ENVIRONMENTAL
PRO i CTICN
AGENCY
— --
-

-I
W S7 4 .
y.
4 L u cø
BOSTON HARBOR
W, TEk UAL UTY BASELINE
1•
Boston
Faciliti
Decembei ,1 984
zf
‘ -, )
_ 4_ , • I - --“ •-\,.
— .
Prepared by:
CE MAGUIRE, INC.
Architects• Engineers. Planners
One Davol Square, Providence, Rhode Island 02903
THE M Uffi
THE
COMMONWEALTH
MASSACPIUSE (TZ
S .,.
\___
D

-------
la&e Mawie in anSI 4YDUh
‘o’,toii H or
‘efle 14 (e InIek’
or
o9ro h
13
‘eev J+I4J i4
tf
ft
QL )U4 1
Nut
a
2 3Mi.

-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
BOSTON HARBOR WATER QUALITY BASELINE
i. Executive Summary
A. Objectives
B. Findings
C. Harbor Uses
D. Water Quality Standards
E. Marine Life
2. Boston Harbor Water Quality
A. summary of Physical Characteristtcs
B. Surface Water Quality and Standards
C. Sediment Conditions
D. Biologic Conditions
3. Boston Harbor Pollutant Sources
A. Overview
B. Deer Island and Nut Island Wastewater Treatment Plant
Effluents
C. Sewage Sludge Discharges from Deer Island and Nut Island
Treatment Plants
D. Combined Sewer Overflows and Dry Weather Overflows
REFERENCES
APPENDIX A; References to Table 11
APPENDIX B: Benthic Invertebrate Species by Station
APPENDIX C: DWPC 1984 Summer Sampling Data
APPENDIX D: UMass. -Boston 1983 Metals tn Water Data

-------
fr41 a’e .s p ei
U’4aP ru d P.
Most ;-x’ Im atw4 uph
On H4r or Tibgtariv , P1DP 4i in
LI
t bint Gour e Pi.4iar ec,
+0 bobtofl N r r
Key
K
A
.
•IucI e
•W Y (flCy by 4
m sri ut aIl
C40’db /
S
‘ •c
.
PJut
f’ .

-------
TABLE 1
POSTING OF ?ffiC BEACHES IN BOSTON HARBOR DURING 1982
Beach Date Total Coliforui Fecal Coliform
Tenean-Middle June 30 2920 590
Constitution-Bath July 14 0 600
Revere July 21 - 1000
Malibu July 21 - 810
Malibu July 22 - 2000, 1060, 1550
Tenean North July 21 - 26800
Tenean North July 22 - 2050
Wollaston—Milton July 21 - 11200
Constitution-North July 28 6500 -
Carson July 28 100
Tenean-North July 29 485
Wollaston-Milton August 4 10000
Carson August 11 1200
Malibu August 11 2680
Constitution-North August 18 710
Tenean-North August 18 1300
Wollaston—Milton August 18 70
Source: EG&G, 1984, p. 199
TABLE 2
POSTING OF MDC BEACHES IN BOSTON HARBOR DURING 1984
Beach Date Total Co1ifor Fecal CoiLforn
Constitution July 18 2600, 5000, 4500
Wollaston July 18 1030, 1230, 7600
Tenean July 25 450, 510, 510
Tenean July 27 - 600, 520, 640
Tenean July 28 — 600, 1090, 310
Tenean August 8 8000, 8000, 8000
Malibu August 8 8000
Source: ? C Sewerage Division Beach Report 1984 Postings.

-------
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A. Objectives
This water quality baseline has been prepared in support of the
Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement (SDEIS) on Siting of
Wastewater Treatment Facilities for Boston Harbor. This report
describes existing water quality in Boston Harbor as it relates to
harbor uses, resources, and marine life. As such, this report serves
two purposes:
1. Physical, chemical, and biological characteristics of the
harbor are provided as a “baseline” to be used in comparative
evaluation of the impacts of options presented in the SDEIS.
2. An issue-oriented su ary of water quality problems in Boston
Harbor is presented, providing a harbor-wide context for
evaluation of the SDEIS options and their water quality
impacts.
The water quality impacts of the SDEIS alternatives do not affect the
treatment plant siting decisions which are the focus of this EIS. This
is because water quality impacts are co on among all secondary
treatment alternatives and among all primary treatment alternatives.
Also, the selection of an effluent discharge (outfall) site is
relatively independent of the treatment plant site. The MDC’s proposal
for upgraded primary treatment (301(h) waiver application) calls for a
discharge nine miles off Deer Island into Massachusetts Bay. The MDC
Nut Island Site Options Study’s preferred option for secondary
treatment calls for discharge to President Roads. The water quality
impacts of secondary treatment alternatives are discussed in section
11.3 of the SDEIS (Volume 2). The water quality impacts of primary
treatment with a discharge nine miles off Deer Island will be presented
in EPA’s decision document on the 301(h) waiver application and
sunsnarized in the Final EIS on treatment plant siting.
1

-------
This baseline was developed using the most recent water quality
sampling data collected by the Massachusetts Division of Water
Pollution Control (DWPC). Sediment and biologic data presented are
from the MDC’s recent 301(h) Waiver Application. These data sets have
the advantage of presenting conditions over wide areas of the harbor
while ensuring a degree of consistency in the methods of sampling and
laboratory analysis. The EPA’s computerized Boston Harbor data base
was also reviewed to check the extent to which DWPC and MDC sampling
results compare favorably with the data base. Generally, these data
sets compare well.
B. Findings
1. Harbor Uses: Boston Harbor’s most significant uses in
economic terms are as a shipping port, and an aesthetic
amenity of considerable real estate value. Its recreation
and cosunercial fishing value is also significant, even though
chronic water pollution has resulted in closure of half of
the harbor’s shellfish beds and periodic closure of area
beaches.
2. Water Quality: Even though most waters in Boston Harbor meet
the water quality standards established by the Massachusetts
DWPC, Harbor waters have higher concentrations of pollutants
than are found offshore in Massachusetts Bay. Water quality
around the outer harbor islands and in Htngham Bay is the
highest in the harbor. In contrast, the waters in the
northern area of the Harbor (north and west of Long Island)
often have the highest concentrations of pollutants. Inner
Harbor waters (northwest of Castle Island) and other near
shore waters frequently fail to meet minimum water quality
standards. Periodic sewer overflows result in near shore
violations of standards in Dorchester and Quincy Bays, and in
Belle Isle Inlet.
2

-------
3. Marine Life: Boston Harbor supports a diverse community of
marine organisms. However, the composition of benthic
communities in the Inner Harbor, Deer Island/Governors Island
Flats and Dorchester Bay is indicative of environmental
stress. Fin erosion is found in winter flounder populations
throughout the harbor. Toxic chemicals in harbor sediments
are thought to contribute to the incidence of this disease,
although this has not been verified. A recent study by the
National Marine Fisheries Service has found cancerous lesions
in the tissues of winter flounder from Boston Harbor. Given
the incidence of finfish and shellfish cancers reported for
other marine waters receiving industrial wastes, and the
levels of carcinogens in discharges to the harbor, it is
expected that the incidence of cancers in Boston Harbor fish
populations is greater than in populations from less polluted
waters (J. Harschbarger, Smithsonian Institution Registry of
Tumors in Lover Animals, pers. coima). Toxic chemicals, such
as heavy metals, polychiorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and
pesticides, are found in the tissues of flounder and lobster
caught throughout the Harbor and even outside the harbor.
The few samples taken showed that concentrations of these
toxics do not exceed FDA limits for human consumption.
However, the concentration of PCBs in several samples
approached the FDA limits.
C. Harbor Uses
Boston Harbor is the largest seaport in New England and the
eleventh busiest in the nation in terms of total trade. (O’Brien &
Gere, 1981, V.11. p. 3-29). Shipping in Boston Harbor accounted for
over $2 billion in foreign trade during 1978; the principal imports and
exports being petroleum products and scrap iron, respectively (O’Brien
& Gere, 1981, V.11. p. 3-30).
Urbanization along 180 miles of shoreline and the drumlin
topography around Boston Harbor afford many striking views of the
3

-------
harbor and its islands. Cumulatively, these views impart a significant
value to residential and commercial properties. The proximity of dense
residential development around Boston to the harbor beaches, island
parks, fishing and boating facilities is also of significant economic
value. “Over three million people in the greater Boston area live
within 25 miles of the Harbor, and in Boston alone, there are over
200,000 people who live within walking distance of the Harbor and the
rivers entering the Harbor”. (O’Brien & Gere, 1981, V.11. p. 3-29).
The most significant harbor uses which are impaired or precluded
by poor water quality are swi ing and shelifishing. The quality of
water in the Inner Harbor is such that DWPC designated uses do not
include swimming or other primary contact recreation. Recently, the
posting of Boston Harbor beaches was a regular sumner occurrence during
and after rainfall events which trigger combined sewer overflows in
East Boston, Dorchester Bay, and the Inner Harbor (Table 1, Figures 1
and 2). Table 2 shows that relatively few beach postings occurred
during the summer of 1984. Mechanical failures at both Nut Island and
Deer Island wastewater treatment plants occasionally result in raw
sewage discharges. Progressive deterioration in these plants’ treatment
capacity has dramatically increased the occurrence of such bypassing
events in recent years. Treatment plant discharges, sewer overflows
and urban runoff have all been implicated as sources of bacterial
pollution which leads to beach posting.
Shellfish beds cover about 4,600 acres of Boston Harbor (Lipman,
DEQE, c. 1983). Over half of this area is closed to sheilfishing
because of bacterial contamination of overlying waters (Figure 3). In
the remaining beds, shellfish may only be harvested by licensed master
diggers who must transport the shellfish to the Commonwealth’s
depuration plant where shellfish are cleansed prior to sale. The
recent annual harvest from these beds (mostly softshell clams) has been
valued between $5 and $6 million; the potential annual value from
closed beds has been estimated to be $4 million (Lipman, DEQE, c.
1983). Overflows and bypasses of raw sewage, poorly treated wastewater
from treatment facilities, and storm drainage have all been implicated
4

-------
as sources of bacterial contamination in sheilfishing areas. Sewer
overflows and treatment plant bypassing reported to DEQE often results
in closure of affected areas to shelifishing (Harrington, DEQE, pets.
comm.). Commercial lobster fishing in Boston Harbor is apparently not
affected by harbor pollution.
Floating sewage, oil, grease, and debris impair the visual quality
of Boston Harbor from many vantage points. These surface plumes are
particularly evident after rains which overtax sewer and treatment
plant capacity. Such plumes are a chronic occurrence near main sewer
overflow points, such as Moon Island, and many points in the Inner
Harbor. Tidal flushing in the outer harbor appears to quickly disperse
locally obnoxious plumes.
D. Water Quality Standards
Waters in Boston Harbor are classified by the DWPC as class SA,
SB, or SC (see Figure 4). These cLasses correspond to intended uses,
but do not necessarily reflect the water’s quality. Waters meeting the
minimum water quality criteria for their class are suitable for the
following designated uses (314 C fR 4.03):
Class SA - Waters assigned to this class are designated for the
uses of protection and propagation of fish, other aquatic life and
wildlife; for primary and secondary contact recreation, and for
shellfish harvesting without depuration in approved areas.
Class SB — Waters assigned to this class are designated for the
uses of protection and propagation of fish, other aquatic life and
wildlife; for primary and secondary contact recreation, and for
shellfish harvesting with depuration (Restricted Shellfish Areas).
Class SC — Waters assigned to this class are designated for the
protection and propagation of fish, other aquatic life and
wildlife, and for secondary contact recreation.
5

-------
9A
Wa1 r -.
1vii HavI ’or
GA
____ 1
Ge’
FIdS .4
0 1 2 MI.

-------
*
? InFluoic& of seWa over4 I os
rbWw1.
d ,fl* J)
2e ach€/ 4b’ Pt .
DWfl here.
Source: Ma.b. pf-. o
? J4tw- I e ource
I’ 7Z arid
tvia . cz. ,i e4
Major e4c}1e of 4he Harbor
W%nthYo Sea kt
V r eII ea )i
£
L II
i MA r S che ’ a e*A
e ./a e ovrf1o
2. xi4Sti % 9 e4 1 r1O+?pefl4V pMbI;c.
p J
a I Z MI.

-------
0 1
L E
t p L
. ARE CLOf €Q TO
‘HEU EI iNc
MSTE ID
- . ô
CLAtIG (cper)
Soivos: Mso kos 0. L si ,
T. McL.u , So PisIsssor
ISon. OatS 1004
HELLFI3H b D5 N O5TO1 i HARBOR
4’
I
Ii
I
.4
‘ l ’ s
Qainc I
ce.

-------
Water quality sampling done by DWPC in the sunusers of 1982, 1983,
and 1984 found the worst water quality in the Inner Harbor. These
class SC waters have “. . frequent water quality violations and
exhibit stressed environmental conditions” (McKechnie, DWPC, 1983).
Bacteria and metals concentrations are generally very high in the Inner
Harbor, and dissolved oxygen levels are usuaLly lower there than in the
outer harbor. In the Inner Harbor, “dissolved oxygen violations of the
6 mg/i standard occurred about 40% of the time.” (Kubit, DWPC, 1984).
In the outer harbor, waters in the vicinity of Belle Isle Inlet
(near Orient Heights and Winthrop) “. . have water quality vioLations
following storm events because of CSC inputs” (McKechnie, DPWC, 1983).
In Dorchester Bay, “dissolved oxygen standard violations occurred in
35% of the samples collected.” (Kubit, DWPC, 1984).
Sampling near Moon Island’s intermittent sewage overflow found
“... dissolved oxygen violations . -. near the bottom” (McKechnie,
DPWC, 1983). “However, coliform bacteria violations were not noted.
One suspects that transient, local water quality violations occur after
discharges from Moon Island” (McKechnie, DWPC, 1983).
Otherwise, DWPC characterized observed water quality in Boston
Harbor as good during their 1982 and 1983 sampling. This does not
necessarily reflect shoreline water quality since DWPC sampling was all
offshore.
Near shore water samples are collected weekly by the MDC at MDC
beaches in Boston Harbor. These samples are analyzed for fecal
coliform bacteria. When bacterial concentrations greater than 500
organisms per 100 milliliters are found, MDC posts the beach. After
posting, the beach is resauipled daily until acceptable concentrations
are found.
Boston Harbor water samples collected and analyzed by University
of Massachusetts scientists contained copper concentrations in excess
of EPA’s criteria for the protection of saltwater aquatic life
6

-------
(Wallace, et al. , 1984). The highest concentrations of copper were
found in the shallow waters of Quincy and I{ingham Bays, and in the
Inner Harbor.
E. Marine Life
Boston Harbor supports commercial sheilfishing (clams) and lobster
fishing. As noted above, about half of the 4,600 acres of shellfish
beds are closed because of bacterial contamination of overlying waters.
Sport fishing and recreational fishing are very popular in the harbor;
the principal bottom fishing catch is flounder.
Winter flounder is the dominant benthic (bottom feeding) finfish
in Boston Harbor. The incidence of fin erosion in winter flounder
appears to be higher in Boston Harbor than in flounder populations
outside the harbor. Biologists have theorized that the disease is
caused by some type or combination of environmental stress.
Researchers have also speculated that toxic chemicals found in
relatively high concentrations in harbor sediments are responsible for
flounder fin erosion. However, no correlation has been found between
the concentration of metals, PCBs, or DDT in sediments with the
incidence of fin erosion in Boston Harbor flounder (Metcalf & Eddy,
1979 301(h) Waiver Application, Vol. 2, p. BXI-31). Researchers
elsewhere have found a probable association between fin erosion and
toxicants, particularly chlorinated hydrocarbons (Metcalf & Eddy, 1984
301(h) Waiver Application, Volume 2, p. III-D4.29 through 111-04.45).
Bioaccumulation of toxic chemicals, such as heavy metals, PCBs and
pesticides, in Boston Harbor’s winter flounder, lobster, and shellfish
has been documented. The reported concentrations of toxic chemicals in
edible portions of these organisms have not exceeded U.S. Food and Drug
Administration limits on toxicants in fish (Metcalf & Eddy, 1979 301(h)
Waiver Application, Vol. 2, p. BXII-11).
7

-------
A 1984 study conducted by the National Marine Fisheries Service
found cancerous lesions in 8 percent of 200 winter flounder examined;
“however, it is likely that the actual percentage of these lesions
considerably exceeds 8 percent . . .“ (l’lurchelano and Wolke, 1984).
“Only flounder colLected from the southern shore of Deer Island had
grossly visible hepatic lesions” (Murchelano and Wolke, 1984).
Compared to liver disease in flounder from other northeast coastal
waters, Boston Harbor flounder livers show more abundant and severe
lesions. The National Marine Fisheries Service and the Massachusetts
Division of Marine Fisheries are conducting follow up studies on Boston
Harbor fish disease, including analysis of flounder tissues for
polynuclear (or polycyclic) aromatic hydrocarbons (PAils) and PCBs (both
are toxic compounds).
With the exception of fin erosion and cancer in winter flounder,
no adverse health effects are reported for marine life in Boston
Harbor. However, the composition of benthic coimriunities in the harbor
shows fewer species, fewer numbers of organisms, and lower overall
biomass towards the Inner Harbor, Deer Island/Governors Island Flats,
and Dorchester Bay, when compared with the less polluted areas of
Quincy and Hingham Bays, Nantasket Roads, and Massachusetts Bay. The
dominant invertebrate species in the inner harbor and Deer
Island/Governors Island Flats is Capitella sp., a pollutant tolerant
worm often used as an indicator of a biologically stressed environment.
8

-------
2. BOSTON HARBOR WATER QUALITY
A. Summary of Physical Characteristics
Boston Harbor is located on the Eastern seaboard north of Cape Cod
(Figure 5). While its navigation channels have been dredged out to a
depth of nearly 40 feet, water depths in the rest of the harbor
generally range from 10 to 15 feet at mean low water (flLW). Depths of
nearly 90 feet occur in the channel at President Roads (Figure 6). The
mean tidal rise and fall in Boston Harbor is 9.5 feet.
Currents within the harbor for spring flood tides are shown in
Figure 7. Note that flood currents follow generally the same path as
ebb currents, but in opposite directions. Under average spring tide
conditions, current velocity at maximum ebb and flood is under 0.7
knots over most of the harbor although velocities of up to 1.7 knots
occur in the channels. Maximum currents reported for Boston Harbor are
2.6 knots (ebb) in Hull Gut and 2.0 knots (ebb and flood) in Presidents
Roads (White, 1983).
The total volume of the Harbor is approximately 180 billion
gallons at high tide and about half that at low tide. Assuming
complete tidal mixing, estimated flushing time for the harbor by the
tidal prism method would be two tidal cycles. Since harbor tides cycle
twice per day, this would equate to daily flushing. In actuality,
harbor mixing is not complete and flushing time is greater. Iwanowicz,
et aL (1974), estimated tidal flushing for several Boston ‘Harbor Bays
as follows:
Estuary % Tidal Exchange
Hingham Bay 49.8
Dorchester Bay 46.9
Quincy Bay 37.9
Flushing of the harbor is enhanced by flow of freshwater through the
harbor from groundwater and the coastal rivers and streams. The volume
9

-------
L,O& I11DPI oP e’o ton 1- irI or
N w *,*
PhiIadt/phi!
t pfli fri ,bIetk’e* k’w
ea level oe
a ea P1c ’r.
/
/
/ %
S
‘,, A

Ihi) ‘ \il
% . _ j• , d e”° ” ’ i”..-
,;Ipo_ —
o5 ,JIayL’or
-
.1’
Cod
—
I
I
I
/
1
‘F
— I
f•—— ‘I-
/
/ ——
/ .i_
,_ ,
1 /
j
1,
/
/
/
I
I
I
‘F
I (
I
I
I
I /
I /
S
,I ,
‘I
/1
//
I
I-
/ I
/
/
/
I
/
I
/
/
I
I
C,
0
c i
4”
ph
I
FI 5
I, uvee: J 4JO,I’ ff Z.
ce ,re frt&.
1ø : Ieç

-------
HarI’or *iyr ieIr f
* jvt Fee t if s1vi1 ’ u’ V .1
J_— c’ I——-’
I, ,
‘‘I
-I - ’
SI
--
4.
I)
‘S I’ ,
— I ’
¼
--‘‘-‘I
4.
--S
‘I
,ouv e: t JOAA O#
___ pfo & ?Y
- nav, at1on 1) purpo e
k
196i. 6

-------
flc1aJ Velocities 1uri Gpvi Tidd
Cov.rnor. Is ind
ip
a
04
Four hours after
slack flood tides begin;
Velocities are for
Spring Tides
/
7104’
1
16
7102’
4?14’

-------
S .-
C -
:9
L I
- 4
- 1

/ :
‘C
S .
C ’
I .
‘ S
5
7052’
4222’
ROAN
I
0 )
03
/6
7090’
‘4
4? it
as.

-------
of river flow is small compared to the volume of the tidal prism, an
average of about 256 million gallons per day flows to the harbor
according to gauged flow data. This data is shown in Table 1.
However, since the gauging stations are located considerably upstream
of the harbor in most cases, this table understates the flow to the
harbor. Total river discharges to the Harbor have been estimated to
average about 500 million gallons daily (Lipman, DEQE, c. 1983).
Major Water hec1, r i,iir
‘a 1 i MarI ôr
P URe 8
,DUYC4: l 5
t?a4e p Jr c.
I
C iarIe. river
Wat’er ie4
OPI
10

-------
TABLE 3. GAUGED RIVER DISCHARGES TO BOSTON HARBOR 1
Years of Drainage Area Discharge in cfs
Watershed/Station Record in Square Miles Minimum Maximum Mean
Mystic River
Aberjona 42 24.2 0.25 1,330 27.3
Charles River
Waltham 50 227 0.2 4,150 294
Neponset River
Norwood 42 35.2 1.4 1,490 52.9
Canton 29 27.2 0.60 1,790 50.9
Weymouth Fore River
Town Brook, Quincy 9 4.25 0.62 381 8.11
Weyinouth Back River
Old Swamp River,
near South Weymouth 15 4.29 0.11 566 8.92
322 tin. 2 3.18 cfs 9,707 cfs 442 cfs
2.05 mgd 6,271 mgd 286 cngc
1. Based on: Water Resources Data, Massachusetts and Rhode Island,
Water Year 1981, U.S. Geological Survey.
2. Total river discharges to Boston Harbor have been estimated to
average about 500 mgd (Steven Li.pman, DEQE, c. 1983).
11

-------
B. Surface Water Quality and Standards
Massachusetts Surface Water Quality Standards “. . . designate the
uses for which Massachusetts surface waters shall be enhanced, main-
tained, and protected, and prescribe the water quality criteria
required to sustain the designated uses.” (Regulation Filing and
Publication form filed by DWPC 9/27/83). These standards consist of
five sections:
1. General Provisions (314 C! ffi 4.01), which include statutory
authority, purpose, and definitions.
2. Application of Standards (314 CuR 4.02), which includes guid-
ance to DWPC in the establishment of effluent limitations,
the evaluation of criteria in the mixing zone of a point
source discharge, the evaluation of “worst case” hydrologic
(flow/dilution) conditions, and the approved procedures for
water sampling and analysis.
3. Water Quality Criteria (314 CMR 4.03), which defines use
classes, and associated minimum criteria (qualitative and
quantitative).
4. Antidegradation Provisions (314 CMR 4.04), which call for the
protection of high quality waters, low flow waters, and
waters which constitute an outstanding national resource.
This section allows more stringent criteria to be applied to
these waters than is provided under 314 CMR 4.03. This
section also provides guidance on limiting nutrient enrich-
ment of water bodies and variance procedures.
5. Basin Classifications and Maps (314 CMR 4.05), which sets out
the procedures DWPC must use in classifying waters, and the
classification maps and descriptions themselves.
12

-------
These standards are periodically reviewed and revised by DWPC.
The discussion of Massachusetts Surface Water Quality Standards is
based on the current standards as revised October 15, 1983.
The Massachusetts classes for coastal waters, associated uses, and
minimum water quality criteria are summarized in Tables 4, 5, and 6.
Note that the only criteria which differ betveen these coastal water
classes are bacterial. The designated water classes for Boston Harbor
are shown in Figure 9.
In the interpretation of minimum criteria included in the
Massachusetts Standards, the DWPC is directed to consider EPA water
quality guidelines issued under Section 304(a) of the Federal Clean
Water Act 1 These guidelines have been issued for conventional pol.lu-
tants in EPA’s “Red Book” (Quality Criteria for Water, 1976) and for
126 toxic pollutants in EPA’s “White Book” (guidelines published in the
Federal Register 11/20/80, 8/13/81 and 2/15/84 and reports referenced
therein). Proposed changes to these guidelines (Federal Register
2/7/84) are now undergoing public review. The application of these
guidelines is at the discretion of Massachusetts DWPC. Where applic-
able, reference is made to these guidelines in this baseline.
1 The Massachusetts Standards, 314 CMR 4.03(1) as amended 10/15/83,
refer to the Clean Water Act Section 304(b), however, the intent is to
refer to water quality guidelines (304(a)) rather than effluent
limitation guidelines (306(b)) (Warren Kimbal, DWPC, pers. conin.)
13

-------
uluII.
u .
Waler Cia
* ,PI1 Hari7or
9A
___ 1
FItSq. q
0 1 2 MS.

-------
TABLE 4.
DESIGNATED MASSACHUSETTS COASTAL WATER CLASSES,
USES, AND CRITERIA WHICH DIFFER BETWEEN CLASSES
Class/Use
Differentiating
Criteria (Bacterial )
Class SA - Waters assigned to this
class are designated for the uses of
protection and propagation of fish,
other aquatic life and wildlife; for
primary and secondary contact recrea-
tion, and for shellfish harvesting
without depuration in approved areas.
Class SB - Waters assigned to this
class are designated for the uses of
protection and propagation of fish,
other aquatic life and wildlife; for
primary and secondary contact recrea-
tion, and for shellfish harvesting
with depuration (Restricted Shell-
fish Areas).
Class SC - Waters assigned to this
class are designated for the protec-
tion and propagation of fish, other
aquatic life and wildlife, and for
secondary contact recreation.
*Establjs ent of effluent limitations.
Total coliform bacteria shall
not exceed a median value of
70 MPN per 100 ml and not more
than 10% of the samples shall
exceed 1,000 MPN per 100 ml
in any monthly sampling period.
Total coliform bacteria shall
not exceed a median value of
700 NPN per 100 ml and not more
than 20% of the samples shall
exceed 1,000 MPN per 100 ml
during any monthly sampling
period, except as provided in
Regulation 2.1.*
Fecal coliform bacteria shall
not exceed a log mean for a set
of samples of 1,000 MPN per 100
ml, nor shall more than 10% of
the total samples exceed 2,500
MPN per 100 ml during any monthly
sampling period, except as pro-
vided in Regulation 2.1.*
14

-------
TABLE 5
MINIMUN WATER QUALITY CRITERIA
WHICH APPLY TO ALL MASSACHIJSETTS COASTAL WATER CLASSES
(SA, SB, SC)
Parameter Criteria
1. Dissolved Oxygen Shall be a minimum of 85 percent of satura-
tion at water temperatures above 77°F (25°C)
and shall be a minimum of 6.0 mg/i at water
temperatures of 77°F (25°C) and below*.
2. Temperature None except where the increase will not
exceed the recoimnended limits on the most
sensitive water use.
3. pH Shall be in the range of 6.5-8.5 and not
more than 0.2 units outside of the natu-
rally occurring range.
*It is DWPC’s policy to use the average DO concentration found in the
water column (at different depths during a single sampling event) in
their interpretation of the 6.0 mg/I criterion (letter from T.C.
Mthahon, Director DWPC, to K. NcSweeney, USEPA 12/15/83).
15

-------
TABLE 6
MININUN CRITERIA WHICH APPLY TO ALL MASSACHUSETTS WATERS
(Unless criteria specified for individual classes are more stringent.)
Parameter Criteria
1. Aesthetics All waters shall be free from pollutants
in concentrations or combinations that:
a) Settle to form objectionable deposits;
b) Float as debris, scum or other matter
to form nuisances;
c) Produce objectionable odor, color,
taste, or turbidity; or
d) Result in the dominance of nuisance
species.
2. Radioactive Substances Shall not exceed the recommended limits of
the United States Environmental Protection
Agency’s National Drinking Water Regulations.
3. Tainting Substances Shall not be in concentrations or combina-
tions that produce undesirable flavors in
the edible portions of aquatic organisms.
4. Color, Turbidity, Shall not be in concentrations or combina-
Total Suspended Solids tions that would exceed the recommended
limits on the most sensitive receiving
water use.
5. Oil and Grease The water surface shall be free from float-
ing oils, grease and petrochemicals and any
concentrations or combinations in the water
column or sediments that are aesthetically
objectionable or deleterious to the biota
are prohibited. For oil and grease of
petroleum origin, the maximum allowable
discharge concentration is IS mg/i.
6. Nutrients Shall not exceed the site-specific limits
necessary to control accelerated or cul-
tural eutrophication.
7. Other Constituents Waters shall be free from pollutants in
concentrations or combinations that:
a) Exceed the recommended limits on the
most sensitive receiving water use;
b) Injure, are toxic to, or produce adverse
physiological or behavioral responses in
humans or aquatic life, or
c) Exceed site-specific safe exposure levels
determined by bioassay using sensitive
resident species.
16

-------
Problems Meeting Standards
Most of Boston’s outer harbor waters meet Massachusetts minimum
criteria for their designated classes. However, copper in waters
across Boston Harbor have been found in concentrations which exceed
EPA’s White Book criteria for the protection of saltwater aquatic life
(Wallace, et al., 1984; see Metals below). Based on sampling results
from DWPC’s 1982, 1983, and 1984 surveys, the waters in the following
areas occasionally fail to meet the minimum criteria for their
designated class:
• Inner Harbor (and the Chelsea River)
Belle Isle Inlet
• Dorchester Bay near Moon Island discharge
Water sampling by several MDC consultants for recent (1980—1981)
CSO facilities plans also documented near shore violations in the areas
listed above, and in addition, the following areas:
- Neponset River
Dorchester Bay
Sections of Quincy Bay and Hingham Harbor have also reportedly
exceeded Massachusetts minimum water quality criteria (Havens &
Emmerson/Parsons Brinkerhoff, 1984 Deer Island Facilities Plan, p.
E1.16).
17

-------
The Inner Harbor has, by far, the worst water quality in Boston
Harbor. Low dissolved oxygen (D.0.) and high bacterial concentrations
are responsible for water quality violations (NcKechnie, DWPC, 1983).
1984 sampling fou.nd 40% of the samples failed to meet the 6 mg/i
criterion, but only one sample exceeded the 1000 fecal coliform/100 ml
criterion. Heavy metals concentrations in the water column also
exceeded EPA White Book criteria for the protection of saltwater
aquatic life (see Metals, below). Despite these violations, Class SC
uses such as boating and fishing still take place in the Inner Harbor
and its tributaries.
In the Belle Isle Inlet, violations of water quality criteria were
documented by DWPC’s August 2, 1983, sampling for D.0. and coliform
bacteria following a storm event. DWPC reports that nearby Consti-
tution Beach is closed after such storm events because of a major CSO
located in the i ediate vicinity of the beach.
Near the Moon Island discharge, DWPC sampling found D.O. below the
minimum criteria in the bottom waters after a storm event. Coliform
levels were within acceptable limits for Class SB waters. Impairment
of designated water uses for this area has not been reported per se,
however, activation of the Moon Island discharge is known to lead to
shellfish bed closings (through a reporting procedure).
Near shore, water quality violations have been reported in MDC’s
CSO reports. These reports attribute violations primarily to excessive
coliform levels, and to a lesser extent, low D.O. (MDC, 1982 CSO
Project Suiary Report, p. 5). Oil and grease criteria are also
exceeded in the CSO study areas (Inner Harbor and its tributaries,
Dorchester Bay, the Neponset River estuary and in the vicinity of
Constitution Beach in East Boston). In Dorchester Bay and at
Constitution Beach these nearshore violations lead to beach posting on
an intermittent basis (particularly after wet weather) and shellfish
bed closure on a regular basis.
18

-------
Ambient Water Quality
The following description of ambient water quality is presented by
water quality parameter, beginning with parameters directly referenced
in Nassachusetts’ minimum water quality criteria. These are followed
by other water quality parameters which are commonly considered in the
ecologic evaluation of marine and estuarine ecosystems.
The results of 1982, 1983, and 1984 DWPC sampling are used herein
to characterize ambient conditions for several reasons:
1. Sample collection and analysis for 1982, 1983, and 1984 were
performed in a consistent manner.
2. Samples were collected at stations covering most of Boston
Harbor.
3. Resainpling of permanent stations provides information on time
variability of a parameter in a given location.
4. The sampling reflects recent conditions.
The chief drawback of using this data is that only summer con-
ditions are presented. The suer season is, however, of primary
concern from the viewpoint of harbor uses affected by water quality.
As the DWPC 1984 data only became available recently the figures
which accompany the following discussion show the results of 1982 and
1983 data only. 1984 data is included in the following discussion and
is reproduced in Appendix C.
Dissolved Oxygen
Dissolved oxygen must be present in water for higher order marine
life such as fish to survive. The maximum amount of oxygen which may
be dissolved in water is dependent on temperature, and to a lesser
19

-------
extent, chloride concentration. At higher water temperatures, less
oxygen can be dissolved in the water; similarly, at higher chloride
concentrations, less oxygen can be dissolved. DWPC recently amended
the D.0. criterion to reflect temperature effects. At temperatures
greater than 77°F (25°C) the minimum criterion for D.O. is 85% of
saturation. Below this temperature the criterion for D.0. is 6.0 mg/i.
Also, it is DWPC’s policy to use the average DO concentration found in
the water column (at different depths during a single sampling event)
in their interpretation of the 6.0 mg/i criterion (letter T.C. Mcllahon,
Director DWPC to K. McSweeney USEPA, 12/15/84).
“When oxygen values become less than 3 mg/i (ppm), most finfish
species will not survive. Most shellfish species are more tolerant,
but during prolonged periods (weeks) of anoxia, they will also
succumb.” (MERL, 1980, p.9) Generally, benthic or bottom dwelling
species, such as founder, are more adapted to the naturally lower
oxygen levels found near the bottom, compared to species which reside
higher in the water column.
Figures 10 through 13 depict D.O. concentrations during the 1982
and 1983 sampling. The following observations can be made with regard
to DWPC’s D.0. data:
1. D.0. concentrations are variable at all stations. The range
of D.O. concentrations harbor-wide was 2.4-9.7 mg/i in 1982,
3.5—20.8 mg/i in 1983, and 2.2-17.8 mg/i in 1984. Note that
very few values are greater than 10 mg/i and, at the
temperatures reported, these high values may represent
supersaturated conditions.
2. D.O. concentrations are generally lowest in the Inner Harbor,
particularly in the deep water samples.
3. D.0. concentrations are usually within a range adequate to
support higher marine organisms, except occasionally near the
bottom and in the Inner Harbor. Occasional low D.0. levels
20

-------
MA i r ria
Oissolveel Oxy e i at ‘ur4 ice (‘i’, z)
>,4O M I
•
I 7.071
o
0
I’102
TuIyI4 JuIyI
Au 3XA .
Q 1 .*tt sf fr.q v.imj 4e
dØ tD f)$ l v i -r 9 jd4€
Mi:
7o
‘ ,hafl I;:k & m( 1L4V of s%
of ali vafior1
4Y ‘ i £1 tIY UW
n&ci/f *k uJakl( tw p,raJ
i’f (jç’c.) d beJoMJ.
________

-U
_________________________
Is 0 1 2 3M’.

-------
Vic wlve4 O)ey sPi : t7eepe.t am Ie (14sz)
Ft
Uc
ft-s
ty: • ),41.° P l €
. go . 8M
7.0 -. 7 .41
C b•° •’?
0
< .0
Sa 1r7hfr1e, e1 Fes: I’1 2.
ru y I 4 — r-July I’
AuS -/ ’-A . S
lebtre4/4fVVtc? 4 .k .vP1 —f
Iv’t °F ect’k
Ma. Cvi4eric4
Sbal1 be a miniana of 85 percent of satura-
tion at water teaperatures above 77°F (25°C)
and shall be a ainimua of 6.0 •gf 1 at water
‘teaperatures of 77°F (25°C) and beloV
N
F] 6 (. 11
2 3Mi.
5 ci
,
‘SW”
0
I
- p

-------
1+
P16i IL
t7is oIvec Oxy eh at uri a e &is3)
• 8°8 . f”
c i o
--F ‘ 3

c )
ft
.
I 1”.
7.0. .q
0 o 6’
C
(6.0
‘j,aw’ ih,, 4 i p:
JUly 12
Auji 3 -Au 5 . 2
ie4 , o W4k4’
4ww t r 4 sF
ri e(I4.
Shall be a minian. of 85 percent of aatura-
tion at water te.peraturea above 77°F (25°C)
\and shall be a •iniRua of 6.0 mg/i at water
te.peratures of 77°F (25°C) and below
£7
I
2
3’ u.
>,1.O

-------
Oxy eh t7eepe.t 6asiple (1q93)
Ke.y: • > o
0
0
7.O-’ 7.p
6.0.
(60
4ate’ I’q9 ’
ruly II 4 JL1Iy 12
Au,I -‘ -Au 5 .Z
leV4 4 we’7 of w., kV l f e .
i’ P 2e .c 4 e 1 , 1 4 4, t
M . Cv’i4ex a
Shall be a ainiaua of 85 percent of aatura-
tioiz at water temperatures above 77°F (25°C)
and shall be a ainiau.a of 6.0 ag/i at water
teaperatures of 77°F (25°C) and below
6i O
, 0
b
II
M
FJ6 .I3
0 1 2 3 i.

-------
Men /-h
J F M A hi J J A S 0 N 0
F15 I4.
SI ASO AL TF RATURE VARIATIONS AT BOSTON UGHTSHI?
-tentpr hi.Vt yari iti”n ’
j+t&rMaA c hor wiTh
M *h ‘wnmtr.
•,GU I TAKEN FMOM EVlIWO THE PNYIeCAt.Oc1ANOGP HY 0 . EDO,
MASsACHUSETTS SAY. OOS HOLE OCLANOGRAP UC IP TITUT)ON
PILJAAY. $74

-------
have been reported in the immediate vicinity of the Deer
Island discharge.
It is likely that low DO in the Inner Harbor is a contributing
factor to the conditions which favor benthic species, such as Capi.tella
sp. (a worm) over species which require higher DO concentrations (see
part D, Biologic Conditions). There is no documentation that low DO
leads to adverse physiologic effects in the indigenous marine life of
Boston Harbor.
Stimmer thermal stratification is reported in the Harbor in the
301(h) Waiver Application and has been documented as far offshore as
the Boston Lightship (see Figure 14). This stratification limits
reaeration of bottom waters.
2!
The pH of a solution refers to its hydrogen ion activity. pH is
expressed in a range from 0-14 with 0 being very acid, 14 being very
basic and 7 corresponding to exact neutrality (at 25°C). 1982 and 1983
pH values reported for the Harbor are shown in Figure 15 and 16.
These values fall in the range of 7.3 to 8.2 units, all within the
naturally occurring pH range for seawater. 1984 pH data range from 7.5
to 8.8 units with only one value greater than 8.4 units. There is
considerable variability in pH between samplings at each station. pH
appears to relate to chloride concentration (see below), and both are
influenced by tidal stage.
Total Coliform Bacteria
Total coliform bacteria are a group of bacterial species which
include bacteria present in animal feces and other types of decaying
organic matter. Generally, member species do not cause disease in
humans; the presence of total coliform bacteria is an indicator that.
the water may be contaminated with sewage, and therefore may conta iO
21

-------
p 14 o Water O4 z)
.
0
01
1rIInp , &1 1FcA ,
I1 z
rusy I 4 —\ r-JuIy I’
Aug
p:iól. t5
-f
0
0
II
Fz
J)
I
iqcco 100D
c e I vta, .)J f l.’lL..

-------
pH oF Wal&r (l’ve3)
Ke.y • >, .l
081
8.0
0
0 :is
JuIyli Jülyr2
Auji Au 5 .Z
0 ioccfiI!Oci
9
Ii

-------
human pathogens. Since aàn-fecal coliform bacteria are common, the
total coliform standard may overestimate the threat associated with
water contact in some instances. On the other hand, some viral spores
may survive longer in marine environments than the coliform bacteria in
sewage; the concentration of total coliform bacteria may therefore
underestimate the threat associated with water contact in such cases.
In the absence of other widely accepted, inexpensive tests for
microbial water quality, the total coliform standard remains in popular
use.
1982 and 1983 total coliform concentrations in the harbor are
shown in Figures 17 and 18. Reported concentrations range from 5 to
110,000 organisms per 100 milliliters of water. 1984 total coliforin
concentrations ranged from <20 to 200,000 organisms per 100 ml.
Highest concentrations are reported in the Inner Harbor and in the
northern area of the harbor (where combined sewer overflows occur) than
in the southern part.
To the extent that these sampling results are representative of
mean concentrations which are the basis of the bathing (class SB)
standard’s bacterial criteria, these criteria appear to be met in
Hingham and Quincy Bays. 1984 sampling showed two samples from
Dorchester Bay in excess of 1000 organisms per 100 ml.
The one sample showing high bacterial concentrations at Deer
Island in 1983 was taken in the boil from the sludge discharge. High
concentrations of a oaia and phosphorus were also found in this
sample.
Fecal Coliform Bacteria
The fecal coliforin test differentiates between coliforms from
animal feces and coliforms from other ources. The presence of fecal
coliform is conmionly used to indicate contamination with human or
animal excrement.
22

-------
1982 and 1983 fecal coliform concentrations are shown in Figures
19 and 20. They show similar trends to those of total coliform; i.e.,
higher concentrations in the northern part of the Harbor than in the
southern part. Highest reported concentrations occur in the Inner
Harbor, Belle Island Inlet, and in the sample taken at the Deer Island
sludge discharge. The total range from 1982, 1983, and 1984 sampling
is <5-15,000 fecal coliform organisms per 100 ml.
Chloride and Conductance
Chloride and conductance data for 1982 and 1983 are shown in
Figures 21 through 24. These data show considerable variability
between samplings at each station and from station to station. This
variability is probably attributable to the effects of tide.
Nonetheless, concentrations of both parameters generally appear
slightly lower nearer fresh water inputs along the shore than in the
outer harbor.
Suspended Solids (non—filterable residue)
Suspended solids (55) concentrations, shown on Figures 25 and 26,
are also highly variable. This variability could be attributable to
the effects of currents and winds on settling and resuspension of
solids or to the inherent inaccuracy of analysis techniques. Because
of the impossibility of controlling all of the variables in solids
testing, determinations are not subject to the usual criteria of
accuracy (Standard Methods pg. 89). Therefore, only statistical
analysis of large numbers of random samples can be used to indicate
trends.
If all the data for the Harbor are viewed collectively, reported
values are elevated compared to seawater but fairly typical for an
urban estuary. Suspended solids concentrations reported for 1984
sampling are generally lower than 1982 and 1983 concentrations.
23

-------
lotLil t. oli1 Drp11 is terja (140z)
• d d
DO ’
c
o
Sar1pIi1be1iJ-e : I’ Z
SuIy I 4 -\ -July I’
S
Oc e4,\ )tUt VaAt ’e o i-ai
ft
14d.Criteria (lacesrial )
Total colifor bactaria shall
sot agreed $ nediso valu. of
70 NPW p.r 100 .1 and not nors
the. lOt of the s..,les shall
.zc..d 1,000 I W p .r 100 .1
to say monthly saaylt.g period.
Total colifor. bacteria shall
sot .sc.ed • .edias value of
700 per tOO .1 and not sore
has 201 •f the sa l.. shall
a .c.sd 1,000 NP per tOO .1
dvrla say sonthey •aayli.g
period eacapt as provided La
Isgalatios 2.1.°
Class/U.,
Class IA Watsrs assigned to this
class Sr. deslgpat.d for the sacs of
protectia. aid propagstioa of fish,
other aquatic lit, sad wildlife; for
primary sod •.coadary contact recrea-
t10, sad for shellfish har’esting
vithout depsrati.. ia approved areas.
Class 51 - stsrs assigned to this
class are designated for the wass of
protection sad propagation of fish.
other aquatic life and wildlife; for
pn.aary aid secondary contact recrea-
tb., sad for shellfish harvesting
with depuratios (Iastrict.d Shell-
fish Area.).
&e A4 p uIv’e.- 14C-

-------
il
>/
Thtal olifo,’rg ‘a&t rfa (i ø3)
Key.
• )XO- ‘14’1’1
qq
o
o a-’
gqo
3U 1y II- . _July 12
Au,l — -Au 5 . 7
lld.Crltorl. (Pictorial )
Total c.111.u bactori. sbal l
sot ssc.04 a sodis. v i i i .. .1
70 _- p.r 200 .1 sad ot soro
ba. 10% .1 lb. .a.pI.. .bsL i
szco.4 1000 IP p.r 100 si
I. say soothly sa 1La p.riod.
Total c.lif.rs b.ct.ri. .ball
sit .ac..d a ..dia. ,ali.. of
700 __ p.r 100 .1 sod 5.1 sir.
Ibas 20% .1 lb. s. l.. .kaIl
•.c..d 1 000 l V p.r 100 .1
sr** say •o.tbly ...pl1s
p.ri.d. szc.pt a. pr.vid.d 1.
0. iiI.t1is 2.2. ’
Clasp/Us.
Cl.e. U — Valor. .osip.d to Ibis
ci... ore 4..igsat.d for lb. so.s of
prolsiti.. .04 prop. sti.s of fi.b.
other . aiat*e ill, sad .1141*1.; tsr
priasry sad ..cosdary rsstact ucr.a-
Ito. sad for •ballfisb harvestisi
vilbost deporattos La approvod areas.
Cl ... 0$ - Valor. ao.fgsid to Ibis
ci... Sr. d..iaat.d for lb. sa.a of
protoctiea sad prspap.t*o. .1 tub.
otbar sqsatlc 1*1. s .d wildlife, t.i
prta.ry sad socos4ai csstac t r.cr.a-
his, sod for .ballttsb barveolis$
with d.psratioo (I..trict.d hell-
li ii Ares.).
0 ‘ãZO iocct ’ ocO
Fi .IS
p

-------
S Petal C ’l ifOYV}i t2cter 1 iøz) -
•J’
;
fi
1 c:::9
ft
(pev’ ioo i)
. 1000-’ ‘Ifl’ 1
too_p £ ‘I
C
0
Oiii. 4
SipIi iI i4-e : I1SZ
ruly I* rJuly I’
o’ &vt W Aex \1 * i 0 feted ‘ 7!iform/ic i€
C l . .. BC - W.t.r. sssfg .d to tAis
I rs desI sote4 for the protec-
U.s sod propag.tj . s •f fish other
sqalUc lit. sod elidlif. sad for
•sc .adsry C . st.ct recr. .tIo..
iso ) colifoga bact.rj. shall
sot szcsod a log soos for a set
of . lea of 1,000 BPB per 100
51, soc shall sor• thai 101 of
the cot.) .a i . . saceed 2,S00
W p .r 100 .1 d.ria.g say soothly
.a lLsg period, zc.pt •s pro-
vided is 15g51.tio. 2.I.°
Fig. 19
°istablisheest of stfls.st )i51tsIto .
- j 14.C-.
N
2 3M1.
S
0

-------
II
Fe&aI Colritorm !ia4’aria (I4 3) -
Key • > c ’o (per op. )
• qo ,-g’i’l
® LOO- q
o so-q’i
4aI P •
3UIy iI— --JuIy t’2
,Au 5 1
C l ... aC - V.tar. .s.i . .d to this
4. .t ..t.d for tho prot .c-
tie. sad pro,.$.ti.. if fts , other
a e.tic lit. sad vildlif. , s .d for
Sece.d.ry csstact recusti...
P.c.l coltfor bact r*a .b.3l
sot •sceed a l.a so.. for a set
of aa.pl.. of 1.000 N p.r 100
.1, e.r skall •ore than IO of
th. tot .1 •s 1eu elceed 2, jO0
W p.r 100 .1 dMrt .g say moothip
• . l tag period, sacopi as pro-
.id.d La Regl.tio. 2l.°
°btab1I. of •ltlu.at l*ajt.tio.s.

0 1 2 3Mi.
ci i 2

-------
C4iIDri 1e iii Waler Ci4sz)
> 11000 ‘MIt
• I6cOO- (9 ’
o
0 iac - IZ 4
I’ øz
3 uIy I*- r-July I’
ft
0
(IOOOO
--
0
2!
o ccO’ ,oc&,ooO’
c-e w app l ie 14c,

-------
& lorioIe iii Water (i’tø )
Ke. p • Ie
• iówo ieq’

o oaco z’j’pi
JUly 11 Ju ly l 2
M 5 .l Au Z
II
0
<‘o’ oo
—S
t j
1)

-------
? p i k f iw d Water (i ‘t z)
Key:
>, 4I,
t r.ihos/ wvi
• 38,c cO 4°,
3s 1 44’1
0
0
<3 1 l oO
o c ? ipI iJ-e :
fu y*- -SulyI’
- Au--A ’
23
0
cciliocc I!
4
4
V
o
.
(-& wt ’1g,UIVe fvlc-

-------
&
e afI& *4 2 £4 Water (I 63)J
Ke.y: S
S

o 1 11 tJ % PP
0
j7 4 *1e4 I4B ’
JUly II- ., -July I 2
Au 5 1 2
Q
II
.4M hOS/CP 1
&
z4
• I
r)

-------
Su’e 1e 1 Ii46 inWai r(i4Ø2)
) ,
• 4i..r,o
3 u.4Q
o l 3o
Q(w
a ipI iFc : I’ SZ
ru
ft
El?
0
a crO iocco I5ocz7
c 1 e l4lap)ui.’e 44 -

-------
1 14 4 O)i4 , hi Wafet’ (1103)
• > O I Q
• 4(’ $ O
31-40
• 0 iI-3
Q(zo
hii j da1e4
UIyII- -IuIy I
Auji
II
0

-------
Nutrients
Nitrogen and phosphorus are essential nutrients for many phyto-
plankton and are often limiting to phytoplankton growth. Their
availability can therefore trigger algal “blooms” in water bodies.
As described below under “Biologic Conditions”, algae blooms have
been reported in Boston Harbor and its tributaries. However, there is
no indication that such blooms have recently lead to nuisance
conditions affecting harbor uses.
Nutrient enrichment caused by Nut Island wastewater discharges has
been held responsible for higher biologic productivity (in numbers of
organisms) in the vicinity of the outfalls (Metcalf & Eddy, 1982 301(h)
Waiver Application, Addendum 3, p. 553).
Levels of nitrogen and phosphorus in the Harbor are generally
higher than outside the Harbor, with the highest levels reported in the
Inner Harbor. Seawater typically contains concentrations of about .05
mg/i of ammonia nitrogen and phosphorus (flcKechnie, 1983).
Concentrations reported in the Inner Harbor frequently exceeded .15
mg/i (McKech.nie 1983). Each of these nutrients is discussed in greater
detail below.
Ammonia
1982 and 1983 concentrations of ammonia nitrogen in the
Harbor are shown in Figures 27 and 28. Elevated levels are
evident in samples taken at each of the wastewater outfalls in
1982 and at the Deer Island outfall in 1983. Results also show
higher concentrations in the northern part of the Harbor, where
combined sewer overflows occur, than in the southern part where
they do not. The range of ammonia-N in these samples is 0.00-0.91
mg/i. 1984 values ranged from 0,01 to 1.1 mg/i. Note that all
stations had high ammonia levels on the 27th and 28th of August
1984.
24

-------
Ammonia “.. . is a biologically active compound present in
most waters as a normal biological degradation product of
nitrogenous organic matter” (EPA 1976). When ammonia dissolves in
water, some of it becomes un-ionized ammonia which may be toxic in
high concentrations. The highest concentrations of un-ionized
ammonia result when high temperatures occur in alkaline waters of
low ionic strength. Although EPA criteria are available for fresh
waters, “data available for saltwater species are insufficient to
derive a criterion for salt water” (EPA, February 7, 1984, Federal
Register, Vol. 49, No. 26, p. 4551).
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN) is the sum of ammonia nitrogen
and organic nitrogen. Organtc nitrogen is not readily available
as a plant nutrient. Rather, it is tied up in organic matter,
such as dead marsh plants, algae and sewage. Organic nitrogen
becomes available to plants when microorganisms break down organic
matter and release ammonia nitrogen as a by—product. The organic
fraction of TIOI is therefore an indicator of the nitrogen “in
storage” in harbor waters at a given time. This is important,
since nitrogen is often the limiting plant nutrient in seawater.
Concentrations of T} I reported for 1982 and 1983 are shown in
Figures 29 and 30. No significant trends are apparent from these
data. It is interesting to compare these TEN concentrations with
the ammonia concentrations shown tn Figures 27 and 28. Note that
the typical range for ammonia reported for 1982 and 1983 is less
than 0.2 mg/l, only 20% of the lowest reported range of TKN (1.0
mg/l). This indicates that reported ‘1104 is predominantly organic
nitrogen and less than 20% ammonia. The range of 1104 in 1982,
1983 and 1984 samples is 0.39-6.0 mg/l. This range is not unusual
for an estuary.
25

-------
I
“Wafer Oqøz)
. 4’I1
.1O-.14
0
an iph 1 ih ,: J’ Z
ru y
s
Jakev
t/a tue
‘ icc I!
C c frtc-
S
S
0
{)
ft
Q
1?
0•
ic i fl
0

-------
2&
Ammoi’u i Jit’ro ep in W er (i’ie 3)
0
Ii
. .w
• • 1 C I f
0 •O’ iO’I
0
4a1e I49
IUIy Ii - -Juáy 2
Au 5 .I Z
a wi Wa1e L/a.ftie,, ‘. *,
vvi /f2
a

-------
1otmI K ahl4iitro 0 en inW4fevOqBz)
>1 I’
S 14-I.M
l. ’J ’ I. ’1
C ), d.
0
<‘Sc,
S4P %1pIi 1b 1 -e. : iq z
ru 1 J 4 (-July )t I
Au 3J 1 . S
Oie *n Wa&zr VoJoi’ •
Or avuc.. N O.O ’ - I v O:Z
t *tm ’P144 14’ O.oo * o.O c
0
i;ood
Ce U ii -e vt -
II
0
29

-------
41 K1b1Mh14Jifr eh in W *r (14S3)
Key: •
. I4- I 8’t
1.3— i•’;i
c i.o.. i.2.q
0
<‘I’,
I’193’
1UtyII- -Ju y I 2
Au 3 .I — -Au 5 . Z
8 e tti WAker Vt Iu€ ;’.
ric rnc , o.o3 1-oo. .
aMb14rnl ga N> 0. oo rnit? OI
— I
_t :
0 coO iocco’ I5OC ?’
0
Fi O
Q )iv’f . [ vtC

-------
1 otaI P w1oYuf, 4 p øz)
inWater > 1 1W
• ,Ir,...l1
•io ,14
o
o
SaripI iFe ,: 1’1 2.
rU y4- . -JUIy1 3
Au ,3-P\-A .
ar MFer Va 1ve .s
7ho ’pka >0.001 -t-z’ o.io
or )anicd ptto9pPWra’ - 0 l v
0
ft
0 SccO’ ,occdigooo’
6e- V%44 UIf i,1’
K 3
3’

-------
1e i I ‘hopk vu i, 32 a )
in Waler • >, . c
•)C ,
.
0
0
,awip Iiii 4s1 4; (qg ;7
ZIUIylJ- çJuly I 2
Au 5 1 z
O 94 I Wak r \/ j :
‘ o c ,( 0.10
r aniC- ?IW0pk0rt4 0 ID 0. OlCa
,Io.. .14
•ot5 o’f
o ioao’15000’
II
ce pvt U i”e ‘1L
0

-------
Phosphorus
Total phosphorus concentrations are shown in Figures 31 and
32. Most samples exceed expected background concentration (.05
mg/l) and concentrations are highest in the Inner Harbor. The
range of total phosphorus-P in 1982, 1983, and 1984 samples is
0.01-0.58 mg/I.
Metals
OWPC’s 1982 and 1983 concentrations of trace metals and arsenic in
harbor waters are shown in Figures 33 through 42. The references to
ocean water values shown on these figures are from: (a) Sverdrup et
al. 1942 and (b) Mason 1966. Except for one sample taken in President
Roads in 1982, DWPC data is available only for the Inner Harbor.
These metals concentrations are compared with EPA’s White Book criteria
for the protection of saltwater aquatic life.* When using these
criteria, acute toxicity values refer to the concentrations which may
be harmful to saltwater aquatic life when the duration of exposure is
brief; chronic toxicity concentrations may be harmful if marine life is
exposed for relatively longer durations, such as 24 hours or more.
Proposed EPA criteria (Feb. 7, 1984, Federal Register), if adopted,
would change the terminology to “criterion maximum concentration” (one
half of existing acute criteria) and would change the chronic or
criterion average concentration to a 30-day average from its present
24-hour average.
Under EPA ’s proposed criteria for the protection of saltwater
aquatic life, Boston Inner Harbor metals fall into two groups:
1. those in concentrations exceeding maximum levels - copper,
nickel, silver, cadmium, lead.
*In some cases, the criteria refer to specific phases or species of a
metal. Sample results represent total concentration of several metal
species.
26

-------
2. those in concentrations between 30-day average and maximum
values - arsenic, mercury and zinc.
A 1972 data set for metals concentrations in outer harbor waters
is summarized in Table 7. These results show copper and nickel
concentrations in excess of EPA’s 30—day average criteria (proposed).
A recent study of metals concentrations throughout Boston Harbor
was conducted by researchers at the University of Massachusetts-Boston.
Their results are summarized in Tables 8 and 9; conrplete results and
sampling locations are presented in Appendix D. The following
conclusions have been excerpted from their report: “Metal Distribution
in a Major Urban Estuary (Boston Harbor) Impacted by Ocean Disposal”
(Wallace, et al. , 1984):
Metal concentrations in Boston Harbor are substantially higher
than those of ambient New England coastal water where comparable
data are available. Within the harbor most metal concentrations
are highest in the inner harbor and in waters overlying sediments
with the highest metal concentrations. High concentrations in the
inner harbor are attributed to local sources coupled with poor
tidal flushing and not the sewage outfalls at the entrance to the
harbor. The Charles River is not a significant source of metals
in the inner harbor. Metal concentrations outside of the inner
harbor reflect either remobilization from heavily contaminated
sediments and/or poor tidal flushing.
Order of magnitude increases in zinc and cadmium were observed in
the outfall plume under slack tide conditions. Particulate forms
were the dominant forms of Zn, Pb, Cd, Cu, and Fe in the plume.
The majority of Pb and Fe at most stations in the harbor was
retained by 0.4 urn filters. Elevated suspended aluminum
concentrations in the deep samples obtained suggest active
resuspention and transport of fine grained sediments in Boston
Harbor.
Copper concentrations reached potentially toxic concentrations at
low tide in the shallow southern most stations in the harbor.
This increase has been tentatively ascribed to short term episodic
remobilization from recently deposited material at the
sediment-water interface.
Note that almost all copper concentrations reported in this study
exceed EPA’s criteria for the protection of saltwater aquatic life.
27

-------
3uIyiI- -Ju y I
Au 5 .I ) .Au 5 . z
&‘pper ir s Wa1 r
• >.lIs. /Q
• ,oq .pg
.03. .ôC)
C
o D.°Z
PA 30 y v& qe r’fer cn=
.Or E€ pr ’pa ’ec 1
o.’,O1
0.
1a xtP j urn x’ ey’ai
.O0 propo’ eA
M r t/a 1veh:
‘tOO.O 1
OO ‘ V )
Key:
stm1pIb44 -e ,: jq02.
ruly
l 9 ’
a I
2 3M.

-------
t’Ji&K l Water
>,,Z , IM&L
2O — .2.2
.17- .I
I4’ - •l
.(b — .13
PA 14 Hr Avq. i1 r c
.OUii
M x(n’u4.m .‘ñ er: ’rj
.l+OM
c ,A
acian kU e r
O.0 1 o O. oO5 / )
0.005 Cb)
Q
Ke.y .
.
S
C
C
Sa ipIs
ru 4
cj .
TUIy I
July i
Au 5 .I
P.ta fr- iYie

-------
€,ilver iii We fter
Sa ipIi it ,: 1’IØZ
3u y Ig
SUIy ii 3 uIy I 2
Au 5 .1
(ey: •>, .05w &.Q
•.o4
0
0
.03
.03
o .ci
PA Mr fltYV\
r’ ?,YiOp .O0i3
p
0ee4,1 4Ja e r
0.00016. p.
O.OO02
VadIue
£ ‘a’3
P# fd( ( )
—“5
(A)
— - -
e
0
2 3P .

-------
I36
Ar enic lh Water
.0 133’
O . ‘°°
•
0
0
•ooi.4 ’ •OO O
P4 o c i’y A Jea e-
O’.O(p mc3/ .
pA
L ’ fr *%\ C ifet-iô
0.1W
(roP0 & )
Oteafl W4 -’ Vahe
O.XS
I48’ ’
3u
II
Au 5 . I
a I 2 MI.

-------
.37
I Waler
S
S
C
C
>.o’
0*
.03
.0z.
a ’ ..
.0%
arl 1pIiPi , 4A -e.s:
w y A )e(a
M iYIMi&vY\
4I YiOflij . Sf
(pr 4 )
1483’
5UIy I I
z
3p ii
_e- t4 pèr’e ifrtC-
0l

-------
L.e.ael in Wite.r
Tu I* r-July J’
Au 5 .I
Ke.y S >.4w J
• s.,1...

o .21
o
t7 vev qe
ai4e.’ i 0.0086
(pvp ie )
PA vi tiu
?.220 i /
(pr )
O e4n WaJe
0.004’ 4D .0oS r i ( )
Is .. U- __
a 1 z
J’ ØZ
i Ii
u 1 y 11
u.tc .. .
Mt

-------
39
Sar ip
ru 1 I4— r-July )‘ ‘
Au-’ -A . ,
I49’
JUIy ii
Au 5 .I
Mer&ury in Weit r
.
S
>, ,o0
,0003
.0002
M IL
o
Oo
PA w y AJe.fa.c e
PA (I MLA )\ Cr k ,i
(pr #id 5’ ’
O 4an IAJaJ r U *JL1t
e . V3 (o )
O.&0003 rn /. £b)
___ I.- L
0 1 2
c .
or
or
ivt .
M i.

-------
40
In Water
I2-
Ke y • o
•
C
C
.o4 .oS
.02.03
O” .01
PA Z4 I r. ‘€r q
o.Oge
? LX1 fl4Y 1 cv ev
Lk/ 2k( VaJ ue
&‘.DOç D Ol 4
o.o’g 5I )
rusy *- -JuIy I’
C,
luly ii
Au 5 1
Ui
2 3pv i.

-------
Chro ium 111 Wa1 r
• .OlpYt&Q
• ,O

0 .o*
0 o3
, P#sy áV&’
. ri+ q’iOfl (Kex tw4Ie tf) =
O.O 4 M f
ZUIy iI JuIy 12
Auj.I 3 Au 5 .Z
:
23
41
SaIi 4 -e*: 1’ øz
149 ’
p 1i”
I , , ”
Ut

-------
4Z
Uty lJ- -July I
Au 5 I
1 0 1•P) ih Wetter
O )iI’lt Pb1 (d.
• .‘II -
.71” .qo
o
‘ i n tI 4-€r Ya!v
O.Q03 (&)
IL - i __
0 1 2
Sa iph i ,
TuIy4- t-July1
J
I48’
I
•g v & ôuiYL iltc
p 1 . 1 1.

-------
TA&.E
PETAL C lTRATIOH (ija/1) IN &SrU KA OR (cit r. 1972)
General S 1j.ng Are
Re,.- —-——. jed Ir r Rar r Preeldent . Dorcheeter Bay t.a,g Is1
Metal A CrIteria 0 P Total 0 P Total 0 P Total 0 P TOtal
C i 4.5 0.42 0.42 0.45 I 0.46 0.24 ? 0.24 0.20 I 0.20
au .t 18 1.90 2.12 4.02 0.5 3.2 3.7 0.3 4.5 4.8 0.5 1.3 1.8
Cower 4 5.0 1.8 6.6 5.2 1.6 6.8 2.6 0.8 3.4 2.2 1.5 3.7
La — 5.4 6.4 11.8 2.0 3.5 5.5 2.0 2.4 4.4 1.9 1.7 3.6
NIckel 7.1 7.8 1.6 9.4 8.2 1.9 10.1 4.7 1.8 6.5 6.8 1.3 8.1
ZIr 58 40.2 3.7 43.9 11.6 7.5 19.2 12.2 1.7 12.9 9.0 1.8 10.8
0 — di 1ued fr tI
P — rt1cu.1ats fr ticn
I C — rot det ted
Source: EG&G 1984
TABLE 8. DISSOLVED METAL CONCENTRATIONS
LOW TIDE SAIIPLING (25 SAflPLES)
Metal Concentration, ugh 1
Range
Low 1.83 0.18 0.05 1.65 0.59 3.74 2.20
High 15.69 0.56 0.57 18.49 21.61 84.88 39.28
Mean 5.00 0.30 0.09 6.46 2.09 11.81 11.95
Median 4.05 0.29 0.08 4.96 1.21 8.04 11.54
2
EPA Criteria
Avg./Chronic 58 8.6* 4.5 2* 7.1 N.C. N.C.
tlax./Acute 170 220* 38* 3.2* 170 N.C. N.C.
Notes: 1. Original data reported as n i l/i except for Cd which was reported
as p11/1.
2. Lowest of the applicable White Book criteria shown, see SDEIS
Section 11.3 for more detail.
* Proposed criteria.
N.C. No criteria, Fe and Mn are not priority pollutants.
Source: WaJ.1a et al. 1984

-------
TABLE 9. METAL CONCENTRATIONS
HIGH TIDE SAMPLING (36 SAMPLES)
Metal Concentration, ugh ’
Cd Cu Ni
0.04 0.38 0.52
0.09 13.09 2.71
0.07 4.22 0.97
0.07 3.18 0.80
Fe
1.79
31.33
9.29
7.71
Fe
Zn
Mn
1.76
27.58
8.41
7.58
Mn
Pb
Metal Concentration ,
Cd
1
ug/ 1
Cu
0.28
8.56
0.84
0.58
Ni
0.09
0.81
0.35
0.32
0.000
0.069
0.004
0.002
0.10
3.20
0.51
0.39
0.02
0.26
0.07
0.06
13.40
157.47
69.07
58.91
0.64
2.26
1.23
1.16
Zn
a. Dissolved Metals
Zn Pb
Range
Low 0.78 0.09
High 8.11 1.03
Mean 3.22 0.27
Median 3.07 0.25
b. Particulate Metals 2
Range
Low
High
Mean
Median
c. Total Metals
Range
Low
High
Mean
Median
EPA Criteria 3
Avg./Chronic 58
Max./Acute 170
Notes: 1. Original data reported as
as pM/i.
2. Particulate fraction retained
by 0.40 micron
3. Lowest of the applicable White
Section 11.3 for more detail.
Book criteria
‘ Proposed criteria.
N.C. No criteria, Fe and tin are not
priority pollutants.
Pb
1
Metal Concentration, ug/l
Cd Cu Ni
1.17
12.42
4.05
3.61
Fe
0.04
0.12
0.07
0.07
Mn
0.98
14.03
4.73
3.56
0.18
1.68
0.62
0.59
8.6*
220*
0.53
2.78
1.04
0.87
15.30
172.60
78.36
65.70
4.5
38*
0.77
28.65
9.64
17.65
N.C.
N.C.
N.C.
N.C.
2* 7.1
3.2* 170
nM/i except for Cd which was reported
filter.
shown, see SDEIS
Source: Wallace et al. 1984

-------
C. Sediment Conditions
Boston Harbor sediments have generally been found to contain high
concentrations of heavy metals, particularly in the Inner Harbor and
northern area of the outer harbor. Under the Nassachusetts criteria
for the classification of dredge or fill material (Table 10), most of
the Harbor’s sediments would be classified under Category Two or Three.
These sediments are therefore subject to a more thorough evaluation
with respect to biological impacts of dredging or filling than that
which is required with Class One material. Categories of dredge and
fill material also determine the DWPC approvable methods or options for
handling and disposing the sediments. For example, Category II and III
sediments may not be disposed using sidecast methods, nor disposed
unconfined within the harbor. Physical characteristics also determine
which options for handling and disposal are approvable; fine grained,
iigh organic content sediments generally lead to more restrictive
options.
Data on Boston Harbor sediment characteristics suggest that high
metals concentrations found in the outer harbor are associated with
fine grained sediments and organic matter. The few data on the organic
toxic compounds DDT and PCB suggest that they are also associated with
fine grained sediments and probably organic matter.
The reported concentrations of toxic metals and synthetic organics
in harbor sediments are of concern due to the potential for bioaccuiuu-
lation in organisms dependent on benthic organisms as a food source
(mechanisms include chelation of heavy metals to organic ligands and
fat solubility of the synthetic organics). Flounder and lobster
28

-------
Table 10
MASSACHUSETTS DWPC CLASSIFICATION OF DREDGE AND FILL MATERIAL
Chemical Coatsituent Category One Category Two Category Three
Arsenic (As) < 10 10 - 20 > 20
Cadmium (Cd) 5 5 - 10 > 10
Chromium (Cr) < 100 100 - 300 > 300
Copper (Cu) < 200 200 - 400 > 400
Lead (Pb) < 100 100 - 200 > 200
Mercury (Hg) 0.5 0.5 - 1.5 > 1.5
Nickel (Ni) < 50 50 - 100 > 100
PCB 0.5 0.5 — 1.5 ) 1.5
Vanadium (V) < 75 75 - 125 > 125
Zinc (Zn) < 200 200 - 400 > 400
Note: All values in parts per million.
Source: Massachusetts Division of Water Pollution Control, 1978,
Regulations for Water Quality Certification for Dredging, Dredged
Material Disposal and Filling in Waters of the Comonwealth.

-------
tissues throughout the harbor have been found to contain these toxic
chemicals in varying concentrations (see discussion under “Biologic
Conditions”).
The data presented in the following maps are from the 1979
sampling done for MDC’s 301(h) Waiver Application. Recent sampling
done for the 1982 amendments to MDC’s 301(h) Waiver Application found
lower concentrations of mercury, lead, chromium, and silver; higher
concentrations were found for copper and DDT (Metcalf & Eddy, 1982
Amendment to 301(h) Waiver Application, Addendum 3, p. 6-2 to 6-15).
For comparison purposes, Table 11 shows reported concentrations of
heavy metals in sediments from around the world.
Grain Size Distribution
Figure 43 shows the grain size distribution found in Harbor
sediments. Notice the sediments in the Harbor, particularly the
northern part, are finer overall than those outside the Harbor.
Samples from Presidents Roads and Dorchester Bay show almost complete
dominance of the <0.5 grain size classes.
Organic Fraction
Figure 44 shows the percent of organic matter in the Harbor
sediment samples. Again, the organic fraction of sediments in Boston
Harbor is greater than in sediments outside the Harbor.
Metals Content: Cd, Cr, Cu, Pb, Hg, Ag, Zn
Figures 45 through 51 show the concentrations of heavy metals
found in 1979 sediment sampling. For all these metals, the highest
concentrations are found in the northern area of Boston Harbor.
29

-------
The following metals are found in concentrations which would
classify sediments under Category Three of DWPC’s criteria for
classifying dredge or fill material:
Cadmium Station 1
Chromium Stations 2, 21
Lead Stations 1, 2, 12, 14, 21
Mercury Stations - all, except 25
Zinc Stations 1, 2
Comparing these metals concentrations with those reported for
other parts of the world (Table 11), it appears Boston Harbor sediments
are within the general range of those found near urban areas.
Toxic Organic Compounds: PCB and DDT
Figures 52 and 53 show the concentrations of PCB and DDT reported
for Harbor sediments. None of the analyses for PCB found concentra-
tions which would cause the sediments to be classified under Category
Three of DWPC’s criteria for dredge and fill material. The concen-
tration found at Station 1 (0.889 ug/g) would result in a Category Two
classification (if other constituents did not result in a higher
classification).
30

-------
JI : CONCENTRATIONS OF HEAVY METALS IN SEDIMENTS
AS REPORTED IN THE LITERATURE (va] . es in ppm)
SEDIMENT
SOURCE CHROMIUM ZINC COPPER LEAD MERCURY CADMIUM
deep sea clays 1 90 165 250 80 0.001—0.4 0.43
Fossil lake, river 2 47—59 105—115 25—45 16—30 0.2—0.5 0.2—0.3
Lake George (ave) 3 0.5 15.3 1.4 —— 0.3
Adirondock Lakes
(range) 4 0.1—72.5 1.7—78.7 0.0—2.1 — — 0.1—0.4
Lake Washington 5 — 3.4—38.9 0.06—0.74
6
Background Levels:
Lake Michigan 77 120 44 40 0.04 —
Wisconsin Lake 7 15 22 1.4 0.24 2.5
Lake Washington — 60 16 20 0.1 —
Lake Erie 13 7 18 — 0.004 0.14
Lake Constance 50 124 30 19 0.2 0.21
Maximum Levels:
Lake Michigan 85 317 75 145 0.2 —
Wisconsin Lakes 49 92 268 124 1.12 4.6
Lake Washington — 230 50 400 1.0 —
Lake Erie 42 42 59 — 4.48 2.4
Lake Constance 153 380 34 52 0.8 0.68
Lake Constance 8 78 79 29 40 — —
unmined area 9 320 89 89 2
mined area 1 ° — 2750 3245 291. 3
Rhine River 11 388 1240 268 482 — —
Rhine River 12 121—493 1240—3900 86—286 155—369 3—9 4—13
Rhine River
(Biesbosh) 13 760 520 470 850 18
San Francisco Bay 14 177.0 72.8 50.7 0.63 0.91
San Francisco Bay 222.0 118.3 80.7 1.01 1.56
San Francisco Bay — 204.3 92.6 35.1 0.36 0.62
New Bedford Harbour 15 3200 2300 7500 560 3.8 76
Sorfjord (fjord) 16 — 118000 12000 30500 — 850
Derwent estuary 17 258 10000 — 1000 1130 862
Los Angeles River 18 9000 860
Lake Erie 19
P v t te6. - ee ‘ A

-------
6irajp, iz.ePistriI,utic*i e4iMepif4
4.
N
I.
( AJt. o / ’)
8 0
0
40
lb
0
4 O(iWfl I
(mm)
‘I’
( .4
0
‘I
5 c T 1J
ctA/ mci.
Tj
14
L
M I .

-------
Per e it of
(P1 ‘ ‘e 4ime
.
.
0
‘, .L /0
7.,’ .O
6 I’ 7.0
0
4
0
0
5•1 ‘ é .Q
‘5’o
•c 7
N
0
I
2
3
M i.

-------
C, i4mium in i&ime it
S > 1 4.HL! /
0
0
‘3. 1 4 O
2.1 3.0
20
DWPC ‘ 4’rnerit dasSâ c ha,
C4Fe Ory sp ” 9
6 I C
‘RIO
::
2 3,bti.
. 1 e
Key.
04
9
N
0
I

-------
C4iro iium ipi edipneI,1E,
Key’
.
.
0
0
>/
300
200 -
100-
-------
Copper ip1 e 1ipnehts
0
S
c.
0
>/
200
l00-
4 4 hOfl
C44-e oy t
2
3
MI.
e pve e4
f 4 4 JfE
“4
I
Y w
-------
Lead ii’i imeMt-
) ao, /
S
C
C
IOO- 14’I
<90
£7WFt 4i ent caffobl
0?
C oYyt
C e 43 cry
a v IU
‘ I 7O /g
ice-
> 2
cc3
j4k
3
0
I
2
3
raw
2
-------
Mercury In irnerr s
Key:.
S
0
0
0
4
>1
.b-
4ou.
1.4
N
o 1 2 3M1.
-------
eilver in e ip en s-
•:
O 7.;. B.
7.4
j, ., 4 ,g
Oi’ 2.4
‘1 .0
I
c.
0
04
N
a
I
2
3
50
MI.
-------
Zi’i& Ie ime,ii
S
S
>/
4
200 —
0
0
<7cr,
PWt 4’e4thh e4it
0 e c yt
e v y
Cafe4wYy iii:
jc
I4
<: oo ,L 19
Z -4co”
yaw a a e) pre’ e4 a’
__ L LMre i iC
-------
PC- in ‘ e4imepif
>.W0p / 3
.I5( 2cO
.oc, ioo
4 ’€ : j Ci4’ f a 1OI.i
C i e y <°. ‘
II
2r uf e
U(d i l ’1
* Y iW 1 i ta exp ’e’ e4 a’, /
Note • r’ ’
1 J . (s 1 ) i we ee - ve zw*e4 i i
V ( £Jt I
e 1 Q’ ’ jv1 ..
Ke
.
S
0
r7wP
p
¶3
0
I
2
3
p ’i
-------
OPT in iV ehf5
Key;
O >,,D41 P .5/s
• ,o I.o4pc’
.OZ1 O
0
.01 1 ..O2O
<.0 10
c
N
i I
3Mi.
* y w a ve4 e ft’1
Ot4v Z’• Mek J

a
I
2
.d 1 Q re, iv1C .
-------
D. Biologic Conditions
Boston Harbor supports a diverse community of marine life.
Studies of the benthic invertebrate populations show relatively fewer
species, smaller populations, and lower biomass in the Inner Harbor,
Dorchester Bay, and Deer Island/Governors Island Flats than in other
areas of the harbor. Benthic finfish surveys have found winter
flounder ( Pseudopleuronectes americanus ) to be the dominant benthic
finfish in these areas (Metcalf & Eddy, 1979 MDC 301(h) Waiver
Application, p. INT-29).
1. Pianktonic and Intertidal Consnunities Overview
A su ary of plankton data collected as part of MDC’s 1979 301(h)
Waiver Application is shown in Table 12 (see Figure 54 for sampling
locations). Compared to other stations, phytoplankton densities are
higher and zooplankton densities are lower in the Inner Harbor. The
dominant groups of phytoplankton are reported to be centric diatoms and
dinoflagellates at all stations reported (Metcalf & Eddy, MDC 1979
301(h) Waiver Application, p. BXI-5 to 7). “Moderate” blooms of
planktonic algae have been reported in the harbor; “dense” concentra-
tions of blue—green algae (105_106 cells/mi) have been reported in
harbor tributaries such as the upper Mystic River (Metcalf & Eddy, 1979
301(h) Waiver Application, Attachment 12, p. 130).
Data on zooplankton are lacking, although Metcalf & Eddy report
“the species found in the samples are those co on1y found in the
nearshore areas of New England” (Metcalf & Eddy, MDC 1979 301(h) Waiver
Application, p. BXI—7).
Boston Harbor contains a large intertidal area as shown in Figure
55. These intertidal areas are known to support large populations of
softsheli clam ( Nya arenaria) . Other invertebrate populations in the
bottom muds of the intertidal zone include those found in the benthic
surveys described below. Where a rocky substrate is available, blue
mussels ( Myttlus edulis) , barnacles (crustacean subclass cirripedia),
31
-------
SUMMARY OF PLANKTON DATA
Zoop1ankton 1)
Taxa ,Density
(x1O per meter )
13 9.12
10 7.92
13 10.22
1]. 8.21
11 3.52
11 1.73
Phytoplankton
Station Taxa pensity
(xlO° per liter)
Deer Island
211
3.119
Nut Island
15
1.79
Modified Outfall
18
3.99
Great Brewster
18
2.75
Hull Bay
17
2.26
Inner Harbor
13
6.90
1. Numbers represent the holoplankton group of zooplankton because
they remain planktonic throughout their life history.
• 7 J (h) vai 1 ev
INT-2b, ‘171
-------
1oIl
i ;ig rieg q PrDaram
(i’ri )
beiitt ’ ki +e’
a Opl 4i1kJD f 4fo i
1ew evcaI f &k wI
6ource Metca* ‘ivid Eddy,
W lVfV, VoIu e Z., p .
A 0 ’
A
.u
11
A
“WI
OWL
I,
I ,
Mi.
-------
interfidal Are of the I3ewI’or
4 ,
e o’,e4 4 I4t ’
‘i+ Iow-I
ç2
L __ U
S
i ’•
Mt.
-------
periwinkles ( Littorina sp.), and crabs (Crustacean subclass
Nalacostraca) dominate the macroinvertebrate populations. Rockweed,
( Fucus sp.) is the dominant macroalgae in the rocky intertidal areas.
2. Benthic Community Characteristics
Data on benthic invertebrates and finfish were collected during
1978 and 1982 as part of MDC’s 301(h) Waiver Application studies.
Sampling stations are shown in Figure 54 and 56.
Tables 13 and 14 show the invertebrate biomass at each sampling
location by most conunon classes.
“With few exceptions, only the three major coastal faunal groups
(Polychaeta, Mollusca, Arthropoda) contributed significantly to
the total biomass, as presented in Tables (131 and (14]. For two
stations (DIB and DXC), there are also significant amounts of
Echinodermata. All other groups are present in only trace
amounts. Because of the overwhelming influence a single large
crab or bivalve may have on biomass results, it is difficult to
generalize the information contained within the tables; however,
in most cases, the polychaetes constitute the majority of the
biomass and also tend to be more consistently represented among
the replicates at a station. Molluscs are the group with the next
highest biomass, followed by the arthropods.” (Metcalf & Eddy,
1982, MDC 301(h) Waiver Application, Addendum 3, p. 5—17).
Note that the invertebrate biomass in the Inner Harbor (Station
CI) and Deer Island Flats (Station DOA) is almost entirely made up of
polychaetes. These two stations also had the lowest total invertebrate
biomass of all stations. Station CD in Dorchester Bay also showed
polychaete dominance and low total biomass.
In the Deer Island Flats samples, the polychaete (worm) Capitella
spp. was the only genera found in two of the three samples, and was
dominant in the third (see Appendix B of this report for species
breakdown). In the Inner Harbor samples, the invertebrates were either
Capitella spp., Polydora ligni or Polydora aggregata; Capitella
dominated in two of the three samples (see Appendix B).
32
-------
1 et1Th hIvertel2rae an4
- - ‘ 1 ,&fmerrI 4a p i phil fjep* (i )
‘H
)
I ‘ /
‘
1,
II
I) -
I’
+ource: Met If f ‘,oi i& )
wa1vev,M6eMswvi )
p 4 J
A
A
J’c
M I.
-------
i ”o 13
1104113 PU 0 082.2
I1 U 5 OATh
0.0 .2.2
4 P0IYC MtI 101.2.4414 AT!hT090dl tchth.dsr
1 3.103 1.348 1.110 0.00)
I I I 3 3.121 1.1 )) 32.378 0.012
1.132 1.3U 2.34) 0.020
a,..
3 1.220 0.701 0 _. 0.012
IIC 4 1.841 7. 1 41 0.442 0.002
I 1.414 4.0 1$ 0.30) 0.033
44.
1 2.441 0.342 0.310 0.430
20 2 3.212 1.32) 10.1 10 I I I )
3 3.120 1.170 0.311 0 014
a,..
3 1.100 6:340 0.323 -
011 4 1.271 2.2)5 0.344 .001
S 1.432 4.111 0.274 —
44..
3 0.371 0.304 0.240 4.1)1
018 4 1.40 5 1.633 0.213 —
3 0.41) 4.832 0.231 —
L v ..
1 0.440 0.247 0.16) 7,03)
OIC 4 0.444 0.010 0.083 44.100
S 0.442 0.001 0.531 -
64 1.
I 0.340 - ‘0.001
204 2 0.314 — —
3 0.044 — —
L V ..
1 3.4)1 )• 33 0 037 —
2 1.812 3.411 0.047 —
4 7.127 4.230 0.11) ‘0.001
LV ..
00 1 2.112 0.042 0.010 —
4 1.314 0.437 0.373 —
3 4.131 0.041 0.041
L ’ s.
3 23.710 0.004 3.441 —
00 2 28.463 0.208 1.121 —
4 21.180 0.043 2.123 —
5 13.813 0.111 2.112 —
111.
1 1.14) 0.032 (0.001 —
C l 1 0.382 ‘0.002 — —
4 0.144 — . —
LV ..
2 0.388 0.5% 0.2)4 0.23)
Cl 3 2.734 0.317 0,475 1.110
4 1.104 0.113 0.234 0.204
L v .,
1 10.04) 0.111 0.212 • 0.002
30 4 10.211 0.144 43.573 0.011
1 8.3)0 12.543 0.044 0.004
L v ..
yncbocoil. 01120146.0. H ..k .14.14 1lioi oIldi ClidIfIp 10oroiId TOcaI
0.028 0.020 - 0.003 - - 4 184
0031 0.03$ - ‘0.001 — - 37.124
0.481 0.030 — — — 8 242
17411
.007 0.181 — — — 1.131
0.430 0.244 - 0.026 — 12.088
0.008 0014 — - — - 123
1.134
0.303 0.122 -
0.421 0.444 $
0.044 0.040 0.002
— - — — 8.324
— . — — 47.31)
- - - -
— 0.001 — ‘ — — 0.342
— — — — 0.854
-.
2.134
0.408 0.004
• 0.005
.0.002 0.010 ______
- 0.220
0.002 0.281
0.010 0.03$
11U ’Vl — 0.7 — 411 201 l.c1 .4 I A 4V 58I 1.1 •11411s.
/vie aI * I1 ’2.. i (h) Wayev ft IUa tfOP1
‘ ‘ -ie 4’
— — — 4. 102
— — ‘0.002 41 477
- 0.0% -
— 0004 — . — — 8.847
0.100 0.005 - . - - 3.441
‘.001 0.003 - - • —
— 0.203 — — — — 1.317
‘.001 0.004 — — • 3 311
— 0.00) — — — —
0.33) 0.038
0.01) 0.0)0
0.02 0.083
1.41* 0.026
0.053 0 045
1.31) 0.031
0.211 0.010
‘0.001 ‘0.001 1.82)
— — 3.11)
• • I 104
• • 2.3$)
• — 3 732
- .
— • • — 11.1 12
— — — — 43.0*4
- • . . 10.710
- • . • w
‘0.002 0.001 • • 1.17$
— - - 0.5$)
- - - • 0441
0 018
• - - - - • 0.4 44
0.001 ‘0.001 - — 0.00) 0.003 4.143
• - - - 0.006 -
2 020
0 223 ‘0001
0.011 4.00)
0.282 0.002
• 0.032 3.008 Il . ) ))
— 0.242 ‘0.20.1 14.1)0
- 0.01) • lL
23444
-------
-rA 14
0101421 PU
11p1100 Ii. PQIvc44s11 10 1 1v ( .
1 0.424 —
lL 1.222 —
3 2.434 —
£00.
I 4.01$ 4.103
2 2.314 4.044
4 4.313 4.174.
14,.
1 3.233 0.040
00 4 1.141 0.113
2 2.411 0.040
3 44.443 0.22*
00 3’ 14.171 0.002
4 31.014 0.014
I 11.411 0.301
14..
1 1.343 0.037
C l 3 0.4*3 <0.001
4 0.003
3 0.440 0.701
00 3 3.241 0.413
4 7.001 1.071
3 12.730 0.213
P0 4 11.001 0.117
3 11.000 *3.241
4 4..
. 14,1*. Ph.r.. . .Id,, N. . 1q4qr4 ,1. I&i < .1I4. ?g4.l
— - — - 0.434
• — • • 2. 12 7
- - - L
1.33)
<0 001 <0 001 — — 2.3*1
— — • • 4.440
- - • -
— . — — 1403
— • — — 3.122
- - - L i
4.010
• — — — 20.331
• - - - 301)3
• — — - 30.312
• - - .
44.730
• — — • 1.3*4
- • - • 0.412
• - • -
• - - - 1.722
0.004 0.004 - — 1.243
0.001 - - -
3.430
0.031 0000 - - *3.370
0.141 <0.001 — 41.1)4
0.01 1 - • -
• 0.41 7
<0.001 ‘0.001
— ‘0.001
• 0.10 ,
- 0.011
• 1.107
• 1.411
• 0.43 4
‘0.001
0.001
0.041
0.010
0.371
0.0 12
0.431
0.031
3.411
3.0*3
2. 401
3.132
0.001
0.274
0.210
0.2 73
0 r-
14.0*7
0.034
<0.001
0 001
0.033
0.14 1
0.1)3
0.041
2 077
0.031
0.017
0.0 1 4
‘0.001
<0.001
0.00*
0 0*30
0.003
0.211
0.01 1
0.3)3
0.374
2.304
0.240
0 00*
0.020
0.007
0.014
0.024
0.414
0.0*3
0.003
0.410
0.4*2
I 371
4.020
(0.001
4.001
24.04*
1 3.403
11$ 3 4.142
4 2.402
IIC 3 2420
4 2.330
S 1.044
100.
1 2.470
00 7 3.170
3 3.
1 1u.
3 3.
014 4 1.300
S 1.044
a,..
3 4.471
411 4 1.413
3 S.
£00.
1 0.34.1
OIC 4 0.710
$ 0.434
4 4s.
1.401 7.114
1.334 31.002
1.403 2.7 1 0
0.027 0.714
0.131 0.711
1.142 4.302
0.011 0.440
1.310 72.4.24
2.314 0.433
7.441 0.4*2
2.041 0.411
3.234 0.473
7.11* 0.115
4.34$ 0.331
0.041 0.272
0.3*4 0.214
0.104 0.200
0.011 0.411
0.034 0 024
0.442 0 042
0.141 0.032
0. 0.2*3
0. 0 0.113
0.011 0.010
0 344 0.132
0.73* 0.144
0. 0.011
- 0001
0.1*1 0.
<0.002 0.004
-
<0.001 0.002
-
0 042 0.04*
0022 00)1
0.034 0.00*
— • - 0.004 1.744
• — (0.001 43.443
— • • ‘0.011 j3Jj3
• — • — 3.411
0.031 • <0.001 . 13 011
- - • -
4PM
1.344
- 0.004. <0.001 - 70.130
0.213 — 0.003 —
• - . - 20.400
• — - — 4.104
— • — 1 773
-nil
- — - - 0.440
— — . — 433$
• — — — 4*4
0.01
• — • — 4417
— — — — 23024
— — — *4
2 41
uv e•. Me.te. iU’ 4 , (162. OI (k) ,4 ve$ *4 oii,
AAi 4u < r i 1O ‘ 1- .
-------
“The polychaete Capitella capitata has been proposed as an
indicator species for pollution.. . It is able to tolerate
low-salinity, low-oxygen, and high-organic-content conditions
typi.cal of wastewater effluent locations and has often been found
in great numbers near outfalls. However, C. capitata is also
found in areas remote from outfalls - where, for example, there
are rich organic muds or underwater freshwater seeps.” (Grace,
1978, p. 528)
Table 15 presents the number of taxa and density of organisms
found in each benthic invertebrate sampling. Values shown for both
parameters indicate stress in the Inner Harbor and Deer Island Flats.
Table 16 sunmiarizes the demersal (bottom) fish catch obtained with
an otter trawl in 1979 (trawling locations are shown in Figure 54).
These results show winter flounder as the dominant demersal finfish at
10 of the 12 stations sampled. The largest catches were in President
Roads, Broad Sound and Nantasket Roads.
3. Indicators of Biological Health
As discussed above, there is evidence of environmental stress in
the composition of benthic counities in the Inner Harbor, Deer
Island/Governor’s Island Flats, and to a lesser extent, Dorchester Bay.
This stress is likely to be related to the generally poorer water and
sediment quality found in these areas, compared to Quincy and Hingham
Bays and Nantasket Roads.
Widespread fish disease has been reported in winter flounder, the
dominant demersal finfish in Boston Harbor. Figure 57 shows the
percentage of winter flounder exhibiting fin erosion (necrosis) in
Boston Harbor. Looking at these data, two observations can be made:
1. Fin erosion is co on in winter flounder from most areas of
Boston Harbor, including areas with generally good water
quality such as Hingham Harbor.
33
-------
BENTRIC CO fl4tJNITY PARAIIETERS (ALL REPLICATES)
Station Replicate Number Densit
identification number of ta.xa O.085
CH 2 44 2,512
C M 4 44 1,919
CM 5 52 2,176
NIB 1 62 3,062
NIB 3 69 4,039
NIB 4 59 3,060
NIC 3 78 3,153
NIC 4 83 3,851
NIC 5 75 3,929
CS 2 39 550
CS 3 48 1,238
CS 4 51 1,165
NO 1 83 3,324
NO 2 88 4,771
NO 3 78 3,716
CD 1 32 1,497
CD 4 39 2,549
CD 5 28 890
CI 1 13 342
CI 3 3 76
CI 4 3 75
DIA 3 49 2,270
MA 4 46 1,685
DIA 5 46 1,224
DOB 1 42 4,707
DOB 2 40 1,877
DOB 4 52 6,934
PD 3 97 9,521
PD 4 86 6,748
PD 5 69 9,267
DXC 1 61 1,037
DXC 4 64 570
DXC 5 46 550
DOA 1 8 33
DOA. 2 2 133
DOA 3 3 194
DIR 3 34 314
DIR 4 28 450
DIR 5 26 575
a)v : t&e.ts 1IE * i, I’T02.- iQt( ) W i( i
, . -1_ .
-------
TA ’L lb
SUMMARY OF 1979 DEMERSAL FISH TRAWL RESULTS
No. of
%
of
Station Dominant species fish
catch Taxa
PR Deer Island Winter flounder 311 89 6
DF Deer Island
Flats Winter flounder 210 79 7
IH Inner Harbor Winter flounder 32 85 5
DB Dorchester
Bay Winter flounder 70 77 9
NI Nut I&larid Pollock 171 116 8
Cod 19
Winter flounder 18
QB Quincy Bay Winter flounder ill 143 5
Skate 21
WF Hlnghain Bay Winter flounder 28 68 5
Cwnrner 18
HB Hull Bay Winter flounder 33 61 7
Skate 15
GB Great Silver Hake 9 33 5
Brewster Cod 22
Winter flounder 22
BS Broad Sound Winter flounder 25 l 38 13
Yellowtail flounder 27
Silver Hake 22
NB Nantasket Winter flounder 61 10
Beach Skate 151
MO Modified Winter flounder 3
Outfall Cod 25
Silver hake 25
vc Meèe..al4 4 eddy. 1171. ci(h) W vei ’AI h w1
VcAUMe ‘2., . L-1 ’.
-------
Percent OF Winier FIou c1er
with Fin Erosiopi ( rrq)
ç A
II
D I
10
4ouv € Met lF4 ’ ’, 7I(h)
Wt i Jt$’, M 2 r
r
z 3
M i.
( ? I &k ? 2we ‘v-
0 1
-------
2. Three of the four stations outside the harbor contained no
flounder with fin erosion (however, these stations also had
significantly fewer flounder in the catch).
The close association of these organisms to harbor sediments laden
with toxic chemicals led researchers to analyze the concentrations of
the more coannon of these toxics in the fish themselves. Analysis of
PCBs, DDT and some metals in the winter flounder found no “. . .close
correlation with these and fin eroded fish in Boston Harbor.” (1979
301(h) waiver application, Vol. 2, p. BXI-31). The results of these
analyses are shown in Table 17, along with lobster tissue analyses.
Table 18 shows the results of body burden analyses conducted by
Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries along with a susunary of
Metcalf & Eddy’s results.
U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) concentration limits for
toxicants in fish are shown in Table 19. In comparing this table with
Tables 17 and 18 note that the concentrations in edible tissues did not
exceed the FDA limits. Other observations which can be made about the
body burden data are:
1. As expected, most liver concentrations of toxics exceed the
concentrations found in muscle tissues, sometimes by several
orders of magnitude.
2. Body burdens of toxics in lobster and flounder taken off
Nantasket Beach are generally within the same range as those
taken inside Boston Harbor.
3. The body burdens of copper are generally one or two orders of
magnitude greater than other metals tested. This may be
significant with respect to lead uptake, in light of the
similar concentrations of copper and lead in sediments
reported for the year this fish sampling took place (see
Figures 47 and 48).
34
-------
BODY BURDEN ANALYSIS OF FISh AND LOBSTER
IN BOSTON HARBOR AND VICINITY
BODY
BURDEN OF TOXICS(l),
ppm wet weight
Species, apparent
Location condition, and
of catch type of sample
Silver
Cadmium Copper
Lead
Mercury PCB
Deer Island Winter flounder
0.18
0.09 1.1
0.110
0.05 11.0
Normal, liver
Fin erosion,
liver
0.02—0.12
<0.01 2.1—8.3
O.Ol1_O.25
.Ol—.03 3.6_6.1l
Fin erosion,
tissue
0.01—0.05
<0.01—. 02 0.23—2.6
0.011—0.06
.02_.OlI 0.02—0.3
L.obst er
Tissue
.33
.01 . 9.6
.011
•07 .1
Inner Winter flounder
0.111—0.25
0.07—0.111 9.0—9.5
0.311—0.65
.08—.09 3.6—5.2
Harbor Normal, liver
Fin erosion,
liver
0.011—0.10
0.04—0.05 3—6
0.06—0.18
.04—.o9 1.2—2.8
Lobster
Tissue
.28
<.01 11.0
.08
.09 .08
Dorchester Winter flounder
0.15—0.31
0.10—0.12 0.7—0.9
0.36—0.59
.04—.05 1.7—7.7
Bay Normal, liver
Pin erosion,
liver
0.15—0.113
0.11—0.22 11—12
0.57—0.61
.03—.o11 11
Lobster
Tissue
.16
.03 13.
.05
.07 .11
Nut Island Winter flounder
O.O1I_0.35
0.02—0.06 3.3—16
0.15—0.31
.03—.05 1.11—6.8
Normal, liver
Fin erosion,
.
liver
0.31
0.07 2.5
0.69
.08 15.2
Lobster
Tissue
.3
.01 7.8
.011
.07 .05
Nantasket Winter flounder
0.2—0.69
<0.01—0.02
-------
Deer Ialar*1
Peddod
IeI d
Bull Gat
Nantaa3cet Beach
Bird Is]arKl
FO TAM4 g
1 I tcalf am Eddy (1979)
2 Div1Bi of rir* Flai r1ee (1983)
Detectian 11 1te for D I ’ ? alys1e re foll : Cr (2 m), Cd (2 ). Cu (2 ppn). Pb (12 ppn)
‘7oL rCt V ø4 O(e 2no4raph4c . 12h44y o \Joxio ktff lI ‘2 11 Op cri f r *&
2eer f’Aa k AA- 1ev tt 1 1a.tIe z - .
Is
LEV JS OF rA1SI P s, AND DDT ( ) IN )IBLE TIS JES OF WDIT FL IE F I £ STUDY AREA
Curwt1tu t 3
1._
thrc .t i Zinc 2 Silver 2 N1ci 1 2
Cc r
w z
=-
jyi . 2
ND 2
10.1
0.01-0.05
1.0
ND 2
0.O1_0.021
ND 2
0.23_2.61
1 1 1 )2 0.052
O.04_0.061 0.02_0.041
0.82
0.02_O.31
ND
111)2
8.5
1.5
111)2
ND 2
ND 2 0.052
0.32
ND 2
17.8
<0.01-0.02
0.7
ND 2
<0.02
ND 2
0.49-0.99
ND 2 o.ii2
0:01-0.04 O.15_0.171
o.i2
0.11
ND
8.1
0.8
ND 2
1102
ND 2 0.142
0.42
1 2
-------
-raL Ie I
UNITED STATES FOOD
AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION LIMITS ON
TOXICANTS IN FISH
Concentration
Source limit
Kepone 0.3 ppm
Endrin - 0.3 ppm
DDT and its derivatives 5.0 ppm
Aidrin and dealdrin 0.3 ppm
Heptochloroperoxide 0.3 ppm
Mirex 0.1 ppm
Mercury 1.0 ppm
Lead Discretionary
PCB 2.0 ppm
Source: USFDA, Boston Office.
Note: Concentration is measured as a proportion of
the toxic substance to edible portion of the
fish by weig1 t.
I OVVCL; M4 * Eddy ‘171. oI ) ) W4Ivev,4 1 fro i
VoIuwlft ‘Z. xZr-ii.
-------
4. There appears to be little or no difference in body burdens
of toxics between the stations sampled, although statistical
analysis of a larger sample population might show spatial
differences.
A 1984 National Marine Fisheries Service study of winter flounder
in Boston Harbor found a high prevalence of neoplasms in liver tissues:
Lesions designated as cholangiocarcinoma and hepatocarcinoma were
found in 8 percent of 200 fish examined. The lesions observed
resemble those experimentally induced in rodents exposed to
carcinogens, and may be caused by an environmental carcinogen.
Lesions identifiable as hepatic carcinomas ... were noted in 8
percent of the fish sampled; however, it is likely that the actual
percentage of these lesions considerably exceeds 8 percent since
serial, “skip” sections of several randomly selected livers
revealed the presence of neoplastic foci in fixed tissues with no
apparent lesion in the initial section. ... Only flounder from the
southern shore of Deer Island had grossly visible hepatic
lesions.” (Nurchelano and Wolke, 1984).
This study is part of a larger study of fish disease in northeast
coastal waters. The high prevalence of flounder fin erosion reported
in the MDC’s 1979 301(h) Waiver Application prompted the National
Marine Fisheries Service, with the help of the Massachusetts Division
of Marine Fisheries, to collect Boston Harbor winter flounder for
examination.
As a group, and when compared with livers of winter flounder
obtained from other areas, the Boston Harbor fish livers are
unique. Although focal and diffuse areas of necrosis,
infla nation, and vacuolated cells have been seen in livers of
winter flounder from other Northeast estuaries (Connecticut, Rhode
Island), the lesions were not so abundant, severe, or associated
with extensive neoplasia. None of the 93 winter flounder
collected from unpolluted sites on the south shore of central and
eastern Long Island, New York, Casco Bay, Maine and Georges Bank
had neoplastic lesions. The high prevalence of MA hyperplasia and
vacuolar cell lesions seen in Boston Harbor flounder are
consistent with the action of a hepatotoxin. ... Necropsies of
fish with the most extensive gross hepatic lesions did not reveal
any gross lesions of intestine, heart, kidney, and spleen.
35
-------
Analyses of hepatic polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (PAll) and
polychiorinated biphenyl (PCB) content are in progress. Nuscie
tissue is also being analyzed for its PCB and PAM content
(Murchelano and Wolke, 1984).
With the exception of fin erosion and cancer in winter flounder,
no diseases in Boston Harbor marine life are reported.
36
-------
3. BOSTON HARBOR POLLUTANT SOURCES
A. Overview
The major pollutant discharges to Boston Harbor are shown in
Figure 58. Estimated annual loads of several conventional pollutants
are listed by source in Table 20. Major pollutant sources are
described in summary below, followed by a source by source quantifi-
cation of pollutant loading where such quantification is possible.
Water quality violations fo .und in the Inner Harbor, Dorchester Bay
and Belle Isle Inlet are clearly related to bypasses nd oyerflo.ws_from
the sewer.system (Figure 58). Stormwater flowing into the severs
during wet weather causes about 5.7 billion gallons of sewage, indus-
trial wastes and urban runoff to discharge to Boston Harbor annually
(MDC, 1982, CSO Study Suimnary, p. 4). Continuous dry weather overflows
discharge over 8 billion gallons of wastewater annually to the Inner
Harbor alone (O’Brien and Gere, 1981, p. 1—2). “Dry weather overflow
was found to be the single most important pollution influence in . .
the Inner Harbor, Dorchester Bay and the lower reaches of their tribu-
taries (MDC, 1982, CSO Study Swmnary, p. 4). Together, these pollutant
sources contribute bacteria,_oxygendemanding matter, suspended solids,
toxic chemicals, debris and refuse to harbor waters. -
The Deer Island and Nut Island treatment plants also contribute
significant pollutant loads to Boston Harbor (Figure 58, Table 20). At
Deer Island, average daily flow (325 million gallons per day or mgd) is
within the plant’s designed average flow capacity (343 mgd). Actual
peak daily flows are less than current design flows (848 cagd) due to
hydraulic limitations in the sewer system and influent pumping station.
Flows to the Nut Island treatmentplant (135 mgd average, 310 mgd peak)
exceed its treatment capacity (average and peak design flows are 112
mgd and 280 mgd). The hydraulic capacity of the wastevater delivery
systems to Deer and Nut Islands are 930 and 310 mgd, respectively.
Together, these plants discharge 75 tons of digested sludge solids and
135 tons of effluent solids to the Harbor daily.
37
-------
t int Gource Pihar eE,
+0 bobtorl I4 ir tr
Key:
A
I
‘ e’ ’y by 4
m.*i ,utt aU
G4O / 17WO’
S
tr l SIdhd
‘ .
ft
.4
ar9
I
M a’ OS PeCeib4
uvf.av ru d’P.
LI
-------
Table 20
POLLUTANT LOADINGS TO BOSTON HARBOR
Annual Loads
Flow BODE SS Total Coliforin
Source mgal lb x l0 lb x 1O 3 No x io12
• Treated Effluent
- Deer Island 107,800 82,100 80,900 2,000
- Nut Island 45,400 31,000 17,400 4,100
• S1udge’ 2
- Deer Island 100 12,600 33,400 7 x lO (4)
- Nut Island 80 5,800 14,100 3 x l0 (4)
• CSO’s 5,700 5,900 19,000 1.1 x io6
(3) 7
• DWO’s 8,800 20,200 14,700 10 x 10
• Stormwater 18,000 3,000 60,000 3.4 x 10
• Major Tributaries
- Charles River 69,400 2,900 5,800 52,500
- Mystic River 7,300 300 600 5,500
- Neponset River 11,000 450 900 8,300
TOTALS 273,580 164,850 246,800 10.3 x 1O 7
(1) Based on fiscal year 1982 records.
(2) Assumes year-round chlorination.
(3) Continuous dry weather overflows (as identified in the late 1970s).
(4) Assumes 1000 billion per pound of raw sludge (some 100 more than digested mass shown) and two log
reduction due to digestion and disinfection with final effluent.
Soure Havens & Emerson/Parsons Brinckerhoff, 1984.
-------
Capacity limitations and equipment failures, either alone or in
combination with high wet weather flows, result in bypassing of
untreated wastewater at the treatment plants and points “upstream” in
the sewer system (Calf Pasture - Moon Island discharge for example).
Flows bypassed at the treatment plants remain unquantified. Bypasses
from the treatment plant are reported to Mass. DEQE who then close
affected shellfish beds.
President Roads receives effluent discharges from the Deer Island
Plant, and sludge discharges from both Nut and Deer Island facilities.
Although sludge is discharged on ebb tides, harbor modeling, dye
testing, and sediment analyses indicate a substantial amount returns to
the harbor on the flood tides (Hydroscience, 1971, p. 148; Metcalf &
Eddy, 1981, 301(h) Application, Addendum 3, p. 6-2). SLudge
solids and effluent discharges to President Roads are considered
significant sources of high metals concentrations in nearby harbor
sediments (Fitzgerald, 1980).
Effluent discharges from both Deer Island and Nut Island facili-
ties are the likely source of locally elevated nutrient levels found in
DWPC’s summer water sampling (McKechnie). Based on effluent analysis,
and estimated initial dilution of effluent at the outfalls, it is
possible these discharges occasionally result in receiving water
concentrations of bacteria, heavy metals and pesticide compounds in
excess of limits contained in DWPC and EPA water quality criteria
(Metcalf & Eddy, 1979 and 1982, MDC 301(h) Waiver Applications,
Appendix XVIII, Addendum 1, Chapter 3, and Tetra Tech, 1980, p. 53-56).
Tidal current dilution appears to bring receiving water quality within
applicable water quality criteria within a short distance of the
outfalls’ mixing zones.
Stormwater runoff is a significant, but poorly quantified
pollutant source in Boston Harbor. Stormwater drainage systems which
are separate from sanitary sewers discharge to all areas of Boston
Ha-r-bor-.— In the CSO study areas (Inner Harbor, Dorchester Bay, etc.),
“while dry weather overflow and CSO are the major pollutants, separate
38
-------
stormwater contributes slgnLflcantly to violations of the Water Quality
Standards at certain locations” (MDC, 1981, CSO Study Summary, p. 5).
Storm drains discharging to Wollaston Beach in Quincy contain very high
bacterial concentrations and are implicated in periodic posting of this
-
beach (MacKinnon, 1983. Note that sewage discharges from Moon Island
and Nut Island are also implicated in Wollaston Beach posting).
Urban runoff, stormwater that has washed over urban lands, is
known to contain high concentrations of: microorganisms (including
those causing human diseases), oxygen demanding matter, plant
nutrients, heavy metals and other toxic chemicals (EPA, 1977,
Microorganisms--in Urban Stormwater).
Other sources of harbor pollution are listed below. Recent
loadings from these sources are largely unquantified and are therefore
not discussed further in this section.
River Discharges - Rivers carry domestic and industrial
wastewater, debris and refuse, and the stormwater runoff from
over 322 square miles of urban and suburban lands.
Ships and Pleasure Boats - These contribute various wastes,
including oil and sewage.
Oil Terminals - These terminals have been implicated as a
major source of oil pollution (DEIS, p. 2-29).
Sediments - Although not a primary source for contaminants,
sediments are probably a significant intermediate source of
contamination of overlying waters due to re-release of
accumulated pollutants and represent a primary source for
uptake and btoaccumulation in benthic organisms and sub-
sequently higher orders of marine life.
39
-------
B. Deer Island and Nut Island Wastewater Treatment Plant Effluents
Both Nut and Deer Island treatment plants fail to provide adequate
primary treatment on a regular basis: E ment failures and wet
weather sewage flows cause the bypassing at a
number of emergency overflow points (see Figure 58). Generally, the
volumes bypassed are gauged; those which are monitored lie relatively
far from the treatment plants and are discussed under “D. CSOs/DWOs’
below.
1. Deer Island
At Deer Island, the most frequent cause of untreated wastewater
discharges is the failure of influentp ps at the Deer Island Main
Pumping Station. As suimnarized in Table 21, Deer Island was designed
to handle peak flows of 848 million gallons per day. The diesel
engines which drive eight of the nine influent pumps at the Main
Pumping Station are difficult to maintain because the manufacturer went
out of business soon after the engines were purchased, making it hard
to find replacement parts. Progressive deterioration in the influent
pumping capacity at Deer Island led to the dramatic increase in raw
sewage bypassing from the Calf Pasture Pumping Station to the discharge
point at Moon Island. (See Figures 58 and 59).
Other discharges from Deer Island which fall below the level of
primary treatment are sludge, scum and skininings discharges. Sludge
discharges to President Roads routinely occur on the ebb (outgoing)
tides (Figure 58). Sludge discharges to President Roads are held
partly responsible for high metals concentrations in sediments in the
vicinity of Deer Island Flats, and some have alleged that stress
exhibited in the benthic con unity is partly due to sludge discharges
(Metcalf & Eddy, 1979 301(h) Waiver Application p. BXI-13, Havens &
Emerson/Parsons Brinkerhoff, 1984 Deer Island Facilities Plan p.
E1.21).
40
-------
TABLE 21
CHARACTERISTICS OF IKE DEER ISLAND AND
NUT ISLAND WASTEWATER TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL FACILITIES
DEER NUT
PARAMETER ISLAND ISLAND
Year Completed 1968 1952
Original Design Flow
Average 343 mgd* 112 mgd
Peak 848 mgd 280 mgd
Mean of Monthly Avg.
Flows, 1971 to mid-1984 310 mgd 130 mgd
Current Average Flow 325 mgd 135 mgd
Flow Projections for
2005
Average 350 mgd 150 mgd
Peak 930 mgd 310 mgd
*mgd = million gallons per day
Sources: Metcalf & Eddy 1979, 1982, 1984; Havens & Emerson/Parons
Brinkerhoff, 1984; and Jean Haggerty (MDC) pers. co ..
-------
10,000
7500
5000
2500
0
START-UP
PERIOD
_$ U -
REPORTED
DATA
our Camp r7re’ er -t kee . , ,‘1 n I’ I fr ‘ f1A4A4 4 r M. ,ff 2-5
0I CHA VOLUME l I2Ot1 M i V tALJO
-a
-J-Jw
ZZ a
z o
a
6.
II
nr
I A.
UJO
> w
4-
C’,
0
(‘2
c i—
i 2
0
-J
-Jo
00
>2
1 —AVERAGE ANNUAL VOLUME CF
0 CSO FROM BOSTON MARBOR
COMBINED SEWER AREA
AVERAGE ANNUAL
VOLUME OF CSO
DISCNARGED TO
DORCNES1ER SAC
70
7’
72 73
74
75 76 77 iS 71 SO 81 82
ESTIMATED VOLUME
BASED ON PU
CM.J BRAT ION
9
-------
Scum and skimnings from the primary settling tanks are routinely
discharged through the outfalls to President Roads. Because these
skimmings float, these discharges are one of the most apparent failures
of the Deer Island plant. Harbor waters occasionally fail to meet the
State’s water quality criterion for aesthetics because of these dis-
charges. Drogues released at the outfalls in President Roads have been
shown to travel towards and along Winthrop shorelines under certain
wind and tide conditions (Figure 60).
2. Nut Island
The Nut Island treatment plant Likewise fails to achieve adequate
primary treatment on many occasions. Before it went into operation,
the primary settling tanks at Nut Island subsided due to inadequate
site and foundation preparation. This subsidence decreased the amount
of flow which could pass through the treatment works. This becomes a
major problem when peak wet weather flows occur, particularly when they
coincide with high tides. High tides further reduce flow through the
long outfalls, which are themselves hydraulically limiting because of
long term deterioration. When peak flows coincide with high tides the
long outfalls to Nantasket. Roads cannot handle all the flow, and the
excess is discharged through the short outfall (104) less than 700 feet
offshore (Figure 61). Although discharges from outfall 104 do receive
some treatment, the combination of peak flows and the subsidence of
settling tanks results in insufficient primary settling of solids.
Discharge through outfall 104 is thought to be the major source of near
shore pollution described by residents of Houghs Neck.
Bypassing also occurs when influent headworks are incapacitated.
For example, bar racks at Nut Island are frequently taken out of
co ission by debris hitting the racks at high velocities during peak
wet weather flows. Cleaning or repair of either of the two bar racks
requires that it be taken out of service. When one bar rack is out of
service, the capacity of the remaining rack is insufficient to accept
peak flows entering the plant. Flow in excess of bar rack capacity Ls
discharged directly to the outfall system without any solids removal
41
-------
Scum and skimmings from the primary settling tanks are routinely
discharged through the outfalls to President Roads. Because these
skiings float, these discharges are one of the most apparent failures
of the Deer Island plant. Harbor waters occasionally fail to meet the
State’s water quality criterion for aesthetics because of these dis-
charges. Drogues released at the outfalls in President Roads have been
shown to travel towards and along Winthrop shorelines under certain
wind and tide conditions (Figure 60).
2. Nut Island
The Nut Island treatment plant likewise fails to achieve adequate
primary treatment on many occasions. Before it went into operation,
the primary settling tanks at Nut Island subsided due to inadequate
site and foundation preparation. This subsidence decreased the amount
of flow which could pass through the treatment works. This becomes a
major problem when peak vet weather flows occur, particularly when they
coincide with high tides. High tides further reduce flow through the
long outfalls, which are themselves hydraulically limiting because of
long term deterioration. When peak flows coincide with high tides the
long outfalls to Nantasket Roads cannot handle all the flow, and the
excess is discharged through the short outfall (104) less than 700 feet
offshore (Figure 61). Although discharges from outfall 104 do receive
some treatment, the combination of peak flows and the subsidence of
settling tanks results in insufficient primary settling of solids.
Discharge through outfall 104 is thought to be the major source of near
shore pollution described by residents of Houghs Neck.
Bypassing also occurs when influent headvorks are incapacitated.
For example, bar racks at Nut Island are frequently taken out of
co ission by debris hitting the racks at high velocities during peak
wet weather flows. Cleaning or repair of either of the two bar racks
requires that it be taken out of service. When one bar rack is out of
service, the capacity of the remaining rack is insufficient to accept
peak flows entering the plant. FLow in excess of bar rack capacity L5
discharged directly to the outfall system without any solids removal
41
-------
/ /f *.4
‘ L

4 0L2112/SI ,
• 5 5:
• - D...
.4 S •
I . - • • a
4-
4,.
• :
rn
.
4
4 1
a .’
. ‘‘ a
‘.4 S
Drogue tracks in the South Channel and President Roads during flood tide. Each track is
labeled with the time of release and retrieval (hh:nin) relative to the predicted time of
slack current at Deer Island Light. The numbers in parentheses denote the drogue identi-
fication number and set number, respectively,
4ource S4 aceani 5 (dph c ... 5h&d y of
ouffi II ‘ 1)1fl4 OphonS 1 ( -fh Pee’ r It’.
ire 4wei &k PIOAtf 1 1 ’t Ie l -3.
I --
1• .
14
a’
çz .
4 ,.
,, ‘ , , :
I s,
•1 •
4!
I.
- ‘4
_ 1.
.4
I’
a. S
4
.4
4.
a a,
•I
‘U
‘S
5-
40
I, I
/4•
a;
15
p.
‘p
.4
- . I.
PRz ’sioç
S.
I’
- 1 5
I
D - !‘ • aS ‘
3,
02.24 (4/2) —
• as -
4 5
.1
14
I .
03 40( 1/2)
— 1l .5
‘4p -._
.---
—.
-
FIc i. &O
-------
11.0
l4. — I
‘ \
1 1Z
V R’P C
. sv uuo’
o
1
..‘IO \’
•
oto
p . mmovoH
OIJ? Al. . cOIIO JI1$ —
‘ - s
‘ N’
\.N\
\
‘S
—
Tom P cw
IPP 4NT

I &o
i .ø
l
——
TL YWUI cumv
mutzc mi omo
— Y UNSUS GID —
TASk
I.
Lo iOn Ma
ou faII t04
‘u —u ,
I-
- CAPACiTY or F LUEWT Y ’f M
I
p
-r
iOO tro : ‘
Hough Meet
/
F , Sta_ 26 C’.4 LCS fr,I.Ch
— ., OAI Vw
-------
3. Treatment Plant Effluent Data
Figures 62 through 67 summarize the monthly average and maximum
pollutant loadings reported by plant operators at Nut and Deer Islands.
Several observations can be made from this data:
1. With the exception of total suspended solids, all parameters
reported are highly variable on a month to month basis. This
should be taken into account in the interpretation of
receiving water quality data.
2. Seasonal flow trends are pronounced. Low flows occur in late
summer/early fall and high flows in the early spring and late
fall/early winter.
3. For all parameters, the highest maximum values coincide in
time with the highest average values. Recognizing the
magnitude of the difference between average and maximum
values, it appears that occasional incidents of high
pollutant loading have a significant effect on the monthly
averages. (Note that bacterial figures are portrayed on a
logarithmic vertical scale and that he differences between
maximum and average values are orders of magnitude
differences.)
4. At Deer Island, the concentrations of both fecal and total
coliform bacteria appear to be inversely related to monthly
average flow.
5. At Nut Island, the concentrations of both fecal and total
coliform bacteria appear to be directly related to monthly
average flow.
6. Total coliform bacteria concentrations at both plants are
typically about one order of magnitude (10 times) greater
than fecal coliform concentrations.
42
-------
Monthly plow rn4 lue * Ie it
f7e’er k krne1
Iao,xo
: i j
tJ b-
—I—”-’ —
:
4i i FF’ *L!
£
N4 4 4 _____
-
-I
M ii J $ 0 U 6 C J & $ w D
200
-------
M nThlv PLow i4 eflueiit Ieit
t7ár J.kwl
I;.

‘ :;•;
iiw
ii !
II I i.
.?
4 .L
- = 4 _ = - _____
I
I
T
4 1 ‘ - 4— nv
d
too
wit’ J
—-1
l0
0 D J
a.
•o’ 04 4 A 1434 A 0 0
4
.v
— --1- - - - - —- --. -----
,ew
M( Al TN
-------
(w /t.)
-rss
(w 5 /J.)
Avg. FIcw ,i
100
Monthly Flow m4 flueht eit i
peer J.krn 1
t H H
- - / — — —
*I;:f fJ4I
‘ •—-- -. I’
-
‘! ! ! : : :!
liii *
H
- -

: L

2.SO
200
co
too
- t- -t-t
ft
—t
Ii t—
N
A N,J J A
400
14
J
4h
UP4D.
ASONb
2 o
ZOO
1 7.4ic I — I ’ -
i I LJ
ia ( 14
I I: 2
-------
Morrt’ iIy Plow ara4 Mue ’rI 2 iti
Mut .kir 4
g 0 ,oeO
io 1 cco
Ii IcCO
moo
I00
Z60
U.
• uIs
100
f 1i
I ‘- I
4,
-. i
ffj j 1: I
- z •
- -- -
i4 ”. L :&
i 1 i r a’
—; I ’L 11- —
1W
* *1
= --
w 1--;:
-At
SOHOJFMA JJASONDJFMAMJJA ONUJ MAMJJA5OMD
/4 o
MOA) r i
-------
Morrl’}ily PIow in4 Mueiit P iti
4ut fr,kin4
______ I
1O,ooo i H ______ — -
I0
-r _144
-
-


J 1
-
T t/
- -
I
:
-II -
;:
— - : -
JL
tJ1J

. --
IF
- •$ “ -•
W!riL $1 T .

i c , 0
Zoo
- -
- — -1 —
::
:
- ?--+-- l — - - -- ‘-- t —t - -t -- - I
— -—‘--— •—‘—-•— - —t--—- — — —1--$- - -.
:L 4L :t. j
-

E
4
2
E
:t
coo
I00
SONO.J F AUJ J A SOMUJ PMAMJ .i ASOP4OJ FUAMJ J ASOMO
f’1C 177/
—— I f
-------
(w%& t)
MorrI’ ily PIow ir €1 ff1uei’rI !7 ti
MLtF fr,kin4
1 o
)00
( /2)
Ave. Iow
(M,4)
::

i

:
—

ii
1
:


-
:
1
..:
IT
II

.
-
-


!!:‘
;
—-

— —
4I. I
:‘
-
‘i
J
i..IL
i;:

( _ _ _
j
L
I7
1Z5
100
50
ONI
FMAU
II
T
H
MA I
C)
t 0
200
),
I ,
I Ji
UAUJ
F
S
0 P s D
l00
‘T4iô”
- __ 4 _,_•__ —
-------
7. At both treatment plants, SOD 5 and TSS appear directly
related. However, ei .ther of these parameters appears to
correlate well with average flow.
The effluents from both treatment plants were analyzed in 1978,
1979, 1982, and 1984 for 129 “priority pollutants” listed by EPA. The
results of these tests are analyzed in Section 11.3 of the SDEIS,
Analysis of these data in light of estimated initial dilutions reported
by MDC’s consultants (Table 22) indicates that the following priority
pollutants may Occur La concentrations which exceed EPA criteria for
the protection of saltwater aquatic life:
PCEs
Heptachior
Dieldrin
Endrin
DDT
Endosulfan
Cadmium
Ch romi urn
Lead
Copper
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Zinc
Cyanide
Note that the concentrations of these toxicants may exceed the EPA
criteria beyond the mixing zone during low current conditions; i e.,
slack tide. Also note that chromium would not exceed EPA criteria
(beyond the mixing zone) under the proposed revisions to the current
criteria (Federal Register, 2/7/84, p. 4552).
In evaluating the priority pollutant results, the NDC’s waLver
application states: ‘No violations of the base neutral, volatile or
4
-------
TABLE 2?. INITIAL DII.UTION RESULTS — CRITICAL
ENVIRONMENTAL PERIODS
Plow
Critical Period Erfluent rn 3 /sec
rate
mgd
Minimum aver e initial
current percentii
0 1ff 50
dilutions
90
March 1979 Deer Island 18.6 425 7 ii 29 113
Nut Island 8.5 195 ‘4 9 13 15
1985 Deer Island 21.5 1190 7 11 28 42
Nut Island 9.8 225 4 9 13 15
August 1979 Deer Island 16.5 365 8 12 30 45
Nut Island 5.0 115 4 9 13 15
1985 Deer Island 18.4 420 7 11 27 l2
Nut Island 5.9 135 11 9 13 15
Cxurte pjet 21%çE E4dY 1 iqvi oI (& ‘) vIa.ive AppIi ofl
14t’Ie 1—IO .
-------
acid compounds were discovered.... The pesticide data are inconclusive
with respect to water quality criteria violations because no quanti-
fiable measure of concentration was obtained.... PCB concentrations
measured during the 1978 and 1979 sampling exceeded the new water
quality criteria.” (1982 Addendum 1 to 301(h) waiver application, p.
3-20).
The applicant does not co nent on toxic metals compliance for the
existing outfalls. However, several of the applicant’s co ents on
metals are of interest: “Concentrations of metals are generally higher
at the Deer Island treatment plant. . . .Metals concentrations are
relatively small when compared with average metals concentration for
other treatment plants... .Netals concentration data from the limited
priority pollutant sampling in 1978, 1979 and 1982 is generally much
lower than the average annual values derived from monthly composites.”
(1982 Addendum 1 to 301(h) waiver application, p. 3-21 and 3-24). The
applicant does mention that the average annual data for metals shows a
trend of decreasing concentrations for copper, nickel, cadmium, and
zinc at Deer Island, and decreases in zinc, copper, cadmium, lead and
silver at Nut Island.
Deer Island effluent discharges contribute to the concentrations
of heavy metals and PCBs in sediments in the Deer Island Flats area.
Indirectly, Deer Island’s effluent discharge is implicated in the
stress exhibited in the benthic co unitjes to the west, although Inner
Harbor sources, sludge discharges and CSO/D inputs to this area are
probably more significant. The effluent discharges from both plants
are also implicated in nutrient enrichment of water and sediments near
their outfalls.
Plant bypassing causes shellfish bed closings and obnoxious plumes
of raw sewage in the vicinity of overflow po nts. With the probable
interference of suspended solids with disinfection effectiveness,
treatment plant bypassing is likely to contribute to bacteria levels
which cause local shellfish bed closures, and beach postings
44
-------
C. Sewage Sludge Discharges from Deer Island and Nut Island Treatment
Plants
Sewage solids captured in the primary treatment processes at Nut
and Deer Island are digested on site, with varying levels of effect-
iveness. At Deer Island, sludge is thickened prior to anaerobic
digestion, and skiings are added to digestors. Digested sludge is
mixed with plant effluent and discharged on the ebb (outgoing) tide
(see Figure 58). Skimmings are also digested at Nut Island, although
an incinerator is available. Nut Island sludge is pumped to the
northern tip of Long Island and discharged to President Roads on the
ebb tide.
Harbor modeling, dye testing, and sediment analyses indicate
substantial amounts of sludge discharged on the outgoing tide return to
the harbor (Hydroscience, 1971, p. 148; Metcalf & Eddy, 1982, 301(h)
Waiver Application, Addendum 3, p. 6-2). Citing the Hydroscience
modeling, Havens & Emerson report “. . . .about 20 percent of the sludge
discharged in the Harbor on outgoing tides returned when the tide
reversed and settled in areas of natural deposition west of Deer
Island” (Havens & Emerson, 1982, p. 2.2). Dye studies of ebb tide
discharges in 1969 led to the conclusion that “. . . .digested sludge
solids that remain in suspension return to the Harbor proper”
(Hydroscience, 1971, p. 148).
Results of recent chemical analyses of Deer Island and Nut Island
sludges are shown in Tables 23 through 28.
The following observations can be made from this data:
1. ‘The raw sludges are very similar in terms of their elemental
makeup, although Deer Island sludges consistently show higher
levels of COD [ chemical oxygen demandi and oil and grease than
those at Nut” (Havens & Emerson, 1982, p. 4.10).
45
-------
TAe4. 2
VOLATILITY. NUTRIENTS. AND CHWR1DES PLAN? OATh
,ourc4 4ave’* Wo*tew, sr lw4 ‘ ea PC dY 4 , 1481..
Th ’4e . *-b
TA E 74
VOLATILE AND £1 180 SOLIDS CHARACTESIZATIO4ISz
SPECIA.L Srunix
Deer Island
Constitu.nt 0 of VS
- Carbon
- Oxygen
- Hydrogen
— N Itrogen
- Phosphorus
— Sulfur
-COD
- Oil end Gnus
1000 B?U/th VS
Nut Island
Constituent 0 of VS
- Org. Carbon
— Oxygen
— Hydroq.n
- Nitrogen
- Phosphorus
— Sulfur
- COO
- Oil and Grease
37 52 57 59
36 29 30 33
9 7 9 9
4 4 3 3
3 2 1 1
2 1 1 1
460 230 230 260
20 10 17 19
11 10 i i 12
55 64 60 50
27 21 27 17
0 9 10 a
3 3 4 3
1 2 3 1
1 2 3 2
100 220 240 190
15 5 I 1
11 13 15 11
56 52 — — — 53 55 52 75
36 31 — — — 34 33 33 12
9 S — — — I 2 7 12
3 3 — — — 4 3 2 .1
1 1 — — — 3 3 3 1
1 1 — — — 2 2 1 .1
220 200 — — — iSO 230 140 —
13 9 — — — 2 3 1 31
1000 BTU/Lb VS
11 11 10
— — 10 11 10 15
4OuYce: Hs ’ver
1iã, 4-1
/ I9 Z
D.sr Island - Raw
— Digested
1973

48
1974
‘7T
48
1973
7T
30
1976
7T
42
1977
7T
40
1970
‘TT
42
1979
‘ T
51
1900
‘ T
30
1901
7T
44
Avg.
72 t 2
48 t 3
Nut Island
— Raw
— Digested
78
53
78
59
79
57
79
59
79
59
70
57
77
30
76
59
74
54
78 2
56 t 3
Average TS
Destruction
— 46%
— 30%
at Der
at Nut
Island
Island
Average VS
Destruction
— 64%
— 64%
at Deer
at Nut
Island
Island
Unthick.n.d
Raw Solid.
Thicksn.d
Raw Solids
i±- — - — : - X2.L MU .
Diq.stsd
Solid.
34
33
8
4
2
340
20
11
54
33
$
3
1
1
210
11
-------
25
SELECTED INORCANICS AND NtrrRxEN’rS SPECIAL STUDIES
Selected Inorganic .
Deer Island — ag/i
Chloride
Magnee turn
Ca lcxurn
Pota.. ua
Nut Ziland — ag/i
Chloride
Maqne. turn
Ca lciurn
Pate., turn
Deer I.land
TEN/TO
I Soluble TEN
Total P/TS
8 Solublu P
Nut Island
?EN/?S — — — 0.020 0.025 0.013 0.006.
I Soluble TRW — — — — — — 100
Total P/TS — — — 0.012 0.014 0.010 0.008
I Solubl. P — — — — — 9 19
‘,vvvce P VOW 4evøo LIS’2-•
1 e 4-7
TAE’1
HEAVY MITALSi SPECIAL STUDIES (NC/KG DRY WEIGHT BASISI
Unthtek.n.d ?hick.n.d Otg.stsd
Raw Solid. Raw Solid. Solids
A q Max. Mm. Av q . Max . pUn. avg . Max. Pun . Scua
Deer Island
18 25 6 7 10 3 4 5 2 3
39 46 29 49 64 22 52 73 39 16
1200 1500 1100 1300 1900 760 1500 1700 1300 120
770 930 650 1200 1400 1100 1200 1500 700 180
290 360 200 290 350 220 2*0 450 84 120
3 7 0.4 8 19 1.5 5 6 4 0 3
53 83 4 67 100 4 50 130 8 29
60 76 44 63 96 39 61 83 26 12
1300 1700 870 1800 2500 1100 2700 3800 1400 630
Nut Island
As 12 25 3
Cd 31 61 14
Cu ISO 1100 500
Cr 86 110 74
Pb 200 240 120
Hg
Ag 32 34 30
Zn 900 950 810
,OLJYC AV * $ W (4’5 p , 19S2.
TaHe 4-
Unthlckened Th Ickened Digested
Raw Solid. Raw Solid. Solid .
Max. pUn . Max. Mm. Max. Mii i. Scurn
2200 2600 1600 2000 2200 1900 1900 2100 1800 1300
280 300 240 430 470 360 580 740 380 170
140 160 150 350 500 180 270 200 260 250
90 100 80 140 150 110 160 220 110 60
360 480 250
170 200 140
160 220 80
100 100 90
Nutrients
— — — 410 430 400 160
— — — 100 100 90 120
— — — 50 70 40 460
— — — 90 90 90 70
0.026 0.032 0.022 0.024 0.026 0.023 0.020 0.021 0.019 0.008.
45 72 11 47 50 46 63 02 53 100
0.005 0.007 0.003 0.007 0.008 0.007 0.010 0.011 0.008 0.008
17 29 5 26 33 19 35 41 29 7
0.021 0.022 0.019
52 63 46
0.007 0.008 0.007
36 38 35
As
Cd
Cu
Cr
Pb
Hg
Ni
Ag
Zn
— — — 1* 26 7 4
— — — 23 30 18 24
— — — 1100 1800 540 160
— — — 130 140 120 380
— — — 300 410 220 890
— — — 76 58 SO 24
- — — 1200 1300 1000 320
-------
1 ’A L- 2.7
EP roxiciry COWTAMINANTSz SPECIAL STUDIES
CRA Deer island Nut Island
Parameter — Allowable Screenings Grit bLg.st.d Digested
ugh Unit Chelsea Ward St. Chelsea Sludge Screening . Grit Sludge
kr.en ic 5.000 1 1 11 1 1 6
Bariun 100.000 710 350 530 670 360 720 950
CadMun 1,000 20 20 20 ‘20 ‘20 ‘20 ‘20
ChroMu 3,000 50 ‘30 ‘50 ‘30 ‘50 460 140
Lead 3,000 100 100 100 400 4100 ‘100 ‘100
Mercury 200 O.2 0.5 1.2 1.0 ‘0.2 0.2 1.0
Selen iun 1,000 1 . 7 11 14 9 17 10
Silver 5,000 10 10 20 30 ‘10 ‘10 • 20
Lindana 400 1 1 4 ‘1 ‘ 1 ‘ 1 1
Endcin 20 c 1 1 ‘1 1 1 1 1
M.thoxychlor 10,000 1.S 1.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 ‘1.5 ‘1.5
Toxaphens 500 4 4 4 4 ‘4 4 4 4
2.4—0 10,000 1 1 4 ‘1 ‘1 ‘1 ‘1
O lives 1,000 1 c 1 4 ‘1 1 C
M.iysis perforned by Interex Corporation and Ca ridg. Anslyticsl Associates.
‘,O Y’4 Vek* * 4%e4%d6I
1 e 4 -I c ’.
** Ro r .€ erv ,&4o . *4. P .eeo /erj i c.+
‘rAe t. 2B
LI !D PMASK pitoi.xrr POLZ.UTAWP , SPECIAL STUDIES (LI
DZC!S?W SOLISI
Dser s1and Wut I.1 nd
POLLU?AIr. up/i 5 / LU/I l 1 0 /4 /Il 5/lB/Il.
ffppvy Nutsie
Arsenic 6 ‘12 ‘5
sry l liia .3 ‘1.2 ‘0.5
Ca iun 11 ‘23 1
chrcsiua 27 IS O I
Copper S 550 5
Nickel 110 ‘50 72
Lead 50 250 40
Mti ny ‘2 ‘12 4
Slisniun 27 ‘23 ‘S
Tha LUun 42 ‘12 ‘2
tinc 51 1,300 130
Silver .S 27 ‘0.5
Mercury .1 0.01 ‘0.1
Organic .
$15 (2-ethylhs*y l)
phthslats 41 _ (2) 130
Ch lorob enseno 23 — 4
1, 2-trani—dicklorosthy—
ten. 35 — ‘1
Ethylbensene 13 - 1
Mithyleft. chloride 14 — 9.300 —
Methyl chloride 4 — 620
Toluenu 330 — 34
Analyses perforned by £ O. Caabridqe. M assachusetts
Ssapi. d.stroy.d during proce..UW
40 1 .4W I4ave i4’ * ev .ov’, 1182 .
1a ’te 4-Il
-------
2. When operative, sludge digestion at Deer Island results in a
greater percent reduction in COD, although the resultant levels
are still higher than at Nut Island because of the higher initial
values.
3. For receiving waters, sludge discharges are likely to be signi-
ficant sources of oxygen demanding matter, nutrients, and heavy
metals, and periodic sources of several of the toxic organic
chemicals tested for (e.g., methylene chloride, see Table 28).
The priority pollutant results reported in these tables compare
favorably with results obtained by CE Maguire in its 1983 sampling (CE
Maguire, 1983).
As mentioned, sludge discharges are highly implicated in nutrient
and metals enrichment found in the Deer Island/Governors Island Flats
area.
D. CSOs/DWOs
The areas of Boston Harbor directly affected by combined sewer
overflows (CSOs) and dry weather overflows (DWOs) are the I iner Harbor
Dorchester Bay, and East Boston (Belle Isle Inlet) (Figure 58).
Activation of overflows in Dorchester Bay and East Boston lead to beach
posting there (see Figure 2). In addition, Quincy Bay receives
occasional discharges from the Moon Island emergency discharge and raw
sewage overflows at the Nut Island Treatment Plant (Figure 58).
Reports of these discharges lead to shellfish area closings.
In 1983, Hingham Bay received raw sewage overflows from the
Hingham Pumping Station; these overlows led to the closure of clam beds
in Hingham Harbor.
In recent studies of CSO problems in four study areas (Charles
River, Inner Harbor, Dorchester Bay, and the Neponset River), “dry
weather overflow was found to be the singlemost important pollution
46
-------
influence on water quality in the planning area” ( 1DC, 1982, CSO Study
Summary Report, p. 4). Continual discharges were observed at 34 sites
during the study. The number of DWOs active at any tune is variable,
since a common cause of DWO is temporary blockages in sewers (CDM,
1981, CSO Report for Dorchester Bay, Vol. 1, p. V-23).
In the Inner Harbor, which received the greatest quantities of
sewage overflows, continuous overflows (DWOs) accounted for 75% of the
11 billion gallons of overflows discharged to the Inner Harbor annually
(O’Brien & Gere, 1981, p. 1-2). Some of these DWO discharges are
listed in Table 29. Of the storm activated CSO discharges to the Inner
Harbor, an estimated 38% is from one discharge in Fort Point Channel
and another 10% from a CSO in So ervi.l1e and one in East Boston
(O’Brien & Gere, 1981, p. 1-7).
O’Brien & Gere estimated that all of the Inner Harbor waters
designated as Class SC would meet the fecal coliform criteria if all
DWOs and the Fort Point and Somerville CSOs were eliminated (O’Brien &
Gere, 1981, P. 1-4). CSOs/DWOs were also identified as significant
contributors to low dissolved oxygen in the Inner Harbor, although
removal of all CSOs/DWOs to this area would not, by itself, bring DO
levels above 6.0 mg/l (O’Brien & Gere, 1981, P. 1-4).
Other major CSOs affecting the Inner Harbor are the Cottage Farm
Station on the Charles River and the Prison Point Station which
discharges below the Charles River Dam.
Observed DWOs to Dorchester Bay are reported in Table 30.
However, as indicated in the following excerpts, CSOs are considered
more significant with respect to water quality. “...At the present
time, Dorchester Bay waters do not consistently meet SB water quality
standards, especially along shoreline areas i ediately following
significant rainfall events” (CDM, 1981, Vol. I, p. 111—10).
“Coliform bacteria appears to be the most serious contaminant
affecting the quality of the Bay waters. Although the data
reported varies widely with sampling location and information
47
-------
DRY WEATHER OVERFLOWS
1918 A 1979 SURVIJLLAflCE
NPU(S 1978 Estiwated’ 1979 £stlmeted’
Dtscsrarg Discharge Rate Discharge Rate Harbor
Nuugjer Location ________— (PG O) ( M CD ) Se .eut
II OS/ Ob O Central Ave Aquariiti. 8o Lo,i 14.1 1.54 4
805/004 MaverIck St near Air 1 iurt. East Uoston 1.0 0.55 5
U0 /011 Lezlngton ud Merldlu,i Sts. • Cist huston 0.3 0.00 2
805/013 JleridIan I Condor Sts.. East Boston 0.3 0.00 221
CR11007 Highland and Marijinal Sts.. Chche 0.1 0.50 220
00 5/3 17 Madfcrd and Short Sts. Charles town 0.5 1.34 225
S OPI/3 08 Shure Drive end Ilailey Sts., Soi ryflle 0.3 0.05 223
805/076 1. 1st nd 1 ts , South Boston 0.3 0.00 11
80 5/ 0Th W. 1st nd F Sts., South Oo tOn 2.5 2.33 11
805/058 Waterfront Iitharf. Bustoli .005 3
805/057 Sargent blserf. Lloston 1.56 3
805/027 Ounkerhill Coewainity College. Charlestown Aa.! _ 0.00 226
Tutols (MCD) 23.1 7.875
‘ Races deterwined fro. perludic field .easur nts of depths of flow.
6ouvce CGO T’t 1e J’ 8).
-------
1 ’A LE O
SI.WAQY OF K tO i DIRECT DRY WEATHER DISCHARGES TO DORCHESTER BAY
OBSERVED EST1W TED TRI. (STIMTED OWF
PROBLEM BUTARY AREA UISCHARGED TO
CONTRIBUTiNG DORCHESTER
DWF (acres) BAV (Qod)
LOCATION
CSO DISCHARGE
OUTLET NLJ ER
South Boston - C. Firit Street,
beteeqn Farrigut Road and P Street
Riocked requlator
10
2 1.500
SOS •
080
South Boston - C. Second Street,
near Farragut Road
Low Overflow wir
31
gnkno
SOS -
080
Sooth Boston - carraqut Rood,
near C. Sixth Street
Riocked regulator
14
396,300
(plus o lI
SOS - 081
Dorcbest er - Savin Hill A ,ent*,
at Auckland Street
Blocked regulator
9
58.200
50 5 - 089
rchestar • Bay Street.
at Auckland Street
Blocked regulator
65
283,500
SOS
- 069
0ord ester - Auckland Streit,
near Hoyt Street
Overflow velr on
( rch.ster Interceptor)
int arv.ptor’
I .589
unkn
SOS
- 089
r cMstIr Lero y Street.
near Ditson Street
Blocked regijiator
1
11.400
SOS
. 090
Dorci ester • Stove drain rear
Oil observed In over-
Victory Rood and Vorrissey Blvd.
flee conduit (po sIbI.
-
0
‘ epreserts estlted dry weather fløw,
‘Potential problee only - flow observed
direct connection)
including infiltration.
to be within tve inchsi
TOTAL
(oil only)
773.900
0? veir crest
during dry wsather.
-------
Greeley and Hansen. 1978. Environmental Impact Statement on the
Upgrading of the Boston Metropolitan Area Sewerage System Volumes One
and Two, prepared for: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region I,
Boston, Massachusetts.
Havens and Emerson, Inc., 1982. Wastewater Sludge Management Update,
Su nary Report. Prepared for the Metropolitan District Co issi .on.
Havens and Emerson. 1980. Combined Sewer Overflow Facilities Plan
Neponset River Estuary. Vol. 1 and 2, prepared for: Metropolitan
District Conmission, Conmociwealth of Massachusetts.
Havens & Emerson/Parsons Brinkerhoff. 1984. Deer Island Facilities
Plan, prepared for: Metropolitan District Conmission Sewerage Division.
Hydroscience, Inc. 1971. Final Report Development of Water Quality
Model of Boston Harbor, prepared for: Co onwealth of Massachusetts
Water Resources Conmission, Boston, Massachusetts.
Iwanowicz H.R., Anderson R.D., Ketschke B.A., 1974. A Study of the
Marine Resources of Plymouth, Kingston and Du.xbury Bay, prepared for:
Division of Marine Fisheries, Department of Natural Resources,
Conmonwealth of Massachusetts.
Koib, H. Massachusetts Dept. of Environmental Quality Engineering
(DEQE), Updated June 1983. Boston Harbor: An Overview and History.
Kubit, R. Massachusetts Division of Water Pollution Control (DWPC)
1984. Boston Harbor Water Quality Preliminary Assessment. Memo to S
Lipman, Mass. DEQE.
Lipman, S.G. DEQE. c. 1983-84. Boston Harbor Cleanup Effort: An
Overview.
50
-------
MaKinnon, 1983. Testimony submitted under Commonwealth of
Massachusetts Superior Court Civil Action No. 138477, City of Quincy,
Plaintiff v. Metropolitan Distric Commission, et al., Defendants.
Mason, B. 1966. Principles of Geochemistry. Wiley, New York, NY
Massachusetts DEQE, DWPC, 1984. Boston Harbor 1984 Water Quality and
Wastewater Discharge Data.
Massachusetts DEQE, DWPC, 1983. Boston Harbor 1983 Water Quality and
Wastewater Discharge Data.
McKech.nie, D. Massachusetts DWPC, 1983. Boston Harbor Water Quality
1982 & 1983. Memorandum for the Record.
Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., 1984. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Metropolitan District Commission Application for Modification of
Secondary Treatment Requirements for Its Deer Island and Nut Island
Effluent Discharges into Marine Waters. (1984 301(h) Waiver
Application).
Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., 1982. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Metropolitan District Commission Application for Modification of
Secondary Treatment Requirements for Its Deer Island and Nut Island
Effluent Discharges into Marine Waters, Addenda 1-3.
Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., 1982. Nut Island Vastewater Treatment Plant
Immediate Upgrading. Prepared for the Metropolitan District
Commission.
Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., 1980. Combined Sewer Overflows Charles River
Basin Facilities Planning Area (Draft Report) Vol. I and II, prepared
for: Metropolitan District Commission.
51
-------
Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., 1979. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Metropolitan District Commission. Application for Modification of
Secondary Treatment Requirements for its Deer Island and Nut Island
Effluent Discharges into Marine Waters, Vol. 1-5.
Metropolitan District Commission, 1984. MDC Sewerage Division Beach
Report 1984 Postings.
MERL (The Marine Ecosystems Research Laboratory), 1980. Some Aspects
of Water Quality in and Pollution Sources to the Providence River.
Prepared for USEPA Region I.
Murchelano, R.A. and R.E. Wolke, 1984. Epizootic Carcinoma in Winter
Flounder Pseudopleuronectes americanus . Unpublished manuscript.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 1982.
Navigational Chart of Boston Harbor No. 13270, 47th edition, November
20, 1982.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 1979. Boston
Harbor Tidal Current Charts. Fourth Edition 1974.
O’Brien and Gere. 1981. Combined Sewer Overflow Project Inner Harbor
Area Facilities Plan, Vol. I and II, prepared for: Co onwealth of
Massachusetts Metropolitan District Commission.
Sverdrup, Johnson, and Fleming, 1942. The Oceans. Prentice-Hall.
Wallace, G.T.Jr., W.H. Waugh and K.A. Garner, 1984. Metal Distribution
in a Major Urban Estuary (Boston Harbor) Impacted by Ocean Disposal.
Paper submitted at the Proceedings of the Fith International Ocean
Disposal Symposium, September 10-14, 1984, Oregon State University,
Corvalis, Oregon.
White, R.E., 1982. Eldridge Tide and Pilot Book 1983. Robert Eldrtdge
White, Publisher, Boston, MA.
52
-------
Appendix A
// /
ft
-------
TABLE 11
REFERENCES
1. Forstner, V. and G.T.W. Wittmann, 1979, Metal Pollution .n the
? quatic EnvLronment , Spr .nger-Verlag, New York, p. 134.
2. Ibid, p. 136.
3. McNurney, J.M., et. ale., 1975, “Distribution of Metals in lake
sediments of the Adirondack Region of New York State”, in:
Biological Implications of Metals i.rt the Environment , 1977, 15th
Hanford L.ife Sciences Symposium, Rich.land, Wash., 1975, United
States Energy Research and Dvelo ent Aministratiun, p. 161.
4. Ibid.
5. Bissonnette, P., 1975, “Extent of mercury and lead uptake from
lake sediments by chironom.tds”, in: Biological Implications of
Metals in the Environment , aupra note 3, p. 614.
6. Forether and Wittaann, op. cit., p. 148.
7. Ibid.
B. Feratner, V. and 5. R. Petchineelam, 1978, “Chemical aeIociat .ons
of heavy metals in polluted sediments from th. lower Rhine River’,
in: Particulates .n Water: Chaxacterization, Fats, Effects a.nd
Ree val , 1980, Advances in Chem .stry Series, 189, Amsr .can Chemi.cal
Society. Washington, D.C., p. 183.
9. Forstner and Wittmann, op. cit., p. 66.
10. Ibid.
11. Foretner and Patchinee].aa, op. cit., p. 183.
12. Ferstner and Wittman, op. cit., p. 161.
13. Ibid.
14. Serne, R.J., 1975, “G.och icaj. distrthution of selected trace metals
in San Francisco Bay Sediments”, in: Biological Implications of
Metals in the Environment , supra not. 3, p. 286-288.
15. Forstnsr and Wittaan, op. cit., p. 191.
16. Ibid.
17. Ibid.
18. Ibid, p. 163.
-------
19. Schubert, J. 1973, “Heavy metals - toxicLty and environmental
pollution’, in: Metal Ions in Biological Systems: Studies of
Some Biochemical and Environmental Problems , 1973, Advances in
Experimental Medicine and Biology, V. 40, Plenum Press, New York,
p. 264-265.
20. Eisenreich, S.J., et. ala., 1973, “Metal Transport Phases in the
Upper M.issiasippi River”, in: Particulates in Water: Characteri-
zation, Fate, Effects and Removal , supra note 8, p. 146.
21. Pringle, B.H., et. ala., 1968, “Trace Metal Accumulation by
Estuarine Mellusks”, 3our. Sanit. Eng. Div., 94SA3:455.
22. Analysis Sheets in Mercury File, Mass. Division of Marine Fisheries
(State Office Building, Boston). Results from Lawrence Experiment
Station sample numbers: 505—760, 505—967 to 505—980, and 506—067
to 506-076, (1970).
-------
c .
Appendix B
-------
TABLE C-3. DOMINM T SPECIES IN BOSTON BARBOR BENThIC SA}iPLES
,our e Mgt 4)f * ? 44 y, ‘ ez•
waiv - a ’pfl ”flon.
A em iu , 1 . ‘ .of(h)
iation/
No. of
Percent
Replicate Species Individuals
Total
NiB-I
N IB-3
NIB -4
Cumulative
Percent
Aricidea catherinae
Ampelisca vadorum
Phoxocephalus holboUi
724
613
274
121
23.65
20.02
8.95
3.95
23.65
43.67
52.62
56.57
Edotea sp. A
Tellina agilis
113
3.69
60.26
Polydora guadrilobata
110
3.59
63.85
Oligochaeta
106
3.46
67.31
Polydora jg
Orchomenella minuta
2L2 ci. armata
104
103
102
3.40
3.36
3.33
70.71
74.07
77.40
Phoronis sp.
80
2.61
80.01
2i2 limicola
67
2.19
82.20
Tharyx acutus
65
2.12
84.32
Polydora socialis
54
1.76
86.08
Aricidea catherinae
1,112
27.53
27.53
Ampelisca vadorum
584
14.46
41.99
Orchomenella minuta
O ligochaeta
293
280
7.25
6.93
49.24
56.17
Phoxocephalus holboili
270
265
6.69
6.56
62.86
69.42
Polydora !!
2L2 ci. armata
Polydora guadrilobata
147
128
3.64
3.17
73.06
76.23
Tellina ag 1is
125
3.10
79.33
Edotea nr. montosa
110
2.72
82.05
Polydora socialis
79
1.96
84.01
aL2 limicola
72
1.78
85.79
Aricidea catherjnae
928
30.33
30.33
Ampelisca vadorurn
418
13.66
43.99
Oligochaeta
212
6.93
50.92
Tellina gfl s
192
6.28
57.20
Phoxocephalus holbolti
184
169
152
6.01
5.52
4.97
63.21
68.73
73.70
Orochomenejia minuta
Polydora guadrilobata
limicola
Edotea nr. montosa
102
87
3.33
2.84
77.03
79.87
Polydora sociaUs
74
2.42
82.29
Polydora fl m
72
2.35
84.64
-------
TABLE C-3 (Continued). DOMINANT SPECIES IN BOSTON RAP.BOR B ThIC SA} LES
iat on/ No. of Percent Cumulative
Replicate Species Individuals Total Percent
NIC-4 Aricidea catherinae 1,453 37.73 37.73
Oligochaeta 605 15.71 53.44
Phoxocephalus holbolli 307 7.97 61.41
j c1. armata 263 6.83 68.24
Ampelisca vadorum 147 3.82 72.07
Tharyx acutus 93 2.42 74.48
Tariais cavolini 91 2.36 76.84
Nassarius vibex 63 1.64 78.48
Harmothoe exienuata 54 1.40 79.88
TeI lina ths 50 1.30 81.18
pj filicornis k5 1.17 82.35
Aeginina g cornis 45 1.17 83.52
assa falcata 39 1.01 84.53
NIC-3 Aricidea catherinae 1,202 32.35 32.35
(0.tm 2 ) O ligochaeta 982 26.43 58.78
Phoxocephalus holbolli 211 5.68 64.46
Ampelisca vadorum 192 5.17 69.63
ci. armata 191 5.14 74.77
Polydora 101 2.72 77.49
Cirratulid anteri 61 1.64 79.13
Edotea nr. montosa 44 1.18 80.31
Tharyxacutus 42 1.13 81.44
Harmothoe imbricata 40 1.08 82.52
Polynoidae spp. 39 1.05 83.57
xogone hebes 37 1.00 84.57
Pólydora guadriobata 32 0.86 85.43
NIC-3 Aricidea catherinae 1,372 34.92 34.92
(0.1m 2 ) Oligochaeta 659 16.77 51.69
cf. armata 219 5.57 57.26
Phoxocephalus holboUi 206 5.24 62.50
hebes 173 4.40 66.90
Ampelisca vadorum 133 3.38 70.28
Hiatella striata 96 2.44 72.72
85 2.16 74.88
Tharyx acutus 78 1.98 76.86
Harmothoe imbricata 73 1.86 78.72
Polydora concharurn 54 1.37 80.09
assa falcata 52 1.32 81.41
iilicornis 49 1.25 82.66
Polydora 47 1.20 83.86
Chaetozorte sp. 42 1.07 84.93
Unc o1a irrorata 41 1.04 85.97
-------
TABLE C_3(Continued). DOMINANT SPECIES IN BOSTON HARBOR BENTI4IC SA) LES
Station! No. of Percent Cumulative
Replicate Species !ndividuals Total Percent
N IC-3 Aricidea catherinae 1,022 32.41 32.41
(O.085m 2 ) Oligochaeta 835 26.48 58.89
Phoxocephalus holbolli 179 5.68 64.57
Ampelisca vadorum 163 5.17 69.74
2!2 cf. armata 162 5.14 74.88
Polydora 86 2.73 77.61
Cirratulid anterior 52 1.65 79.26
Edotea ru. montosa 37 1.17 80.43
Tharyx acutus 36 1.14 81.57
Harmothoe imbricata 34 1.08 82.65
Polynoidae spp. 33 1.05 83.70
!.g8 ehebes 31 0.98 84.68
Polydora guadrilobata 27 0.86 85.54
NIC-5 Aricidea catherinae 1,166 34.88 34.88
(0.085m 2 ) Oligochaeta 560 16.75 51.63
armata 186 5.56 57.19
Phoxocephalus holbollI 175 5.23 62.42
Exogone hebes 147 4.40 66.82
Ampelisca vadorum 113 3.38 70.20
Hiatella striata 82 2.45 72.65
72 2.15 74.80
Tharyx acutus 66 1.97 76.77
Harrnothoe irnbricata 62 1.85 78.62
Polydora concharum 46 1.37 79.99
assa fatcata 44 1.31 81.30
jiiiicornis 42 1.26 82.56
Polydota 40 1.20 83.76
Chaetozonesp . 36 1.08 84.84
Unciola irrorata 35 1.05 85.89
NO-i Oligochaeta 955 28.73 28.73
Aricidea catherinae 780 23.47 52.20
Phoxocephalus hoibolli 266 8.00 60.20
Tharyx acutus 259 7.79 67.99
pj cf.armata 121 3.64 71.63
Polydora guadrilobata 90 2.71 74.34
Harmothoe imbricata 87 2.62 76.96
Tellina 73 2.20 79.16
Hiatella striata 69 2.08 81.24
Polydora 66 1.99 83.23
Tharyx annulosus 53 1.60 84.83
-------
TABLE C-3(Continued). DOMINANT SPECIES IN BOSTON EARBOR BD THIC SA LES
No. ot Percent Cumulative
Replicate Spec le3 Individuals Total Percent
NO-2 Aricidea catherinae 1,483 31.08 31.08
Oligochaeta 1,131 23.71 54.79
Chaetozone setosa 403 8.45 63.24
2i2ci.armata 187 3.92 67.16
Fhoxocephalus holboIll 186 3.90 71.06
Polydara guadrilobata 159 3.33 74.39
Tharyx annulosus 112 2.35 76.74
Harmothoe extenuata 105 2.20 78.94
Tellina !gji. 85 1.78 80.72
_ Hiatella striata 80 1.68 82.40
Aeginina gjcornis 79 1.66 84.06
Procerea faciatus 73 1.53 85.59
NO-3 Aricidea catherinae 718 74.81 24.81
Cl. armata 447 14.07 38.88
Tharvx acutus 446 14.04 52.92
Oligochieta 254 8.00 60.92
Polydora guadriobata 196 6.17 67.09
Phoxocephalus holbolli 145 4.57 71.66
Tellina gj s 118 3.72 75.38
Harmothoe imbricata 64 2.02 77.40
Nermetean sp. A 60 1.89 79.29
Polydora sociahs 58 1.83 81.12
Polydora gjja 42 1.32 82.44
Harmothoe extenuata 40 1.26 83.70
2L2 lirrucola 36 1.13 84.83
D!A-3 Edoteanr.montosa 571 25.15 25.15
TeIIrna !Aii ! 547 24.10 49.25
Nassarius vibex 193 8.68 57.93
Nephtyidae iuv. 164 7.22 65.15
2L2 llmicola 104 4.58 69.73
tjnciola irrorata 102 4.49 74.22
Photis pollex 95 4.19 78.41
3 i hanesbombyx 63 2.78 11.19
D astyis spp. 40 l.7 82.95
Unciola sp. C ( inermis’ ) 40 1.76 84.71
-------
TABLE C-3 (Continued). DOMINANT SPECIES IN BOSTON HABBOR B ThIC SAMPLES
Station! No. of Percent Cumulative
Replicate Species Individuals Total Percent
DIA-4 Polydora jjg j 362 21.48 21.48
Polydora ag regata 201 11.93 33.41
Edotea ru. montosa 169 10.03 43.44
Nephtyidae juv. 118 7.00 50.44
cf. armata 97 5.76 56.20
Tellina !.zij 93 5.52 61.72
Nassarius vibex 84 4.99 66.71
Unciola irrorata 84 4.99 71.70
Capitella spp . 75 4.45 76.15
Phoxocephalus holboll I 74 4.39 80.54
2 j lirnicola 41 2.43 82.97
Eteone 41 2.43 85.40
DIA-5 Edotea ru. rnontosa 209 17.08 17.08
Tharyx acutus 155 12.66 29.74
Nephtyidae juv. 121 9.89 39.63
Llnciola unciola 102 8.33 47.96
Tellina gj s 83 6.78 54.74
2i2 Iimicola 77 6.29 61.03
Oligochaeta 69 5.64 66.67
Nassarius vibex 49 4.00 70.67
Polydora jg 45 3.68 74.35
Photis pollex 44 3.60 77.95
Unciola sp. 5 40 3.27 81.22
Spiophanes bornbyx 39 3.19 84.41
Phoxocephalus holbolli 25 2.04 86.45
D IB-3 Nassarius vibex 75 23.89 23.89
Tellirta !.Ath 52 16.56 40.45
Edotea nr. moritosa 31 9.87 50.32
Nephtyidae juv. 27 8.60 58.92
Eteone j g 20 6.37 65.29
.pi.2 Cf. armata 17 5.41 70.70
Harmothoe imbricata 9 2.87 73.57
Modiolus modiolus 9 2.87 76.44
O ligochaeta $ 2.55 78.99
Orchomenella rnfnuta 7 2.23 *1.22
Polydora jg 5 1.59 82.81
Phoxocephalus holboIll 5 1.59 84.40
Keilia suborbicularis 3 1.59 85.99
-------
TA3LE C-3 (Coot inu.d). DOMINANT SPECIES IN IOSION HAR3OR IENTHIC SAI Lzs
Station! No. of Percent Cumulative
Replicate Species Individuals Total Percent
D IB—4 Nassarius vibex 108 24.00 24.00
Tellina gjfl 78 17.33 41.33
r r.rnontosa 71 15.78 57.11
arrnata 23 5.11 62.22
Orchomenella minuta 22 4.89 67.11
OIigoci aeta 17 3.78 70.89
Diastylis poLita 16 3.56 74.45
Nephtyidae juv. IS 3.33 77.78
Eteone 15 3.33 81.11
Unciola sp. C ( inermis? ) 12 2.67 83.78
Capitella spp. 10 2.22 $6.00
Dl8-5 Nassarius vibex 172 29.91 29.91
Tellina 133 23.13 53.04
Diastylis polita 56 9.74 62.78
Diastylis spp. 46 8.00 70.78
Edotea nr. montosa 34 5.91 76.69
Nephtyidae juv. 27 4.70 81.39
pj ci. armata 13 2.26 83.65
Tharyx acutus 12 2.09 85.74
DIC-1 O ligochaeta 196 18.90 18.90
Polydora 121 11.67 30.57
2.L2 ci. armata 94 9.07 39.64
Phoxocephalus holbolli 93 8.97 48.61
Proboloides holmesi 55 5.30 53.91
Eteone g 54 5.21 59.12
Procerea cornuta 49 4.73 63.85
Harmothoe extenuata 28 2.70 66.55
Polydora 21 2.03 68.58
Harmothoe imbricata 19 1.83 70.41
Corophium bonelli — 19 1.83 72.24
Tellina 17 1. 4 73.83
Polydora 17 1.64 75.52
Tharyx Icutus 15 1.45 76.97
Edotea nr. montosa 15 1.45 78.42
Nemertean sp. F 14 1.35 79.77
3assa falcata 14 1.35 81.12
Polydora guadrilobata 12 1.16 82.28
Ischyrocerus g j 12 1.16 83.44
Modiolus motholus 11 1.06 84.50
-------
TABLE C-3 (Continued). DOMINANT SPECIES IN 30$TON HARBOR 8ENT IC SAMPLES
Station! No. of Percent Cumulative
Replicate Species Individuals Total Percent
iC-4 O ligochaeta 174 30.53 30.53
Eteone M 57 10.00 40.53
Captella linearis 6 8.07 48.60
3aua faicata 38 6.67 55.27
Procerea cornut.a 30 5.26 60.53
Capitella spp. 28 4.91 65.44
Corophiurn insidiosum 28 4.91 70.35
Proboloides holmesi 22 3.86 74.21
ci. armata 20 3.51 77.72
Asterias jg js 11 1.93 79.65
Polydora g!.!g.. .!a 10 1.75 81.40
zsnia inermis 9 1.58 82.98
Teliina g 1 j s 7 1.23 84.21
Orchomenella 6 1.05 85.26
D IC-5 O1igod aeta 302 54.91 54.91
Eteone 43 7.82 62.73
Nemertean sp. A 33 6.00 68.73
Modiolus modiolus 22 4.00 72.73
Proboloides holmesi 12 2.18 74.91
2L! ci. arrnata 12 2.18 77.09
Capitella spp. 10 1.82 78.91
Harrnothoe extenuata 9 1.64 80.55
Edotea nr. montosa 8 1.46 82.01
Corophium bonelli 7 1.27 83.28
filicornis 7 1.27 84.55
DOA-1 Capitella spp. 24 72.73 72.73
Eteone 12 5A 2 6.06 78.79
Tharyx acutus 2 6.06 84.85
DOA-2 Capitella ‘pp. 132 99.25 99.25
DOA-3 Capitella spp. 191 98.45 98.45
DOB-l Polydora g ja 2,270 48.23 48.23
Polydora 1,037 22.03 70.26
Tharyxacutus 311 6.61 76.87
Tellina !JJj ’ 284 6.03 8 2.90
Capitella spp. 97 2.06 84.96
-------
TAIL! C-3 (Coi tinued). DOMINANT SPECIES IN BOSTON HARBOR 3 TNIC SA LES
Stationl No. of Percent Cumulative
Replicate Spec le3 Individuals Total Percent
DOB-2 Polydora 381 30.93 30.93
Tharyx acutus 517 27.54 58.49
Teflina!Zjjjs 235 12.52 71.01
Capitella spp . 109 5.81 76.82
2i.2 c i. armata 65 3.46 80.28
Nephtyidae juv. 62 3.30 83.58
Oligochieta 51 2.72 86.30
DOB-4 Polydora gg g a 4,473 64.51 64.51
Tharyx acutus 501 7.23 71.74
Polydora j g j 356 5.13 76.87
Paraonid 240 3.46 80.33
Edotea nr. montosa 217 3.13 83.46
Tellina g j s 193 2.78 86.24
O ligochaeta 599 40.01 40.01
Polydora ilAni 435 29.06 69.07
Polydora !.AA !.S!j. 124 8.28 77.35
Lumbrineris impatiens 99 6.61 83.96
Nephty dae juv. 60 4.01 87.97
CD-4 Oligochaeta 1,117 43.82 43.82
Polydora jjg j 823 32.29 7 .1 1
Nephtyidae juv. 115 4.51 80.62
Lumbrineris impatiens 100 3.92 14.54
CD-S Oligochaeta 339 38.09 38.09
Polydora !Lani 298 33.48 71.57
Nephtyidae juv. 72 8.09 79.66
Lumbrineris impatlens 56 6.29 85.95
CH-4 Oligocliseta 485 25.27 25.27
Ampelisca vadorurn 294 15.32 40.59
Aric dea catherinae 276 14.38 54.97
Leptocheirus j g s 144 7.50 62.67
Orchornenella minuta 107 5.58 68.05
Polydora jjg 86 4.41 72.53
Polydora q drilobata 83 4.33 76.86
Ciratulis 74 3.86 80.72
Nephty dae juv. 68 3.54 84.26
Lumbrineris impatiens 36 1.88 86.14
-------
TABLE C3 (Continued). DOMINA T SPECIES IN IOSTON HAABOR IENThIC SAMPLES
Station!
No. of
Percent
Cumulative
Replicate Species Individuals
Total
Percent
CH-2 Oligochaeta 812 27.52 27.52
(0.1m 2 ) L ptocheirus pinguis 610 20.68 48.20
Ampelisca va orum 298 10.10 58.30
Aricidea catherirtae 290 9.83 68.13
Polydora q uadriIobata 188 6.37 74.50
Cirratulis s 149 5.05 79.55
Orchomenella minuta 140 4.74 84.29
Phoxocephalus holbollI 63 2.13 86.42
CH- 5 Oligochaeta 500 19.52 19.52
(0.1m 2 ) Ampelisca vadorum 438 17.10 36.62
Arlckdea catherinae 377 14.72 51.34
Polydora guadrilobata 271 10.58 61.92
Ampebsca spp. 144 5.62 67.54
Leptocheirus pinguls 120 4.68 72.22
Lumbrineris impat ens 97 3.79 76.01
Nephtyidae juv. 94 3.67 79.68
Orchornenella mlnuta 87 3.40 83.08
Polydora j g 77 3.00 86.08
CH-2 O ligochaeta 690 27.47 27.47
(0.085m 2 ) Leptocheirus pinguis 519 20.66 48.13
Ampelisca vadorum 253 10.07 58.20
Aricidea catherinae 247 9.83 68.03
Polydora guadrtlobata 160 6.37 74.40
Cirratulis £r. !2 i 127 5.05 79.45
Orchomertella minuta 119 4.74 84.19
Phoxocephalus hoIbolli 54 2.15 86.34
CM-S Oligochaeta 425 19.53 19.53
(O.085rn 2 ) Ampelisca vadorurn 372 17.09 36.62
Aricidea catherinae 320 14.70 51.32
Polydora guadrilobata 230 10.57 61.89
Ampelisca spp. 122 5.61 67.50
Leptocheirus pinguls 102 4.69 72.19
Lumbririeris impatiens 82 3.77 75.96
Nephtyidae juv. *0 3.68 79.64
Orchomenella minuta 74 3.40 83.04
Polydora 65 2.99 86.03
-------
TABLE C-3 (Conti usd). DOMINANT SPECtES IN BOSTON BARBOR BENThIC s tEs
Sfatjon/ No. of Percent Cumulative
Replicate Species Individuals Total Percent
Cl—I Polydora 169 49.42 49.42
Capitella spp . 84 2436 73.98
Polydora aggregata 41 11.99 83.97
CI-3 Capitella spp. 55 72.37 72.37
Po lydoraj g j 16 21.05 93.42
CI-4 Capitella spp. 32 69.33 69.33
Polydora j • j 19 25.33 94.66
C5—2 Photis pollex 101 1*36 18.36
TeIJina gj s 65 11.82 30.18
______ ru. mortosa 35 10.00 40.18
Phoxocephalus hoIbolli 49 8.91 49.09
Unciola irrorata 46 8.36 57.45
Unciola spp. 36 6.55 64.00
3 i hanes bombyx 28 3.09 69.09
Ensis directus 18 3.27 72.36
j cf. armata 15 2.73 75.09
Polydora socialis 14 235 77.64
Orchomenella minuta 14 2.53 80.19
Rhepoxyriius epinomus 12 2.18 82.37
Diastylis sculpta 11 2.00 84.37
Nephtyidae juv. 10 1.82 86.19
CS-3 Photis pollex 164 13.25 13.23
Spiophanesbornbyx 138 11.15 24.40
limicola 130 10.30 34.90
Polydora socialls 103 1.48 43.38
Diasty!is ‘pp. 86 6.95 50.33
Tellirta j j 78 6.30 56.63
Nephtyidae juv. 76 6.14 62.77
Unciola sp. C ( inefrnis? ) 69 537 68.34
______ montosa 5.25 73.39
Orchomertella minuta 52 4.20 78.79
Phoxocephalus holbolli 39 3.15 81.94
D astylis sculpta 26 2.10 84.04
Tharyx acutus 24 1.94 85.98
-------
Appendix C
-------
MASSAQiUSETIS DIVISION OF WATER POLLtJ IQN (XN11 L
1984 BOSTON HARBOR SURVt!
P LIMIi’ ARY RESUL’IS
SAMLING LOCATIONS
STATION
NU ER
BRO1 Tidal portion of Mystic River nid—channel near confluence of
Island End River, Boston
BHO2 Boston Inner Harbor at confluence of Chelsea and Mystic Rivers,
Boston
BRO3 Boston Inner Harbor north of mouth of Charles River near U.S.
Naval Reserve, Boston
B004 Tidal portion of Charles River downstream of Charlestown Bridge,
Boston
BHO5 Main channel of Boston Inner Harbor near mouth of Fort Point
Channel, Boston
BHO6 Main channel of Boston Inner Harbor near mouth of Reserved Channel,
Boston
BHO7 Main shipping chAnnel of Boston Harbor north of Spectacle Island,
Boston
BHO8 President Roads at mid—channel near lighthouse south of Deer
Island, Boston
3H09 Dorchester Bay in Old Harbor south of L Street Beach, Boston
BRiG Dorchester Bay midway between Squant Point and Col bia Point,
Boston
BH1OA. Dorchester Bay midway between Squant Point and Malibu Beach
BE1OB Tidal portion of Neponset River upstream of Neponset Bridge
BE 11A Boston Harbor, ¼ mile north of Moon Island, Boston
3H12 Quincv Bay, midway between Hangman Island and the mouth of Blacks
Creek, Quincy
BH12A Quincy Hay, near Wol]aston Beach at buoy N2, Quincy
BB13 Quincy Bay, nidway between Hangman Island and Nut Island, Quincy
BH13A Ouincy Bay, mile south of point midway between Bass Point,
Long Island and Rainsford Island
-------
LOCATION OF SA LI C STATIONS
CONT.
STAT IO
_______ DESCR ION
31114 Hingbam Bay, midway between Nut Island and Grape Island
BILI8 Nantasket Roads, midway between Rainsford Island and Bull Gist
31122 Winthrop Bay, off Constitution Beach, Boston
CR01 Maridan Street, Boston/Chelsea, River Nile 0.2
CR02 Chelsea Street, Boston/Chelsea, River Nile — 1.2
CR03 Mill Creek at Broadway, Chelsea/Revere, River Mile — 3.0
-------
1984 BOSTON HARBOR SURVEY
RAINFALL DATA (Inches)
DATE PRECIPITATION
Tune 24, 1.84 .08
June 25, 1984 .23
June 26, 1984 Trace
July 15, 1984 0
July 16, 1984 .07
July 17, 1984 0
August 26, 1984 0
August 27, 1984 0
August 28, 1984 0
-------
1984 BOSTON HARBOR SURVEY
TIDAL I TOP iATION (Military Time)
DATE LOW TIDE HIGH TIDE
June 25, 1984 1400 0800
June 26, 1984 1500 0900
July 16, 1.84 0730 1330
July 17, 1984 0815 1415
August 27, 1984 0515 1113
August 28, 1984 0615 1215
-------
1984 BOSTON IIARiIOR SURVEY
STATION 25 Jun 84 26 Jun 84 16 Jul 84 17 Jul 84 27 Aug 84 28 Aug 84 9 Oct 84 10 Oct 84
BRO1 * 1 1 1 1 1 1
Myalic River ** 1315 1105 1130 1030 1126 1119
*** 65 66 66 68 71 75
**** A 6.0 7.5 7.0 5.4 4.7
5 7.5 6 5.5 7 7
1315 1105 1130 1030 1126 1119
62 57 62 63 70 71
5.9 5.1 6.5 7.3 2.9 4.0
10 15 12 11 14 14
1315 1105 1130 1030 1126 1119
57 56 60 60 68 68
4.0 49 6.2 6.7 2.2 3.0
81 102 1 1 1 1 1 1
Ny8Lic River 1350 1115 1135 1035 1135 1130
65 66 66 68 71 72
A 5.9 7.5 7.1 5.6 6.3
5.5 6 6 6 7 7.5
1350 1115 1135 1035 1135 1130
61 58 61 62 69 69
6.8 6.3 6.5 7.3 4.4 3.6
11 12 12 12 14 15
1350 1115 1135 1035 1135 1130
68 57 60 60 68 69
4.6 5.9 7.1 7.7 3.1 3.5
* Depth in metera A — Data auspect; laboratory error
Time in hüurii-ainutca Ii — ILid wwitlier
*** Teinpc&.aurc (V) C — No iia ple collected
* * Ditiaolved Ozy en (mg/i)
-------
1984 BOSTON UARgOB. suavEy (CONTINUED)
AT1OH 25 Jun 84 26 Jun 84 16 Jul 84 17 Jul 84 27 Aug 84 28 Aug 84 9 Oct 84 10 Oct 84
1103 1 1 1 1 1 1
uier Harbor 1340 1150 1145 1045 1147 1138
64 66 63 67 10 72
A 6.3 7.3 8.5 5.3 6.2
6 5.5 7 7 6 8
1 .340 1150 1145 1045 1147 1138
61 60 61 61 70 71
70 67 6.6 1.2 4.2 5.0
12 11 14 14 12 16
1340 1150 1145 1045 1147 1138
58 58 59 60 69 71
5.1 5.7 7.1 7.6 3.5 5.0
04 1 1 1 1 1 1
arise Rivet Locks 1350 1200 1155 1055 1210 [ 216
64 65 64 67 70 76
A 5.8 6.9 5.7 4.5 4.4
5 3.7 6.5 5.5 5.5 6.s
1350 1200 1155 1055 1210 1216
61 60 59 62 71 68
6.9 6.3 5.5 6.5 3.3 3.5
10 1.5 13 11 11 13
1350 1200 1155 1055 1210 1216
59 59 58 61 71 67
4.9 4.3 5.7 6.5 3.1 2.2
1 i
I 3 u nt. Chusingi j4 5 1215 U 05 1226 1 2Th
bi 66 65 71 71
A 6.6 U 6.7 7.0 6.1
-------
1984 BOSTON I4A B0R LURYgY (cONTINUED)
STATION 25 Jun 84 26 Jun 84 16 Jul 84 17 Jul 84 27 Aug 84 28 Aug 84 9 Oct 84 10 Oct 84
81105 (Continued) 3.5 5 B C C C
1405 1215 B C C C
64 60 B C C C
7.6 6.7 B C C C
7 10 B 7 9 9
1405 1215 8 1105 1226 1226
60 58 B 60 72 67
5.9 6.1 B 7.5 5.7 4.2
8006 1 1 B 1 1 1
Inner Harbor 1420 1230 8 1117 1241 1238
62 65 B 66 69 73
A 6.5 8 7.7 6.7 5.7
5.5 6 B 6.5 7.5 8
1420 1230 B 1117 1241 1238
60 60 B 61 69 71
6.9 6.2 B 8.1 5.3 5.6
11 12 B 13 15 16
1420 1230 B 1117 1241 1238
57 58 B 61 66 72
7.2 6.9 8 8.3 5.8 6.1
Ii07 1 1 B 1 1 1
pectac1c leland 1540 1355 B 1220 1347 1342
61 62 B 65 65 66
A 7.0 8 9.6 6.1 6.3
1.5 10 B 6.5 7.5 8
1540 1355 I I 1220 1367 - 13’i2
58 58 B 59 67 63
7.3 7.4 8 8.9 5.9 6.5
-------
1984 BOSTON R aZOR, SURvEY (CONTINUED)
STATION 25 Jun 84 26 Jun 84 16 Jul 84 11 Jul 84 27 Aug 84 28 Aug 84 9 Oct 84 10 Oct 84
B1101 (Continued) 15 20 B 13 15 16
1540 1355 1 1 1220 1347 1342
51 58 B 58 67 61
1.6 1.9 B 9.2 5.9 6.7
81108 1 1 B 1 1 1
Deer Island Light 1525 1330 B 1207 1332 1327
58 58 B 62 66 68
S 7.7 9.3 63 6.5
12.5 C B 7 11 9
1525 C B 1207 1332 1321
60 C B 59 65 63
7.7 C B 10.0 5.1 7.0
25 20 8 16 22 18
1525 1330 B 1207 1332 1321
57 58 B 57 62 60
1.7 7.5 B 9.3 5.6 6.5
81109 1 1 1 1 1 1
Dorchester Bay 1243 1030 1030 1000 1056 1045
63 63 61 63 68 67
A 6.9 8.1 8.1 6.1 5.7
2 C C C C C
1243 C C C C C
62 C C C C C
1.1 C C C C C
3.5 3.5 1.75 1.5 3.5 3
1243 1030 1030 1000 1056 1045
64 61 64 65 67 66
6.6 6.0 8.3 8.8 5 .7 6.1
-------
1984 0STON UA880R SURVEY (COHTIHUED)
CATION 25 Jun84 2 Jun 64 16 Jul 84 17 Jul 84 27 Aug 84 28 Aug 84 9 Oct 84 10 Oct 84
110 1 1 1 1 1 1
,rcheater Bay 1230 1020 1020 0955 1046 1033
62 62 60 63 68 71
A 7.2 7.9 8.3 6.0 5.9
2.5 3.25 C C C C
1230 1020 C C C C
67 60 C C C C
6.9 7.2 C C C C
4.5 6.5 4 4 6 5.5
1230 1020 - 1020 0955 1046 1030
57 60 62 63 66 69
6.6 7.7 8.1 7.9 5.3 5.7
IOA 1 1 1 1 1 1.
rchc tcr Bay 1221 1008 0955 0940 1038 1019
63 63 64 65 70 72
A 6.5 6.7 7.2 5.5 5.0
C 3 C C C C
C 1008 C C C C
C 62 C C C C
C 6.5 C C C C
4 6 3.5 3 6 5
1221 1008 0955 0940 1038 1019
69 60 70 65 68 72
4.1 6.2 7.1 6.7 5.3 5.0
toe 1 1 1 1 1 1
ofl.wt RIvct 1205 0950 0940 0930 1016 0957
61 64 65 66 71 73
A 5.9 5.5 6.2 4.8 4.6
-------
1984 BOSTON HARBOR SURVEY (CONTU4UBD)
tATIO 25 Jun84 26 Jun 84 16 Jul 84 17 Jul 84 27 Aug 84 28 AUg 84 9 Oct 84 10 Oct 84
U0B (Continued) 1.5 175 C C C C
1205 0948 C C C C
62 62 C C C C
6.4 5.4 C C C C
3 3.5 3.5 3 4.5 2
1205 0968 0940 0930 1016 0957
63 62 70 69 68 73
6.5 5.5 5.8 6.3 4.6 4.1
lilA 1 1 B 1 .1 1
1 1 nd 1600 1410 B 1 235 1403 1358
62 63 8 69 70 72
A 6.8 3 8.2 6.5 7.3
2.5 2.5 B C C C
1600 1410 1 C C C
62 62 B C C C
6.7 6.1 B C C C
5 5 B 5 5 6
1600 1410 3 1235 1403 1358
62 60 B 64 68 65
6.9 6.5 3 8.7 4.9 5.5
12 B B B 1 1 1
lucy Bay a B B 1)05 1430 1426
B B B 65 68 71
B B B 8.9 6.1 6.1
B B 4 6
ii B B (305 i43 0 1426
B B B 64 69 72
8 8 5 8.9 5.7 6.9
-------
1984 BOSTON HARBOR SURVEY (CONTINUED)
STATION .5 Jun 84 26 Jun 84 26 Jul 84 17 Jul 84 27 Aug 84 28 Aug 84 9 Oct 84 10 Oct 84
ER12A B B B 1 1 1
Quincy Bay B B B 1250 1419 1415
B B B 65 69 72
B B 0 8.9 8.4 7.7
B B B 4 4 5
B B B 1255 1419 1415
B B B 64 71 67
B B B 9.2 6.0 6.1
B B B 1 1 1.
Quincy Buy B B B 1315 1440 1431
B B B 62 67 11
B B B 8.7 75 6.9
B B B 6 6.5 7
B B 8 1315 1440 1431
B B B 63 64 64
B B B 8.8 6.3 6.6
BH13A B B B 1 1 1
Quincy Bay B B B 1355 1513 1509
B B B 63 66 72
B B B 9.0 6.4 7.1
B B B 7 6.5 7
B B B j355 1513 1509
B B 8 61 64 64
B B 6 8.8 5.8 6.3
61114 6 B 6 1 1 1
ills Iu m Bay H 11 B J335 1458 1452
B B B 60 65 69
B B B 8.7 6.5 6.9
-------
1984 B0$TON HARBOR SURVRY (CONTINUED)
TATION 25 Jun 84 26 Jun 84 16 Jul 84 17 Jul 94 27 Aug 84 28 Au 84 9 Oct 84 10 Oct 84
Hl4 (Continued) B B B 6 5.5 5.5
ft B 8 1335 1458 1452
B B B 63 65 65
B B ft 8.7 6.2 A
B B B 12 11 11
B B B 1335 1458 1452
B B B 62 64 63
B B 9.0 5.9 A
1118 B B B 1 1 1
ntaeket Boad B B U 1410 1530 1522
B B B 59 65 70
B B 8 8.9 6.6 7.0
B B B 6 7.5 8.5
B B a 1410 1530 1522
B B B 60 63 63
B B B 8.8 6.5 6.1
B B B 12 15 17
B B B 1410 1530 1522
B 8 B 59 60 63
B B B 9.8 1.0 7.0
22 1 1 B 1 1 1
rieiit HeighL 1500 1300 B 1145 1308 1302
64 63 B 66 70 71
A 7.4 B 8.5 6.6 5.1
3 3.5 B C C C
1500 1300 IS C C C
65 13 C C C
6.7 6.9 B C C C
-------
1984 BOSTON MA HO& SURVEY (CONTINUED)
STATION 25 Jun 84 26 Jun 84 16 Jul 84 17 Jul 84 27 Aug 84 28 Aug 84 9 Oct 84 10 Oct 84
8H22 (Continued) 6 7 B 7 8 8.5
1500 1380 B 1145 1308 1302
64 62 B 67 71 69
5.9 6.1 B 81 4.9 5.6
ROl 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2
he1oca River 1253 1145 1143 1205 1145 1120
67 68 65 69 73 73
7.9 6.5 8.1 10.2 6.0 6.5
R02 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2
hu1øcu k1vi r 1310 1210 1200 1220 1200 1130
65 67 66 69 72 72
5.6 7.7 9.2 11.3 5.2 5.5
R03 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2
he1eea River 1320 1225 1210 1235 1208 1140
67 66 74 79 74 74
7.8 7.4 11.3 17.8 4.2 4.8
-------
1984 BOSIuN HARBOR SURVEY
FECAL COLIFORI4 BACTERIA DATA (per 100 tal)
STATION JU’I 25 JUNE 26 JULY 16 JULY 17 AUGUST 27 AUGUST 28 OCTOBER 9 OCTOBER 10
111101 A 300 300 370 40 290
111102 A 520 110 450 10 A
81103 A 400 90 10 A
BHO4 A 60 100 10 A
1 1 )105 A 6000 B 500 20 A
8H06 A 450 8 <5 20 A
8H07 A 60 B 90 440 90
81108 A 40 8 c5 60 400
B1 09 A 60 5 <5 10 A
11810 A 20 40 20 A
UIII OA A 80 30 230 10 A
1111108 A 124) l:lt) 440 20 A
I I II IIA A 40 I I <5 <10 A
81112 11 8 11 <5 10 A
8h 112A 11 11 11 ‘5 10 A
01113 11 B B 5 10 A
BH I3A B 8 11 ‘5 10 <10
fl l 1 14 B 11 11 dO A
8 1 1 )8 B B B c5 <10 10
81122 A 5 11 cS dO <10
CR01 60 200 150 10 10 20
CR02 20 10 460 5 100 <20
CR03 15.000 1,200 12,000 8,000 100 1,200
A Frozen B — lad WeMber
-------
1984 BOSTON HARBOR SURVEY
TOTAL COLIFORM BACTERIA DATA (por 100 ml)
STATION JUNE 25 JUNE 26 JULY 16 JULY 17 AUGUST 27 AUGUST 28 OCTOBER OCTOBER
BHO I A 9,200 2,500 3,800 440 1,600
61102 A 18,000 900 4,000 180 A
8H03 A 20,000 1,100 100 A
BHO4 A 1,000 1,000 520 A
61105 A 65,000 B 3,500 140 A
6U06 A 9,500 B 40 560 A
SHO? A 900 B 1,100 3,800 2,000
61108 A 800 B 40 860 6,000
61109 A 700 60 60 20 A
61110 A 800 180 160 A
I III 1 OA A 1,800 600 2,000 <20 A
iii IiJu A 4,400 1,400 5,000 240 A
U I IIIA A 200 ii 40 <20 A
51112 B B I I 10 20 A
11 1 1L2A ft B U 5 <20 A
111113 11 B 40 160 A
11 1 113A B B B c5 460 <20
61114 11 B II 80 A
a 1118 B B B 20 <20 <20
BH22 A 60 B 20 60 400
CR01 500 6,400 1,600 100 2,300 11900
CR02 400 300 4,500 30 100 200
CR03 200,000 18,000 150,000 50,000 1,200 18,000
V.- .-..
-------
1984 BOSTON BARSOR SURV !
SECCBI DISK T ANSPA1tZNCY DATA ( )
STATION 25 Jun 26 Jun 16 Jul 17 Jul 27 Aug 28 Aug 9 Oct 10 Oct
3 01 1.2 1.6 1.2 1.4 2.1 2.0
BEOZ 1.2 14 1.4 1.5 2.2 2.0
3R03 1.3 1.3 1.4 1.6 2.0 2.1
3R04 1.5 2.4 1.6 1.8 2.2 2.4
5E05 1.2 1.6 A 2.3 1.4 2.2
3H06 1.8 1.3 A 2.2 2.0 2.0
3R07 0.7 B A 2.3 2.6 2.0
B 08 1.8 B A 2.0 2.0 1.8
Mi09 1.8 2.0 1.4 B 1.7 1.5
BHJ.O 1.2 2.0 1.6 1.8 1.9 1.6
1.3 1.6 1.2 1.2 1.5 1.2
BElOB 1.1 1.2 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.8
BRUA 1.4 B A 2.2 14 0.9
BH].2 A A A 2.2 1.2 1.1
Ba] .2A A A £ 2.0 1.2 0.9
B11 13 A A A 2.2 1.2 1.0
BR13A A A A 2.0 1.6 C
B 14 A A A 2.0 2.0 2.2
BBJ.8 A A A 2.5 2.0 C
3U22 2.0 1.4 A 2.0 1.6 1.4
A — lad weather
B — Windy conditions
C — Lost disk
-------
1984 BOSTON HARBOR SURVEY
NUT ISLAND WWTP DISCIIARCE DATA*
PAHAJ4ETER** AUCUST 27 ALICUST 27/28 AUCIJST 28/29
INFLUENT EFFLUENT INFLIJENT F.FPUJENT
Chloride 560
COD 423 418 520 450
BO Dç 174 93 142 129
p 1 1 (Standard Unite) 7.1 6.9 6.9 6.9
Alkalinity (as CaCO 3 )
Suspended Solids 1102 72 1564 232
Settleable Solida (.1/1) 1.5
Total Solids 1464 1392 2304 1556
Total KjeldaIil—Nitrogen 25 21 30 28
M onia—Nitrogen 14 11 1,1
NItrate-NItrogen 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Pho phorua (as F) 6.0 55 7.8 12
AliupInism 1.2 0,7
Cuthaliwu 0.0 0.00
Chrumiui. 1 lutul 0.03 0.00
Cuppur 0.14 0.10
Iron 1.6 1.2
Mercury 0.0000 0.0000
Hanjjnne sO
Nickel 0.00 0.00
l.cad 0.04 0.02
Silver 0.01 0.00
Tin <0.5 <0.5
Zinc 0.20 0.12
Arsenic 0.000 0.012
Total Colilorm (S/100 ml) 600 2400 46000
Fecal Collform ( /100 ml) <20 430 1500
Flow (P D) — — 91 _:
Residual Chlorine
Total Chlorine >4.0
* Sludge not tested
** in ,ng/l unless stated otherwise
-------
1984 BOSTON HAlaut suRVEY
DEER ISI.AND wwr DISCHAItCE DATA*
PARAJIETER** JUNE 25 JUNE 25/26 JUNE 26/27
INFUJENT EFFLUENT INFLUENT EFFLUENT
Chloride 1420 1500
COD 860 583 630 558
BOD 198 66 150 81
p11 Standard Units) 7.0 6.9 6.9 6.8
Alkalinity (as CacO 3 )
Suspended Solids 240 129 -390 93
Settleable Solids (.1/1) 2.5 2.0
Total Solids 3588 4068 4138 4206
Total lcjeldahl—Nitrogen 30 22 32 25
A onia—Nitrogen 6.8 9.8 6.5 7.5
Nitrate—Nitrogen **a
Total Phosphorus (as P) 4.5 3.7 6.0 4.2
A ltimintim 0.65 0.39
(:. ImIssm 0.02 0.02
(:Iriirnl..m, ‘Ental 0. 1$ 0. 14
(:Irt Iuia, I cxnvn1ent 0.00 0.00
Irun 2.3 1.9
Mercury 0.0007 0.0005
Manganese 0.14 0.15
Nickel 0.17 0.14
Lead 0.10 0.08
Silver 0.01 0.01
Arsenic 0.001 0.001
Zinc 0.41 0.30
Copper 0.14 0.09
Total Colitori* (0/100 .1) 2.4(106) — 430000 —— 430,000
Fec l Colifora (0/100 ml) 430,000 —— 240.000 — 4,300
Flow (HOD) 284 271
Residual Chlorine 0.1 0.5
Total Chlorine >2.0 2.8
* Sludge not tested
1* mg/i unless stated otherwise
*** Interference
-------
1984 BOSTON HARBOR SURVEY
NUT ISLAND WWTP flISCI1ARCE DATA*
PAIIAIIETER** JUNE 25 JUNK 25/26 JUNE 26/27
INFWENT EPPUJENT INFLUF.NT EFFLUENT
Flow (MCD) 122 107
Realduel. Chlorine 0.3 0.2
72.0 1.8
Total Chlorine
* Sludge not teated
** in m /l unleaa stated otherwise
*** Interference
-------
1984 BOSTON HARBOR SURVEY
NUT ISLAND WWTP DISCHARCE DATA*
PARAIIETER** JULY 16 JULY 16/17 JULY 17/18
INFUJENT EFFWENT INFL1JENT EFFLuENT
Chloride 475 170
COD 392 313 426 329
126 75 120 96
pH 1 Standard Un1 t ) 7.1 7.0 7.2 7.2
Alkalinity (as CaC j3 . 110 83 112 99
Suspended Solids 136 48 162 78
Settleable Solids (mi/i) 5.0
Total Solids 975 682 1000 920
Total Kjeldahl—Nitrogen 65 54 26 18
Ammonia—Nitrogen ,9.3. 12 12
Nitrate—Nitrogen 0.0 0.0
Total Phosphorus (as P) 4.0 / 3.2—-- . 4.8 3.8
AlumInum 1.2 / 0.60
Cmlmligm 0.00/ 0.00
CIiromIi in 0.0)’ 0.02
CupIwr OAt 0.11
trust L.S 1.1
Plcriisry 0.0009 0.0008
Honganuac // (D.19 0.18
Nickel 1 0.00 0.04
1.ead 0.04 0.01
Silver 0.01 0.00
Tin <0.5 0.5
Zinc 0.17 0.12
Arsenic 0.001 0.003
Total Coliform (1/100 ml) 9300 200
Fecal Coliform (1/100 ml) 930 10
Flow (WD) 91.4 102
Residual Chlorine 0.0 0.1 0.
Total Chlorine 3.5 1.1 2.
* Sludge not tested
** in mg/l unless stated otherwise
*** Interference
-------
1984 BOSTON IIAR.BOR SURVEY
TOThL PEOSPEORUS DATA ( g/1 as P)
STATION 25 Jun 26 Jun. 16 Jul. 17 Jul. 27 Aug 28 Aug 9 Oct 10 Oct
EHO I 0.22 0.16 0.13 0.12 0.23 0.21
3H 02 0.39 0.17 0.12 0.13 0.23 0.17
3B03 0.18 0.15 0.11 0.11 0.19 0.18
BEO4 0.19 0.14 0.12 0.17 0.19 0.18
3H05 0.19 0.17 A 0.13 0.19 0.17
3H06 0.15 0.13 A 0.12 0.20 0.16
3E07 0.14 0.12 A 0.09 0.14 0.14
BH08 0.30 0.13 A 0.12 0.14 0.13
BH09 0.18 0.12 0.11 0.14 0.15 0.16
BH1O 0.16 0.12 0.11 0.11 0.18 0.13
BH1OA 0.16 0.14 0.1.1. 0.10 0.21 0.17
BElOB 0.18 0.1.5 0.13 0.15 0.20 0.25
BH.UA 0.16 0.14 A 0.12 0.1.8 0.13
BH I2 A A A 0.10 0.15 0.19
BR.].2.A . A A A 0.11 0.16 0.17
BH. 13 A A A 0.09 0.19 0.14
3H13L A A A 0.09 0.15 0.13
3H14 A A A 0.1.3 0.13 0.11
3H18 A A A 0.1.0 0.13 0.10
3322 0.19 0.16 A 0.12 0.18 0.18
CR01 0.18 0.18 0.12 0.13 0.28 0.20
cR02 0.12 0.20 0.16 0.13 0.06 0.17
CR03 0.26 0.04 0.28 0.42 0.58 0.26
A - Bad veather
-------
1984 BOSTON HARBOR SURVEY
NUT ISLAND WI? DISCHARGE DATA*
PARAMETER** JUNE 25 JUNE 2 5/26 JUNE 2 6/27 -
INflJJENT EYFWENT INFLUENT EFFLUENT
Chloride 540 560
co D 456 427 476 284
BaD 5 132 90 105 93
pH (Standard Units) 71 7.0 1.0 6.6
Alkalinity (as CaCO 3 )
Suspended Solids 84 98 183 120
Settleoble Solids (mi/i) 3.5 2.0
Total Solida 1442 1314 1992 1654
Total KJcldahl—Nitrogeri 3 ’. 16 17 13
Asniuon ia—NittO gefl 8.6 7.8 3.5 9.1
Nitrate —NitrOSen
Total Phouphorus (as P) 5.0 2.1 4.0 3.8
Alu minum 0.91 0.59 0.91
cadm Ium 0.00 0 .02 0.00
(:Iir nIum, Total 0.03 0.00 0.03
Chromium, h lexavalent 0.00 0.00 — —
Iron 1.5 1.2 1.5
Mercury 0.0003 0.0002 0.0003
Manganese 0.20 0.11 0.20
Plickel 0.05 0.05 0.05
Lead 0.05 0.01 0.05
Silver 0.01 0.07 0.01
Copper 0.13 0.17 0.13
Zinc 0.20 0.29 0.20
Arsenic 0.002 0.001 0.002
Total Coliform (1100 ml) 430 40 24,000
Fecal Coliform (1100 ml) 36 5 430
-------
1984 BOSTON BAP.BOR SURVEY
TOTAL LJELDA .—NITRQGEN DAIA (mg/i)
STATION 25 Jun 26 Jun 16 Jul 17 Jul 27 Aug 28 Aug 9 Oct 10 Oct
BRO1 2.4 1.0 1.6 1.5 0.97 0.9
BE02 3.4 1.4 1.6 0.93 1.0 0.82
3R03 2.8 1.3 1.3 1.4 0.83 0.9
BH04 2.8 1.2 1.1 1.5 0.71 0.97
3H05 2.5 1.7 A 1.5 0.72 0.83
BH06 2.2 1.5 A 1.4 0.6 0.82
BEO7 2.5 1.3 A 1.4 0.67 0.72
BEO8 4.2 1.3 A 1.4 0.65 1.2
BEO9 2.2 1.4 1.3 0.90 0.71 1.8
aaio 1.6 1.3 4.6 1.3 0.65 2.0
BH1OA 1.6 1.5 3.7 0.77 0.79 2.0
BR1OB 1.6 1.7 4.0 1.5 0.83 2.0
BE.IIA 1.3 1.6 A 1.0 0.77 1.9
BH12 - A A A 1.0 0.89 19
BE12A A A A 0.7 0.78 2.0
Blii.3 A A A 0.96 0.86 1.7
BB13A A A A 1.8 0.76 2.0
BE].4 A A A 0.98 0.7 2.0
BE 18 A A A 0.81 0.68 2.0
3H22 1.6 2.0 A 1.8 0.77 0.67
CBQ1 2.2 2.1 1.6 3.6 1.2 0.88
CR02 1.6 2.6 1.5 1.9 0.43 0.87
CR03 4.4 0.16 4.0 4.0 2.3 1.2
A - Bad weather
-------
1984 BOSTON HARBOR SCIVEY
A fONIA-NITROGEN DAIA ( g/1)
STATION 25 Jun 26 Jun 16 .Jul 17 Jul 27 Aug 28 Aug 9 Oct 10 Oct
3801 0.22 0.10 0.43 0.11. 0.35 0.24
B802 0.08 0.08 0.44 0.08 0.32 0.39
3803 0.06 0.1]. 0.08 0.05 0.34 0.37
BHO4 0.31 .0.13 0.16 0.27 0.40 0.32
3805 0.02 0.10 A 0.08 0.40 0.28
3806 0.03 0.12 A 0.14 0.36 0.80
BHO7 0.37 0.07 A 0.09 0.35 0.25
3808 0.54 0.12 A 0.17 0.34 0.27
BHO9 003 0.05 0.04 0.06 0.35 0.26
3810 0.02 0.03 0.02 0.08 0.40 0.26
BE1OA 0.04 0.06 0.09 0.08 0.40 0.39
BK1OB 0.03 0.13 0.11 0.17 0.38 0.38
BH11A 0.10 0.04 A 0.04 0.38 1.1
3812 A A A 0.05 0.39 0.35
BRi2A A A A 0.02 0.33 0.26
3813 A A A 0.04 0.37 0.30
BH13A A A A 0.04 0.38 0.30
BH].4 A A A 0.05 0.35 0.57
3818 A A A 0.03 0.36 0.3].
3822 0.01 0.14 A 0.09 0.38 0.34
CR01 0.18 0.25 0.08 0.20 0.07 0.14
02 0.31 0.13 0.34 0.17 0.16 0.22
RO3 0.74 0.15 0.46 0.53 0.15 0.26
A — Bad weather
-------
1.984 BOSTON HARBOR SURVEY
pH DATA (Standard Units)
STATION 25 Jun 26 Jun 16 Jul 17 Jul 27 Aug _ 28 Aug 9 Oct 10 Oct
BEO I 8.3 7.8 8.0 7.8 7.9 7.7
3H02 8.2 7.8 8.0 8.1. 7.8 8.0
3E03 8.1 7.9 7.6 8.0 7.7 7.8
BHO4 7.7 7.8 7.9 7.7 7.8 7.9
BROS 8.1 7.9 A 7.9 7.9 7.8
BEO6 8.2 7.9 A 7.9 8.0 7.9
BH 07 8.0 8.1. A 8.0 7.8 7.9
BHO8 8.0 8.0 A 8.0 8.0 8.0
3R09 8.1 7.7 8.1 8.0 7.9 3
BE1O 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 7.9k. 7.8
BE1OA 7.9 8.0 8.0 7.8 7.8 7.7
BRiOB 7.9 7.8 7.9 7.6 7.8 7.3
BRUA 7.9 7.9 A 8.0 7.8 7.9
BR I2 A A A 8.1 8.0 7.8
BH12A A A A Li 8.1 8.1
3R13 A A A 8.1 8.1 7.9
Ba].3A A A A 8.1 7.9 7.9
BH.14 A A A 8.0 8.1 7.8
BH18 A A A 8.0 7.9 7.9
3B22 7.8 8.0 A 8.1 7.8 7.7
caoi 8.3 7.8 8.0 8.2 7.8 7.9
cR02 8.4 8.0 8.2 8.3 7.7 7.8
RO3 7.5 7.9 8.1 8.8 7.6 7.6
A - Bad wuther
B — Broken in transit
-------
1984 BOSTON HARBOR SURVEY
SUSPENDED SOLIDS DATA ( g/1)
SII I0N 25 Jun 26 Jun 16 Jul 17 Jul 27 Aug 28 Aug 9 Oct 10 Oct
BHO 1 10 5.5 6.5 8 8.5 3.5
3H 02 13 5.5 9 9 4 4
3R03 8 2.5 13 9.5 3 2
BHO4 6.5 2.5 12 6.5 0.5 1
BROS 10 13 A 8 4 0.5
3E06 14 4 A 9.5 4 4
3E07 4 10 A 34 4.9 7
8R08 13 7 A 7.5 4 12
BRO9 10 6 16 24 5.5 B
BH1O 7.5 1.5 10 12 7 9.5
BR10A 15 9.5 13. 10 8.5 33.5
BR].0B 30 12 10 16 12.5 42
BH.UA 8 8.5 A 7 14 8
BH12 A A A 6.5 7 8.5
BHI2A A A A 6.5 10 3.25
BH13 A A A 6 6 5.5
BH I3A A A A 7.5 7.5 8
Bal.4 A A A 7.5 4 10
BEiB A A A 9 6.5 10
B I22 6.5 14 A 13 6.5 7.5
CR01 9 5 8 17 56 5.5
CR02 12 8 8.5 14 3.5 U.
CR03 14 9 21 12 17 3.2
A - Bad weather
-------
1984 BOSTON HARBOR S 1VEY
C ORIDE DATA ( g/1)
STATION 25 Jun 26 Jun 16 Jul 17 Jul. 27 Aug 28 Au 9 Oct 10 Oct
BRO l . 14,500 15,000 15,000 16,300 16,000 17,500
3R02 14000 14,500 14,375 1.3,900 15,300 13,000
3R03 14,250 14,500 15,625 14,400 15,500 15,500
B 04 9,000 15,000 14,375 10,900 15,000 16,000
BROS 14,750 14,000 A 15,300 16,000 15,500
31106 15,750 14,000 A 15,100 16,500 16,000
BEO7 16,750 15,000 A 16.600 17.500 16,300
31108 16,300 16,000 A 16.900 17,500 17,000
31109 13,730 15000 16,875 17,200 17.000 3
BRi.0 1.5,250 16,000 18,123 16,900 17,000 17,000
BE1CA 13,750 15,000 1.5,625 15,900 16,500 16,500
3111 .03 16,000 13,300 12,300 16,300 16,500 16,500
8111L& 16,250 15,000 A 16,600 17,000 17,500
BH I.2 - A A A 16.900 17,500 17,000
31112A. A . A A 17.200 17,000 17,500
B1113 A A A 17,300 17,000 17,000
31113A A A A 17,500 17,000 17,000
31114 A A A 17,200 17,300 17.500
3111.8 A A A 17,500 17,300 17.500
BH22 18,000 16,000 A 16,900 16,500 17,000
01 13,750 14,500 13.500 14.700 14,400 13,600
CR02 16,000 14,730 15,000 13,300 15,600 16,400
CR03 1,750 14,250 8,500 7,190 16,400 15,200
A — Bad weather
3 — Broken in ra ait
-------
1.984 BOSTON HAR8OR. SURVEY
SPECIPIC CONDUCTANCE DAA ( hos/c )
STATION 25 Jun 26 Jun 1.6 Jul 17 Jul 27 Aug 28 Aug 9 Oct 10 Oct
BHOL 30000 36,000 34,000 36,000 36,000 35,000
EO2 30,000 35,000 30,000 35,000 34,000 34,000
BHO3 30,000 36,000 33,000 34,000 36.000 34,000
BHO4 20,000 35,000 30,000 28,000 34,000 34,000
8E05 33,000 34,000 A 29,000 35,000 35,000
8a 06 36,000 35,000 A 29,000 35,000 35,000
BRO7 35,000 36,000 A 26,000 39,000 36,000
3H08 36,000 34,000 A 35000 38,000 35,000
8R09 34,000 38,000 38,000 38,000 38,000 B
B 10 36,000 36,000 38,000 36,000 38,000 36,000
Ba I. OA 34,000 37,000 34,000 36,000 36,000 34,000
BR 1OB 36,000 36,000 29,000 26,000 37,000 33,000
BR1IA 37,000 35,000 A 38,000 39,000 17,500
BH 12 A A A 36,000 40,000 17,000
3Ri .2A A A A 38,000 39,000 17,500
BH I3 A A A 38,000 38,000 17000
BR13A A A A 38,000 38,000 17,000
3R14 A A A 38,000 37,000 17,500
BB. 18 A A A 36,000 38,000 36,000
BR22 36,000 38,000 A 38,000 37,000 34,000
CR01 C C C C 31,000 29,000
CR02 C C C C 33,000 36,000
CR03 C C C C 34,000 35,000
A — Sad weather
B — Broken in transit
C — No 3ample taken
-------
I I •
S.
-------
Appendix D
I
-------
CONCENTRATIONS OF METALS IN BOSTON HARBOR WATERS
Results from:
Metal Distribution in a Major Urban Estuary (Boston Harbor)
Impacted by Ocean Disposal
By:
G.T.Wallace,Jr., W.H. Waugh and K.A. Garner
Paper Presented at the Proceedings of the
Fith International Ocean Disposal Symposium
September 10—14 1984, Oregon State University, Corvalis Oregon
SAMPLING LOCATIONS
-------
BOSTON HARBOR DISSOLVED METAL CONCENTRATIONS - LOW TIDE
AUGUST 17 and 18, 1984 (Concentrations in ug/1*)
STATION Zn Pb Cd Cu Ni Fe Mn
1 12.486 .557 .105 9.277 21.605 84.877 39.282
2 5.883 .286 .081 6.862 1.667 15.077 13.735
3 7.256 .294 .083 9.277 1.744 12.452 15.273
4 7.321 .218 .081 5.147 1.62 12.173 15.603
5 1.896 .39 .063 6.418 2.936 10.889 2.198
6 9.413 .354 .062 4.13 1.562 15.3 15.273
7 6.602 .269 .076 4.257 1.573 9.772 11.867
8 5.687 .191 .075 4.956 1.92 8.432 11.537
9 4.053 .228 .076 5.02 1.256 18.539 11.208
101 15.689 .327 .572 6.481 2.266 13.346 15.603
11 2.549 .191 .076 2.033 1.209 8.544 7.582
12 3.791 .369 .087 1.652 .916 7.259 7.637
122 3.203 .431 .08 2.033 .822 5.64 7.417
13 4.314 .321 .086 2.986 .969 8.041 12.032
14 4.903 .267 .097 2.923 .963 6.589 15.438
15 4.968 .367 .094 3.304 1.086 7.65 16.097
16 3.072 .236 .074 3.939 .887 4.914 12.526
17 1.83 .182 .056 3.113 .634 5.137 5.934
18 2.026 .24 .057 3.368 .622 5.193 6.922
19 2.68 .193 .061 2.796 .587 3.741 6.922
20 2.223 .288 .057 12.39 1.292 7.65 7.252
21 4.576 .369 .065 18.49 .916 10.442 16.427
22 2.876 .3 .07 14.741 .881 5.361 7.911
23 2.549 .261 .054 12.009 .822 3.797 9.56
24 3.138 .39 .071 13.979 1.421 4.411 7.582
t : 1. S p1e tak within er IsL id Outfall pluie.
2. Station 12 reo i. on se day of 1 tick s pling.
ta or .gina.Uy e çresae .i.n r1MJL e3a eQt Cd 4ud eared as ç 4./L.
-------
BOSTON HARBOR DISSOLVED METAL CONCENTRATIONS - HIGH TIDE
AUGUST 23 and 24, 1984 (Concentrations in ug/] .*)
STATION Zn Pb Cd Cu Ni Fe Mn
1 4.118 .408 .053 13.089 2.284 31.326 27.58
2 5.622 .334 .079 12.644 1.198 14.686 11.647
2 ( 13 )a 3.988 .408 .074 11.183 2.712 17.645 10.988
3 8.106 .361 .074 8.197 1.292 17.199 15.933
4 6.995 .255 .081 12.009 1.573 13.234 13.295
4 (13) 2.549 .244 .061 5.973 .84 9.995 7.032
6 4.249 .228 .072 6.227 1.069 8.32 11.098
6 (13) 2.484 .288 .065 6.418 .851 10.721 6.428
7 5.23 .186 .07 3.241 1.045 8.153 10.219
7 (13) 2.353 .22 .056 3.939 .71 12.843 7.197
8 1.961 .137 .07 3.113 .687 4.3 5.549
8 b 1.896 .157 .064 3.749 .569 4.579 6.263
9 3.922 .203 .07 3.812 .951 11.838 9.779
10 1.961 .174 .069 2.796 .716 6.244 5.604
10(15) 1.569 .16 .056 4.067 .517 4.356 4.23
10 C 3.857 .255 .047 6.227 1.802 13.792 11.318
11 2.026 .133 .07 4.257 1.397 3.127 3.187
11(15) .784 .091 .04 .381 .628 6.254 3.626
12 4.903 .271 .088 1.97 .81 7.036 6.593
13 3.661 .267 .09 1.652 .845 7.873 8.516
13 b .356 .086 1.207 .816 5.919 8.626
14 3.399 .249 .081 1.97 1.051 6.533 7.582
14(8) 3.922 .334 .082 1.461 .81 24.681 7.582
15 3.269 .332 .082 1.271 .658 15.133 9.834
16 1.438 .139 .06 .89 1.632 1.787 4.175
16 b 2.092 .182 .058 1.017 .587 3.797 4.945
17 1.438 .112 .052 3.685 .616 1.899 3.901
17(15) .85 .095 .038 2.415 .546 4.244 1.758
18 2.811 .286 .06 3.558 .622 6.757 9.56
18(20) 1.438 .133 .051 2.669 .546 4.523 4.945
19 2.876 .344 .064 3.05 .787 6.701 8.461
20 2.353 .247 .058 4.067 .675 8.488 7.747
21 4.576 .344 .063 2.224 .787 8.432 16.976
22 3.269 .57 .067 2.351 .787 6.422 8.461
23 2.484 .313 .056 2.605 .734 9.94 6.373
24 3.922 1.032 .083 2.605 .734 7.538 5.659
Fbothotes ear at end of ç ix.
-------
BOSTON HARBOR PARTICULATE METAL CONCENTRATIONS - HIGH TIDE
AUGUST 23 and 24, 1984 (Concentrations in ug/1*)
STATION Zn Pb Cd Cu Ni Fe Mn
1 1.059 .636 9E—03 .941 .133 127.874 1.066
2 .732 .47 18—03 .471 .065 84.318 .769
2 ( 13 )a .549 .41 3E—03 .405 .073 111.68 .928
3 .523 .516 3E—03 .445 .043 79.851 .637
4 .346 .325 1E—03 .301 .038 53.048 .637
4(13) .758 .456 3E—03 .588 .087 112.797 1.698
6 .373 .286 18—03 .451 .042 52.49 1.769
6(13) .66 .311 38—03 .543 .085 106.096 1.703
7 .418 .249 18—03 .386 .045 49.139 1.395
7(U) .981 .39 78—03 1.013 .059 145.742 1.824
8 .275 .126 38—03 .379 .042 34.621 .747
8 b .399 .267 28—03 .608 .048 54.165 1.066
9 .621 .286 18—03 .288 .105 104.421 1.324
10 .464 .24 28—03 .445 .016 51.931 1.187
10(15) .412 .174 48—03 .438 .016 43.555 1.165
10 C 8.563 .806 .069 3.197 .255 107.771 1.61
11 .451 .182 38—03 .281 .042 28.478 1.143
11(15) .412 .176 28—03 .395 .08 73.709 1.253
12 .412 .336 28—03 .268 .053 49.698 .736
13 .869 .372 48—03 .392 .077 67.566 .978
13 b .66 .303 48—03 .346 .059 59.19 .841
14 .837 .361 38—03 .333 .21 61.982 1.148
14(8) .824 .45 48—03 .608 .099 99.395 1.319
15 1.222 .661 68—03 1.039 .146 157.469 1.604
16 .601 .122 18—03 .163 .031 29.595 .967
.856 .153 18—03 .183 .032 28.478 1.099
17 .431 .091 18—03 .098 .022 13.402 1.17
17(15) .32 .087 0 .105 .026 22.336 1.016
18 .497 .3 18—03 .34 .055 49.698 1.368
18 (20) .34 .131 18—03 .118 .034 26.803 .989
19 .379 .207 18—03 .209 .047 42.997 1.258
20 .431 .211 18—03 .242 .044 46.906 1
21 .686 .479 18—03 .307 .058 67.008 1
22 .608 .332 38—03 .438 .072 58.632 1.555
23 .798 .497 48—03 .34 .066 59.19 2.181
24 1.314 .646 58—03 .876 .141 124.523 2.264
FOot tes ear at & of Ap.ix.
Note Data originally expressed in nulL except Cd (pHIL), and Fe (uJl/L).
-------
BOSTON HARBOR TOTAL METAL CONCENTRATIONS - HIGH TIDE
AUGUST 23 and 24, 1984 (Concentrations in ug/1*)
1 5.177 1.044 .062 14.031 2.417 159.2 28.646
2 6.354 .804 .081 13.115 1.262 99.004 12.416
2 ( 13 )a 4•537 .818 .078 11.588 2.785 129.325 11.916
3 8.629 .876 .078 8.641 1.334 97.05 16.57
4 7.341 .58 .082 12.31 1.612 66.282 13.933
4 (13) 3.308 .7 .065 6.561 .927 122.792 8.73
6 4.622 .514 .073 6.678 1.111 60.81 12.867
6 (13) 3.144 .599 .068 6.96 .936 116.817 8.131
7 5.648 .435 .071 3.626 1.09 57.292 11.614
7 (13) 3.334 .609 .063 4.953 .77 158.586 9.021
8 2.236 .263 .072 3.493 .729 38.92 6.296
8 b 2.294 .425 .066 4.357 .618 38.744 7.329
9 4.543 .489 .071 4.1 1.056 116.259 11.103
10 2.425 .414 .071 3.24 .733 56.175 6.791
10(1.5) 1.981 .334 .06 4.505 .532 47.911 5.395
12.42 1.061 .116 9.424 2.057 121.564 12.927
11 2.478 .315 .072 4.338 1.44 31.605 4.329
11(15) 1.196 .267 .042 .976 .709 79.963 4.879
12 3.315 .607 .09 2.238 .865 56.733 7.329
13 4.53 .839 .094 2.044 .923 75.44 9.494
4.059 .86 .09 1.554 .875 65.109 9.466
14 4.236 .609 .085 2.303 1.261 68.516 8.73
14(8) 4.746 .783 .086 2.069 .909 124.076 8.9
15 4.491 .992 .088 2.31 .803 172.601 11.439
16 2.04 .261 .061 1.053 1.663 31.382 5.142
16 b 2.948 .336 .059 1.2 .619 32.276 6.043
17 1.87 .203 .052 3.783 .639 15.3 5.071
17(15) 1.17 .182 .038 2.519 .572 26.58 2.774
18 3.308 .386 .061 3.898 .678 56.454 10.928
18(20) 1.778 .263 .052 2.786 .58 31.326 5.934
19 3.255 .551 .065 3.259 .834 49.698 9.719
20 2.785 .458 .059 4.308 .719 55.393 8.746
21 5.262 .823 .064 2.531 .845 75.44 17.976
22 3.876 .901 .07 2.789 .858 65.054 10.016
23 3.282 .81 .059 2.945 .8 69.13 8.554
24 5.236 1.678 .088 3.481 .875 132.062 7.922
Fwthotas r at of A ç ix.
-------
FrJJI rJffS O HIGf TIDE SA LING TABLE
aNumber in parenthesis following station number is depth of sample in meters.
Otherwise samples were collected at a depth of 1O cm.
bA second surface san le was teken nearby but In a visually more turbid zone.
CThis sample was collected near station 10 but directly in the plume from the
Deer Is3nd Outfall.
Data originally e,çiressed i.n riM/L ex pt Cd whith a eared as /L.
-------
1984 BOSTON HARBOR SURVEY
DEER ISLAND WWTP DISCHARGF DATA*.
PARA!IETER** JULY 16 JULY 16/17 JULY 17/18
INFLUENT EFFLUENT INFLUENT EFFLUENT
Chloride 450 1450
COD 396 498 583 518
DOD 120 90 120 99
p11 Standard Units) 7.0 7.1 7.1 7.1
Alkalinity (SB CaCO 3 ) 114 105 113 99
Suspended Solids 166 94 183 94
Settleabie Solids (el/i) 3.0
Total Solids 3930 2590 3,390 3350
Total KJe ldahl—Nitrogen 162 132 26 25
A onia—Nitrogen 10 13 16 15
Nitrate—Nitrogen * 5* *** * 5* *5*
Total Phosphorus (as P) 5.8 3.8 3.8 3.6
A1i 1num 0.46
(:iidmlum 0,00
(:Isru.Iism, Total 0.10
•I 1ii <0.5
Iron 1.6
Mercury 0.0000 *5*5
flanganese 0.14
Nickel 0.04
I.cad 0.09
Silver O.’U
Arsenic 0.004
zInc 0.20
Copper 0.40 **** ii x
Total Colifora ( 1/100 ml) 240,000 — 240,000 —
Pecal Collform (1/100 ml) 240,000 — 300 —— 430,000
Flow Q D) — 246 255
Residual Chlorine 0.0 1.7 0.1
Total Chlorine 1.4 3.0 1.2
* Slu4ge not tested
** in mg/l unless stated otherwise
..•
-------
1984 BOSTON HARBOR SURVEY
DEER ISLAND WWTP DISCHARGE DATA*
PARAMETER** AUGUST 27 AUGUST 27/28 AUGUST 28/29
INPUJENT EFFLUENT INFLUENT EFFLUENT
Chloride 1520
COD 637 642 650 640
ROD 153 108 60 48
pH Standard Unit.) 6.8 6.9 6.8 6.8
Alkalinity (a. CaCO 3 )
Suapended Solida 216 141 436 106
Settleable Solido (mi/i) 4.8
Total Solid. 3754 3650 3660 3464
Total Kleldahl—Nttrogen 40 21 44 33
Aonin—Nitrogon 14 14 16 15
NItrate—Nitrogen 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
rota) Fhoephorua (aa P) 8.5 4.5 5.8 5.0
Al umInum 0.4 0.5
(:iiil. lusa 0.00 0.00
Ckros*Iiu., Totisl 0.09 0.08
Copper 0.14 0.15
iron 1.5 1.5
Mercury 0.0000 0.0000
Manganeac 0.06 0.02
Nickel 0.05 0.05
l.ead 0.02 0.01
Silver <0.5 <0.5
0.15 0.16
Tin
Zinc 0,022 0.024
Arsenic
Total Coliform (1/100 ml) 30 x 2.4 x 1o 6 46,000
Fecal Colifora (0/100 ml) 2.2 x 1O 2.4 z 106. 7500
231 227
Flow (W D) —
Residual Chlorine 0.0
Total Chlorine 0.0 1.0
* Sludge not teeted
** in mg/i unleaa etated otherwiee
-------
— SI
a
a
a
a’
I ,
17
S
• .3
P1Z SI 0
a
‘a a a
: , - •
a a —
$0 v
a U
1•
-=x .
a
—<
4 1.
C
• :
‘ c;
a
V.
4

\
-------