  such
as the PneumarDredge, is reported to cause less disturbance to bottom sedi-
ments than other equipment traditionally employed in dredging.  Modifica-
tions to older equipment, such as the use of silt curtains, have also been
reported effective in reducing turbidity or sediment dispersal into the
water column.

Assuming a dredging technique was used that reduced turbidity to an
acceptable level, the problem of placement and site location must then be
considered.  There  are basically four different methods of disposing of
dredged spoils:  open water disposal, creation of artificial habitat such as
marshland,  upland disposal, and diked disposal.
6. 3. 3     Open Water Disposal
Placement of the contaminated dredged spoils from Baltimore Harbor,
defined by Maryland law as "the tidal portions  of Patapsco River and its
tributaries lying westward of a line extending from Rock Point in Anne
Arundel County to North Point in Baltimore County, " into open waters of
the Chesapeake Bay is prohibited under the Annotated Code of Maryland,
Article - Natural Resources Title 8,  Subsection 16, 1975.  The only other
alternative for open water disposal of the Harbor sediments would be to
place them in  the ocean.  Federal regulations and criteria, including those
contained in Section 163 of the Marine Protection, Research,  and Sanc-
tuaries Act of 1972, and Section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act Amendments (P. L. 92-500),  must be met for any disposal of material in
navigable waters.

Ocean dumping of the Harbor dredged spoils would be subject to review by
Federal agencies under the previously cited public laws and regulations,
as well as State  laws for whatever states' borders might be affected by
off-shore ocean  disposal.  Because the purpose of the Marine Protection,
Research, and Sanctuaries Act is to find means of disposal that will end
                                   -58-

-------
all ocean dumping, releasing the Harbor spoils at sea is not considered
to be an  effective or feasible solution to the problem.

Reinforcing this conclusion is the distance the material from Baltimore
Harbor would have to be transported. It is 130 nautical miles from the
Harbor mouth to the entrance to Chesapeake Bay; and, of course,  any
ocean dumping would necessarily take place a considerable  distance off-
shore.  The logistics, hazards, economics, and political obstacles to
such a means of disposal would be formidable.
6. 3.4     Creation of Artificial Habitat
There have been several projects and studies conducted in the use of
dredged spoils to create new marsh areas or to fill in adjacent-to-land
shallow water to create new upland sites (see Appendix F).  While this
method of using dredged material may be a worthwhile concept under
certain circumstances and in particular geographic areas, it is not con-
sidered feasible as a disposal method for the contaminated Baltimore
Harbor spoils.

Both artificial marsh and low-lying land created from dredged spoils are
subject to  runoff,  tidal wash,  and seepage that could transport the sedi-
ment  fines and dissolved toxic materials from the deposited spoil into the
surrounding water.  There  is,  in short,  probability of substantial environ-
mental damage to the adjacent water  column, to benthic communities, and
to ground water. Before taking such action in the Chesapeake Bay, a
specific site would  have to be pre-selected and thoroughly evaluated for
the possible environmental  impact on aquatic habitat such as spawning sites,
nursery grounds, shellfish  beds,  etc.  Further, Maryland State law quoted
previously specifically states that Baltimore Harbor spoil may be deposited
only in "contained areas approved by the Department. "  Any proposed arti-
ficial habitat would have to  be thoroughly studied to determine whether it
qualified as a contained area.
                                   -59-

-------
6. 3. 5     Upland Disposal
The location,  feasibility, and cost of upland disposal sites for contaminated
dredged spoils has been studied by the Maryland Department of Transpor-
tation for a number of years.  In the Environmental Impact Statement for
the proposed 1-95 Fort McHenry Tunnel in Baltimore Harbor,  potential
upland disposal sites for dredged material were identified.  These sites
consisted mainly of abandoned sand and gravel quarries.  The largest
site identified could contain 8 million cubic yards  of material.  The average
site was 3 million cubic yards. In all,  12 potential sites were located within
a 52-mile  radius of Baltimore that could possibly  contain a maximum of
41 million cubic yards  of dredged material.

Some additional studies were completed to look for abandoned  strip or
deep mines in Western Maryland and West Virginia.  The mines were  con-
sidered as possible disposal sites, but the cost of hauling material from
Baltimore Harbor to Western Maryland or West Virginia was considerable.
It was estimated that it would cost approximately $11. 00  (1972 dollars)
per cubic yard to remove the material from the Harbor, transport it by
rail or truck, and place it in an abandoned mine.  This did not include the
cost of the land or any  land reclamation costs.

In addition to the high cost associated with a long-distance haul for upland
disposal, all land disposal sites have one potential common environmental
impact.  It is that the contaminated materials can leach out and enter nearby
streams or be transferred into ground water supplies or aquifers.  There-
fore,  a potential land disposal site must be thoroughly investigated for its
location in a watershed and the danger of contamination of a stream, lake,
or groundwater.

Material that is contaminated and cannot be disposed of in open water can
be placed in land sites  if the particular site is  determined to be safe from
the leaching or  groundwater contamination potentials discussed above.
However, upland site placement of the Baltimore Harbor material is not
considered a feasible solution due to the large  quantities involved.  It will
be recalled that removing one-half of the  square footage of highly and mod-
erately toxic material in the Harbor to a depth of 10 feet would involve some
176 million cubic yards of material.  If all of the potential upland disposal
sites  within a 52-mile radius of Baltimore could be used, they could hold
only 41 million  cubic yards or 23% of the  total quantity.  Removal of only
the highly toxic material to a depth of 10 feet involves 79 million cubic
yards.  Additional sites such as abandoned strip or deep mines where
                                   -60-

-------
environmental acceptability are unknown would have to be utilized.  The
only potential use of upland sites appears to be for relatively small quan-
tities of spoil.  If the  spoil is highly contaminated, such as that in certain
locations in the Harbor, exceptional effort would be required to prevent
environmental damage.
6.3.6    Diked Disposal
The use of a diked disposal area to contain material dredged from Baltimore
Harbor and its approaches has been approved by the State of Maryland and
the appropriate Federal agencies.  Following application for the use of the
Hart-Miller Islands site by the State in 1972, and following the filing of the
appropriate environmental impact statement and numerous hearings,  con-
struction of this containment site is scheduled to begin in the near future.
This method of spoil placement is the only feasible one at present in Mary-
land given both the practical limitations connected with upland disposal,
creation of an artificial habitat,  etc. ,  and the legal limitations which pro-
hibit open water disposal.
6. 3. 6. 1   Effectiveness of Diked Disposal

The effectiveness of diked disposal sites has been evaluated by a small
number of investigators,  all within the past few years and only for indi-
vidual sites.  Appendix M of the Dredge Disposal Study - San Francisco
Bay and Estuary (see Appendix F) indicates that in diked disposal sites:

          "Regulations set by The California Regional Water
          Quality Control Board on turbidity and settleable
          matter from dredged material containment areas
          can generally be met by providing adequate resi-
          dence  time in holding ponds.  The possible release
          of heavy metals in the diked area effluent depends
          on many factors which make effluent quality predic-
          tions difficult,  but it appears that a well-designed
          settling area will produce an effluent meeting real-
          istic water quality requirements.  However,  in
          cases  where specific effluent requirements are not
          being met, then a coagulation treatment  system could
          be readily and inexpensively installed to upgrade the
                                    -61-

-------
        " effluent to meet the requirements.  A brief study of
         the Mare Island disposal site for dredged material
         indicated that metals were not being leached from
         the disposal area. "
The Arthur D. Little, Incorporated study for the Army Engineer Waterways
Experiment Station states:  "Toxic pollutants can be released from confined
disposal areas through seepage and through incorporation into food chains.
An initial effort should be made to determine whether release of toxic pol-
lutants is a problem. "
The study also states:

          "Most districts d'o not test for possible release of
          toxic pollutants from confined disposal areas,
          although testing of material to be dredged will be
          performed in the future according to regulatory
          practices.  In the New Orleans District, no testing
          of possible release of toxic pollutants is performed
          unless a known toxic pollutant exists, as determined
          by previous testing of the material at the dredged
          site.  In areas where mercury is known to be pres-
          ent,  tests are performed continuously to determine
          the mercury concentration at the dredged site,  dis-
          posal site, the spillway, and  in the receiving waters
          near the disposal area.  No detrimental impacts
          have been registered. "
6. 3. 7     Permanence of Removal
The overriding factor in considering the permanence of any potential cor-
rective action is the reduction or elimination of the contaminants now being
discharged into the Harbor.  In-place pollutants could be physically removed,
but any effectiveness achieved by this action would soon  be negated by new
pollutant loadings from community and industrial discharge sources.
                                   -62-

-------
Section 4. 3 of this report discusses former studies which report quantities
of pollutants discharged into Baltimore Harbor in addition to the NPDES
permit authorizations.  The present rate of discharge of pollutants to
Baltimore Harbor is unknown for the quantities of heavy metals  and other
pollutants measured in this study; but from the data reviewed, it is known
that significant quantities of metals and total suspended solids are presently
being discharged each day.  Helz (1976),  for example,  reports that approx-
imately 27 thousand metric tons of heavy metals are entering the Harbor
each year from all sources; Quirk, Lawler, and Matusky (1973) list approx-
imately 86 tons per day of all pollutants,  72% of which  are metals. A
partial  summary of NPDES permit authorizations for January 1977 indicates:

      Domestic -- Total suspended solids of 276,816 Ibs/day as a
                  weekly average  from 47 major sources out of 690
                  total reported.

      Industrial - Total suspended solids of 879, 372 Ibs/day maximum
                  from 65  industries out of a total of 184 reported.
                - Total metals of  238, 378 Ibs/day maximum from 9
                  major industries out of a total of 184 reported.
The areas considered to be the most highly contaminated are also the areas
receiving both community and industrial discharges at the present time,
e.g. , Northwest Branch from the Jones Falls Discharge and adjacent plants;
and Colgate Creek, Bear Creek, Curtis Bay, and the Inner Harbor from
their  individual  watershed stream flows,  industrial sites, and sewage treat-
ment  plants located on these creek and harbor areas.

Only  after these discharge loadings have been eliminated could removal of
the in-place pollutants be considered a permanent action.
                                   -63-

-------
6.4       LEAVING UNDISTURBED
To leave the Baltimore Harbor sediments undisturbed would not  be a cor-
rective action in the same sense as blanket, inactivate,  or remove, but it
is a viable alternative to be considered under  the terms  of this study --
"give an analysis of the  environmental effect of the polluted sediment and/
or why it is a problem (i. e. ,  can it be left alone; is it part of an area to be
dredged; is it adversely affecting water quality and water use?)."

The findings of this  study and others have shown that the benthos within the
Harbor are adversely affected by the in-place pollutants.  The pelagic  and
planktonic  biota are also stressed but to a lesser degree.  Leaving the pol-
lutants in place,  undisturbed,  will not aleviate the present damage to the
biota,  nor  will it help future improvement while the pollutants remain in
their present concentrations and distribution.   However, any other potential
action that could be  taken, such as removal of the polluted sediments by
dredging, will likewise be ineffective as long as new pollutant loads are being
discharged  into the Harbor.

The alternative action of leaving the polluted sediment undisturbed is,  there-
fore,  the only practical  action that can be considered at  this time under the
present conditions.  The feasibility of this action is discussed in Section  7.4
which  follows.
                                   -64-

-------
7.0       FEASIBILITY AND COSTS OF POTENTIAL
          CORRECTIVE ACTIONS	

All potential corrective actions contain within them elements of trade-offs
which need to be weighed carefully before a realistic course can be recom-
mended.  In  particular, any preferred corrective action to be applied to
Baltimore Harbor must be  selected with due regard to  the fact that the
Harbor is a major U. S. port.  In 1975, there were more than 4,000 ship
arrivals and departures: being a shallow body of water, many vessels
maneuver in the Harbor with little or no bottom clearance.  Within the
Harbor, many industrial facilities, ranging from steel mills  and electric
generating power plants to  small manufacturing firms, use the waters for
intake  cooling, discharges and transport of equipment,  fuel and goods.
Wharves and other facilities  contribute significantly to the oils, greases,
and detritus  to be found floating in the Harbor eventually to be lodged in
the sediments.  It is in this environment that the possible corrective
actions which follow have been evaluated for feasibility.
                                    -65-

-------
7. 1   BLANKETING
Blanketing the polluted sediments in the Harbor is not considered to be a
practical  method for overcoming the problems  associated with in-place
pollutants in Baltimore Harbor.  The constant volume of ship and barge
traffic --  including anchoring and maneuvering of large vessels -- and
related water activities would  soon  tear or displace any plastic film
extruded over the surface of the bottom of the Harbor.  The process of
blanketing with a chemical composition that forms a plastic film in place
under water is  relatively new,  and, to our  knowledge, has only been used
on sediments to decrease turbidity for underwater ship repair and other
marine work.  Its applicability to large or  extensive areas and its dura-
bility for  long periods of  time  are unknown.

The cost of the blanketing pilot tests performed in 1970 by the U.  S. Navy
was approximately $1. 00 per square foot.  The Navy did not  carry this
project beyond  the experimental phase to see if the blanket was effective
in reducing turbidity for divers working on the  ocean floor.  The duration
of time that this blanket will stay in place and its overall effectiveness
is unknown.  Accordingly, due to the complexities of attempting to main-
tain a plastic film intact in a working  harbor and the lack of sufficient data
on the effectivenss of the blanket for an extended period of time, this
approach  is not considered feasible.
                                   .66-

-------
7.2       INACTIVATING
The potential for inactivating the pollutants within the sediments of Balti-
more Harbor is not considered a feasible action due to  the complexities
of dealing with multiple chemical compounds in various forms and under
variable toxic conditions.  As there are no known methods or pilot pro-
grams that have attempted this type of inactivation of polluted sediment
by chemical neutralization or reactive treatment, this method must be
considered infeasible at the present time.
                                    -67-

-------
7. 3       REMOVING
Removing contaminated sediments by dredging is a proven method that
has been successfully accomplished in many harbors and waterways for
many years.  In dredging operations, however, there is necessarily some
disturbance to the sediments that creates turbidity in the adjacent area of
the dredge equipment,  even under the best  of conditions.  Although there
have been objections raised to dredging because of the danger of releasing
contaminants  into the water column,  dredging is an accepted method for
removing unwanted spoil.  It is an ongoing  activity in Baltimore Harbor
and approaches for purposes of maintenance of channels, approaches, slips
and berths.   Thus, removal of the polluted sediments in Baltimore Harbor
should, if properly done, be slightly, if any more, disturbing to the water
column than present activities.   In addition, large ships' passage,  storms,
and tidal action also cause disturbances and increased turbidity in shallow
areas,  such as in Baltimore Harbor,  whose bottom is composed of fine-
grained particles that make up the sediment layers.  The contaminants
released to  the water column through these actions seem to remain within
the Harbor itself and do not appear to affect adversely the health of the
Harbor's water or the health of the biota in the Chesapeake Bay (see dis-
cussion in Section 5.3).

Therefore,  it is concluded that  removal of  the in-place  pollutants by dredg-
ing can effectively be accomplished without extensive or permanent damage
to the waters  of the Harbor or  Bay.
7. 3. 1     Feasibility
Although dredging can remove polluted sediments, the feasibility of applying
this approach to the problem studied here can be seriously questioned because
of the huge volumes involved,  costs, and the need to provide a suitable repos-
itory for the spoil.  If the results of the bioassay and previous findings on
the community structure and diversity of benthic macro-invertebrates are
used to determine the zones of toxicity within the Harbor, it will be seen
from Figure 5-1 that approximately one-half (17 square miles) of the Harbor
is classified as highly and moderately toxic.  Dredging an  area of this size
to a depth of ten feet would require the removal  of about 176 million cubic
yards of material.   While this can be  done with dredging equipment available
                                   -68-

-------
today, placement of this huge volume of contaminated material in a suitable
location is not possible under present laws and available site locations.

As a final note to the approaches reviewed above,  but with particular import
to dredging,  the overriding consideration in all three instances is that unless
the pollutant loads now being discharged into the Harbor are eliminated or
reduced drastically,  no approach will have lasting effect.  In addition, the
question of costs aside, dredging is feasible  only when an environmentally
suitable disposal site can be made  available.
7.3.2     Costs of Removal
The costs of dredging and the placement of the spoil vary from one location
to another and for different sized jobs.  Normally,  the larger the quantity
to be dredged, the less the  cost per cubic yard will be because the contractor
must mobilize his equipment regardless of the size of the operation.  The
direct  cost for dredging alone is not the sole consideration, however, because
with the prohibition of open water disposal of Baltimore Harbor materials
in the Chesapeake Bay,  dredged material must be disposed of either within
the Harbor itself or be placed in a diked disposal or upland site.  Transport
costs  and costs  of site acquisition, preparation, and construction must be
included.

The most recent contract (1977) let by the Corps of Engineers for dredging
the Craighill-Cutoff Channel Angle was for $0. 91 per cubic yard based on a
quantity of 685, 300 cubic yards and a cost of $12, 000 to mobilize and demo-
bilize the dredging equipment.  It was specified that the material be placed
in the open water of the Harbor at the disposal site off Rock Point in the
mouth  of the Patapsco River.  This type of dredge and placement is the most
inexpensive since the material is placed in open water not far from the dredge
site.

Unit costs for dredging and placement based on the ratio of the Engineering
News  Record Construction Cost Index (December 1976) for utilization of a
hopper dredge are as follows:

      Total Unit Cost =  cutting and offloading costs (,44/cu yd)
                        4- transportation costs (0.0497/cu yd/mi).
                                    -69-

-------
Utilizing this formula,  it would cost over 74 million dollars to remove,
transport, and place 79 million cubic yards of highly toxic material into
a diked disposal site ten miles from the dredging site.  The cost incurred
in the construction of a diked disposal site  such as Hart-Miller Island is
estimated to be $0. 69 per cubic yard of placed storage or a total of approx-
imately 54. 5 million dollars for holding the 79 million cubic yards.
      Cost Summary:

      Cutting and offloading  --
          79,000,000yd3 x $0.44/yd3  =                  $ 34,760,000

      Transportation --
          79,000,000yd3 x $0.0497/yd3/mi  x 10 mi  =   $ 39,263,000

      Construction of diked disposal area --
          79,000,000yd3 x $0. 69/yd3  =                  $ 54,510,000

                             Total (est. )                   $128,533,000
Total costs for this quantity (79 million cubic yards) would thus approximate
a total expenditure of 128.5 million dollars to dredge, transport, place,  and
construct the diked disposal site for its placement.  If, as is usual, the diked
area were located in shallow water,  the cost of creating a channel to reach it
would need to be included.
                                    -70-

-------
7.4       LEAVING UNDISTURBED
Before the feasibility of leaving the polluted sediments undisturbed can be
fully evaluated,  consideration must be given to the present and future
effects of these  sediments on benthic species and on the water column inso-
far as it affects pelagic  species and other users of the Harbor waters.
Through the analyses of some of the known pollutants in  the sediment and
water and from the bioassay, this  study, like others, found that in-place
pollutants are causing damage to the benthic macro-invertebrates and the
bottom-dwelling and -feeding fish.  The damage to the pelagic fish and
planktonic organisms is less but also measurable.  It is not known if the
damage to the pelagic  species is caused by pollutants from incoming dis-
charges, by the release of pollutants from the sediments, or by a com-
bination of both.

If the polluted sediments are left in place,  undisturbed, we may expect that:

0   Some of the contaminants will continue to be released slowly
    from sediments into the water column and,  with high dilution,
    into the Chesapeake Bay system.

0   There will  be sporadic increases in the rate of release into the
    water column as the result of storms, ship traffic, or other
    transient events.

0   There will  be continued stress to the  benthos; but this stress
    is expected to decrease with time as the sources of incoming
    pollutants are reduced or eliminated.

0   The damage to water quality and the pelagic species will also
    continue, but should decrease as incoming pollutants are
    decreased.

0   Since there is less damage occurring to the pelagic species
    than to the  benthic and since it is possible that some of the
    present damage may be caused from incoming pollutants
    rather than the  in-place pollutants, the recovery to the water
    quality and pelagic species should be  more  rapid than for the
    benthos.
                                    -71-

-------
     The in-place pollutants will,  in time, be covered either par-
     tially or completely with clean sediments as incoming pollutant
     loads are reduced or eliminated
Leaving the sediment undisturbed is, therefore, a feasible alternative from
the standpoint that the damage the in-place pollutants have caused or will
cause to the benthos has already occurred and should not increase.  The
effects  of the in-place pollutants should be  reduced by the slow accumula-
tion of cleaner sediments resulting from the elimination of incoming loads
of new pollutants to the point that, in time, the benthos  and water quality
will slowly recover.

The cost of leaving the sediment undisturbed is difficult to measure as
there is an intrinsic value of clean water to users  for both industrial and
recreational purposes.  From the point of view of commercial fishing,
there is some cost associated with the  reduction of spawning sites and
nursery grounds for finfish, crabs,  clams  and oysters, and the benthlc and
planktonic species that are in the food chain.   However, Baltimore Harbor
has not served as an important spawning site for commercially important
species nor has it had good nursery ground habitat for many years,  pos-
sibly since the early 1900's.  Recovery of this habitat,  while important,
is minor compared to the rest of the Chesapeake Bay,  and will always be
of less  significance due to the Harbor's normal activity of heavy industry,
related water  uses by the industrial complex,  and  channel dredging.

No other cost  factors that can be measured in  dollars can be applied to this
alternative action, but the cost of this course of action will not increase but
rather should  decrease in time  as additional pollutant loads are eliminated.
                                   -72-

-------
8.0       CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

8. 1       CONCLUSIONS

1.    The in-place pollutants in Baltimore Harbor are distributed heter-
      ogeneously throughout the Harbor sediments with a number of highly
      localized concentrations occurring in certain areas.  This conclu-
      sion is based on the  results of this study and others and is supported
      by the community structure diversity and distribution of finfish and
      benthic organisms.

2.    The depths to which  the pollutants extend is unknown, but core
      samples have shown that all heavy metals examined are to be
      found at depths up to  10 feet in quantities that exceed the elutriate
      test standard of 1.5  times the overlying water.  There  is a general
      tendency for the quantities of all pollutants to decrease with depth
      below five feet,  but several sample  sites contain pollutants in equal
      or greater quantity in the seven-to-ten-foot depths.

3.    The results of the elutriate test, the bioassay,  and the  sediment and
      interstitial water analyses do not correlate well enough with each
      other to indicate the sites of highest pollution levels.  The sites that
      contain some of the highest quantities of heavy metals in the sediments
      tested low in the elutriate test.   Conversely, some of the samples  test-
      ing the highest in the elutriate test contain relatively low quantities of
      the same metal  in the sediment.  The results of the bioassay correlate
      to some degree  with the bulk sediment and the PCB analyses  but cor-
      relate less with the results of the elutriate and the interstitial water
      analyses.

4.    The results of this study correlate very closely,  for the same site
      locations, with the high and low concentrations of heavy metals as
      reported in the 1974 Region III EPA Study,  "Distribution of Metals
      in Baltimore Harbor Sediments" by Villa and Johnson.

5.    The result of the bioassay and the observed community structure
      and diversity of benthic macro-invertebrates correlate with the gross
      toxicity of the sediments to reflect high,  moderate, low,  and slight
      zones of toxicity within the Harbor.   On this basis,  approximately
      one-half the area of  the Harbor is classified in the high and moderate
      toxic zones.
                                    -73-

-------
 6.     The sites containing high levels of PCB's and hexane extracts cor-
       relate moderately well with the sites considered as highly toxic for
       benthic macro-in vertebrates and the bottom-dwelling and feeding
       fish.  It appears that these in-place pollutants are major factors
       in causing stress to these species.

 7.     The results  of the elutriate test indicate that the heavy metals con-
       tained in the sediments  may have  a significant effect on the over-
       lying water column when the  sediments are mixed or dispersed  in
       the water.  The  residence time that these metals remain in the
       water column and the percent removed from the sediment are
       unknown.

 8.     The community structure, diversity, and distribution of pelagic fish
       and phytoplankton bear no relation to the zones  of toxicity such as
       those of the benthic macro-invertebrates and bottom-dwelling fish.

 9.     The community structure, diversity, and distribution of pelagic fish
       and planktonic organisms may be  affected by the pollutants from
       industrial  and community discharges as well as from those released
       from the in-place sediments.   It was not possible to assess  the
       relative importance of these  two sources of pollution.

10.     It was not  possible  to determine the quantities of the same pollutants
       examined in this study that are presently being  discharged into the
       Harbor, but it is known from the investigation of NPDES permit data
       that industrial and community discharges contain significant quantities
       of heavy metals  and suspended solids.  The last total inventory of
       pollutants  discharged to the Harbor  (1973) indicates that some 86 tons
       of heavy metals  and toxic chemicals were being discharged into the
       Harbor each day.

11.     In a recent review, Helz (1976) estimated that a relatively small
       percentage of the heavy metals entering the Harbor remain in the
       Harbor.  The rates and routes of  removal and the  form of the metals
       leaving the Harbor  and entering the Chesapeake Bay are unknown,
       but the mechanism by which this occurs may be significant to the
       upper estuary which is a nursery  region.

1Z.     Despite the reported high-removal rate of heavy metals from
       Baltimore Harbor,  the Harbor acts as a repository for  pollutants
                                    -74-

-------
      as evidenced by the concentration of heavy metals found at all depths
      of the core samples and the high concentrations of certain metals
      to be found in localized deposits.

13.    Of the three possible  corrective measures requiring action-- blan-
      keting, inactivating,  removing -- only the last, dredging  the Harbor
      bottom and placing the polluted sediment elsewhere, is a  practical
      method if certain factors  such as  cost and the location and type of
      disposal  sites  are not considered.  This conclusion is dictated by
      practical considerations  of the uses of the Harbor and the state-of-
      the-art in large scale blanketing and inactivation techniques.

14.    All sites and all depths of sampling contained concentrations of
      heavy metals that exceed the elutriate test standard indicating the
      entire Harbor is  contaminated to depths of at least  10 feet.  Also
      by 1973 EPA interstitial water standard for  levels of heavy metals
      hazardous to aquatic  life, the entire  Harbor would be classified
      contaminated.  A designation of those areas that are highly, mod-
      erately,  or  slightly polluted is difficult to make by  means of these
      analytical techniques. If partial removal of the contaminated sedi-
      ments is to  be  undertaken to dredge only those areas that contain the
      highest concentrations of pollutants,  new or additional criteria would
      need to be established to  describe the pollutional characteristics of
      the sediments so that priority judgments could be made.

15.    Maryland State law prohibits the placing of any material dredged from
      Baltimore Harbor in  the open waters of the Chesapeake Bay.  The law
      further requires  that "the spoil maybe  redeposited in contained areas
      approved by the Department. " The only presently approved contained
      area, other than  upland disposal sites, is the Hart-Miller Diked
      Disposal Site.  Therefore, any dredged material from the Harbor
      would have to be  placed in an upland  site, in  the future Hart-Miller
      Disposal Site,   or in a similar site yet to be  designated.

16.    A review of potential upland disposal sites within a 52-mile radius
      of Baltimore found that there is a maximum containment potential of
      some 41  million cubic yards of material.  Even partial removal of
      the highly contaminated sediments and placement in upland  disposal
      sites would  exceed the total potential capacities of these sites.

17.    The influx of new pollutant loads,  now being discharged into the
      Harbor from industrial and community sources, would eventually
      negate  the benefit achieved by any corrective action.  The pollutants

                                   -75-

-------
     now being discharged into the Harbor would soon begin to replace
     those removed, blanketed, or inactivated.  Therefore, a pre-
     requisite to any permanent action is the implementation of the
     provisions of P. L.  92-500 and a cessation or drastic  reduction of
     the current influx of pollutants to the Harbor waters.

18.   Given conclusion number  17 and given the difficulties  and obstacles
     faced by any active  solution to the problem of in-place pollutants,
     we conclude that leaving the polluted sediments undisturbed is the
     most realistic course to take at the  present time.  We conclude that
     this course will continue to be the most realistic one until such a
     date that  the pollutant discharge loading into the Harbor is eliminated
     or drastically reduced.

     This date, according to the provisions of Sec.  101(a)(l), P. L. 92-500,
     is 1985.  During the interim, we can anticipate a gradual improve-
     ment in the quality of the water column as the provisions of Sec. 402,
     "National Pollutant  Discharge Elimination System" (NPDES) are met;
     and, through natural processes, a partial improvement in the  surface
     layer sediments as  deposition of clean runoff sediments occur from
     stream sources.
                                   -76-

-------
8.2       RECOMMENDATIONS

1.    The in-place polluted sediments in Baltimore Harbor be left undis-
      turbed.   (Note:  This recommendation applies only to the nature of
      the problem posed by this study.  It is not intended to apply to any
      present or planned activity such as channel or ship berth mainte-
      nance and improvement dredging.)

2.    These sediments be  left undisturbed at least until such time as the
      current influx of pollutants is eliminated or reduced  sufficiently so
      as to not negate  any  corrective action.

3.    Removing the in-place pollutants by dredging is recommended only
      following a determination that the natural recovery that might be
      expected from the inflow of uncontaminated sediments from the river
      and stream sources  is not correcting the  present problems.  Once
      the discharge of toxic material has been stopped, a slow  recovery
      of the benthos and of the water column should result  from a partial,
      if not full,  blanketing effect of uncontaminated sediments from
      natural sources  covering the in-place pollutants.

4.    A re-evaluation  be made at the time the influx is reduced or elimin-
      ated  (i. e., 1985) to determine whether or not the deposition of clean
      sediments is occurring at a rate  commensurate with the objectives of
      P. L. 92-500.  If not, the  preferred method for meeting the provisions
      of Sec. 115 is the removal of the highly and moderately toxic polluted
      areas by means  of dredging and the placing of the dredged material
      in approved diked disposal sites.  This recommendation presumes
      that no new, innovative means for otherwise dealing  with the  problem
      is developed in the interim.

5.    If removal of the in-place pollutants becomes a necessity,  only the
      areas classified  as highly and moderately toxic be considered.  If
      a priority need be established and only partial  removal can be accom-
      plished for economic considerations, the areas of high toxicity should
      be given first priority.  Any dredging in the areas of high toxicity
      should be done by dredging methods and equipment that create a min-
      imum of disturbance to the sediments, thus reducing turbidity and
      release of the materials into the water column.

6.    A more thorough analysis and quantification of the pollutants presently
      being discharged into the Harbor and determination of the pathways of
                                   -77-

-------
     transport, deposition,  re-re lease, and movement into the biota
     should be accomplished.

7.    The scheduled channel improvement in Baltimore Harbor and the
     scheduled Hart-Miller disposal site construction and activation
     be carefully followed by means of a planned monitoring program to
     determine the actual effect on the biota and other environmental
     impacts. The dredging, due to begin shortly,  offers a unique
     opportunity to obtain,  empirically, information on the actual stress
     caused by large-scale  dredging in the  Harbor and, given the uncer-
     tainties normally associated with deductive methods,  appears to be
     the one approach certain to  yield positive answers quickly.  While
     this recommendation is not  within the  scope of this study,  it is con-
     sidered appropriate and particularly germane in light of the scheduled
     large scale dredging program planned for the Harbor  and its  approaches.
                                   -78-

-------
                                   TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
                            (Pltax reed Inunctions on the reverse before completing}
                              2.
                                                           3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION*NO.
 4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
  EVALUATION OF THE PROBLEM  POSED BY IN-PLACE POLLUTANTS
  IN BALTIMORE HARBOR AND RECOMMENDATION OF CORRECTIVE
  ACTION
                        «. REPORT DATE
                         September 1977
                        6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
 '. AUTHORIS)
                                                           8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO,
 . PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
  Trident Engineering Associates,
  48 Maryland Avenue
  Annapolis,  Maryland  21401
Inc.
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
 2BH413
                        11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
                         68-01-1965
 12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
   Office  of Water Planning and Standards
   U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
   401 M Street,  SW
   Washington,  D.C. 20460
                        13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
                         Final
                        14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
                         EPA 700/01
 IB. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
  Prepared  in  cooperation with the Center  for Environmental and Estuarine  Studies.
  University of Maryland, Horn Point, Cambridge,  Maryland.
 18. ABSTRACT
  Previous studies  had  indicated that Baltimore  harbor is heavily polluted.  To  assess
  the impact of in-place pollutants on the harbor,  the Contractor sampled and analyzed
  bottom sediments,  the water column, and the interstitial water, using bulk sediment
  analyses, elutriate tests,  and bioassays.  On  the basis of the results of this
  investigation, it  is  possible to divide the harbor into four zones; highly toxic,
  moderately toxic,  low toxlcity, and slightly toxic.   The biota are being stressed  by
  1n-place pollutants.   Benthic organism's suffer the greatest damage, the Intensity
  varying with the  location in the zones of toxicity.   Pelagic species are damaged to a
  lesser extent.  Although  feasible corrective actions do exist, they would offer only
  a temporary solution.   A  permanent solution involves the corrective action plus
  elimination of pollutant  discharges into the harbor,

  A companion report, EPA 440/5-77-015a, contains the  appendices and details of  the
  testing and anlaysis.
 7.
                                KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
                  DESCRIPTORS
        »  b.lDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS  C. COSATI FUd/CrOOp
  Environmental Research
  Sediments
  Water Quality
  Bioassay
            Baltimore Harbor
            Pollution
            Dredging
                13 B
 8. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT

  Release to Public
          19. SECURITY CLASS (TUt Report)
           UNCLASSIFIED
                                                                         21. NO. OF PAGES
          20. SECURITY CLASS (TUtptgt)

           UNCLASSIFIED	
                                     22. PRICE
EPA Form 2120-1 (1-73)
                                                                       omci i mr 0-730-117/1014

-------