EPA 560/7-75-001-4
COMPILATION OF STATE DATA FOR
EIGHT SELECTED TOXIC SUBSTANCES
>
VOLUME IV
COMPILATION OF SUMMARIES AND ANALYSES
OF STATE DATA
SEPTEMBER 1975
FINAL REPORT
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Toxic Substances
Washington, D.C. 20460
-------
EPA 560/7-75-001-4
COMPILATION OF STATE DATA FOR
EIGHT SELECTED TOXIC SUBSTANCES
VOLUME IV
COMPILATION OF SUMMARIES AND ANALYSES
OF STATE DATA
BY
E. ROBERTS
R. SPEWAK
S. STRYKER
S. TRACEY
EPA CONTRACT NO. 68-01-2933
EPA PROJECT OFFICER: DORIS J. FIN LAY
For
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Toxic Substances
4th and M Streets, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
SEPTEMBER 1975
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
LIST OF TABLES ix
LIST OF FIGURES xviii
INTRODUCTION 1
STJM 1ARIES AND ANALYSES: FIRST QUARTER DATA 3
ANALYSIS OF TEST STATES’ DATA 4
Overview of Analysis 4
Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture, Bureau of
Foods and Chemistry 7
Pennsylvania Bureau of Air Quality 14
Data Analysis 16
Allegheny County Air Data 19
City of Philadelphia Air Management Services 23
Allegheny County Lead Control Program 28
Monitoring Program 28
Results and Discussion 30
Conclusions 34
Colorado Department of Health, Division of
Engineering and Sanitation 36
Colorado Department of Health; Milk, Food and Drug
Division 41
Colorado Department of Natural Resources, Wildlife
Division 48
1971 Study Monitoring Program 49
1972 Study Monitoring Program 51
1973 Study Monitoring Program 52
Data Interpretation/Discussion 53
Migratory Bird Investigation, Southeastern Colorado 64
Conclusions 68
General Conclusions on Wildlife Division Data 69
Department of Health and Hospitals, City and County of
Denver 70
SUMMARIES AND ANALYSES: SECOND QUARTER DATA 73
Processing and Analysis of Data Resulting from Contacts
with the States 74
Massachusetts Data Analysis 75
1. Massachusetts Water Resources Commission, Division
of Water Pollution Control 76
iii
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Continued)
Page
(a) An Investigation of Mercury Problems in
Massachusetts 76
(b) Trace Metal Analysis of Boston Harbor Water
and Sediments 102
(c) The Ten Mile River 114
(d) Wastewater Discharge Survey: Connecticut
River Basin 116
2. Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Game 124
(a) Analysis of Fish Tissue for Mercury Content
July 15, 1970 to March 1971 124
(b) Analysis of Fish Tissue for Mercury Content
April 1, 1971 to March 31, 1972 Study 130
(c) Pesticide Monitoring Programs——April 1, 1970 —
March 31, 1971 138
(d) Presence of PCB’s in the Housatonic River
July 1971 143
(e) Pesticide Program——April 1972 — March 1973 147
3. Department of Natural Resources and Department of
Public Health 151
(a) Toxic Substances Survey 151
(b) Interstate Carrier Water Supply Analysis 162
(c) Bottled Water Program 164
SUMMARIES AND ANALYSES: THIRD QUARTER DATA 167
1.0 MISSOURI AGENCY DATA ANAlYSIS 168
1.1 Missouri Water Supply Program 168
1.2 Missouri Clean Water Commission 169
1.3 Missouri Air Conservation Commission 171
1.4 St. Louis County Air Sampling Network 174
1.5 St. Louis City Air Sampling Network 181
2.0 WASHINGTON AGENCY DATA ANALYSIS 183
2.1 Department of Fisheries —— Management and
Research Division 183
2.2 Department of Game 184
2.3 Department of Ecology 188
2.4 Department of Social and Health Services,
Office of Environmental Health Programs,
Tacoma Smelter Study 190
2.5 City of Tacoma — Department of Public Utilities —
Water Division 193
iv
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Continued)
Page
3.0 GEORGIA AGENCY DATA ANALYSIS 195
3.1 Georgia Water Quality Control Board 195
3.2 Georgia Department of Natural Resources:
Environmental Protection Division 213
3.3 Game and Fish Division, Department of
Natural Resources 218
3.4 Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife 221
3.5 Georgia Department of Agriculture 234
3.6 Georgia Air Sampling Network 238
3.7 City of Atlanta—Department of Waterworks—Water
Treatment Division 240
4.0 TEXAS AGENCY DATA ANALYSIS 242
4.1 Texas State Department of Health 242
4.2 Texas Parks and Wildlife 249
4.3 Texas Air Control Board — ASARCO Zinc
Smelter—Amarillo, Texas 251
4.4 Texas Department of Agriculture 255
5.0 CALIFORNIA AGENCY DATA ANALYSIS 259
5.1 California State Department of Health —
Epidemlological Studies Laboratory 259
5.2 Universities in California 283
6.0 MICHIGAN AGENCY DATA ANALYSIS 288
6.1 Michigan Department of Natural Resources 288
6.2 Michigan Department of Public Health 293
6.3 Wayne County Department of Health—Trace
Metal Data 293
6.4 Michigan State Department of Agriculture 297
6.5 International Reference Group on Upper Lakes 299
Pollution—Study of Pollution Problems of Lake
Huron and Lake Superior
7.0 CONNECTICUT AGENCY DATA ANALYSIS 300
7.1 Connecticut Department of Environmental 300
Protection—Air Compliance Section
SUMMARIES AND ANALYSES: FOURTH QUARTER DATA 303
1.0 CONNECTICUT AGENCY DATA ANALYSIS 304
1.1 Connecticut State Department of Health,
Environmental Health Services 304
1.2 University of Connecticut — Annual Report of
the Department of Pathobiology 1972—73 306
V
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(continued)
Page
1.3 University of Connecticut — Master’s Thesis:
“Presence and Influence of Certain Heavy Metals
on the Yield and Utilization of Medicago
Sativa L.” 307
1.4 The Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station,
New Haven, Connecticut 310
1.5 Connecticut Water Compliance and Hazardous
Substances, Division of Environmental Quality 316
1.6 University of Connecticut, Marine Sciences
Institute 317
2.0 NORTH CAROLINA AGENCY DATA ANALYSIS 318
2.1 North Carolina Department of Human Resources —
Division of Health Services 318
3.0 FLORIDA AGENCY DATA ANALYSIS 322
31 Florida/Metropolitan Dade County Pollution
Control 322
3.2 Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative
Services, Division of Health 328
4.0 TENNESSEE AGENCY DATA ANALYSIS 329
4.1 Tennessee Department of Public Health, Division
of Air Polluction Control 329
4.2 Tennessee Department of Agriculture 331
4.3 Tennessee Game and Fish Commission 333
5.0 NEW YORK AGENCY DATA ANALYSIS 343
5.1 New York State — Nassau County Department of
Health 343
52 City of New York — Environmental Protection
Administration, Department of Water Resources 345
5.3 New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation, Division of Air Resources 358
5.4 New York State Department of Health 360
5.5 New York Department of Environmental
Conservation, Fish and Wildlife Management 362
5.6 New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation, Division of Pure Waters 366
5.7 New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation 368
5.8 New York State Department of Health, Division of
Laboratories and Research Environmental Health
Center 369
vi
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(continued)
Page
6.0 IDAHO AGENCY DATA ANALYSIS 371
6.1 Idaho State Department of Fish and Game and
Department of Health 371
6.2 Environmental Improvement Division — Idaho
Department of Health 374
7.0 OREGON AGENCY DATA ANALYSIS 379
7.1 Oregon State Department of Agriculture 379
7.2 Oregon Environmental Quality Commission 381
8 • 0 IOWA AGENCY DATA ANALYSIS 383
8.1 Iowa Department of Agriculture — Pesticide
Residue Division 383
8.2 Iowa Department of Environmental Quality 385
8.3 The University of Iowa, State Hygienic Laboratory 387
9.0 CALIFORNIA AGENCY DATA ANALYSIS 389
9.1 California Air Resources Board 389
9.2 State of California, Department of Water Resources 391
10 • 0 TEXAS AGENCY DATA ANALYSIS 392
10.1 Texas State Department of Health, Air Pollution
Control Services 392
10.2 El Paso City—County Health Department 393
APPENDIX A: SUNMARY OF TOXIC SUBSTANCES DATA PROCESSED
BY COMPUTER A-i
Introduction A—2
SAROAD Data Statistical Analysis Program A—4
Pennsylvania Bureau of Air Quality SAROAD Daily Data A—iO
Allegheny County Bureau of Air Pollution Control SAROAD
Daily Data A—36
Missouri Air Conservation Commission SAROAD Daily Data A—43
St. Louis County Division of Air Pollution Control
SAROAD Monthly Composite Data A—50
St. Louis City Division of Air Pollution Control SAROAD
Monthly Composite Data A—59
St. Louis City Division of Air Pollution Control SAROAD
Quarterly Composite Data A—68
vii
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(continued)
Page
Georgia Department of Natural Resources Environmental
Protection Division SAROAD Monthly Composite Data A—fl
Michigan Department of Natural Resources Divi8ion of
Air Pollution Control SAROAD Daily Data A—75
Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection
SAROAD Quarterly Composite Data A—79
Tennessee Department of Public Health Division of Air
Pollution Control SAROAD Monthly Data A—lOO
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
Division of Air Resources SAROAD Daily Data A—115
California Air Resources Board SAROAD Daily Data A—1 17
Texas State Department of Health Air Pollution Control
Services SAROAD Daily Data A 127
El Paso City-County Health Department SAROAD Monthly
Data A150
El Paso City—County Health Department Soil and Dust
Data A467
viii
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table Number Page
1 Pennsylvania Bureau of Foods and Chemistry
Toxic Subtances Analysis Results 10
2 Summary of the Pennsylvania Bureau of Foods
and Chemistry Toxic Substances Data
(Units in ppm) 13
3 Toxic Substances Analysis Summary 15
4 Allegheny County Health Dept. Bureau of Air
Pollution Control Hi Vol. Sampling
(Micrograms per cubic meter) 22
5 Philadelphia Data Analysis Summary 27
6 Summary of Survey Results 32
7 Survey Statistics 34
8 Colorado Standards (Allowable Limits) For
Toxic Substances in Drinking Water 37
9 Toxic Substances in Colorado Drinking
Water (mg/l) 40
10 Lead in Pottery in Colorado 47
11 Metal Concentration Ranges Over 24 Hours 109
12 Results of Inner Harbor Sediments lii
13 Massachusetts Waste Water Discharge
Survey Samples (mg/i) 120
14 Mean Concentrations of PCB Compounds Found
in Fish 140
15 Mean Concentrations of PCB Coapounds Found
in Mussels 141
16 Fish Samples Collected in July 1971
(Dry Weight in ppm) 145
17 PCB’s in Mussel Collected 3 September 1971
(ppm Dry Weight) 145
ix
-------
LIST OF TABLES
(continued)
Table Number Page
18 Analysis of Sediment Samples of 9 November
1971 146
19 Mean Concentrations of PCB’s in Fish
Collected During 1972 (ppm Dry Weight) 149
20 Massachusetts Toxic Metal Survey Results 155
21 Statistical Values of Metals Found in Three
Species of Shellfish 156
22 Massachusetts Shellfish Samples
(mg/kg Wet Wt.) 157
23 Massachusetts Finfish Samples
(mg/kg Wet Wt.) 159
24 Massachusetts Core and Sludge Samples
(mg/kg Dry Wt. Passing #30 Sieve) 160
25 Massachusetts Sediment Samples
(mg/kg Dry Wt. Passing #30 Sieve) 161
26 Massachusetts Water Samples (mg/i) 163
27 Lead in Missouri Water Supplies (ppm) 168
28 Toxic Substances in Missouri Sewage (ppm) 170
29 Lead Determination of Dustfall Analysis
Missouri Air Conse vation Commission Sampling
Network (Tons/Mile /30 Days) 1971 176
30 Lead Determination of Dustfall Analysis
Missouri Air Conservation Commission Sampling
Network (Tons/Mile 2 /30 Days) 1972 177
31 Settleable Particulate Trace Metal Analysis
for Lead and Cadmium Missouri Air Cons rvatjon
Commission Sampling Network (tons/Mile’/30
Days) 1971 178
32 Sediment Analysis for Toxic Substances in
State of Washington 185
x
-------
LIST OF TABLES
(continued)
Table Number Page
33 Categories of Industrial Waste in
Washington 189
34 Tacoma Smelter Study
Summary of Multi—Media Data 191
35 City of Tacoma-Water Analysis in PPM 194
36 Mercury Determination in Biota From Seven
Major River Basins in Georgia (Exclusive
of the Savannah River) 1970—71) 198
37 Mercury Determinations from the Savannah
River (Augusta to Savannah) 197 0—71 203
38 Mercury Determinations in Biota from the
Savannah Estuarine Area (197 0—71) 206
39 Mercury Determinations in Biota from the
Georgia Coast Exclusive of the Brunswick
Area and Savannah Estuarine Area (197 0—71) 208
40 Mercury Determinations in Biota from the
Brunswick Area (1970—71) 209
41 Mercury Determination in Sediments 197 0—71 210
42 Toxic Substances Determination in Sediments
from Eleven River Basins 1973 216
43 Detection Limits for Five Toxic Substances
In Georgia 217
44 Mercury Concentration in Georgia Rails
and Bail Food (ppm wet weight) 1973 220
45 Toxic Substances Determination in Fish from
the Savannah River 1971 222
46 Mercury Determination in Biota from the
Savannah River 1971 225
47 Mercury Determination in Biota from the
Brunswick Area 1971 226
-------
LIST OP TABLES
(continued)
Table Numbers Page
48 Mercury Determination In Blota from the
Savannah River 1972 227
49 Mercury Determination in Biota from the
Brunswick Area 1972 228
50 Mercury Determination in Biota from the
Savannah River 1973 — 1974 229
51 Mean Concentration of Mercury
The Savannah River 1971 — 1974 232
52 Georgia Mercury Dischargers 233
53 Georgia Department of Agriculture
PCB Contamination Study — PCB’s (ppm)
Arochior 1242 235
54 Georgia Department of Agriculture
PCB Contamination Study — PCB’s (ppm)
Arochior 1254 236
55 Georgia Department of Agriculture
PCB Contamination Study — PCB’s (ppm) 237
56 city of Atlanta River and Tap Water Analysis 241
57 Classification of Elective Surgery Supplying
Adipose Tissue — Texas, 1969—72 243
58 PCB’s in Human Adipose Tissue from Elective
Surgery — Texas, 1969—72 243
59 Study of Metals in Seafoods In Texas
Estuaries—Cr and As (mg/kg) 244
60 Study of Metals in Seafoods in Texas
Estuaries—Cd (mg/kg) 245
61 Study of Metals in Seafoods in Texas
Estuaries -Pb (mg/kg) 246
62 Study of Metals in Seafoods in Texas
Estuaries—Hg (mg/kg) 247
xii
-------
LIST OF TABLES
(continued)
Table Numbers Page
63 Sample Analysis Results 249
64 Mercury in Texas Fish in June and July 1971 250
65 PCB’s (pg/kg) Frequency of Occurrence and
Mean Concentration 256
66 Trinity River PCB Residues: A Comparison
of Rural and Urban Sites 257
67 Frequency of Occurrence and Mean Concentration
of PCB Residues in Trinity River Samples
Compared with All Other Samples 258
68 Household Samples and Successful Contacts 261
69 Summary of Laboratory Results Specimens
From Adults 262
70 Summary of Laboratory Results Specimens
From Children 263
71 Zielhuis’ Standards 265
72 Comparison of Lead Concentrations in Food
by Area (pg/g for individual samples) 266
73 Comparison of Lead Concentrations in Food
by Area (ug/g for individual samples 267
74 Comparison of Lead Concentrations in
Backyard Garden Produce by Area
(ug/g for individual samples) 269
75 Air Monitoring Data Hi Vol Sampler 270
76 Air Monitoring Data Hi Vol Sampling 271
77 Summary of Air Sampling Data 272
78 Concentration of Lead and. Cadmium in Avena 275
xiii
-------
LIST OF TABLES
(continued)
Table Numbers
79 Blood Lead Concentration ( g/lO0 g) by
Location and Sex Six—Community Study of
School Children Southern California 276
80 San Diego County Study of School Children
Comparison of Mean Blood Lead Concentration 279
81 Mercury Residues in Fish from California (ppm)
April — July 1970 281
82 Heavy Metal Residues in Harbor Seals (ppm) 282
83 Concentrations at Episode Peak for
Correlated Elements, Nanogram/M 3 285
84 ComparIson of Typical Stack Sample
Concentrations with Ambient Air Sample
Concentrations at Episode Peak Normalized
to Arsenic 285
85 Levels of PBB in Michigan Pheasants (ppm)
June—October 1974 289
86 Mercury in Michigan Wildlife (ppm) 290
87 Michigan Water Resources Connnission
1973 Surveillance Data 291
88 Detection Limits for Toxic Substances
in Michigan Drinking Water 294
89 Atmospheric Metals — 1972
Wayne County, Michigan 295
90 Atmospheric Metals — 1973
Wayne County, Michigan 296
91 Michigan State Department of Agriculture
Heavy Metals Program 298
92 Connecticut Department of Health
Environmental Health Services
(mg/kg of Shellfish Meat) 305
xiv
-------
LIST OF TABLES
(continued)
Table Numbers Page
93 Results of Sewage Sludge Study 312
94 Metal Contamination of Urban Woody Plants 315
95 Summary of Significant Deviations from
Normal Trace Metal Values In North Carolina
Chemical Water Analyses for As, Cd, Cr+ 6 and Pb 320
96 Sahara Dust Study in Dade County—Statistics
of Sahara Dust Study in Dade County Using
Selected Sampling Sites Based on 24—Hour
August 7th, 1974 HI—Vol Results 3
September 1973 Thru February 1974 Pb g/m 324
97 Summary of Ambient Air Pollutant Concentrations
for Test Periods of September 1973 Thru
February 1974 and August 7, 1974 Pb pg/rn 3 325
98 Statistics of Sahara Dust In Dade County Using
Hi—Vol Sampling September 1973 Thru February
1974 Pb .ig/m 3 326
99 Sahara Dust Study in Dade County Comparison
of Ambient Air Pollutant Concentration At
16 Sampling Sites and Background Site During
Test Period from September 1973—February 1974
by 24—Hour High—Volume Sampler Pb pg/m 327
100 Tennessee Department of Agriculture
Pesticide Residue Sampling Program — PCB’s (ppm) 332
101 Summary of Average PCB Content by Species
by Body of Water, 1971 335
102 Summary of Average Pesticide Content by
Species by Body of Water, 1972 338
103 Results of Heavy Metals Analysis of Organs
from Cherokee Rockfish, Fall 1972 341
104 Nassau Co. Health Dept. Lead Study Residents
with Leaded Service Lines Pb in Blood 344
105 Range and Average — Representative Sampling
Stations — 1971 346
xv
-------
LIST OF TABLES
(continued)
Table Numbers Page
106 Range and Average — Representative Sampling
Stations — 1972 349
107 Range and Average — Representative Sampling
Stations — 1973 350
108 Trace Element Studies in Upstate Watershed —
1972 352
109 Trace Element Studies in Upstate Watershed —
1973 354
110 Range and Average Characteristic Analyses of
the Catskill—Deleware and Cro ton Supplies in
the Distribution System 356
111 Range and Average Characteristic Analyses of
the Catskill—Deleware and Croton Supplies
in the Distribution System 357
112 Fish and Wildlife Hg Study
Mercury Levels in Cranberry Lake 363
113 New York State Water Quality Data 367
114 New York State Department of Health Landfill
Leaching Survey mg/i 370
115 Mercury Residues in Idaho Fishes by Species,
1970—71 372
116 Comparison of Mercury Residues in Stream and
Reservoir Fishes 375
117 Mercury Residues in Idaho Hatchery Fish,
1970—1971 375
118 Mercury Residues in Dry Fish Feed (Idaho
Fish and Game Formula), 1971 376
119 Heavy Metals Concentrations 378
120 Oregon State Department of Agriculture Toxic
Substance Subject Matter 380
xvi
-------
LIST OF TABLES
(concluded)
Table Numbers ____
121 Oregon—Terwilliger Area Lead Study 382
122 Iowa Department of Agriculture — PCB
Data Summary 1975 — Fish Meal 384
123 Iowa Raw and Finished Drinking Water 1971—75 386
124 Water Quality Report Data
DeMoss Dump, Iowa ppm 388
125 Unidentified California Sites 390
126 Site Identification Codes — El Paso Air
Data 394
xvii
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Number Page
1 Pennsylvania Form for Recording Data from
Dairy Products Monitoring 8
2 Pennsylvania Form for Recording Data from
Special Analyses 9
3 Data Received from Pennsylvania Bureau of
Air Quality 17
4 SAROAD Daily Data Form 18
5 Air Quality Data Received from Philadelphia’s
Air Management Service 24
6 SAROAD Multiple—Station Data Form 25
7 Allegheny County Preliminary Soil Survey Data 31
8 Allegheny County Preliminary Soil Survey Data 33
9 Data Sheet from Colorado Report on Quality
of Drinking Water 38
10 Colorado Health Department Sample Collection
Report 42
11 Colorado Health Department Sample Analysis
Report 43
12 Form for Recording Colorado Lead in Pottery
Data 45
13 Distribution of Lead in Pottery Values for
Colorado 46
14 Colorado Data on Heavy Metal Concentrations in
Tissue 54
15 Lead Levels in Canadian Geese in Colorado 65
16 Water Quality Data Sheet Received from
Denver City—County 71
17 Form Used by Mitre To Record Denver Data 72
xviii
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
(continued)
Figure Numbers Page
18 Mercury Levels in Sediments 78
19 Mercury Levels in Sediments 81
20 Mercury Levels in Sediments 83
21 Effects of Pumping on Test Wells 87
22 Brook and River Monitoring Data (Total and
Dissolved Hg ppb) 90
23 Total Mercury at Monitoring Stations 92
24 Dissolved Mercury at Monitoring Stations 93
25 Taunton River Survey Results 96
26 Muddy Cove Core Analysis 98
27 Average Trace Metal Concentrations in Boston
Harbor Surface Waters 104
28 Trace Metal Distribution in Boston Harbor
Waters 105
29 Chromium Levels (ppb) in Particulate Phase
at Station 7 110
30 Analysis Results of Outer Harbor Sediments 113
31 Ten Mile River 1973 Survey—Summary of Cadmium
Data (mg/i) 115
32 Ten Mile River 1973 Survey—Summary of Chromium
Data (mg/i) 117
33 Wastewater Discharge Survey Form 119
34 Mercury Cross Checks 125
35 Mercury in Fish—Lakes and Ponds in
Massachusetts 127
36 Mercury Concentration in Fish—Major River
Systems in Massachusetts 128
xix
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
(concluded)
Figure Numbers Page
37 Mercury in Hatchery Trout in Massachusetts 129
38 Mercury Levels in Fish in Massachusetts
Waters 132
39 Mean Polychiorinated Biphenyl Concentrations
(ppm Dry Weight) in Fish Collected in 1972 150
40 Massachusetts Toxic Metal Survey Data Sheet 154
41 Interstate Carrier Water Supply Analysis—
Tap Water 165
42 Interstate Carrier Water Supply Analysis—
Bot tied Water 166
43 Sample of Missouri Hi—Vol Data 172
44 SAROAD Daily Data Form 173
45 Missouri Settleable Particulate Data 175
46 St. Louis County Air Data 179
47 SAROAD Composite Data Form 180
48 St. Louis City Air Data 182
49 Comparison of Georgia Interlaboratory
Analyses 202
50 Sample of Georgia Water Quality Monitoring
Data 214
51 Georgia Air Sampling Network Data 239
52 Sample of Connecticut Air Data 301
53 Chemical Analysis of Water 319
54 Metals Analysis Data Summary 330
55 New York State Ambient Air Lead Data 359
x x
-------
INTRODUCT ION
The MITRE Corporation performed a study for the Office of Toxic
Substance (OTS), Environmental Protection Agency, entitled Collection
of Data and Data Analysis for Toxic Substances . The objectives of
the study were to contact as many state agencies as resources
allowed; acquire available toxic substances data; process and analyze
the data; and report on the availability, nature and usefulness of
the data, and the capabilities of the agencies for toxic substances
monitoring.
During the course of the project, MITRE published four quarterly
reports, each of which contained a section of summary and analysis
of the state toxic substances data received during the quarter.
Because the combined data summary and analysis sections from all
four reports represent all the data that was summarized and analyzed
during the project, the OTS project officer requested that those
four sections be merged and published as a supporting volume to
the final report. Consequently, MITRE compiled the data summary and
analysis section., and they are published here as Volume IV. The
various volumes which comprise the final report are as follows:
• Volume I: Collection and Analysis of Toxic Substances
Data from State Agencies — Final Report
• Volume II: Directory of State Toxic Substances Monitoring
Agencies
• Volume III: State Data and Information Sources Used in
1
-------
the Course of the Study — An Annotated Bibliography
• Volume IV: Compilation of the Summaries and Analyses of
State Data
• Volume V: Monitoring Program Capability Descriptor Tables.
2
-------
FIRST QUARTER
DATA SUMMARY AND ANALYSIS
3
-------
ANALYSIS OF TEST STATES’ DATA
Overview of Analysis
The toxic substances data analyzed in Phase 1 came from four
media: air, water, animal tissue and soil. In Colorado, four agencies
supplied data which was pertinent to the project. They are the Milk,
Food and Drug Division of the Colorado Department of Health; Engineer-
ing and Sanitation Division of the Department of Health; Denver City/
County Health Department; and the Division of Wildlife of the Depart-
ment of Natural Resources. For Pennsylvania, there are five agencies
that furnished relevant data. These are the Bureau of Food and Chem-
istry of the Department of Agriculture; Bureau of Air Quality of the
Department of Environmental Resources; City of Philadelphia Air
Management Services; Bureau of Air Pollution Control for Allegheny
County; and the Allegheny County Health Department Lead Control Program.
The Colorado Department of Health furnished 854 values for lead
found in the pottery utensils. There are 26 pages of drinking water
data with reports on arsenic, cadmium, lead and cyanide from the
Department of Health’s Engineering and Sanitation Division. The Denver
City/County Health Department produced 54 water quality values for
three parameters, arsenic, cadmium and lead. There were eight pages of
tissue data (fish tissues) on cadmium and lead from the Division of
Wildlife of the Department of Natural Resources, with a total of about
216 values for each metal. In addition, there were 303 lead values
from Canada geese tissues from the same agency.
4
-------
There were 86 values of lead data from the Lead Control Program
of Allegheny County. There were in excess of 50,000 values of air
quality data from the Pennsylvania Bureau of Air Quality, Philadephia
Air Management Services, and from the Allegheny County Air Quality
Section. The Pennsylvania Bureau of Food and Chemistry produced 26
values for PCB’s, mercury, lead and arsenic.
The information and data from Pennsylvania and Colorado reveal
that there is a wide range of monitoring programs for toxic substances.
Most of the monitoring done on a regular, systematic basis is conducted
in water and air Drograms. Data in other media usually results from
special, usually short—term projects. When such data is present, it
is often in such a small amount that a meaningful statistical analysis
is difficult or impossible.
Because of the very wide variety in the data which was received
from agencies in the two test states, there is clearly no single stand-
ard format which is appropriate for recording and analyzing all toxic
substances data. At the least, a separate format is required for each
medium in which the toxic substances are monitored. Since several
storage and retrieval systems are already in operation on a nationwide
scale for several of the media, and since these systems do include
toxic substances data, it was decided that the data recording formats
of these systems would be used for Phase 1 data handling and analysis.
Consequently, the small amount of Colorado water quality data received
which is not already in the STORET system has been recorded on STORET
5
-------
forms. The much larger volume of Pennsylvania air quality data not
already in the National Aeroinetric Data Bank has been recorded in
SAROAD format for storage and analysis. The other media In which
data has been received — food, tissue, soil, and materials — do not
generally have a widely accepted standard data format. For these,
where possible, MITRE designed a simple standard format which could be
easily adapted as similar data from other states is received. Once
data from the agencies in the test states was transformed, summariza-
tion and analysis proceeded where appropriate. The following sections
described the processing and analyses which were performed on each
portion of data received.
6
-------
Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Foods and Chemistry
The Bureau of Foods and Chemistry is responsible for analyzing all
foods and feeds in Pennsylvania when presence of foreign materials is
Suspected, and for generally routine sampling of milk and dairy products
to detect presence of pesticides. The Bureau is capable of monitoring
for any of the toxic substances of interest. Over the years, suspect
samples have been analyzed for lead, mercury, and arsenic; additionally,
PCB’s have been detected in milk as a result of analysis for DDT. While
over 9,000 samples a year are analyzed, only 14 reports since 1971 have
concerned analysis for any of the toxic substances of interest.
Data records are maintained by the Bureau on one of two forms filed
by regional and Agriculture Department agents. The first, an example of
which is shown as Figure 1 , is for the generally routine analysis for
pesticides in dairy products. Because PCB’s can often be detected when
analysis is done for pesticides, a line for them is included on the
Pennsylvania form. As Figure 1 shows, sample 675 contained 0.45 ppm of
PCB’s. The second form, shown in Figure 2, is a 5 x 8 card used to
record results of any special analysis of suspect food or feeds. In
the case of this example, suspect commercial rabbit food was analyzed
and 1.42 ppm of lead was found.
Although the 14 reports covering four years are not a sufficient
number for very useful analysis, the data, such as it is, has been
extracted and recorded on a standardized tabular format. Table 1 shows
all of the Bureau of Foods and Chemistry data for the period 1971———
present. The data has been presented to show toxic substances analyzed,
7
-------
AF C -502
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
BUREAU OF FOODS AND CHEMISTRY
REPORT OF PESTICIDE RESIDUES IN A Z.L
6 qfa ?o 7 ,4 i R s ’ t
LIAJ LJif c A1
Lmc7 AJc, / ,JFJA
IDE
s DDT
Total DDT
DieI&ln
PCB’S
(
DATE REPORTED
7-22-74
DATE OF SAMPLING
Parathion
REMARKS: Dairy Products on Fat Basis.
chemist
FIGURE 1
PENNSYLVANIA FORM FOR RECORDING DATA FROM DAIRY PRODUCTS MONITORIN(
SOURCE OF SAMPLE:
I
P.P.jL
iTotaI BHC
SAMPLE tô
SAMPLE
SAMPLE
PESTICIDE
z t
I
I & hIn, Eooxide
-
DDE
8
-------
,‘ V
Samp .of C 0 I et’ W. 4q,s7
R..
4’ LUiJO J - Saw 4Ie 34
M
Anolyz.d for
R.sult Ch.miit
JmAI
.50- .56 n(
AFC-311 1 Pi b , M,*- . k t7
FIGURE 2
PENNSYLVANIA FORM FOR RECORDING DATA FROM SPECIAL ANALYSES
,It2 I gr c I
r
9
-------
TABLE 1
PENNSYLVANIA BUREAU OF FOODS AND CHEMISTRY
TOXIC SUBSTANCES ANALYSIS RESULTS
REPORT
I.D.
DATE
SAMPLED
TOXIC
SUBSTANCE
SAMPLE
MATERIAL
SAMPLE
ORIGIN
DATA
VALUE
IT
ANALYSIS
METHOD
5—46
12/17/71
PCB’s
Trout
Food
Agent
Wood8
0.23
PPM
FDA
Survery
S—46
12/17/71
Hg
Trout
Food
Agent
Woods
0.3
PPM
Atomic
Absorption
S—24
12/20/72
Hg
Feed
Corn
Game
Commission
—0—
Atomic
Absorption
675
5/9/73
PCB’s
Raw
Milk
Stump Acres
Dairy, York
0.46
PPM
FDA
Survey
709
6/12/73
PCB’s
Pasteur—
ized
Milk
Wallace Dairy,
New Castle
6.63
PPM
FDA
Survey
305
11/29/73
PCB’s
Raw
Milk
Johnston’s
Dairy
Monroeville
3.88
PPM
FDA
Survey
S—22
3/21/74
Pb
Dog
Meal
Unknown
0.88
7.
Atomic
Absorption
S—27
4/2/74
Pb
Dog
Pellets
Altoona
1.38
%
Atomic
Absorption
S—32
4/19/74
As
Cow
Liver
Summervale
—0—
Atomic
Absorption
S—32
4/19/74
As
Cow
Kidney
Summervale
—0—
Atomic
Absorption
S—32
4/19/74
Pb
Cow
Kidney
Sununervale
0.56
PPM
Atomic
Absorption
S—32
4/19/74
Pb
Cow
Liver
Sununervale
0.56
PPM
Atomic
Absorption
S—43
5/22/74
Pb
Rabbit
Pellets
Rene
Averia
1.42
PPM
Atomic
Absorption
10
-------
TABLE 1(Continued)
REPORT
I. D.
DATE
SAMPLED
TOXIC
SUBSTANCE
SAMPLE
MATERIAL
SAMPLE
ORIGIN
DATA
VALUE
UNIT
ANALYSIS
METHOD
S—42
5/22/74
Pb
Rabbit
Pellets
O’Brien
Milling
0.74
PPM
Atomic
Absorption
5—15
7/12/74
As
Cow
Liver
Weaver,
R.D.4,
Carlisle
2.7
Z
Atomic
Absorption
S- 15
7/12/74
As
Cow
Kidney
Weaver,
R.D.4,
Carlisle
5.0
%
. Atomic
Absorption
S—15
7/12/74
As
Cow
Absomal
Content
Weaver,
R.D.4,
Carlisle
3.6
Z
Atomic
Absorption
S—15
7/12/74
As
Cow
Reticulum
Content
Weaver,
R.D.4,
Carlisle
12.9
Z
Atomic
Absorption
S—16
7/12/74
As
Cow
Liver
•
Weaver,
R.D.4,
Carlisle
2.0
%
Atomic
Absorption
S—16
7/12/74
As
Cow
Kidney
Weaver,
R.D.4,
Carlisle
5.0
%
Atomic
Absorption
S—16
7/12/74
As
Cow
Absomal
Content
Weaver,
R.D.4,
Carlisle
3.6
%
Atomic
Absorption
S-16
7/12/74
As
Cow
Reticulum
Content
Weaver,
R.D.4,
Carlisle
12.9
%
Atomic
Absorption
S—17
7/12/74
As
Plants
(Unspecified
Weaver,
R.D.4,
Carlisle
159.7
PPM
Atomic
Absorption
40
7/22/74
PCB’a
Raw
Milk
Greenwood
Dairies
Langhorne
2.73
PPM
Atomic
Absorption
46
7/28/74
PcB’a
Raw
Milk
Ramsey Dairy
Butler
5.32
PPM
Atomic
Absorption
S—29
8/2/74
Pb
Calf
Liver
Dr. Clark,
Suinmerdale
7.34
PPM
Atomic
Absorption
S—29
8/2/74
Pb
Calf
Kidney
Dr. Clark,
Summerdale
8.96
PPM
Atomic
Absorption
11
-------
value (as either a percent of material analyzed or as parts per million),
date of sampling, location of sampling (where available), material that
was analyzed, and method of analysis.
Table 2 summarizes the analyses of the data from the 14 Bureau of
Foods and Chemistry reports. Perhaps the most significant result shown
by the summary is the very small amount of toxic substances data which
is available from the state agency concerned with foods and feeds. While
there does appear to be a considerable increase in the number of samples
analyzed thus far in 1974, Dr. Thornton, head of the Foods and Chemistry
Laboratory, cautioned that this should not necessarily be regarded as
a trend. As the footnote in Table 2 indicates, more than half the
samples analyzed in 1974 were the various organs and stomach contents
of two cows which died In two incidents involving the improper applica-
tion of a herbicide containing arsenic. Given the present low level of
effort of toxic substances monitoring, the small amount of data available
from the Bureau of Foods and Chemistry cannot be considered particularly
useful in assessing levels of toxic substances In the environment In
Pennsylvania.
12
-------
*
A] .1 of the 11 reported samples were collected as
incidents of herbicide poisoning.
TABLE 2
SIJMMARY OF THE PENNSYLVANIA BUREAU OF
FOODS AND CHEMISTRY TOXIC SUBSTANCES DATA
(UNITS IN PPM)
Toxic Substance No. of Samples
Mm. Max. Mean
1971
Arsenic
—0
Beryllium
—0—
Cadmium
-0—
Cyanide
—0--
Lead
—0—
Mercury
1
0.30
0.30
0.30
PUB’s
1
0.23
0.23
0.23
1972
Arsenic
—0—
———
———
———
Beryllium
—0—
———
———
———
Cadmium
—0—
———
———
———
Cyanide
—0—
———
———
———
Lead
—0—
———
———
——-
Mercury
1
—0—
—0—
—0—
PCB’s
—0—
——
———
———
1973
Arsenic
—0—
———
———
———
Beryllium
—0—
———
———
———
Cadmium
—0—
———
———
———
Cyanide
—0—
.
———
———
———
Lead
—0—
———
———
———
Mercury
—0—
———
——-
——-
PcB’s
3
0.46
6.63
3.66
1974
*
Arsenic
11
—0—
159.70
79.85
Beryllium
,
——
.
Cadmium
Cyanide
—
.
Lead
8
0.56
8.96
3.03
Mercury
———
“
PGB’s
2
2.73
5.32
4.025
a result of two
13
-------
Pennsylvania Bureau of Air Quality
The Pennsylvania Bureau of Air Quality is responsible for the
task of monitoring ambient air quality throughout the state of
Pennsylvania. One prime directive is to ensure Pennsylvania’s com-
pliance with Federal and State regulations governing total suspended
particulate. Additionally, a variety of specific constituents found
within the particulate matter are analyzed by the Bureau for their
own interests.
The Bureau supplied MITRE with a generous amount of ambient air
quality data, although not all of these seven tox1c substances that are
of major concern to the OTS were contained in this data. For the eleven
air basins analyzed, four toxic substances of the major seven sought
by OTS were prevalent In the 1971 — 1973 data:
• Arsenic
• Beryllium
• Cadmium
• Lead
The remaining three substances of interest, cyanide, mercury, and
polychiorinated biphenyls, were not analyzed for by the Bu-
reau. The toxic substances which are analyzed by individual basin
appear in Table 3. Pennsylvania conducts its ambient air sampling
procedures at a total of 94 sampling sites dispersed throughout
eleven air basins statewide. This sampling is generally conducted
at the test sites on a schedule of approximately one 24—hour sample
14
-------
TABLE 3
*
TOXIC SUBSTANCES ANALYSIS SUMMARY
1971
1972
1973
* Each X represents a set of approximately
for a total of 780 data points.
65 data points for each of twelve months
BASIN
As
Be
Cd
Pb
As
Be
Cd
Pb
As
Be
Cd
Pb
ALLENTOWN
X
X
X
X
X
BEAVER VALLEY
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
ERIE
X
X
X
X
X
X
HARRISBURG
X
X
X
X
X
X
JOHNSTOWN
X
X
X
X
X
LANCASTER
X
X
X
X
X
X
W)NONGABELA VALLEY
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
READING
— X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
SCRANTON
WILKES-MRRE
X
X
X
X
X
SOUTHEAST PENNSYLVANIA
X
X
X
X
X
YORK
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
-------
every six days. Following sample analysis, total suspended particulate
data is forwarded to EPA for entry into the SAROAD system for utili-
zation on a nationwide scale.
Referring again to Table 3, the total amount of data supplied
by the Bureau was estimated to be approximately 50,000 data points.
Each X on the table identifies a set of constituent data (given in
terms of month, year, and site), and actually represents approximately
12 months data, each month comprising an estimated 65 data points.
Data analysis
An example of the raw data received by MITRE from the Pennsylvania
Bureau of Air Quality is illustrated in Figure 3. This particular
example depicts the varying degree of lead concentrations in Southeast
Pennsylvania (Philadelphia Metropolitan Area) during the time span
January through September, 1973 for Southeast Pennsylvania test sites
1 through 10. Figure 3 lists 193 individual data points which are
coded on “SAROAD daily dataforms”, one of which appears as Figure 4.
Figure 4 represents the transferred lead data for the 3rd, 15th, and
27th days of June, 1973. This data was transferred from the area high-
lighted by the black rectangle in Figure 3.
The daily data form (Figure 4) is a month’s record of up to four
different parameters observed at a common site over periods of 24 hours
or longer. It is useful for 24—hour high volume air samp]er data that
are observed daiiy,.every third day, every sixth day, or any other ran.—
dom schedule. One fói canbe used for up to four parameters as long
16
-------
AIR BASIN: 3ô rgtAsr ____________ YEAS: / 773
P0LLuTAN’r: Lc.4 UNITS: N*flOg &U/CUbiC Meter
:Oz,27:pp.1I :03’ZS 2 2 AVG
... ?_. : : 728: 91 1:.574_ :Ij8q:gt :Z3/ :3 10 : ____: ____ ( .38 :
t 2 : : 2 2 8 * S $
02 : : 55_:605 65 , :1125 /o67 .6w? ,5O1 : :_778
] : : : i_: . z z_:_ _ _:
_21’t76’ : L :.Y23 2525: cZV _ ’. s5f5 s
06 / 333 780 Z87 : // i : $ 735 :j 7 _ : ____ 7f2
_ L: :. rz _ :2 _:
$ .41 ?: 20/ 2/2 : 679 : : /87 ____ : ____
_ _: :_m e . :. ‘_:
10 ,, 43 7c 3 : &,e. _ ..L ___ !‘ ‘ ‘
POLLUTANT. g4O UNITS: Nanegreas P .r Cubic Mst.r
0401 .d ./ /. :04<28$0S/0 tO.22 1 0€..03806./5 :O1 .27I _ s AVG .
I
60f ;4’SJ :8 0 :1/35 s/Ill sI/SO • s ; ____
s’_: : _:_ _ ___: .&:
• _*s/Z73 zS7O 16/ : $83 * J7 s Y85 /(.7 ____ *$5 ?
-9 -: :_ _:_ .:zL:_z _: ie _:_tz .: : _:
/ 5/P • 8II : s II 2 / 071 : 8 C I 757 • (.f / _____* ? 2*
_2 _ : z _ _& ;‘_.:J
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ 4’? • /68 _____ 368 :
09 : 789 ’j i • , ; 9? • $
2 5 2 e0$ — ee0 a e
s, 1)/4 * .3 1. Ł5 ? .‘Z4 758, 4/5/ 8V6 Sf/s
P0LLUTANT h AE , UNITS. Nano raas P.r Cubic Meter
S E:*O7.o9 .07.2! *pg.02:o ./1s09.2 sg .q?s p/9 s • AVG 1
— _: ._____.,..
02 , * 1498 ,105 / s/hI *i20 ____$____ ____
J7 i s_____ / 408 _____ : P : :_____ 5 ;
- -
•• , :s ,i s/Oer. s,i. .3*sO8_• 2 / p l o : $____ ____
_2!_: _____ _Lh.!L1_ ___4) :
_____ _____• * 87/ :_____ 64/8
8 $ 417 *5 S $ S I G10
s . e 5— en 5esae ee S S50e 5 $n je. 5. nee.
___s* 7ô8 *____ 1S’7 * 417/ * - ‘____ ____ ____ :____
FIGURE 3
DATA RECEIVED FROM PENNSYLVANIA BUREAU OF AIR QUALITY
17
-------
Name
PARAMETER
Code
I/ 12.I/I .ZFBI
23 21. 25 26 27
Method Units OP
1 rnIoI3Ir
Day St Hr 28 29 30 t 3.
9 20 23 22 33 314 35 ‘.
01 ______
I __
15 31/7
16 ______
17 _______
18 ______
19 ______
20 ______
21 ______
22 ______
23 ______
24 ______
25 _______
26 ______
27 O gg
28
29 ______
3 0 ___________
3 1 __________
DP -e It 3 2 I 0
Name
PARAMETER
Code
LIII ]
37 38 39 ‘.0 ‘.3
Method Units
F L i i II
‘.2 ‘.3 1414 ‘.5 ‘.6
1.7 ‘.8 1.9 0
‘.3210
FIGURE 4
SAROAD DAILY DATA FORM
18
ENVIROIIMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
National Aerornetric Dota Bank
P.O. Box 12055
Research Triangle Park, N.C. 27711
24-HOUR OR GREATER SAMPLING INTERVAL
F 1 i4 . , eF,9j1 F iii e w9z .., 71
‘ P .gcnc
PO7 ’5TOWN
City Name
w rt 1 e TO Wfi 5n’de’ 4n/ S7$ .
Site Address
8Ot.’r,dve , ?, , oN. 2’? H .
Project Time Interval
State Area Site
I3IgI7WLq I / 1 0 1/I
2 3 1 5 6 7 8 9 10
A ency Pro ect Time Year Month
E I?’131 1 i 1
I I 2 33 l I t 5 16 57 18
Name
PARAMETER
Code
1 IlJJ
51 52 53 5’. 55
Method Units OP
i i __
56 57 58 59 60
63 62 63 6’.
Name
PARAMETER
Code
I I 1 1
65 66 67 68 63
Method Units OP
LuLl_ID
70 70 72 73 7’.
Z 5 76 77 7 9
‘.3210
-------
as the site, time interval, and starting hour are the same. This
daily data form was used to code all the data received from the
Bureau because of its flexibility and ease of use.
As mentioned earlier, a voluminous amount of data was received
from the Bureau (50,000 data points). This data is considered physi-
cally impossible to present in this document due to size limitations,
although it is available at MITRE if more detailed information is
desired. The data in analyzed form appears in Appendix A.
Allegheny County Air Quality Data
Dr. Arvid Ek of the Air Quality Section stated that Allegheny
County, like Philadelphia, operates an air monitoring system separate
from the state’s and does perform high—volume filter analysis for some
of the toxic substances of interest. Dr. Ek was certain there was
data on lead and cadmium, and probably on four or five other metals
not on the OTS list. He asked that MITRE call him after several days
so he would have time to compile his data, and also to find out if
there were other agencies in Allegheny County with toxic substances data.
When Dr. Ek was contacted again, he said he had data from air
samples since 1971, and he provided names of other data contacts in
Allegheny County. Although the substances analyzed from air sampler
filters would vary somewhat from year to year, they included lead,
cadmium, zinc, manganese, and nickel. Other air quality data is sent
routinely to the SAR0 AD system, but the trace metal data has not been
since it is not required by EPA. The trace metal data is oü the
19
-------
County’s computerized air quality data system, and Dr. Ek said that
he would obtain a printout of data from 1971 to the present. The
computer printout was provided, and in addition Dr. Ek supplied com-
plete information on sampling sites and methods of laboratory analysis
for the trace metals of interest. The site description included such
information as geographical location, street address where appropriate,
physical surroundings, height of sampler above ground level, etc.
The method description included the type of sampling device, the
type of filter used, the sample preparation procedures in the lab-
oratory, and a complete description of the actual method of analysis
which was employed for each metal.
The data received from Dr. Ek was in computer printout format.
Included was data from nineteen sites for the three—year period 1971
through 1973. Data for each site was reported on separate computer
printouts for each year. Totalled at the bottom of each sheet were
the maximum minimum, average and standard deviation values for that
particular site.
After the data was received, it was recorded on the SAJtOAD daily
data form, and then keypunched into machine—readable format. The
data in this form could then be included.in the national SAROAD system
if desired.
The data was reported in micrograms per cubic meter with values
for lead shown to three decimal places and values for cadmium shown
to four decimal places. Ranges for lead were .000 to .428 micrograms
20
-------
per cubic meter, with cadmium ranging from .000 to .0829 micrograms
per cubic meter.
Table 4 shows the summary of lead and cadmium values for all
Allegheny County sites. The analyzed data in printout form appears
in Appendix A.
21
-------
TABLE 4
ALLEGHENY COUNTY HEALTH DEPT.
BUREAU OF AIR POLLUTION CONTROL
HI VOL. SAMPLING
(Micrograms per cubic meter)
[ TOXIC
SUBSTANCE
NO. OF
SAMPLES
HIM.
MAX.
MEAN
1971
iMIUM
J LEAD
343
343
.0000
.000
.0188
.249
.0018
.024
1972
[ CADMIUM
IT2 AD
154
154
.0000
.000
.0112
.319
.0017
.062
1973
CADMIUM
LEAD
264
264
.0000
.000
.0829
.428
.0006
.073
-------
City of Philadelphia Air Management Services
The City of Philadelphia’s Air Management Services operates an
air monitoring network that is separate from the state’s own monitor-
ing system. Philadelphia’s Air Management Services is, among other
things, responsible for analyzing its high volume air sampler filters
for trace metal data.
In recent years, the routine monitoring program in Philadelphia
has been for lead, iron, manganese, copper, nitrate, cadmium, magnesium,
and aluminum. Of these eight trace metals, only lead and cadmium are
presently on the list of toxic substances of interest to OTS. Phila-
delphia’s data is obtained by performing one test daily at each of
the three test sites in the city, with records kept on the basis of
monthly averages for each site. MITRE was supplied with monthly aver-
ages of the eight aforementioned trace elements for 1972, 1973, and
the first five months of 1974.
An example of the data supplied by Philadelphia’s Air Management
Services appears as Figure 5. This example displays the 1973 monthly
averages for lead, iron, manganese, copper, nitrate, cadmium, magnesium,
and aluminum. The standard SAROAD form that was used to code these
data is shown as Figure 6. This Is the SAROAD “multiple station form”,
which was developed for recording data at a sampling interval of 24
hours or greater for one parameter for up to 12 sampling sites. Figure
7 illustrates how the data for lead in January of 1973 for all three
Philadelphia sites were transferred from raw data form (Figure 5) to
23
-------
IIVAS TRACE METAL DATA
jn Air
1501 E. L ’cominc Street
Pb Fe Cu Cd Al
Jan. 17 2 T61 78 63 47 — —
Feb. 1.52 2.18 .109 .071 .039 .0077 0.72 1.69
March 1.30 2.11 .122 .092 .044 .0055 0.86 1.19
Apr. 1.12 1.95 .072 .073 .036 .0045 0.69 1.32
May 1.32 1.57 .057 .077 .030 .0054 0.48 1.18
June 1.25 2.36 .065 .095 .030 .0054 0.57 1.23
July 1.27 1.91 .086 .065 .037 .0064 0.47 1.34
Aug. 1.42 2.18 .071 .113 .032 .0073 0.53 1.74
Sept. 1.42 1.62 .070 .175 .037 .0077 0.76 1.46
Oct. 2.05 1.86 .079 .190 .047 .0059 0.50 1.20
Nov. 1.84 1.53 .057 .126 .055 .0066 0.48 0.96
Dec. 1.70 1.26 .045 .135 .060 .0066 0.48 0.80
500 8. Broad St .
Jan. 0.94 1.40 .049 .043 .048 .0057
Feb. 1.07 1.59 .056 .054 .038 .0081
March 1.26 1.67 .084 .107 .052 .0069 0.75 1.29
Apr. 0.80 1.14 .030 .047 .031 .0040 0.52 1.18
May 1.16 1.96 .049 .069 .033 .0057 0.61 1.24
June 1.07 1.97 .041 .053 .031 .0041 0.55 1.34
July 0.95 1.75 .132 .056 .034 .0067 0.55 1.59
Aug. 0.93 1.51 .059 .095 .033 .0059 0.43 1.65
Sept. 1.01 1.37 .050 .092 .028 .0064 0.54 1.60
Oct. 1 .16 1.29 .046 .112 .027 .0036 0.60 0.84
Nov. 1.40 1.44 .047 .128 .050 .0054 0.64 1.18
Deo. 1.04 1.02 .029 .120 .048 .0047 0.40 0.92
Front & Swanaor ,
Jan. 0.97 2.42 .054 .056 03S 1.13 1.19
Feb. 1.04 2.75 .064 .100 .035 1.02 1.56
March 0.86 1.73 .071 .086 .028 .0041 0.65 1.00
April 0.68 1.74 .057 .068 .026 .0056 0.55 1.00
May 0.82 2.75 .080 .102 .02). .0042 0.37 1.08
June 0.61 1.77 .046 .096 .018 .0034 0.53 1.42
July 0.. 2 2.08 .061 .110 .037 .0037 0.54 1.32
Aug. 0.92 2.76 .065 .447 .025 .0055 0.80 1.76
Sept. 0.91 1.82 .079 .366 .028 .0055 0.65 1.37
Oct. 0.97 1.67 .065 .275 .026 .0042 0.53 0.97
Nov. 0.99 1.08 .032 .187 .034 .0047 0.48 0.97
Deo. 0.96 0.97 .040 .119 .044 .0057 0.33 1.11
FIGURE 5
AIR QUALITY DATA RECEIVED FROM PHILADELPHIA’S AIR MANAGEMENT SERVICES
24
-------
ENV1R0::M NTAL PROTLIJION AGENCY
Nati orial AeroGetriC Data Bank
P.O. [ lox 12055
Research Triangle Park, N.C. 27711
PARAMETEROI )EERVED TIME INTERVAL
3
,qo Qtf f5Dt &9I .
METHOI) ‘.jtJNITS PPOJECT
S. a 3eô W 57 .
SITE AUI7RESS 6
SElF ADDRESS 0
SITE ADDRESS
SITE ADDRESS F
511 F ADDRESS U
— SITE ADDRESS K
START
DAY HOUR
LIII] (24-25) —
22 23 (3738) -
(50— 5 1)
(63—64)
FIGURE 6
SAROAD MU LTI PLE-STATION DATA FORM
pH/L,wELPH/’Q A/’
I AGENCY
STATE AGENCYPROJICT TIME
PARAMETER METHOD UNITS UP
EZ
8 9 IT 11 12 13 14 IS 16 17
YEAR MONTH
18 19 20 21
L O / E. L
SITE ADDRESS A
C j
SITE ADDRESS C
START
DAT HOUR ARIA SITU VALVE
124—75) 126—321 E IfT J [ J_O A I33_3oI /1
23 137—391 - l39— 5l 8 146—491 -
Lf O i1 2 .
START
DAY FlOUR
EIIJIIIJ 124—25)
22 23 137 161
150.-SI)
63—64 I
126—32
39—45 )
52_SR i
165—71
SITE ADDRESS H
AREA SITE VALUE
________
SITE ADDRESS I
SITE ADDRESS
AREA SITE
I I
I26—37
(39—4 5) —
152—SRI
165—711
SITE AUI I4ES -
VALUE
I (33—36) ________________
1 (46—49) ________________
K )59.-62) ________
72—75) ______________
25
-------
standardized SAROAD form for entry into the National Aerometric Data
Bank. The Philadelphia data sheets in final coded form are too numerous to
present in this report, although this data is available at EPA if
more detailed data is desired.
A suimuary of the manual analysis of the Philadelphia data is
shown on Table 5 . As can be seen from the table, the mean values
for lead and cadmium for 1972 through 1974 for all three test sites
have decreased considerablY The range of decrease for lead was
13—30 percent, while for cadmium it was 25—37.5 percent.
26
-------
TABLE 5
PHILADELPHIA DATA ANALYSIS SUMMARY
3
LEAD(pg/m )
1972
1973
1974
STD.
STD.
STD.
SITE
MAX
MIN
MEAN
DEV.
MAX
MIN
MEAN
DEV.
MAX
MIN
MEAN
DEV.
1501 East
Lycoming St.
210
1.18
1.55
.306
2.05
1.12
1.47
.2642
2.00
1.11
1.35
.3682
500 South
Broad St.
1.58
.93
1.25
.202
1,40
.80
1.06
.1622
1.46
.76
.94
.2943
Front and
.
LSwanson Sts.
1.93
.83
1.21
.402
1.04
.61
.86
.149
1.11
.72
.85
.154
3
CADMIUM(pg/m )
1972
1973
1974
SITE
MAX
MIN
MEAN
STD.
DEV.
MAX
MIN
MEAN
STD.
DEV.
MAX
MIN
MEAN
STD.
DEV.
1501 East
Lycoming St.
.0077
.0045
.0069
.00123
.0064
.0033
.0051
.00136
500 South
Broad St.
—
—
—
—
.0081
.0036
.0056
.001334
.0044
.0029
.0035
.000629
Front and
Swanson Sts.
.0083
.0063
.0071
.00104
.0057
.0034
.0047
.00086
.0106
.0022
.0053
.00316
-------
Allegheny County Lead Control Program
The Allegheny County Health Department, in an effort to determine
the incidence of lead poisoning among children, set up a program of
mass screening of children. It was hoped that this program would enable
the determination of the extent of childhood lead poisoning in a specifj
target area, and identification of children with abnormal blood lead
levels. A concurrent study of potential sources would permit the
development of a methodology for controlling childhood lead poisoning.
The target area was selected with the aid of a model designed
by the Bureau of Community Environmental Management adapted to the
Pittsburgh area. The model was designed to produce a ranking of pos—
sible high—risk lead poisoning areas. The results produced four
neighborhoods as potential target areas. The County Health Department
chose the Turtle Creek Valley as the target area. The monitoring
program was conducted by graduate students from Carnegie—Mellon
University in Pittsburgh.
Monitoring Program
Three environmental factors were chosen for consideration for
their influence on the level of lead in the blood of children. They
are: housing conditions, soil, and industry. These factors were chosen
in conjunction with the preliminary health screening findings of the
elevated blood lead levels (EBL) of children in the target area.
Housing conditions were inspected and showed the existence of
flaking or peeling paint, slightly warping broken windows, and generally
a need for some repair work. There was also evidence of large amounts
28
-------
of garbage and debris surrounding the houses. These deteriorated
housing conditions could be possible sources for the ingestion of lead.
A survey of the industries in the area revealed that the steel
industry is a potential contributor to lead pollution. However, there
is no documented data on lead, apart from the general knowledge that
coal combustion contributes about 920 tons of lead nationally per year
from stacks. This would suggest that steel production is contributing
an insignificant level of lead to the ambient environment in the study
area.
Two surveys were conducted by the Allegheny County Health Depart-
ment on June 12 and 15, 1973 in order to determine the lead content of
soil. This was done throughout the study area by dividing a map of
the area into a l0xl0 grid and selecting random coordinates in order to
mark sample locations. The samples were taken as close to the mark
location as possible. If the location was near an intersection of
streets, the sample was taken at curbside. The samples at locations
near specific houses were taken on the sidewalk in front of the houses.
About one tablespoon of surface dirt and dust was collected at 27
locations. The samples were subsequently analyzed for lead using atomic
absorption spectroscopy. One sample was lost, so 26 lead measurements
were made. Additional samples at nine locations were taken in high
incidence areas. These were taken at the curbside of the street inter-
sections in that area. The sampling procedure was similar to the first one.
After this survey showed possible correlation between the EBL inci-
dence and the lead content of soil, a second soil survey was designed and
29
-------
conducted to provide better evidence of correlation. Also, a secondary
objective was to investigate the distribution pattern of lead in soil.
The sites for sampling were selected at the homes of some of the
children who were screened for EBL. It was assumed in this survey that
the lead content of the soil would accurately reflect the general lead
concentration in the child’s outdoor environment. This was premised
on the finding that lead concentration in soil is higher in industrial
areas than in residential areas. It was suggested that the lead level
in the soil should be a function of the industrial situation as well
as traffic volumes in the sample areas.
Three groups of sample locations were selected. There were 11
pairs of samples for the control group, 11 pairs for a group referred
to as the high group and three pairs from the high EBL incidence. For
each pair, a sample was taken within one foot of each other for each
location. The sampling procedure was to up several teaspoons
of surface dirt and dust with a plastic spoon and place them in
sterilized plastic bags. All samples were taken at curbside, except
the three pairs in the high EBL incidence block (which were taken
between row houses) in front of the houses. Analyses were performed
by the County Health Department using atomic absorption spectroscopy.
Results and Discussion
The results of the first soil survey are shown in Figure 7. Sample
No. 5 shcx.zs a very large value, in comparison with others, of 8370 micro....
grams of lead per gram of soil. It was taken bel the Rankin Bridge whj
has a large flow of truck traffic and could account for the unusually
30
-------
SOIL SURVEY DATA - A.C.H.D.
Location
Reading
g lead
g soil
SURVEY
#1
RANDOM
1
20
2
214
3
54
4
32
5
8,370
6
481
7
481
8
114
9
420
10
765
11
570
12
185
13
997
14
605
—.
15
943
16
1,620
17
712
18
623
19
1,030
/ .ig_lead
Location Reading (
\gsoil
20 1,820
21 140
22 1,020 —
23 926
24 lost
25 247
26 112
27 167
SUK JEY #2 SELECTED
28 3,360
29 516
30 481
31 1,570
32 314
33 246
34 2,080
35 352
36 2,780
FIGURE 7
ALLEGHENY COUNTY PRELIMINARY SOIL SURVEY DATA
31
-------
high reading. For this reason, the statistical analysis was performed
in the report without that value, that is, with the other 25 values and
referred to as Survey 1—A. The levels of lead found in the soil samp1 d
might not necessarily reflect the actual levels of lead in the soil.
This is borne out by the wide variations in values within each area
and between the two adjacent areas which were only one block apart.
There was no discernible difference in traffic or industrial activity
in the areas. The results show the following statistical characteris—
tics:
TABLE 6
SUMMARY OF SURVEY RESULTS
Survey lA Survey 2
20 — 182
( g/g)
570
( .ig/g)
485
246—336
(pg/g)
1300
(pg/g)
1190
The large variations might be caused by inherent errors in the sampli
procedure or in the actual measurement method. There is also the
possibility that lead is distributed in packets or in a non—linear way
which would give rise to a large variation within a small area. The
control and site limitations of both surveys hindered a meaningful
conclusion from the results. Consequently, a new survey was designed.
The data for the 50 samples of the second survey are shown in
Figure 8. A great deviation between sample pairs can be seen in
the data. The range of this deviation was from 45 to 1258 g/g, with
deviations as great as 100% of the lower pair value not uncommon. The
statistical features are shown below.
Range of
Mean
Standard
Values
Deviation
32
-------
SOIL SURVEY DATA
Location
Reading
g lead
g soil
Blood
Lead
Level
la
650
46
b
605
2 a
640.5
498.5
60
b
3a
1192
70
b
534
—
4 a
800.5
76
b
729
5a
292
54
72
b
605
6a
712
JUb
7a
Sib
45
b
980
-
8a
463
110
b
854
9a
—________
569
54
b
783
10 a
551
61
b
366
11 a
551
60
b
427
1 2 a
783
39
b
980
13 a
1460
30
b
729
Location
Reading
level
g soiF
Blood
Lead
Level
14a
374
b
211.9
—
15a
605
—
30
b
463
-
16a
818
-
37
b
747
-
17a
498
18
b
426.5
-
18 a
284.5
b
720
19 a
712.5
40
b
1174
-
20 a
444.9
31
b
890
21 a
—
640.5
25
b
694
22 a
1352.5
—
39
b
1014.
-
23 a
533.9
50
b
782.5
24 a
515.5
50
b
185
25 a
60.5
50
b
1318.5
FIGURE 8
ALLEGHENY COUNTY PRELIMINARY SOIL SURVEY DATA
33
-------
TABLE 7
SURVEY STATISTICS ( 1 jglead/g soil)
High Group
Control Group
Survey
size
22
22
Range
of values
292—1192
211.9—1352.5
Mean
633.8
730
Standard Deviation
218.5
322.7
The six samples in the high incidence block had a mean of 566.
The largest deviation occurring between sample pairs was found in
this set, thus no further statistical computation was done on these.
The small size of this set would aggravate the meaningless comparison
with the other sample locations. The data showed a smaller overall
range of values than the preliminary surveys, but the variations were
still too great. Therefore, the hypothesis of a positive correlation
between EBL incidence and lead content of soil was rejected.
Conclusions
The following are the summary conclusions:
1. Lead in soil is not a reliable indication of where to test
for EBL.
2. It might prove worthwhile to learn more about the distribution
of lead, since the Pittsburgh area seems to have a low EBL
incidence as well as a low level in the soil.
34
-------
3. It might be useful to investigate the EBL and soil lead content
in other cities for comparison with Pittsburgh.
4. The dust samples collected in dwellings might be a useful
indicator of potential sites for EBL testing.
35
-------
Colorado Department of Health, Division of Engineering and Sanitation
The Division of Engineering and Sanitation is responsible for
monitoring the quality of all drinking water supplies in the State of
Colorado, with the exception of supplies administered by the Denver Board
of Water Commissioners. (As noted in the previous section, the latter
supplies are monitored by the board with analysis reports included in the
STORET system.) The supplies monitored by the Division now number over 900,
with each supply being sampled about once every two or three years.
Analyses are performed for parameters which have Public Health Service
standards, and these include arsenic, cadmium, cyanide, and lead from the
list of toxic substances of interest. The standards for the toxic sub-
stances are shown in Table 8.
As the previous section describing the data collection meeting with
Engineering and Sanitation Division officials pointed out, data for the
period 1971 to the present is now in the process of being compiled for
publication and should be available by early 1975. Since all the origina’
data required is part of this compilation, there appears to be no reasonable
way to acquire the data any earlier. The data had not been received
at the time this report was prepared.
The published report of all data for the period 1965—1970 was
obtained at the meeting in Colorado. Although the current years of
interest are not included, it may be useful to describe that data here
as a preview of the more current data, which will be forthcoming later.
Figure 9 shows an actual data sheet from the report. With similar sheets
36
-------
TABLE 8
COLORADO STANDARDS (ALLOWABLE LIMITS)
FOR TOXIC SUBSTANCES IN DRINKING WATER
TOXIC SUBSTANCE CONCENTRATION, mg/i
Arsenic 0.05
Cadmium o.oi
Cyanide 0.20
Lead 0.05
Source: Colorado Department of Health, Colorado Drinking Water Supplies ,
February, 1971.
37
-------
Chern ea1 values
C)
-4 .-,
Radioa t1vity ir
p5.cOcurie per
liter does — - , -
1desta7dard ¶ . -‘ (I )
error correction a E . 2 — .5 - ‘ a
0 .. . ,
§ •0 4, ‘
- 2 .
‘ —4 4, 0 0 +4 -4 +4 +4 0
4, a 14 >. 4. I ’ 0 • 0 a 0 .- c . -
(4 4., U) (4 L 0 E C) t X (4
2/70 — —
_ 1 L 10 J Baker Hetro l: — _ 2° . - L2 1_ . J . _0_ca — 168 19 515 .i _o, 22 0 iT
01521 5 6o
Ber.oett 0 C 1. C 0 - IFB - - 30 20 0 008 C 0 0 O.O 0 16 0 36
02 03. 6770
Bri o ton 0 C 0 1. C .302 .- - - - 616 038 Ci, 1732 C 0 005 0 0 17 14Q 1435
01C;1 2/70
Ea tlake 0 0 0 2. 3 0 - I B IFB - 12 14 2 326 0 0 0 .17 0 8 0 26
01051 13765
Fedcral 0 eights S C -Til :: i: 0 Tfl
Olc. 2’70
Hi c o?Cai s C C C 1. 0 0 - IFO lOB - 16 5 21.52 C. C 0 .030 320 0
01271 376 T -
Rile High Water Co. 0 0 0 2. C, 0 - 120i IFB - 12 8 1 602 - 0 0 0.20 0 63 0 5
010.51 2/73
Rour.tainView 0 3 0 1.05 0 - 7)3 IFB - 19 COOL 0.090 .050 330 0
01091 2 70
C 85 r 2 - C - o t’ 2 cc3 j 3 0 o 0 ,9 0 ‘C
Clii i 2/70 c C
SouCh2da rs — 3 CC 1 CC 3 — CC.? 023 lOB 210 56810063 C 0 C .120 00 126
01121 (76
Thorrton 0.3CC B5 3 0 - 012 12 1 1 - 102 76 6 366 0 0 0 0.2 0 30 6 1+5 ,
01121 277) 2 7 1 r -
- _2_2 52299C 1700.5 .1 5.29C 1.217
010.1 2 /73
-5012000 31112 8l722000.0 o1o. 9__0__
01151 2770
oest inster o .2_oo -__ 2.2J 1. C02 >03O.1 O2 9. , 227
01161 7-65
MillsSubdlvisior .UCCC.3CO -lOB 12 18 6 1800 0 0O.O Q0 0 21
Page 7
FIGURE 9
DATA SHEET FROM COLORADO REPORT ON QUALITY OF DRINKING WATER
-------
for 1971———present, data can be extracted on water supply location, date
of sample, toxic substance, and analysis result in milligrams per liter.
According to Health Department laboratory personnel, atomic absorption
is used for all water quality analysis.
Since Division officials stated that there has been no significant
change in results over the years, a brief summary of the 1965—1970 data
should indicate what is to be expected when the current data is received.
During the 1965—1970 years, 1,220 analyses were run for the toxic substances
of interest. Until 1967, all tests for these substances were negative,
and in no case was cyanide detected from 1965—1970. Three times in 1970
arsenic was detected, but levels were well under allowable limits. Lead
was detected in seven samples in 1969 and 1970 at levels within allowable
limits. Cadmium was the most frequently detected of the infrequently
detected toxic substances ——— 11 times in the period 1967—1970. As with
the other substances, all cadmium values were within acceptable limits
for drinking water. The principal reasons for the low levels were
(1) sources selected as drinking water supplies were rather pure to begin
with; and (2) treatment to further purify water will often have the ancil—
lary effect of removing some of the toxic substances (all samples were
taken after the water had been purified). Table 9 summarizes the 1965—
1970 data for the years that toxic substances were detected.
39
-------
TABLE 9
TOXIC SUBSTANCES IN COLORADO
DRINKING WATER (mg/i)
Toxic Substance
No. of Detections
Mm.
Max.
Mean
1967
Arsenic
—0—
—0—
—0—
—0—
Cadmium
1
0.016
0.016
0.016
Lead
—0—
—0—
—0—
—0- -
Arsenic
Cadmium
Lead
—0—
4
3
—0—
0.002
0.005
—0—
0.010
0.020
—0—
0.005
0.012
1970
Arsenic
3
0.004
0.009
0.006
Cadmium
4
0.002
0.009
0.005
Lead
4
0.010
0.100
0.045
1969
40
-------
Colorado Department of Health; Milk, Food, and Drug Division
The Milk, Food, and Drug Division of the Colorado Department of
Health does not have the resources for routine monitoring of toxic
substances. Therefore, it is responsible for the monitoring and
analysis of toxic substances only in response to citizen complaints
or suspicions regarding food and materials.
The principal toxic substance monitored by the Milk, Food, and
Drug Division was lead. Data studied dealt specifically with the
lead content contained in various forms of pottery.
Samples were submitted from all parts of Colorado, with the
majority coming from the Boulder and Denver areas. There were also
two samples submitted from localities outside of Colorado——one from
New Jersey and one from St. Thomas, Virgin Islands. The pottery
originated from all over the world with a major portion coming from
Mexico. The other countries or states were Italy, Finland, Germany,
Japan, England, Greece, Taiwan, Portugal, France Denmark, Sweden,
Wales, Iran, the Virgin Islands, New Jersey, California and Vermont.
For the period of time from 1971 to the present, approximately
800 samples were received from individuals questioning the lead
content in earthenware. Only samples actually sent to the Department
of Health were analyzed for toxic lead levels. The data was transmitted
to MITRE on standard forms used by the Food, Milk, and Drug Division.
Figures 10 and 11 are samples of the forms used. A format was then
41
-------
1(14 —f /Ci .
I •LAS 3. TYPE SAMPLE 5. SAMPLE
N? 4473B
4. COMI.IODIYVCOD1 S. PPO j .ICT COLLECTED S. DATE COLLECtED
Pcltt’ I V
CAY ION (041. P..U..... .Hnd ndSPd F1i N and Adth...)
5 ,E V SAPSO S. COLL. AGENCY IA. (NIP. MO. II.COUNTV 13. C. P. NO. I s a ACTIVITY,
El YES El NO S. PSOSLIM S. TIME I • 5
(4. MPG CONTIOI- CODES (i..o.i., PSd. .ndSh i3W Can8JflSi.)
IS•. PEASON OR COLLECTION t7ndlSASs AMS7.I. D..fr.dand D.. SnI A.UjnaIant) IS S. CODE
/ r’( re /t4? 56.- 5. RE$PON$ ( 5L FIlM
(7. MANUPACTUPE 1 (Nan., SfrSAaAdd,SIa. CUr, C , ...*ySAdS l. (.)
is. SIIPPCR (N .S, .. SI. ..I Add,..., CUY. CowI and 5 5.1.) DATE SHIPPED
30. DEALEP ( ,5Un 1 A s CU , , ..dy and S
Iflr5. Y tY’y ,i .tiJcr ‘ C 7’/ / ) V’ /
2(5. SIlt OP LOT FAOM IICH SAMPLED “ ItS $ VALUE SELATID SAMPLES
Al. DEICPIPTION OP SAMPLE AND METHOD OP COLLECTION (N.. & S I.. oS U. N .. .5 5.)
a4. HOW PWEPARED
a.. is.p.CTOR$ (DENY ON PIG. AND/OLASEL 3 5. INSPECTOM’S (DENT ON AL
37. SAMPLE DELIVEWEOTO 2 5., DATE 35. LAS. SO. LA•. 6/SPLIT SO.. OWlS. C/P I
____________ i]a /i C i - f .1) SAMPLE SECOWDI
II. REMAPK$/MIMO S DUM
5 f)!1L f I . ) h i 1 tb& ’ .i..
‘ / ,jL (
7,’ , 1( ’ /2/I; , ( / 7 I/
1 ‘ bôL ,, ,
/,. “ -a/ I)oui .4 j tc4
‘ C I ’ p ’t/Cc ’ / ‘ ,
i’p, bIc’ I / 4, /. ,it’ , ic
5’ l 2ClLI ) pin.A LL)i// . . . i ..t
/p .NDDITIO(IAL SPACE IS RNQUINID, ATTA cii SEPARA Ti SKEET
52. SAMPLE COST C V 5$. IN SP ECT DN (Typ.dN*an . ,.d 55415H•) 54. P. C.
S DDDI
LLECTIOH REPORT
FIGURE 10
COLORADO HEALTH DEPARTMENT SAMPLE COLLECTION REPORT
iioô4
F
F /CC ’ 7
F700 3
F / Cq
ivi
F leil
F
4
L / ‘ //o
I I//i /I1. ’/ , itit ,)ic IeJ
E$ MFD I7IREV) 8 .68-SO
COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
SAMPLE RECORD COPY 1
42
-------
COLORADO STATE D PARTh1ENT OF PUBLIC MB ALTh
FOOD AND DRUG LABORATORY REPORT Lab. NO. F 1004 — 1012
Product: IS. No - --
Mrr. or Rraod Mrs. Ei rvkn Sanders - 880 Hudson — Depy r _cp] p 4o -
sea ls - - Reed. 2/1/72 - - From - -
Descrkption of Sample - - -
F NUMBER DESCRIPTION LEAD CONTENT
F 1004 8” plate, blue with flowers in center negative
F 1005
6” saucer, blue
92.3 mg/liter of lead
— in extracting solution
negative
F 1006
7” plate, blue with brown speckles
F 1007
9 1/2” bowl, aqua inside and brown outside
22 mg/liter of lead
in extracting solution
F 1008
——
12 l oval bowl, brown with yellow flowers
72.1 mg/liter of lead
in extracting solution
F 1009
12” divided plate, tan with Mexican pictures
negative
F 1010
cup, brown
negative
F 1011
cup, blue outside and white inside
negative
F 1012
5 1 bowl, pink with swan in center
negative
Reserve:
Lab. Conci: Reported 2J J22_. Rec:
AcajystL ±e
IS: cr0 It (616. I2.6 .5O)
FIGURE 11
COLORADO HEALTH DEPARTMENT SAMPLE ANALYSIS REPORT
43
-------
devised by MITRE to organize the data according to sample number
(assigned by the Milk, Food, and Drug Division), sample location nd
owner, date received, analysis method, and value in milligrams per
liter. A sample of the MITRE form is shown in Figure 12.
In all samples submitted, the lead chromate gravimetric analyoes
were performed.
Examination of the data showed that 687 or 83.5 percent of all
pottery tested had a lead content of zero. Of the remaining 137 values,
93, or 68 percent, had lead levels over the seven milligrams per liter
standard established by the Food and Drug Administration. The values
above zero were unevenly distributed, peaking with fifteen values between
2—3, twelve between 10—20, and twelve between 100—200. There were
also six values above 1000, the highest being 4480. This highest
value exceeded the Food and Drug Administration standard 641) times.
The peak year of citizen interest in lead, as the data indicates,
was 1972 with 678 samples.
The data presented here did not lend itself to a scientific
trend analysis primarily because scientific sampling of the environ-
ment was not employed. Samples were obtained only when the presence
of lead was suspected, and no standards were established for sample
collection. In the summary and analysis of the data, since there
was a predominance of values at zero, calculating a standard
deviation would have been misleading and therefore was not done.
Figure 13 and Table 10 summarize the results of the data analysis.
44
-------
MATERIALS ANALYSIS FOR TOXIC SUBSTANCES
TOXIC SUBSTANCE(S) Lead STATE: cplorado
MATERIAL Pottery AGENCY: Dept. of Health
ANALYSIS Lead Chroinate Milk Food & Dziig Division
METhOD Gravimetric
UNITS MG/L
SAMELE
I.D. NO.
DATE REC’D
SAMELE LOCATION/OWNER
VALUE
/
M c L
clO
O
¶ 417
c 4
i ° rt
f 9r
tc /
io/ ,/7I
i
‘7 -
.. /1/
4’
Ms, l aj Cv.t&i
(0 S
Fôi€:
L..
br ’ ’r
P4 f MfI V M ’ +I .
0 —
.o)
‘ ..s
.
-.0 -
-.o
S ř4.
-
‘
b. y r
.
Ioc
•
l4
: ,3
F (oot
‘•
S.
—0-—
f
,
5’
‘F I o ’
I s
•.
‘72. I
F (009
“
—0-
‘F (°áb
“
.
—0—
c Io(
‘
“
—Q_-
“
.
. —0—
FIGURE 12
FORM FOR RECORDING COLORADO LEAD IN POTTERY DATA
45
-------
(I )
U i
-J
0.
4
U,
U-
0
Ui
0 -
7
5
4
3
2
12
11
10
9
8
824 TOTAL SAMPLES
687 = 0
6
2
3 4 5678910
20
30 40 50 (1 70 8090100
LEAD VALUES IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER
200 300
FIGURE 13
DISTRIBUTION OF LEAD IN POTTERY VALUES FOR COLORADO
-------
TABLE 10
LEAD IN POTTERY IN COLORADO
L NO. OF SAMPLES
MINIMUM VALUE
MAXIMUM VALUE
J
MEAN
J
1971
I
I
°
I
0
0
J
1972
I
678
0
4480
1973
I
98
0
1084.3
25
1974
J
[
‘
1
0
1094.3
J
38
47
-------
Colorado Department of Natural Resources, Wildlife Division
The Colorado data on effects of lead and cadmium on wildlife was
by far the most difficult to categorize, transform to a standardized
format, and analyze in any meaningful way. The main reasons for this
are that samples were taken only from a few small areas, and generally
only a small number of samples were taken over a very short time period
for limited, special study purposes. To further complicate analysis,
results of tissue analysis were frequently lumped together for a given
site and sampling date so that only composite data is available. Wild-
life Division officials concurred that their data would be of only limited
usefulness to OTS for environmental trend monitoring, and that the main
conclusion to be drawn from the data was simply that fish, insect, and
bird tissue tends to accumulate heavy metals even when these are present
in very low concentrations in the natural environment.
The Division of Wildlife has been monitoring streams, fish, birds
and insects over several years to ascertain the presence of some toxic
substances. One of the reasons for this study is to determine the
effects of mineral mining and milling operations on high mountain streams
and, consequently, on the fauna and flora of such bodies of water.
Another aspect of the study also involved bioassay studies wherein
fish and insects are exposed to varying concentrations of toxic sub-
stances and then watched for development of defects. The water quality
data on the streams include some heavy metals, such as cadmium and lead.
This data has been reported to EPA for inclusion in STORET. The analyses
48
-------
that were done on tissues of fish, insects and birds include data for
cadmium and lead which are among the seven toxic substances being
considered.
There are three reports for monitoring done in 1971, 1972, and 1973,
on streams and biota, and one report done between October, 1973, and
March, 1974, on tissues of Canada Geese. The 1971 and 1972 monitoring
involved four study areas each, while the 1973—74 studies were confined
to only one area, Williams Fork River near Parshall, Colorado, and Turk’s
Pond in southwestern Colorado, respectively. The features of each
study will be discussed below.
1971 Study Monitoring Program
This study was conducted over four study areas, namely: Creede,
Lake City, Silverton and Climax. Water quality for the four study areas
was sampled quarterly during calendar 1971, at established sampling
sites. These results have been submitted to STORET. Cadmium and lead
were the only toxic substances of interest that were determined during
this period. Aquatic insect and fish samples were sampled during
September. In the Creede study area, the insects were collected on
6 September, with three, one-square—foot bottom samples, and because
of their small size, were not identified beyond order. No fish
were captured at stations 1 and 2, but some brown trout were collected
in the vicinity of station 3 by electro—fishing, which is a method of
applying electric current to the water and stunning the fish within
two to five feet.
49
-------
A diverse insect fauna comprised of mayflies, stoneflies, caddisfijes
and midges was found at all stations in the Lake City study area. Two
brook trout and two rainbow trout were collected at station 1; seven
brown trout were collected at station 2; twenty—one brown trout and
one rainbow trout were collected at station 3; and one brook trout, five
brown trout and one rainbow trout were collected at station 4.
For the Silverton study area, one mayfly and one stonefly were
collected at station 1; twenty—nine insects per square foot were sampled
at station 2; and over three hundred midges per square foot at station ;
as against only three per square foot nine days earlier. No fish were
collected at stations 1, 3, 7, and 8, but some brook trout were collected
at stations 2, 4, and 5.
For the Climax study area, the total number of insects sampled at
all stations was just about 10 percent of those sampled in 1970, Probab 1
because of high water flow at the time of sampling. Thus, no data was
provided. Twelve immature rainbow trout and two brown trout were captured
at station 1; one brown trout was collected at station 2; eight brook
trout, one brown trout and two rainbow trout were collected at station 3
Station 4 produced four brown trout; and station 7 produced seven large
brown trout.
In addition to analysis of these natural samples, bioassays design
to measure the effects of lead on growth and reproduction in hard and 8 oft
water were done with rainbow trout that weighed 6 grams and were 83 mm
long. The tests started in May, 1970 and were terminated after 19 months
50
-------
of exposure to lead. Bioassays were also conducted on two stoneflies
and one mayfly with lead and cadmium in the Creede study area using well
water of medium softness (70 mg/l.caco 3 ). In the bioassay tests, the
fish and insects were exposed to different concentrations of lead, cad-
mium and other toxic metals in aquaria. Observations were recorded
regarding physical abnormalities, growth, reproduction and mortality
rates. This data is available at EPA.
1972 Study Monitoring Program
The same study areas as described above were used in this study.
Water quality analyses were performed and reported to the STORET system.
A series of acute bioassays was conducted with lead. Several of the
tests were used to examine the effects of variables such as fish.size,
water temperature and hardness on the toxicity of a metal. Others were
used to develop application factors, while another set of tests was
done to evaluate the toxic action of heavy metals in combination, that is,
the synergistic effect, in which lead was combined with zinc and copper.
Two chronic bioassays for lead were done with eyed rainbow trout eggs
to determine the effects of lead on eggs and to investigate if there is
any acclimatization effect as a result of the exposure of eyed eggs to
the metal, as was found with zinc.
Fish tissues from samples collected during September of 1969, 1970,
and 1971, were treated and analyzed by atomic absorption spectrophotometry
for toxic metals including cadmium and lead.
51
-------
A mayfly and a stonefly were used as test organisms to investigate
the effects of heavy metals on aquatic insects. It was thought tliat this
would allow the comparison of the relative toxicity of metals to fish
and insects as the latter could probably be used as indications of metal
contamination in water. The insects were selected because of their
herbivorous nature and their abundance in the Rio Grande River in the
Creede area. They were fed willow leaves during the tests.
Another set of 500 stoneflies was collected from the Rio Grande in
Creede in 1971 and kept in aquaria for tests in 1972. Mayflies were
collected in May and June and acute bioassays were conducted. Two other
bioassays were conducted at the Creede Hatchery. One was subchronic bio-
assay with both species exposed to Willow Creek water for 16 days. The
other was a two-month exposure of both species to varying proportions
of Willow Creek water. Water samples and insect times were analyzed for
metal accumulation.
1973 Study Monitoring Program
The Williams Fork River near Parshall, Colorado, was sampled routinely
during 1973. Interest in the area stemmed from the construction of addi-
tional facilities by American Metals Climax, Inc. The Creede study area
was sampled once in June, 1973, because of the imminent resumption of
operations by Emperius Mining Company. Tissues from brown trout, averag-.
ing about 250 mm in length, collected from the Cache la Poudre River were
analyzed for heavy metals. Four stations in the Williams Fork area were
52
-------
sampled three times in 1973: June 27, August 24, and November 15. Aquatic
insects were collected with a kick screen on August 24, 1973. Water samples
were analyzed as in the past and data from the water quality analyses has
been reported to STORET.
Data Interpretation/Discussion
1971 Stu y : There are no tabulated data shown in the report, but
it is stated that caddisflies in Creede study area contained 526 ig/g
lead, while stoneflies were found with levels between 0 and 80 g/g lead.
For the Lake City study area, it is reported that mayf lies contained
850 mg/g of lead and caddisf lies contained 1240 p g/g of lead.
At Silverton, 1900 xg/g of lead was reported in mayf lies. No data
or results were reported for the Climax tudy area.
Results were recorded on the bioassay investigations, but these repre-
sent laboratory monitoring studies under controlled conditions, rather
than analysis of samples for environmental effects.
1972 Study : The water quality data in the report which was reported
to STORET, consists of 16 data sheets from the quarterly sampling of the
four study areas. None of these results indicate any detection of cadmium
or lead or any of the toxic substances of interest to this project. Sur-
prisingly, the tissue analysis shows varying levels of these metals for
all tissues from different species of trout taken from the stream in the
same study areas (the tissue data is included here in Figure 14). Two
conclusions can be inferred from this situation. First, fish tissues
invariably seem to concentrate cadmium and lead from an aquatic environ-
ment which registered no toxic substances in the analytical tests performed.
53
-------
Appendix Cl. Climax Study Area 1969
Skin &
Scales
6 Bk 2 75—105 Head
Viscera
Muscle
FIGURE 14
COLORADO DATA ON HEAVY METAL CONCENTRATIONS IN TISSUE
Size
Sta. Spec. No. (mm) Tissue
1 Bk 6 50—90 Gill
Bone
Eye
Tissue met. il c oncentr t ion j )
Zn Cu Ph Ag Cd Mo
490.8
983.2
99.9
12.8
8.9
18.4
8.5
10.7
0.0
1.3 4.3 0
1.2 8.9 3.0
0.3 0.0 1.0
Rb 8 65-95 Head
Viscera
Muscle
138.8 13.9 0.0 0.0 1.2 0.0
885.7
146.7
427.8
7.8 14.2
6.3 1.0
6.5 3.7
1.1 14.9
0.7 0.0
0.4 3.3
2 Bk 4 125—375
3 Bk 2 150—200
Gill 472.8
Bone 1399.3
Eye 59.4
Skin 138.6
0.6
2.0
0.1
0.2
2.5
3.1
3.2
3.0
10.6
13.0
17.1
5.9
24.3
4.1
1.3
Gill
Boii c
Eye
2.1
21.2
0.0
3.6
185.4
0.0
6.8
10.7
0.0
2.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
902.6
3165.7
92.3
0.6 16.1
1.9 46.6
0.3 0.0
4 Bn 3 100—425
5 Bn 6 200—450
Gill 705.2
Bone 2033.9
Eye 108.4
Skin 143.8
Stomach 447.2
Spleen 371.6
2.5
3.7
6.4
3.8
15.6
18.3
3.9
3.3
4.4
3.4
7.5
7.1
3.3
19.4
0.0
0.0
10. 2
10.8
9.6
21.3
0.0
8.1
2.7
0.0
0.7
1.7
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.5
1.8
0.2
0.1
0.0
0.0
Gill
Bone
Eye
Skin
Stomach
Spleen
12.7
41.8
0.0
1.6
1.2
0.0
4.6
18.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
455.3
932.6
52.3
150.7
289.5
362.4
675.6
34.9
206.8
0.0
4.5
0.0
0.0
23.7
6.8
0.0
0.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
6.0 5.5 0.5 17.0
2.9 0.0 0.2 0.0
4.9 0.0 0.0 3.1
54
-------
Appendix C2 . Climax Study Area 1970
Sta.
Spec.
Size
No. (mm)
Tissue metal concentration (jig/g)
Tissue Zn Cu
Pb
Ag
Cd
Mo
1
Rn
2 70
Wh. Fish 267.4 4.6
0.7
0.9
3.0
0.0
Rb
3 70
Wh. Fish 387.9 5.2
8.7
0.8
3.0
4.8
2
Rn
2 220—325
Gill 317.6 3.0
Bone 290.4 4.4
Eye 1691.4 3.9
Skin 439.1 4.3
Stomach 1165.9 8.4
Intest. 1068.9 19.8
Liver 275.3 259.6
12.5
18.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.3
1.1
2.7
0.2
0.1
0.0
0.0
2.2
16.2
2.5
2.5
4.1
3.1
15.75
25.9
0.0
5.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
3
Bk
3 100—130
Head 364.6 3.1
Muscle 181.5 3.6
4.6
2.2
1.1
0.6
0.0
1.2
0.0
0.0
Bn
4 85—110
Head 344.7 3.8
Muscle 154.1 2.6
4.2
0.7
1.1
0.4
3.4
0.7
0.0
0.0
Bn
2 170—200
Ciii 487.3 2.4
Bone 592.3 3.5
Eye 2613.4 2.0
Skin 352.2 2.5
Stomach 879.2 6.9
IntesL. 1348.1 20.3
Liver 430.8 22.1
5.4
20.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.3
1.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.6
12.7
15.7
4.7
0.0
9.6
34.9
13.1
5.4
7.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
5.0
Rb
6 145—220
Gill 285.8 4.2
Bone 291.5 3.8
Eye 667.5 3.0
Skin 293.9 3.5
Stomach 386.8 12.3
intest. 452.6 20.0
Liver 362.9 442.8
6.2
26.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.5
2.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.0
4.0
4.8
0.0
5.7
0.0
1.1
1.6
11.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
6.3
4
Bn
6 190—240
Gill 357.2 4.4
Bone 380.9 4.8
Eye 2331.9 3.4
Skin 592.0 3.7
Stomach 807.8 16.5
Intest. 1657.7 40.4
Liver 428.9 456.2
5.5
19.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.2
1.7
0.0
0.2
0.0
0.0
2.4
12.1
7.6
1.0
1.5
8.5
27.9
19.5
4.0
12.8
0.0
0.0
3.5
0.0
0.0
5
Bn
9 180—260
Gill 227.5 2.7
Bone 196.2 3.2
Eye 1681.1 2.1
Skin 246.5 3.6
Stomach 509.6 5.5
Intest. 625.6 19.6
Liver 298.4 127.3
8.7
21.9
0.5
0.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.7
1.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.5
4.6
8.2
0.9
2.0
1.5
14.9
6.9
4.9
12.5
0.0
0.0
1.4
0.0
2.6
6
Bk
4 50—90
Wh. Fish 344.4 11.8
12.6
0.5
6.5
3.1
Bn
2 90—100
Head 504.2 5.1
Muscle 231.5 5.0
Viscera 912.8 41.1
13.1
0.0
81.3
1.3
0.5
1.0
4.9
2.3
18.7
9.6
7.6
34.1
FIGURE 14 (CONTINUED)
55
-------
Appendix C3. Climax Study Area 1971
Sta.
Spec.
Size
No. (nsii)
Tissue metal concentration
(pg/g)
Cd
Mo
Tissue Zn Cu
Ag
1
Bn
2 45—52
Wh. Fish 2926 5.8
13.8
0.5
2.3
0.0
0.0
Rb
12 50—70
Wh. Fish 423.7 10.2
14.8
1.0
3
Bk
2 62
Wh. Fish 154.5 3.4
0.0
0.5
0.0
2.6
0.0
0.0
Bk
2 96—115
head 339.7 3.7
Viscera 393.4 7.7
Muscle 147.2 3.5
7.5
21.7
0.0
1.5
0.0
0.3
2.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Bk
4 140—180
Gill 268.0 4.8
Bone 488.4 5.3
Eye 2123.5 3.7
Skin 672.4 5.1
Stomach 357.4 9.5
Intest. 439.8 34.5
Liver 235.0 71.0
14.7
26.9
0.0
5.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.1
1.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
12.1
0.0
0.0
1.6
20.0*
8.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Rb
2 220
Gill 269.8 3.4
Bone 259.2 4.5
Eye 661.4 2.3
Skin 320.3 1.9
Stomach 477.8 11.2
Intest. 762.5 44.4
Liver 404.0 825.2
9.0
22.0
0.0
9.4
0.0
21.5
0.0
1.0
2.0
0.0
0.4
0.0
0.0
1.2
1.3
7.8
0.0
1.5
0.0
0.0
2.1
9.4
18.7
0.0
3.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
5
Bn
6 145—215
Gill 256.9 4.4
Bone 356.3 3.9
Eye 1621.8 2.6
Skin 323.1 4.0
Stomach 453.3 10.7
Intest. 643.5 20.9
Liver 279.7 133.4
5.5
17.8
0.0
9 5*
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.9
1.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.6
2.4
1.6
0.0
1.7
4.6
36.6
7.0
1.6
24.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
6
Bk
6 160—225
Gill 312.8 5.7
Bone 639.4 11.0
Eye 2491.4 3.7
Skin 883.5 6.4
Stomach 418.3 9.8
Intest. 487.2 61.5
Liver 243.5 106.7
5.2
19.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.9
2.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.6
9.6
1.9
0.0
1.5
1.7
6.3
7.1
4.4
29.0
3.6*
0.0
0.0*
9.8*
2.0*
* Only one sample above detection limits.
FIGURE 14 (CONTINUED)
56
-------
Appendix C4. Silverton Study Area 1969
Sta. Spec.
Size
No. (nun)
Tissue metal concentration (pg/g)
Tissue Zn Cu Pb Ag Cd
Mo
4 Bk
2 180—220
Gill 897.8 3.0 22.1 0.8 0.0
Bone 2656.8 4.1 41.1 1.0 11.3
Eye 107.4 9.7 0.0 0.0 5.7
Skin 431.0 4.4 12.8 0.0 0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Rb
7 200—300
Gill 829.7 5.4 18.3 0.7 2.3
Bone 1857.9 5.7 33.1 2.3 19.9
Eye 100.1 11.3 3.2 0.0 0.0
Skin 194.6 6.0 13.2 0.1 0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Appendix
C5. Silverton
Study Area 1970
Sta. Spec.
Size
No. (mm)
Tissue metal concentration (ug/g)
Tissue Zn Cu Pb Ag Cd
Mo
2 Bk
4 155—240
Gill 416.7 27.1 27.2 0.5 10.6
Bone 983.5 8.3 43.4 1.8 13.1
Eye 1578.4 4.9 0.0 0.0 6.2
Skin 734.7 9.7 19.1 0.0 1.7
Stomach 629.0 34.1 1.8 0.0 5.8
Intest. 302.4 111.0 4.4 0.0 12.2
Liver 385.3 173.0 1.6 0.4 4.2
0.0
7.1
0.0
0.0.
2.9
0.0
0.0
Rb
7 170—240
Gill 529.4 18.1 33.7 1.0 8.4
Bone 335.4 6.5 31.0 2.1 8.1
Eye 709.5 4.4 0.0 0.0 0.0
Skin 527.1 6.6 0.0 0.0 4.4
Stomach 533.8 81.5 5.4 0.0 0.0
latest. 624.1 129.9 168.7* 0.2 3.0
Liver 525.7 471.8 2.4 0.3 7.4
7.5
5.3
0.0
0.0
1.4
0.0
1.4
* Only one sample above detection limits.
FIGURE 14 (CONTINUED)
57
-------
439.7 18.6
449.5 68.1
162.2 6.0
351.3 8.7
677.7 6.8
1633.6 3.3
716.5 7.5
205.4 44.8
291.7 70.3
247.9 190.1
Sample
288.1 6.2
Saisp 10
296.3 8.9
408.5 41.1
608.2 125.2
Sample
lost in digestion
14.4 2.3 3.7
lost in digestion
5.7* 0.0 0.0
9.3 0.1* 2.7
85.4 0.0 0.0
lost in digestion
28.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
3 Rb 5 240—280 Gill 208.5 5.3 8.8 1.1 0.0 0.0
Bone 175.2 5.0 19.7 1.9 0.8* 34.1
Eye 611.5 2.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0*
Skin 160.8 3.3 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0
Stomach 597.6 12.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Intest. 631.0 20.2 2.4* 0.9 2.7 0.0
Liver 269.3 555.5 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0
* Only one sample above detection limits.
FIGURE 14 (CONTINUED)
Appendix C6.
Silverton
Study
Area
1971
Sta. Spec. No.
Size
(mm)
Tissue
Tissue
metal
concentration
( ig g)
Zn
Cu
Pb
Ag
Cd Mo
2 Bk 2 120—130 Head
Viscera
Muscle
Bk 2 160—180 Gill
Bone
Eye
Skin
Stomach
Intest.
Liver
Rb 3 210 Gill
Bone
Eye
Skin
Stomach
Intest.
Liver
80.8
1.3
1.7
C
190.0
1.8
3.4
0.0
9.1
0.6
1.1
2.0
54.5
0.7
0.0
6.8*
21.3
2.0
2.8*
11.8*
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
23.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
16.8
0.2*
0.0
0.0
93.6*
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.8
0.0
0.0
4 Rb 6 175—290 Gill
604.4
9.5
19.3
0.9
0.1*
5.6
Bone
310.5
16.1
26.4
2.3
1.4
20.9
Eye
668.1
6.6
0.0
0.0
0.2*
0.0
Skin
741.7
26.3
1.6*
0.4
0.0
0.0
Stomach
372.2
50.7
0.0
0.0
1.8*
0.0
Intest.
Liver
352.7
370.4
54.9
505.3
7•5*
0.0
0.0
0.3*
0.8*
0.8
0.0
0.0
5 Bk 2 130—160 Gill
475.1
24.8
21.0
0.0
5•4*
0.0
Bone
807.5
8.4
32.1
2.4
5.2*
0.0
Eye
1594.3
3.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Skin
946.4
9.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Stomach
470.4
87.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Intest.
493.0
111.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Liver
Sample
lost in digestion
58
-------
Appendix C7 Lake City Study Area 1969
Sta. Spec.
Size
No. (mm)
Tissue metal
concentration
( ig/g)
Tissue Zn Cu
Pb Ag
Cd
Mo
3 Bn
2 150
Gill 160.9 5.9
Bone 996.4 5.1
Eye 56.5 9.4
Skin 271.5 7.2
Stomach 21.3 7.1
Intest. 45.0 7.5
Liver 18.8 8.0
9.0 1.1
49.8 2.7
0.0 0.0
56.7 0.4
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 2.3
5.4
8.9
0.0
11.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
4 Bn
2 80
Head 977.1 4.0
Viscera 66.5 4.5
Muscle 253.9 3.3
11.9 0.5
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
10.5
10.3
4.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
Appendix
C8. Lake City
Study Area 1971
Sta. Spec.
Size
No. (inn)
Tissue metal
concentration
(pg/g)
Tissue Zn Cu
Pb Ag
Cd
Mo
1 Bk
2 170—190
Gill 135.8 2.6
Bone 142.3 3.8
Eye 1000.6 2.0
19.0 0.9
28.5 1.9
0.0 0.0
2.5
0.0
0.0
10.6
14.2
0.0
.
Skin 327.9 4.5
Stomach 240.7 8.9
Intest. 277.7 19.3
Liver 158,3 76.7
0.0 0.0
6.6 0.0
75,5* 0.9
0.0 0.2
0.0
2.3
0.0
4.5
0.0
4.1
0.0
0.0
Rb
2 220—250
Gill 374.5 5.4
Bone 257.1 3.6
Eye 798.2 2.1
Skin 256.0 2.9
Stomach 435.7 21.0
Intest. 312.2 18.5
Liver 289.2 409.9
25.5 0.7
15.3 1.9
6.9 0.0
0.0 0.3
3.2 0.0
37.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
4.7
2.8
1.0
0.0
3.6
0.0
2.6
0.0
0.0
30.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2 Bin
7 140—225
Gill 496.6 4.0
Bone 309.8 4.5
Eye 1437.1 2.7
Skin 341.0 4.0
Stomach 524.2 35.6
Intact. 670.5 48.9
Liver 417.9 569.4
11.2 0.6
23.0 1.9
0.0 0.0
3.3 0.5
5.8 0.0
10.4* 0.0
3.7 1.0
5.3
4.0
0.7
0.9
2.5
10.7
12.1
0.0
15.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
* Only one sample above detoction limits.
FIGURE 14 (CONTINUED)
59
-------
Appendix C8. Lake City Study Area 1971 (continued)
Size Tissue metal concentration ( j ___
Sta. Spec. No. (mm) Tissue Zn Cu Ph Ag Cd Mo
3 En 7 55—80 Wh. Fish 271.4 4.9 4.5 0.6 0.0 3.3
En 4 130—140 Head 399.3 3.2 15.2 1.3 0.5 14.3
Viscera 422.0 42.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Muscle 137.5 3.1 4.9 0.5 0.0 5.4
Rn 9 150—270 Gill 403.4 3.8 15.1 1.0 2.5 7.0
Bone 222.9 18.9 18.6 1.9 1.8 16.4
Eye 1271.8 3.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.0
Skin 274.3 19.9 2.7 0.3 0.8 1.3*
Stomach 627.1 11.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Intest. 1230.0 30.7 3.8* ‘ .2 0.9 0.0
Liver 365.0 448.1 0.0 3.0 6.0 0.0
4 Bn 5 150—220 Gill 717.5 4.7 18.7 0.6 8.4 0.0
Bone 438.4 4.7 29.4 1.9 1.6* 10.9
Eye 1669.9 2.6 0.0 0.0 1.0* 0.0
Skin 550.0 4.3 0.0 0,0 0.0 0.0
Stomach 509.3 29.7 5.0* 0.0 1.9 0.0
Intest. 832.9 47.5 189.4 0.2* 3.6* 0.0
Liver 392.7 516.1 0.0 1.2 5.8 0.0
* Only one sample above detection limits.
FIGURE 14 (CONCLUDED)
60
-------
Second, the waters sampled probably contained toxic metals in minute
quantities which were not detected by the regular atomic absorption method.
The data shown in Figure14 represents results from samples taken in
1969, 1970, and 1971. The fish were taken from six stations; represented
three species of trout (rainbow, brook and brown); varied in size from
45 to 300 mm; and were from four different study areas. The reports have
given the mean values for each tissue of lead and cadmium as well as others.
These were derived by pooling the values of each tissue together and com-
puting the mean. For example, the concentrations of lead and cadmium in
gill tissue of six brook trout at station 1 with sizes of 50 to 90 mm
were aggregated with values from three brown trout at station 4 with sizes
100—425 plus all the other values from Climax and the other study areas
for 1969, 1970, and 1971.
These values are not, therefore, very meaningful in drawing inferences
about specific species, or size or study areas. The researchers have
admitted the inherent weakness of this approach, but said they proceeded
that way because of the insufficiency of the accumulated data. This
resulted from the small number of samples of each species which were
taken, which was dictated by the desire to save hatcheries. That is, if
larger samples were taken, some hatcheries would have been destroyed. In
retrospect, wildlife officials felt that it would have been more meaning-
ful to have larger samples even at the expense of liquidating some species.
Furthermore, the data should show records of individual members of species.
Instead of lumping the statistical characteristics of six brook trout
61
-------
together, the details of each one at each station would be more useful
in elucidating trends of toxic metal accumulation in fish tissue. Another
fault of the data is its dubious accuracy. The researchers have recently
discovered that the modified Adrian method of tissue analysis which was
being used will produce results which are reproducible among themselves
in the tissues of that region, but might not necessarily compare well
with studies in other regions.
The report asserts that the studies undertaken in 1973 would justify
the establishment of water quality standards for trout waters for the
heavy metals. This would follow from bioassay tests which showed maximum
acceptable toxicant concentrations (MATC’S) of four to eight J.g/l for
lead. A second potential outgrowth of the study would be valuable use of
insects as indicators of heavy metal pollution especially in investiga-
tion of fish kills caused by heavy metals. However, no details are given
of any data derived from chemical analyses of ambient insect tissue apart froft
that obtained from the bioassay conducted with stoneflies and Inayfijes.
1973 Study : The water quality data for the Willj ms Fork Study area
are being supplied by the Division of Wildlife to STORET. The Significant
point about toxic metal levels in these results is the detection of cad—
mium and lead in ranges of 0.01 to 0.55 mg/liter and 0.0 to 2.0 mg/i.
respectively. This finding is significant because the water was thought
to be free of heavy metal pollution. The presence of these metals
was detected by using a digestion method which was thought to be more
sensitive to very small quantities of metals.
62
-------
The insect tissue analyses show levels for zinc and copper, but
no records are shown for cadmium and lead.
Fish tissues were analyzed from trouts collected from the Cache la
Paudre River. Cadmium was found in tissues in ranges of 0.0 to 6.7 mg/i
and lead ranged 0.0 to 27.8 mg/i.
63
-------
Migratory Bird Investigation, Southeastern Colorado
The primary objective of this program was to identify non—hunting
mortality factors of Canada geese at Turks Pond. It was also designed
to determine if lead poisoning occurs in the waterfowl population at
the pond and within its vicinity.
Samples of dead and live Canada geese having no external or
visible signs of gunshot wounds were collected on 5, 11, and 21 February
and 5 March 1974 in the vicinity of Turk’s Pond. An attempt was made
to capture at least ten live birds on each collection date. Live birds
were captured by hand or with the use of a net, and their selection was
based almost solely on the ease of capture. No specific sampling
scheme was used in the collect of dead birds. Birds were transported
on the day of collection to Fort Collins Wildlife Research Center.
Live birds were killed and necropsied within two days of collection.
Tissue from a portion of the liver,, a kidney, breast muscle, and the
radius bone were taken from each goose for lead determination.
Lead levels of organs and tissues taken from 90 Canada geese
collected at Turk’s Pond and from ten pen—reared control birds are
presented in Figure 15. The data shows that the liver of 89 birds
were sampled and yielded a mean of 90.73 ppm; the kidney from 83 birds
was tested and gave 120.25 ppm; the msucle of 68 geese yielded 63.35
ppm; and the radius bone of 69 yielded 53.35 ppm of lead.
The controlled birds yielded 5.4, 4.6, 3.0 and 4.1 ppm lead for liver
kidney, muscle and bone, respectively. These results show that the
birds had ingested lead pellets ‘which might have been responsible
64
-------
Table 8. Lead l°vels, in ppm, in tissues from Canada geese collected at
Turk’s Pond, southeast Colorado, and from birds raised artificially for
control purposes.
Goose
Sample No. Liver
Tissues
Kidney Muscle Bone Remarks
1 40 59 — —
3 <21/ 2 — —
5 <2 <2 - -
9 30 42 — —
11 148 169 — —
13 154 99 — —
15 44 53 — —
17 119 101 — —
19 150 296 — —
21 132 373 — —
23 <4 <6 — —
25 93 154 — —
27 82 76 — —
29 88 51 — —
31A 124 74 - —
33A 118 — — —
34A 52 — — —
35A 76 — - —
30 77 73 7 38
31 136 216 18 39
32 90 81 3 30
33 55 — — 8
34 119 157 8 28
35 84 118 8 34
36 69 73 6 63
37 125 284 — —
38 160 151 9 20
39 69 97 5 83
40 115 103 7 103
41 5 13 4 12
42 69 90 5 35
43 149 242 5 51
44 109 95 4 38
45 148 138 14 36
46 129 140 5 70
47 165 187 4 36
48 160 — 4 43
49 173 178 4 41
50 123 231 4 62
51 2 — 1 11 Internal hemorrhage from
lead shot wound
52 94 115 3 64
53 137 187 6 48
54 101 96 7 29
FIGURE 15
LEAD LEVELS IN CANADIAN GEESE IN COLORADO
65
-------
Table 8. Lead levels, in ppo, in tissues from Csnada geese collected at
Turk’s Pond, southeast Colorado, and froc birds raised artificially for
control purposes. (continued).
Goose
Sample No.
Tissues
Liver Kidney Muscle bone Remarks
55 138 148 8 35
56 82 107 6 238
57 80 — 1,738 31
58 104 120 14 49
59 76 56 38 —
60 104 104 - 76
61 247 629 5 28
63 87 56 4 29
64 126 88 3 60
65 57 39 9 26
66 105 144 3 106
67 8 6 2 13 Collected as a normal
appearing cripple
68 97 108 7 38
69 80 73 7 37
70 125 143 4 48
71 100 114 4 —
72 130 128 4 59
73 50 77 4 34
74 54 77 5 31
75 75 66 10 47
76 52 48 15 37
77 93 93 7 446
78 79 128 12 31
79 160 196 8 35
80 170 151 19 59
82 51 105 5 44
83 53 67 5 33
84 67 114 3 37
85 122 109 2,137 131
86 — 68 4 29
87 76 86 7 87
88 182 199 8 59
89 44 245 2 60
90 94 151 5 108
91 108 87 2 39
92 116 295 7 76
93 283 461 9 43
94 106 7 6 74
95 62 40 6 79
96 3 5 3 13 Collected as a normal
appearing cripple
97 5 6 2 26
98 79 104 2 40
99 81 110 6 32
100 3 12 2 14 Collected as a normal
appearing cripple
101 2 3 2 2 Collected as a normal
appearing cripple
FIGURE 15 (CONTINUED)
66
-------
Table 8. Lead levels, in ppm, in tissues from Canada geese collected at
Turk’s Pond, southeast Colorado, and from birds raised artificially for
control purposes (continued).
Goose
Sample No.
Tissues
Remarks
Liver
Kidney
Muscle
none
102
10
69
2
17
103
66
48
6
23
Cl
12
11
2
6
Control
C2
4
5
5
10
Control
C3
2
4
4
8
Control
04
2
2
4
8
Control
CS
4
2
3
—
Control
C6
20
11
3
—
Control
C7
4
—
3
—
Control
C8
2
6
2
—
Control
C9
2
—
2
—
Control
ClO
2
5
2
9
Control
1/ Less than signs (<) are a function of weight of the sample.
FIGURE 15 (CONCLUDED)
67
-------
for some of the deaths, and also that lead had accumulated in the
tissues to as much as 2,137 ppm which was recorded for the muscle tissue
of one bird. It is not clear what diet the control birds were fed or
where they were obtained, but their tissues show a much lower level
of lead than the birds sampled from the study area.
Conclusions
Birds are ingesting lead pellets which are distributed on agricul-
tural lands around Turks Pond, and these seem to be the result of hunters
shooting from the firing line. There is evidence to suggest that the
ingestion of a single lead pellet may be sufficient to cause lead
ing in geese associated with Turks Pond. As a result of these con-
clusions, according to Wildlife Division officials, hunting regulations
were recently changed to require use of steel shot in the Turks Pond
area.
68
-------
General Conclusions on Wildlife Division Data
From an environmental monitoring viewpoint, the most useful data
gathered by the Colorado Division of Wildlife was the routine water
quality sampling for lead and cadmium in the study areas for the past
several years. As noted, this data has been reported to the STORET
system and is available for analysis through EPA channels. The bioassay
studies of laboratory controlled specimens, while useful in determining
levels at which toxicants are harmful to wildlife, do not in themselves
provide information on toxic substances in the Colorado environment.
Finally, the data on lead and cadmium in fish, insects, and geese tissues
served mainly to demonstrate that the tissue does concentrate those toxic
substances from the environment. There was no successive sampling from
the same sites of sufficient number of the same type of samples to allow
very useful summary or analysis of environmental trends. Because each
data value, as seen in the tables of Figures 14 and 15, is virtually
unique, no better way was found to record the data than the forms received
from the Wildlife Division. Similarly, no reasonable way was found to
summarize such diverse data other than what has been presented in the
above discussion.
69
-------
Department of Health and Hospitals, City and County of Denver
The Department operates six sampling stations on the South Platte
River. Twenty—three parameters are monitored for water quality, of
which arsenic, cadmium and lead are the only ones which are pertinent
to this project. Samples are taken once per year. The resulting data
Is not reported to STORET. There is also monitoring on Cherry Creek,
but no parameters of interest are determined.
The data supplied has six values for each of the metals
mentioned above per year. There are data for three years, 1971-1973,
so there are 54 values. The values recorded for 1971 are all zero for
all three metals at all six stations. Those for 1972 show an identical
pattern except for lead, which has a recorded value of 0.01 at the
Franklin sampling station. For 1973, there are zero values for arsenic
and cadmium at all stations, but there are three significant values
recorded for lead. There are levels of 40, 50, and 85 mg/i at Dartmouth
Alameda and Franklin stations respectively. There is no explanation
accompanying the data to account for the large values of lead recorded
at those three stations.
Figure 16 shows a data sheet as received from the Denver agency.
The water quality data for the three metals has been transformed by
MITRE Into the form which the Colorado Department of Health uses to
report data to STORET (see Figure 17).
Since all except four of the values were zero, statistical analysj 8
was not considered appropriate for the Denver City/County data.
70
-------
C1t [ h1 CAI ANA6YS1 01 A0 Ill 110 YPItL’J
oiiTii J i vi”i ; I11Vi I(
(November ¶1, 1971)
Bowles Dartmouth Alameda Cherrf Cr. 19th St. 1’ranklin
Turbidity (Units) 44 49 33 11 84 63
Arseni0.- 0 0 0 0 0 0
Cadmium — 0 0 0 0 0 0
C uomiuin+ 6 0 0 0 0 0 0
FluorIde 1.2 0.9 1.0 0.8 1.2 1.0
Lead 0 0 0 0 0 0
SeleniUm 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total HardnesS 184 267 267 290 270 290
Calcium 149 227 204 239 212 223
Magnesium 9 10 15 12 14 16
Total Solids 321 488 470 538 550 604
39 66 64 69 80 89
MBA Surfactanta 0 0 0 0 0 008
Copper 0 0 0 0 0 0.13
Zinc 0 0 0 0 0 0
Iron .05 0.15 0.12 .05 0.25 0.25
ManganeSe .05 0.1 0.3 0 0.6 0.6
Ci 1oride 41 56 54 74 64 72
Nitrate 5 0 6.5 6.3 5.3 1.5
Sulphate 95 137 140 136 162 171
phosphate 0.1 1.0 2.6 1.4 2.4 2.1
Ammonia 0 0.05 2.]. 0.05 4.0 4.0
Boron 0 0.1 0.06 0.]. 0.45 0.36
All analysis in mg/i unless indicated.
FIGURE 16
WATER QUALITY DATA SHEET RECEIVED
FROM DENVER CITY-COUNTY
7 ].
-------
DENVER CITY-COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT
WATER QUALITY DATA
Station Designation:
Date of Sample:
year month day
713 / I /
REMARKS:
.
Town, County. etc.:
PEWVE#€
Time of Sample:
r [ i i i
Collector:
Station Code Serial:
I
i 1 I I f
Date sample received
at Laboratory:
Yerr
month I day
Received by:
TIME:
TEMPERATURE (On
HIll
•‘TOTAL SOLIDS (mg/i)
CYANIDE (mg/i)
liii]
111111
pH (Standard Units)
liii
VOLATILE SOLIDS (mg/i)
I I LU
SELENIUM (u /1)
Li I 1
DISSOLVED OXYGEN (mg/i)
[ I II
TOTAL COLIFORM (per lOOmi)
SULFATE (mg/i)
I III I I I I 11
[ 1 I I ii
CHLORINE RESIDUAL (mg/i)
HI!
FECAL COLIFORM (per iOOmi)
TOTAL HARDNESS as CaCO 3 (mgII)
[ hID
IIIHIIHI
IURBIDITY (ftu)
(111111
AMMONIA as N. (mg/i)
[ I [ I1
CALCIUM as CaCO 3 (mg/i) I
111111
MAGNESIUM as Mg (mg/i
11111 1
SODIUM (mg/i)
Iln h]
ARSENIC
flhloIal
CONDUCTIVITY (micromhos)
NITRITE as N. (mg/i)
TIl, LI
111111
BOD (mg/I)
NITRATE as N. (mg/i)
[ liii
liii
Ill
COD (mg/
)
tfl
K4ELDAHL NITROGEN (mg/i)
[ till
liii
COLOR (unIts)
i i i i
TOTAL PHOSPHORUS as P (mg/i)
ri ii i
CADMIUM .4 , ’+P ,,yII ..
I I I IoioI
OIL & GREASE (mg/i)
MBAS (mg/i)
COPPER (ugh)
lull]
111 1111
LII I
SETTLEABLE SOLIDS (mi/i)
iuiii
BOROI4 (u /1
CHROMIUM, HEX. (ugh)
niiii
itiT
.i
DISSOLVED SOLIDS (mg/i)
111111
SUSPENDED SOLIDS (mg/I)
[ till]
CHLORIDES (mg/i)
11111
IRON (ug/I)
IllIlil
FLUORIDE (mg/i)
III
LEAD L ai ,I-i-
I lLsIo lol
FIGURE 17
FORM USED BY MITRE TO RECORD DENVER DATA
72
-------
SECOND QUARTER
DATA SUT*IARY AND ANALYSIS
73
-------
Processing and Analysis of Data Resulting From Contacts with the
States
The bulk of data processed and analyzed in this reporting
period, after the Pennsylvania air data was completed, was that
which was obtained as a result of meetings with agencies in the
state of Massachusetts. The Massachusetts data was mainly from
samples originating with a number of different agencies and
analyzed at the Massachusetts Department of Public Health; Lawrence
Experim*nt Station. This data included several thousand values
for a varying number of toxic substances found in fish and shell-
fish tissue, sediment, river water, public water supplies, sludge,
bottled water, harbor bottoms and saltwater samples. The first
data from Missouri agencies was not received at MITRE until 20
December 1974; some New York and New Jersey Data was also received
during the third quarter. Consequently, only the processing and
analysis of the Massachusetts toxic substances data will be re-
ported in this section for the second quarter. The Missouri data,
some of the New York and New Jersey data, and as much of the data
from Washington, Texas, Georgia, Michigan and California as was
received will be discussed in the third quarter section.
74
-------
Massachusetts Data Analysis
Data was reviewed from three agencies in Massachusetts. Below
is a listing of the agencies and the data obtained:
1. Massa.chusetts Water Resources Commission, Division of Water
pollution Control.
(a) An Investigation of Mercury Problems in Massachusetts
(b) Trace Metal Analysis of Boston Harbor Water and Sediments
(c) The Ten Mile River
Cd) Wastewater Discharge Survey, Connecticut River Basin
2. Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Game
(a) Analysis of Fish Tissue for Mercury, July 1970 — March 1971
(b) Analysis of Fish Tissue for Mercury, April 1971 — March 1972
(c) Pesticide Monitoring Program, April 1970 — March 1971
(4) Presence of PCB in Housatonic River
(e) Pesticide Program, April 1972 — March 1973
3. MassachuSetts Department of Natural Resources and Department
of public Health.
(a) Toxic Substances Survey
(b) Interstate Carrier Water Supply
(a) Bottled Water Program
The analysis and discussion are given in the pages that follow.
75
-------
1.0 MASSACHUSETTS WATER RESOURCES COMMISSION, DIVISION OF WATER
POLLUTION CONTROL
(a) An Investigation of Mercury Problems in Massachusetts
An investigation of mercury problems in Massachusetts was under-.
taken by a contractor for the Division of Water Pollution Control.
The investigation was divided into several surveys, and each will
be discussed separately.
Ashland Area——Sudbury River Program
The major source of mercury pollution in the Ashland area has been
the Nyanza Chemical Corporation. The metal was used by this corpor-
ation at the rate of 5,000 lbs per year. However, its use was
discontinued in November 1972. Prior to 1970, the mercury wastes
entered the Sudbury River by way of a small brook on the Nyanza
property. Since that time, the mercury content of wastes was con-
siderably reduced from about 7.5 ppm, as the wastes entered the
lagoons, to 100 ppb in 1971. It was estimated that over the 3 O—year
period (1940—1970), over 100,000 lbs. of mercury was carried by
surface water in the brook to the Sudbury River system. It is
further estimated that an additional 25,000—35,000 lbs is presently
contained in sludges deposited on Nyanza property. Ground water
contamination has been linked to this disposal.
The Ashland area was divided into six sections:
Area No. 1
This area lies northwest of the Nyanza plant facilities and
consists of approximately 93,000 square feet close to the plant.
76
-------
The area is essentially a wetland for about two—thirds of the year.
The area was completely drained in the summer of 1972, but reverted
to the wetland condition by the spring of 1973 as a result of
runoff and the high water table. The floor of the area is covered
with 6—18 inches of sludge—like material. Core samples were
taken and analyzed for mercury content.
The results of analyses performed on 14 samples are shown in
Figure 18. The samples were divided into three sections, 0—3 inches,
3—6 inches, and 6—9 inches. The data indicates an area rich in
mercury with an estimated concentration 1500 ppm per cubic foot
of dry material. On that basis, it was caluclated that there are
approximatley 12,600 lbs. of mercury in the area. There is a
grave concern over contamination of ground water, for the area
is thought to be a recharge zone for the nearby aquifer. Studies
performed on ground water have confirmed that it is contaminated
with. mercury.
Area No. 2
This is a wooded hillside area south of Area 1. The ground
is covered with a sludge and organic material between four and
five inches deep. Sampling in this area was limited.
No data is shown, but the report states that the average mercury
concentration in the sludge for a six inch core is about 300 ppm
dry weight. The total quantity of mercury is estimated to be
about 1,365 lbs.
77
-------
Sample No.
Core Layer (in)
Total Hg
(Dry Wt., ppm)
17 0-3 486
3-6 282
18 0-3 747
3-6 442
6-9 219
19 0-3 1687
3-6 2837
6-9 3051
20 0-3 4141
3-6 4795
6-9 1423
21 0-3 4985
3-6 3521
6-9 1851
22 0-3 1395
3-6 758
6-9 4177
23 0-3 1038
3-6 1598
6-9 3.25
24 0-3 329
3-6 597
6-9 443
25 0-3 1494
3-6 555
6-9 1399
26 0-3 1106
3-6 521
6-9 589
27 0-3 1220
3-6 400
6-9 480
28 0-3 784
3-6 57
6-9 16. 5
29 0-3 505
3-6 289
30 0-3 380
3-6 396
6-9 548
FIGURE 18
MERCURY LEVELS IN SEDIMENTS
78
-------
Area No. 3
This is a disposal area located on an excavated flat area
on a hill southwest of the plant. It is at an elevation of 100
feet above the plant and the adjacent wet areas. About one—half
of the area was filled and covered prior to the sampling program,
hence, the estimates of mercury would be somewhat inconclusive.
Samples were taken near the edge of the disposal area, where the
sludge deposits have not been covered and are about two to three
feet deep.
No data are shown for the Area 3 survey. It was reported that
the average mercury concentration in the top foot was 400 ppm.
It was subsequently estimated that there was about 6,480 lbs
of mercury in this section.
Area No.4
This area lies to the southeast of the plant on a hill
between an old railroad bed and disposal site (Area No. 3).
A drainage course winds down the hill to a small brook which flows
parallel to the railroad bed. An old spring is located on the side
of the disposal site. The spring has a good flow and seems to be
a part of a perched water table. Analyses for mercury were done
on water samples from the brook and spring. During 1972, there
was an overflow of sludge from the disposal area after heavy rain-
fall. The sludge was washed down the drainage course, some of
which is still visible In large quantities. Nine core samples were
79
-------
taken from the affected drainage area, which represents about 80,000
square feet of the total area of 312,000 square feet.
One mercury analysis of the spring water indicated a concen-
tration of 8.6 ppb, while an analysis of water in the brook Indi-
cated a mercury level of 57 ppm.
Mercury has been found in sediments located 100 feet or more
from the drainage course. The greatest levels occur near the
bottom of the hill with levels in the upper two inches of sedi-
ments being as high as 3337 ppm of mercury (Figure 19). It was
discovered that mercury was contained primarily in the upper eight
inches of the sediment. Estimates of mercury in the area were put
at 1,080 lbs.
Area No. 5
This area includes the beginning of the brook where Nyanza’s
effluent was piped prior to 1970. About 30,000 square feet of the
total 104,000 square feet is a pond. Sediment samples were taken
along the brook and in the pond.
The concentration of mercury in the samples from the pond
was reported to be 1000 to 1500 ppm, while samples from the side
of the brook ranged from 300—500 ppm mercury. It was estimated
that the sediments contained a mercury concentration of 1250 ppm
in the top one foot over a 30,000 square foot area, a 400 ppm
concentration in a 20,000 square foot area, and a 300 ppm concen-
tration in a 107,000 square foot wet area near the administration
80
-------
Sample No.
Core Layer (in)
Total
(Dry Wt.,
Hg
ppm)
31 0-3 897
3-6 672
6-9 119
32 0-3 403
3-6 654
6-9 235
33 0-3 59.5
3-6 4.96
6-9 9.09
34 0-3 473
3-6 19.0
6-9 7.83
35 0-3 102
3-6 43.6
6-9 13.8
36 0-3 1242
3-6 45.3
6-9 3.24
37 0-3 3337
3-6 1499
6-9 1189
38 0-3 838
3-6 509
6-9 142
40 0-3 70.0
3-6 50.8
6-9 3.37
39a (water sample) 57 (ppb)
spring water sample 8. 6 (ppb)
FIGURE 19
MERCURY LEVELS IN SEDIMENTS
81
-------
building. This would yield an estimated total quantity of 4,365 of
mercury.
Area No. 6
This area is located out the main entrance of Nyanza to the
west of the brook. The past history of the area suggested that
it was a disposal site from which much of the mercury was released
by erosive forces. Monitoring for mercury concentration began in
early 1972. Sixteen core samples were taken in this area for
mercury analysis.
The results are shown in Figure 20. The pattern indicated
that samples with the high values are from the perimeter of
the area, while those with low values are from the central or
gully regions. It was observed that there is a relative absence
of organic material in the gully sections. Organic material seems
to have a high binding affinity for mercury. Further, the absence
of organic material or vegetation exposes the soil to erosive
forces during moderate to heavy rainfall.
The concentrations of mercury in the sediments on the east
bank of the brook are quite high. Number 4 core sample from this
area was examined for the presence of methyl mercury. The total
mercury of the composite sample from the core had dry weight
concentration of 229 ppm. The methyl mercury extraction indicated
502 ppb giving a methyl mercury fraction of 0.22 percent of the
total mercury.
82
-------
Sample No.
Core Layer (in)
Total Hg
(Dry Wt., ppm)
1 0-3 1306
3-6 831
6-9 505
2 0-3 42.4
3-6 1.90
6-9 2.30
3 0-3 11.0
3-6 3.09
6-9 0.469
4 0-3 387
3-6 224
6-9 78. 3
5 0-3 2.03
3-6 2.76
6-9 2.29
6 0-3 1.18
3-6 1.68
6-9 1.81
7 0-3 71.8
3-6 9.35
6-9 11.34
8 0-3 410.1
3-6 165.4
6-9 39.2
9 0-3 65.9
3-6 4.93
6-9 7.43
10 0-3 11.9
3-6 4. 55
6-9 4.20
11 0-3 9.54
3-6 4.03
6-9 2.37
12 0-3 129
3-6 29.6
6-9 2.16
FIGURE 20
MERCURY LEVELS IN SEDIMENTS
83
-------
Sample No.
13
14
Core Layer (in)
0-3
3-6
6-9
0-3
3-6
6-9
Total Hg
(Dry Wt., ppm)
28.0
21.4
2.75
6. 36
1.16
2.22
15
16
0-3
3-6
6-9
0-3
3-6
6-9
7.51
0. 56
0.73
35.6
38. 3
zi.o
FIGURE 20 (CONTINUED)
84
-------
Since the brook carried large amounts of mercury during the
past three decades, it was not surprising to find high concentra-
tions of mercury in the soils adjacent to it. It was Interesting
to note that methyl mercury constituted a relatively low percentage
of the total. It has been suggested that the process of methyla—
tion could result in the release of some mercury to the atmosphere.
It is also possible that an equilibrium is established between
methylating and demethylating bacteria.
Groundwater Contamination
In view of the history of sludge disposal difficulties around
the Nyanza plant, a preliminary investigation of groundwater
contamination was undertaken. The major area of concern was Area
No. 1, which was the low area adjacent to the railroad tracks near
the General Electric plant (No. 2). There was also concern of
possible ground water contamination near the sludge settling
ponds and near the brook course at the eastern edge of Nyanza
property.
Four test wells were sunk in the vicinity of the above areas
and well samples were analyzed for both total and dissolved
mercury. The well samples were obtained for various pumping times
in order to determine the influence of ground water draw—down on
the mercury concentrations. Shallow soil borings were also made at
four locations in Area No. 1. The purpose of the borings was to
determine the elevation of standing ground water in the holes and
85
-------
to investigate the soil types. There was also interest in deter-
mining the significance of this area as an aquifer recharge zone.
The results of the analyse8 on well samples are tabulated
in Figure 21. In almost every case, the mercury levels greatly
exceed the U. S. Public Health guideline of 5 ppb maximum total
mercury. The effect of pumping time on each well was examined.
For the shallow well No. 1, the levels In almost every case
decreased with. increased pumping time, This was particularly
noticeable on November 17, 1972, when rainfall was three to four
inches above normal for the month. It seems that In this case
with the increased pumping, the well drew down water from near
the surface. This water would not be contaminated (at that time)
and would tend to dilute the mercury contaminated ground water
drawn in from the direction of Area No. 1.
In the case of the deep section of well No. 1, the levels
tend to Increase with increased pumping. (This pattern held for
every case except September 22, 1972.) This pattern would suggest
that the ground water in the near vicinity of the well is diluted
by water percolating down from ground level and as the well is
pumped, the draw down brings in the contaminated water from Area
No. 1. This gives support to the belief that Area No. 1 acts
as a recharge for aquifer.
86
-------
-.4
*RainIall 3-5’ above normal this period. High groundwater levels. Note dilution effect in shallow wells.
Well #1
Shallow
(G.E.)
Well #1
Deep
(G.E.)
Well #2
Admin. Bldg.
Well #3
Parking Lot
Sept. 7, 1972
Standing Water
T D
T D
T D
T D
30.2 19.9
50.7 37.7
20.3 12.5
17.2 9.1
Sept. 22, 1972
1 mm.
Pumping 10 mm.
20 mm.
148 118
52 36
46 37
260 200
4220 3300
174 134
59 41
35.2 28
40 27
- 191
83 16.9
23.7 16.4
Oct. 4, 1972
1 mm.
Pumping 10 mm.
20 mm.
38 25
34 32
38 23.5
48 47
112 112
119 116
41 34
54 51.2
54 42
36 29
33 26
40 15.4
Oct. 20, 1972
1 mm.
Pumping 10 mm.
42 29
32 23
58 46
118 114
21.5 6.4
43 29
24 11.2
34 22
Nov. 17, 1972e
1 mimi.
Pumping 10 mm.
35 16.9
9.7 5.9
46 35
84 80
13.8 0.8
17.6 5.4
16.3 4.0
4.4 3.9
April 24, 1973
Pumping 1-10 mm.
23.5 13
184 27
12.0 11.0
19.0 4.0
FIGURE 21
- EFFECTS OF PUMPING ON TEST WELLS
-------
The mercury levels in pumped water samples from wells No. 2
and No. 3 are somewhat erratic and no specific conclusion was
therefore drawn.
The results clearly indicate that mercury levels are In-
fluenced by high rainfall and runoff. The November 1972 results
are quite low compared to the October results. November rainfall
was three to five inches above normal for the Boston area.
Two of the soil borings (C and C ) contained a high per—
1 3
centage of silty—sand which is semi—permeable and allows water
seepage. Water levels in test holes were within one foot of the
surface.
One of the other two samples (C ) was a peat—organic material
2
mixed with large cobbles. The other (C ) had some organic material
4
mixed with silt and sand. The total mercury content of C (peat—
2
organic) was 3538 ppm. This is a very high concentration, but is
consistent with the high affinity which these soils have for
mercury. Mercury levels in samples C , C , and C were 62, 26
13 4
and 22 ppm respectively. The soil sampling further substantiates
the earlier belief that the site is a recharge area for the sand
and gravel aquifer which runs parallel to the Sudbury River which
drains the aquifer during periods of low flow.
Surface Water Monitoring
In order to determine how much mercury is entering the
reservoir as a function of surface runoff, a series of monitoring
88
-------
stations were set up between the Nyanza plant and Framingham
Reservoir No. 2. Each station was sampled at a frequency of
approximately twice monthly from the end of March 1972, until the
end of November 1972. This period covered the spring runoff,
heavy rainfall during June, a dry month of August, and heavy
rainf ails in late October and November.
The samples were collected in plastic sampling bottles and
were immediately acidified to pH 1 with the exception that samples
to be analyzed for dissolved mercury were filtered with 0.45 micro
millipore filter apparatus prior to acidification with nitric
acid.
Data from the analyses is tabulated in Figure 22, and the
results for total and dissolved mercury for three of the stations
are illustrated graphically in Figures 23 and 24. The results in
Figures 23 and 24 show two definite peaks in the mercury concentra-
tion of the surface waters. The Megunko Road station (Station 1)
on the brook is very high in late June and again in late October.
The rainfall records do not support the idea of attributing peaks
to periods of unusually high rainfall which would induce erosion.
More directly, the peak in June has been linked to the overflow
of sludge from a lagoon situated on a hill. The cause of the peak
in October was not ascertained, but was not thought to be related
to runoff and could result from displaced sludge from the lagoon
during filling operations.
89
-------
‘0
Nyanza
Brook
Megunko
Street
Area #6
Leachate
at
RB
Nyanza
Brook
at
BR
Brook
at
Cherry
Street
Brook
Above
Junction
w/Sud R
Sudbury R
Below
Junction
w/ Brook
Reservoir
#2 at
Union St.
Bridge
BR
Bridge
Remarks
3/31/72
T D
T D
T D
T D
T D
T D
T D
T D
SudburyR
swollen with
spring runoff.
Over normal
banks.
28 26
320 28
13 12
16 10
7 5.6
15 15
28 21
4/21/72
9.6 5.9
83 41
- -
12 6.8
- -
9 5
- -
5/5/72
18 13
47 4.4
8.5 7.2
7.9 3.8
5.5 3.5
- 4.9
0.9 0.7
5/16/72
27 7.2
46 11
17 6.3
6.7
10 4.7
2.8 1. 5
4.3 1.7
6/5/72
63 27
125 14
20 8.7
17 7.2
9.4 4.5
2.7
2.6
6/21/72
118 76
122 18
35 21
36 21
23 19
21 20
17 17
Very heavy
rains on Mon.
and Tues. pre-
ceding sampling
7/20/72
7.9 5.5
23 9.7
27 11
20 9.7
19 6.6
5.2 0.2
5.6 3.0
Samples taken
from ditch used
to drain collec-
tion area at
base of hill.
T = 172, D = 84
8/14/72
9.8 6.7
(dry)
12 6.7
2.8 2. 1
7. 3 0. 2
3.8 1.6
8.2 3.6
8/29/72
15 7.8
-
11 7.4
4.0 2.7
2.9 2.6
1.3 1.3
9.0 2.7
11 6.2
9/7/72
18 6.6
-
11 9.0
21 2.8
0.9 0.7
1.6 1.0
1.9 0.2
5.9 2.7
9/20/72
35 15
51 22
64 41
10 4.4
8. 1 2. 3
7. 5 6.8
2.6 1.8
3.7 1. 2
Heavy rain on
Tue s.
FIGURE 22
BROOK AND RIVER MONITORING DATA (TOTAL AND DISSOLVED Hg, ppb)
-------
Nyanza
Brook
Megunko
Street
Area #6
Leachate
at
RR
Nyanza
Brook
at
RR
Brook
at
Cherry
Street
Brook
Above
Junction
w/Sud P
Sudbury R
Below
Junction
w/Brook
Reservoir
#2 at
Union St.
RR
10/4/72
T D
T D
T D
T D
T
Bridge
Bridge
Remarks
21 15
-
15 10
14 14
15 8.7
T D
10 6.1
T D
9.2 8.7
T D
10/20/72
58 45
-
50 49
23 19
-
-
17 16
14 13
11/17/72
8.1 7.3
12 6.8
17 5.1
11 4.9
-
-
5.0 2.8
4.6 4.4
FIGURE 22 (CONTINUED)
-------
150
125
100
Total Hg
(ppb)
75
‘0
50
25
March 31 May 1 June 1
o Station #1 - Megunko Rd.
o Station #4 - Cherry St.
Station #7 - Union St.
July 1 Aug 1 Sept 1 Oct 1 Nov 1 Dec 1
FIGURE 23
TOTAL MERCURY AT MONITORING STATIONS
-------
Dissolved
Hg
(ppb)
60
50
40
30
20
10
March 31 May 1
76. 0
t
o Station #1 - Megunko Rd.
O Station #4 - Cherry St.
Station #7 - Union St.
NOTE: Points connected only for purpose
of indicating trends
June 1 July 1 Aug 1 Sept 1
FIGURE 24
DISSOLVED MERCURY AT MONITORING STATIONS
Octi Novi Deci
-------
Taunton River and Muddy Cove Survey
A field survey of the Taunton River was conducted on August
24, and September 15, 1972. The purpose of the survey was to
determine through grab sampling the distribution of mercury in
bottom sediments above and below the Id Ajnerica, kDighton plant;
also, to determine if any other significant sources of mercury con-
tamination could be identified.
Samples were collected and stored in plastic sample bottles
for later analysis. The analyses were performed for total mercury.
Percent moisture was also determined and the mercury concentration
was reported on a dry weight basis.
Muddy Cove, a small inlet on the Taunton River, is bounded
by a hurricane gate which blocks passage of tidal waters beyond
that point. The ICI America plant is located west of Muddy Cove
adjacent to Muddy Brook lagoon. The lagoon is isolated from tidal
influx, but does overflow into Muddy Cove. The effluent from Id
enters the lagoon. This arrangement is being revised as a result
of the construction by ICI of a large waste treatment plant, which
will divert the wastes from the cove to a ditch.
On December 14, 1972, field survey was conducted. Core
samples were taken at low tide. The cores were split into three
sections representing the 0—3, 3—6 and 6—9 inch layers of sediment
in the cove.
* ICI America uses mercury in its processes.
94
-------
The results of the analyses are shown in Figure 25. The
higher concentrations of mercury are in the general vicinity of
Muddy Cove (a small inlet of the Taunton River). T—24, which is
about ten yards north of the entrance of Muddy Cove to the Taunton
River, had a concentration of 17.31 ppm by dry weight and was the
highest level measured in the river. T—22, which is about one half
mile upstream, has a concentration of 14.61 ppm. Both of these
stations are upstream of Id, but the flood tide influence of the
river extends several miles north of Dighton.
Mercury concentrations in samples immediately down stream from
Id America were also high (samples T—8 and T—9). Sample T—17,
which is about two miles north of ICI had 6.45 ppm mercury, and
lends some support to the idea that mercury absorbed onto fine
sediment may be carried north on incoming flood tides and deposi-
ted when tim floods have receded. There is also the possibility
that mercury is present in the primary effluent of the Taunton
waste treatment plant.
The results for Muddy Cove are shown in Figure 26. They
show that the tidal action in the cove has resulted in relatively
low values of mercury in the center section of the cove compared
to the edge. In addition, the highest levels are generally in
the upper three inches, which indicates that deposition of mercury
in the cove has been relatively limited in view of the large
quantities known to exist in Muddy Brook lagoon. It is possible
95
-------
Sample Location
Percent Moisture
Mercury Concentration
Wet (ppm) Dry
T-l
23.0
0. 141 0. 186
T-2
41.2
1.450 2.470
T-3
55.2
2.600 5.810
T-4
13.4
0.123 0.143
T-5
31.0
2. 330 3.380
T-6
29. 0
2. 540 3. 590
T-7
40. 6
5. 870 9.920
T-8
40.5
7.270 12.200
T-9
70. 6
3. 380 11. 500
T-10
43.0
4.050 7.100
T-11
28.5
1.620 2.300
T-12
24.1
0.893 1.200
T- 13
39. 1
4.600 7. 560
T-14
80.7
1.640 8.470
T-15
60. 3
2.070 5.210
T-16
65.8
1.210 3.540
T-17
65.2
2.240 6.450
FIGURE 25
TAUFSJTON RIVER SURVEY RESULTS
96
-------
Sample Location
Percent Moisture
Mercury Concentration
Wet Dry
T- 18
42.0
1.510 2.610
T-19
76.4
0.836 3.510
T-20
75.6
1.400 5.720
T-21
76.8
1.570 6.770
T-2 2
86.8
2.810 14.610
T-23
86. 1
0.850 6.140
T-24
82.3
3.060 17.310
FIGURE 25 (CONTINUED)
97
-------
Sample No.
Core Layer
Total Hg (Dry Wt, ppm)
N-45
0-3
3-6
6-9
3. 340
0.461
10. 200
N-46
0-3
3-6
6-9
29.300
26. 400
13. 000
N-47
0-3
3-6
6-9
9.600
4.840
5.950
N-48
0-3
3-6
6-9
5.950
2.110
1.610
N-49
0-3
3-6
6-9
18. 200
0.426
0.439
N-SO
0-3
3-6
6-9
62. 300
0.831
0.648
N-51
0-3
3-6
6-9
53.900
116. 000
3.510
N-52
0-3
3-6
6-9
131. 000
2.040
1.940
N-53
0-3
3-6
6-9
7.910
2. 270
2.000
N-54
,
0-3
3-6
6-9
47. 800
2.060
0. 732
FIGURE 26
MUDDY COVE CORE ANALYSIS
98
-------
Sample No.
Core Layer
Total Hg (Dry Wt, ppm)
N-55
0-3
3-6
6-9
83. 700
12.600
4.110
N-56
0-3
3-6
6-9
18.400
3.680
2. 140
N-57
0-3
3-6
6-9
5.400
2.710
2. 270
— N-58
0-3
3-6
6-9
28. 800
6. 500
5.280
— N-59
0-3
3-6
37. 600
31. 100
FIGURE 26 (CONTINUED)
99
-------
that in the saltwater environment of the cove, mercury has
solubilized as a chloride complex (Fig C1 4 =) and thus, levels
in the sediments have not built up over the years. It does not
appear the much of this mercury is being released to the water
column because water samples taken during the coring indicated
less than 0.4 ppb total mercury.
Some methyl mercury Is present in the
the percent of the total is less than what
water sediments. One core sample gave 154
0.1 percent compared to 0.2 to 0.5 percent
Reservoir.
Conclusions on Massachusetts Mercury Study
1. The major source of mercury to the Sudbury River system in
the Ashland—Framingham area has been the Myanza Chemical Corpora-
tion. During the period 1940—1970, approximately 100,000 lbs of
mercury was transported by surface water to the river or about
3,400 lbs annually.
2. Since 1970, when Nyanza joined the municipal sewer system,
the annual contribution dropped to 50—65 lbs., and with discontin-
uance of the use of mercury in dye—making processes, there will
be a further gradual decrease. The grounds surrounding the
Nyanza plant contain between 25,000 and 35,000 lbs of mercury
and some runoff contamination can be expected from this source.
sediments, although
was observed in fresh—
ppb which represents
in the Framingham
100
-------
3. Nearly one—half of the mercury in the soils on Nyanza property
is confined in a two to three acre area west of the plant.
Analyses performed on nearby test wells have shown mercury
pollution of ground water.
4. Inadequate sludge management practices have resulted in
mercury contamination of the brook which carries water from the
Nyanza area to the Sudbury River.
5. Ground water contamination is particularly serious in the sand
and gravel areas located between the railroad tracks adjacent to
Nyanza and the Sudbury River.
6. A series of laboratory experiments with columns simulating
the leaching of mercury from contaminated soils has given the
following results which are significant in ground water pollution:
(a) The mercury in contaminated soils located over predomin-
antly sandy subsoil will leach through the sand into the
ground water with relatively little of the mercury adsorbing
to the sand.
(b) If the mercury is in a highly organic soil, relatively
little mercury can be leached from the soil.
(c) Chemical barrier materials placed below the mercury
contaminated soils will bind some of the mercury leaching
through the soil and inhibit the flow of mercury to the sub—
soil.
101
-------
7. Methyl mercury was detected in sediments and accounted for
between 0.2 and 0.5 percent of the total mercury present. Methyl
mercury is the most toxic form of mercury and represents about
85 to 90 percent of the total mercury usually found in fish.
8. No extensive measurement of mercury levels in Framingham
Reservoir No. 1 and No. 2 was undertaken. On the basis of previous
sampling, it was estimated that between 15,000 and 50,000 lbs
could presently be in bottom sediments as a result of the passage
of 100,000 lbs in the Sudbury River system.
9. Mercury concentrations in sediments from the Taunton River
are much lower than from the Sudbury River impoundment areas.
10. Mercury determinations in Muddy Cove showed an average con-
centration of 36.2 ppm in the 0—3 inch layer, 14.2 ppm in the 3—6
inch layer, and 3.84 in the 6—9 inch layer. The lower concentra-
tions below the 6—inch depth indicated that tidal action prevented
the extensive accumulation of mercury contaminated sediments.
11. Methyl mercury was detected in the sediments of Muddy Cove
to the extent of about 0.1 percent of total mercury.
(b) Trace Metal Analysis of Boston Harbor Water and Sediments
The Boston Harbor receives residential, municipal, and indus-
trial inputs through Deer Island and Nat Island treatment plants,
as well as unchecked overflow of combined sewer, river runoff and
urban runoff. It has been estimated that about 35 percent of the
discharge from the treatment plant is of industrial origin. Therefore,
it is not unexpected that toxic metals would be found in the harbor.
102
-------
WATER
New England* Aquarium commenced a study (under contract) of the
form and concentration of metals in the waters and sediments of Boston
Harbor in February 1971. The first effort was the sampling of the
surface waters in the inner and outer harbor for heavy metals including
cadmium, chromium and lead. Then, two 24—hour studies were set
up to monitor the effects of tidal changes. The first was between
February 16 and 17, 1972, and the second between April 24 and 25,
1972. Surface and bottom samples were taken every two hours at
Station 7 in the inner harbor.
Figure 27 shows levels of heavy metals including cadmium,
chromium and lead as determined in the surface waters of inner
and outer harbor. These are compared with values derived from
several studies and from theoretical estimates. The harbor values
are the sum of the results of two analyses per sample in which
one measures the soluble phase and the other the particulate phase.
The data illustrating the distribution of these metals is shown in
Figure 28.. Soluble phase cadmium values for the outer harbor vary
from 0.12 to 1.1 ppb with highest value recorded near the Deer
Island outfall. In the inner harbor, values varied from 0.34 to
0.52 ppb in the river samples.
The result of analyses on particulate phase for cadmium show
that the concentrations of cadmium were below the detectable amount
* Consultants of Boston Massachusetts.
103
-------
Element Oceanic Average Inner Harbor Outer Harbor
from Turekian (ppb) (ppb)
(ppb)
Cd 0.11 0.42 0.29
Cr 0.2 2.8 (4.02)1 305
Cu 0.9 6.8 4,4
Na. 6.6 9.4 8.0
Ph 0.03 11.8
Zn 5. 44. 13.9
FIGURE 27
AVERAGE TRACE METAL CONCENTRATIONS IN BOSTON HARBOR SURFACE WATERS
104
-------
‘or each station soluble phase values are given on first
line; particulate phase values on second line. All values are
in parts per billion.
INNER HARBOR
Sample Zn Cu Pb Ni Cr Cd
IM 1 61.3 2.8 2.2 13.6 1.2 .52
5.9 2.8 6.5 2.0 2.4 ND 2
IH 2 62.2 6. 2.5 8.3 0.8(.58)1 0.53
2.6 2.2 5.3 1.2 0.5(.47) ND
Il-i 3 37.8 11.1 2.7 7.5 0.5 0.35
2.3 1.4 5.6 2.2 2.1 ND
u- i 4 30.6 6.6 10.6 9.9 1.2(2.24) 0.46
3.8 2.1 7.3 1.3 0.7(2.56) ND
IH 5 24.7 4.7 8.6 8.7 0.5(1.01) 0.1i7
4.3 2.3 6.3 1.6 0.8(1.17) ND
v-i 6 26.2 5.8 6.1 9.1 0.8(1.97) 0.42
2.5 2.4 6.9 2.0 1.2(2.23) ND
IH 7 45.1 5.9 7.11 . 7.5 3.0(3.69) 0.56
4.1 2.5 10.1 1.3 1.2(4.15) ND
i 8 33.11 3.2 3.L 7.2 0.2 0.34
3.9 1.3 3.0 2.9 1.1 ND
40.2 5.0 5.4 7.8 1.0(1.90) 0.42
3.7 1.8 6.4 1.6 1.8(2.12) ND
1. Values in parentheses were obtained using the revised chromium
method (Appendix 3 -C). Samples were taken 9/19/72, others were
r’ollected between 6/li and 6/13/72.
Not Determinel
FIGURE 28
TRACE METAL DISTRIBUTION IN BOSTON HARBOR WATERS
105
-------
PRESIDENT ROADS
Cr c i
PR 1 20.5 4.2 2.4 ND 0.3 0.2
5.1 0.8 3.0 1.8 6.6 ND
PR 2 7.8 2.5 1.5 .6 0.8 0 37
5.9 0.8 2.9 1.2 1.1
PR 3 11.0 8.6 2.2 6.7 0.3 0.U.
7.7 1.6 4.1 1.1 0.9 Ni.
PR 11.9 2.9 2.) 7.1 O.
13.3 2.7 3.2 3.6 4.1
PR 16.7 7.8 1.6 13.6 O 6 1.LO
5.7 2.3 4.2 1.8 3 5 ND
AV . 11.6 5.2 2.0 8.2 0 ) 0. 6
7.5 1.6 3.5 1.9 3.2 ND
1ICRC ESTER BAY
DB 1 17.2 3.0 1.9 5.2 0.3 NI)
1.3 0.9 2 ,3 5.8 6.5 ND
B 2 7.6 2.2 2.7 3.7 0.2
ND 0.4 0,6 1.8 3.0 ND
DB 3 11.5 2.1 2.2 4,2 0.2
ND 0.5 ND 1.1 3.4 ND
1JB 4 1O ? 2.1 0 .3 4.3 ND 0.09
5.2 1.1 4.4 ND Ni) ND
DB 5 10.5 2.6 2.9 4.7 0.2
0.1 ND j.6 1.5 ND ND
FIGURE 28 (CONTINUED)
106
-------
D0ROf-(ESTE} BAY, Corit.
S. rnp1e Zn Cu Pb Ni Cr Cd
DB 6 13.0 3. 2.7 4.8 ND 0.12
ND ND ND ND ND ND
DB 7 8.0 1.6 6.11. 0.4 0.24
0.3 0.9 0.9 1.7 5.2 ND
AVE 11.2 2.6 2.0 4.7 O. 0.24
1.7 0.8 2.4 1.8 4.5 ND
QMPS0N-L Q _ I SLAND AREA
TL 1 7.8 2.2 1.2 6.1 0.11. 0.11
1.8 2.5 0.5 1.2 2.1 ND
PL 2 9.5 2.7 2.0 7.4 1.2 0.14
0.9 1.5 ND 1.7 0.8 ND
PL 3 8.9 1.9 2.7 6.9 0.1 0.29
2.0 2.3 ND 1.1 1.5 ND
TL 4 8.7 2.2 1.6 7.1 0.3 0.24
1.1 1.0 0.8 1.6 1.0 ND
TL 5 8.4 2.1 1.8 5.2 0.5 ND
0.1 0.6 ND 0.4 1.3 ND
TL 6 10.4 2.11. 2.0 8.2 0.5 0.22
5.1 1.0 3.8 1.6 1.0 ND
AVE 9.0 2.2 1.9 6.8 0.5 0.20
1.3 1.5 1.7 1.3 1.3
FIGURE 28 (CONCLUDED)
107
-------
of the method of analysis used. In the case of lead, particulate
and aqueous phases contain similar concentrations: 0.5 to 4.4 ppb
and 0.3 to 2.9 ppb respectively in the outer harbor, and 10.1 to
30.0 ppb, and 2.2 to 10.6 ppb in the inner harbor. Chromium con-
centrations were higher in the particulate phase than in the soluble
fraction: 0.8 to 6.6 and 0.1 to 1.2 ppb respectively, in the outer
harbor; 0.5 to 2.4 and 0.2 to 1.2 respectively in the inner harbor.
The high values for particulate chromium near the Deer Island
outfall are to be expected. The significance of the higher values
at the mouth of the inner harbor and off Castle Island is less
obvious. These high values may be due to Deer Island effluent
which flows down President Roads with the tide, or they may be due
to a second source, possibly a combined sewer outfall near the mouth
of the harbor.
A comparison of the two sets of particulate data below in
Table 11 shows reasonable agreement for most metals.
In general, slightly higher values are evident in the April
study. This could be due to higher freshwater runoff into the harbor
during the spring and thus, a higher metal input, or to a higher
particulate level resulting from the activities of spring algae.
The results for chromium gave clear evidence of a tidal effect
on concentration in the particulate phase (Figure 29). They further
suggest that a major contributor of chromium is the sewage sludge
which is pumped into harbor waters. The sampling station utilized
108
-------
for this 24—hour sampling is located one and one—half miles to the
harbor side of the Deer Island sewage outfall.
TABLE 11
METAl CONCENTRATION RANGES OVER 24 HOURS
Concentration Range ppb
Metal 2/16/72 — 2/17/72 4/24/72 — 4/25/72
Particulate Particulate Soluble
Cd <0.02 — 0.1 0.02 — 0.2 0.5 — 3.8
Cr 1.8 — 4.7 0.8 — 3.0 —
Pb 0.4 — 3.7 0.5 — 6.1 1.6 — 7.7
SE1)fl NTS
The residence time for trace metals in waters of a fairly
shallow harbor is probably short. This is so because of the high
levels of suspended solids. Therefore, rapid absorption or co—
precipitation and subsequent deposition of heavy metals would be
expected to occur. For these reasons, the analyses of sediments
should afford a further measure of trace metal input into the harbor
waters, and deep cores would provide a history of metal buildup.
109
-------
2.0 —
1.5 —
Surface
i.a . ______
0.5 —
/
3
Chromium Levels (ppb)
in particulate phase
at Station 7
2
Bottom
1
/\ _
-.
TIDES:
LOW
tl:30
15:30
HIGH
2130
LOW
3:30
HIGH
9:39
FIGURE 29
CHROMiUM LEVELS (ppb) IN PARTICULATE PHASE AT STATION 7
-------
Approximately 100 samples were collected in the inner harbor
and throughout the outer harbor with cores ranging in length between
10 and 40 cm.
The results of analyses on inner harbor samples are reported
for cadmium, chromium, lead and mercury. These were done from
samples taken at four stations. The data is shown below in Table 12.
TABLE 12
RESULTS OF INNER HARBOR SEDINENTS
Metal in ppm
Station Cd Cr Pb Hg
1111 3.3 — 161 0.92
1H2 10.0 144 675 1.50
1H3 7.8 174 411 2.33
1H4 29 116 595 5.70
These high levels in the inner harbor are not surprising in
view of inputs from rivers, commercial activities and numerous
combined sewage outfalls. High levels of mercury (5.7 ppm) are
found at station 1N4 (at the mouth of the Charles River) where the
concentration Is also high at 29 ppm for Cadmium.
111
-------
Data on analyses of samples from the outer harbor, Figure 30,
reveal generally lower concentrations for the four toxic metals
than was found in the inner harbor. The distribution of trace
metals in the outer harbor shows several trends. In cores greater
than 10 cm in length, metal levels in almost all samples were
highest at the surface. For those samples in which the cores were
taken from the underlying clay, there was a marked decrease in
metal levels. This probably indicates that heavy metals in the
harbor’s waters were much lower during the period when clay
deposits were being formed. Alternatively, it could be that the
highly organic layer which covers most of the harbor bottom may
trap much of the metals and thus prevent their deposition into
the clay layer.
Sediments in the southern portion of the harbor generally
contain lower levels of trace metals which is consistent with lower
levels of industrial activity in that area. There were exceptions
to this finding such as in a site just south of Moon Head which
is the location of a former sewage treatment plant and outfall.
A direct relationship was revealed between the organic content of
samples and the concentration of toxic metals. That is, higher
metal values corresponded to high organic content.
112
-------
Depth
Sample ( cm ) Zn Cu Pb Co Cd Ni Cr V Mo flg. Organic
DF 1 0 171 108 102 11 13.4 25 165 49 3.5 0.9 4 79
10 212 87 79 17 4.0 31 188 55 7.9 4.2 5.17
20 210 61 81 9 2.5 30 69 66 4.3 0.4 4.14
DF2 0 — — — 3.3
DF3 0 — — - — — — — — — 2.5 -
DF 4 0 400 206 151 18 7.6 38 402 111 9.4 2.4 8.36
10 227 97 24 1 2.1 31 69 83 5.5 2.0 6,05
20 340 95 125 15 2.9 31 111 50 2.8 1.4 5.89
DP 5 0 126 63 144 29 0.8 6 109 74 4.7 0.3 6.05
10 101 21 46 17 2.6 30 1011. 77 6.7 0.8 —
20 39 11 24 4 1.8 10 17 30 1.6 0.1 2.60
DF 6 0 188 105 91 9 4.8 23 179 52 9.0 14.0 6.13
10 15 14 38 46 6 5.5 4.7 46 67 3.6 — 5.35
20 178 53 85 9 2.1 15 61 37 3.8 - 4.64
‘ PL 1 0 256 117 116 15 5.0 31 111.5 57 8.0 2.8 6.39
10 242 92 120 16 5.5 29 99 57 6.4 — 6.48
20 210 80 161 16 3.5 27 71 49 7.5 — 7.92
TL2 0 — — — 14.1 -
TL3 0 — — — 3.5
PL4 0 - — — . 2.3
PL 5a 0 427 129 199 — — 9 141 40 4.6 1.8 9.10
Sb 0 396 265 153 12 5. 1 4 38 229 38 6.7 1.8 7 ,69
TL6 0 — — — 3.8
FIGURE 30
ANALYSIS RESULTS OF OUTER HARBOR SEDIMENTS
-------
Conclusions
1. The data collected on water and sediment samples from the
Boston Harbor shows that substantially higher metal values occur
in the inner harbor and in the vicinity of point sources such
as the out falls than in the outer harbor.
2. High metal concentrations and high levels of organic matter
were found In areas near sewage outfalls in the inner harbor.
3. Interpretation of the analytical data is complicated by the
tidal and estuarine currents on a relatively shallow body of
water; also, by the uncertainty of dredging and dumping of spoils.
4. The data clearly shows that a large amount of heavy metals
is present In sediments of the Boston Harbor.
(c) The Ten Mile River
This report Is the first part of a series compiled by the
Division, and is one of twelve river basins surveyed by the Water
Quality Section during the summer of 1973 as a part of a basin
planning program.
Nineteen stations were located on the Ten Mile River, one
each on th Seven Mile and Bungay Rivers. Four chemical and
bacterial samples were collected from each station over a 24 —hour
period and composited into one daily sample. Analyses were per—
formed at Lawrence Experiment Station. Twenty—one samples were
collected on September 18, 1973, and twenty—one on September 20,
1973, and analyzed f or cadmium. Figure 31 displays the data.
114
-------
STATION 9/18/73 9/20/73 AVERAGE
11401 0.01 0.00 0.00
11402 0.01 0.00 0.00
11103 0.00 0.00 0.00
11404 0.00 0.00 0.00
11405 0.00 0.00 0.00
11406 0.00 0.00 0.00
11407 0.00 0.00 0.00
11408 0.00 0.00 0.00
7)109 0.01 0.00 0.00
11410 0.14 0.00 0.07
11411 0.03 0.00 0.02
11412 0.01 0.00 0.00
‘11413 0.00 0.00 0.00
Th14 0.00 0.00 0.00
ThiS 0.01 0.00 0.00
11416 0.01 0.00 0.00
7 ) 117 0.00 0.00 0.00
11418 0.01 0.00 0.00
11419 0.00 0.00 0.00
SMO 1 0.00 0.00 0.00
BC O 1 0.00 0.00 0.00
FIGURE 31
TEN MILE RIVER 1973 SURVEY—SUMMARY OF CADMIUM DATA (mg/i)
115
-------
Only nine stations sampled on the 18th of September were found to
contain cadmium ranging from 0.01 to 0.14. No cadmium was deter-
mined in any of the twenty—one stations sampled on September 20.
The data for chromium is shown in Figure 32. SamplIng was
done at twenty—one stations on four separate occasions. The values
vary from 0.0 to 0.02 nig/l. Ten stations sampled on July 3 show
values of 0.01 mg/l while eleven show 0.0 mg/i. Seven of those
sampled on July 5 indicate 0.01 mg/l values and one 0.02 mg/i.
Fourteen of the set sampled on September 18 show 0.01 mg/i and one
shows 0.01 mg/i. Eight samples collected on September 20 indicate
levels of 0.01 mg/l.
Conclusion
While these values are relatively low, they do indicate
pollution which is not surprising In view of the discharge of
sanitary and industrial wastes into the river. The values of
other heavy metals determined such as iron, copper, nickel and
zinc are generally much higher.
(d) Wastewater Discharge Survey: Connecticut River Basin— —
In August 1971, a survey of the Connecticut River Basin was
undertaken with the objective of assessing waste loads entering
the lower Connecticut River Basin.
One hundred fifty—six sites were monitored on the main stream
of the Connecticut River and on six other rivers——the Chicopee,
Quaboag, Ware, Westfield, Deerfield and Millers. The objective
116
-------
STATION 7/3/73 7/5/73 9/18/73 9/20/73
11401 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01
11402 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01
TMO3 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00
TMO4 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00
TMO5 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00
11406 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00
TMO7 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
TMO8 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00
TM1O 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00
mu 0.01 0.00 0.02 0.01
11412 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.01
11413 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
TM14 Q.01 0.01 0.00 0.01
11415 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
11416 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
11417 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00
TM18 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Th19 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00
SMO1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
BCO1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
FIGURE 32
TEN MILE RIVER 1973 SURVEY—SUMMARY OF CHROMIUM DATA (mg/i)
117
-------
was to provide information on 147 outfalls of wastes that included
industrial effluents.
The consultants performed 29 analyses on each sample and the
Lawrence Experimental Station analyzed each sample for eight metals.
Samples were composited in proportion to flow over three separate
24—hour periods. Heavy metals were analyzed with an atomic absorp-
tion spectrophotometer at Lawrence Station while other analyses
were done in accordance with procedures outlined in Standard
Methods. The toxic substances of interest which were determined
are arsenic, cadmium, chromium, lead and mercury. Figure 33 is
included as an example of the data recorded In the report. Table 13
shows the ranges and means of the toxic substances recorded. The
values are generally low for all substances except lead and chromium.
These metals show highs of up to 190 mg/i for lead and 41 mg/l
for chromium.
118
-------
WASTEWATER DISCHARGE SURVEY
CONNECTICUT RIVER BASIN
CONNECTICUT RIVER
WEST SPRINGFIELD
OUTFALL: Springfield Sewage Tre ment Plant ( Bondi Island) MILE NO_75.?W
SAMPLE: 24-Hr. Composite- Sequential FLOW (MGD):Average 19.59 Maximum 26.5
Dote Collected
Sample Number
cidity&ng/l CoCO 3
12-17-71
12-21-71
12-22-71
Time Collected 2:30 PM 1
9 00 AM 8:00 AM
C 12844
28
Cl2856
36
Ciz i
20
Sample Number C 12844
Mercury (mg/I) <0.0001
C12856 1 C 12861
0.0008 <0.0001
Alkolinity(mq/ICoCQ
95
110
110
Nickel (mg/I)
0.03
0.00
0.01
Ammonia (mg/IN)
37. 1
32. 8
29. 8
Nitrate (mg/I N)
0.09
0. 10
0.44
Arsenic (mg/I)
0.01
0.00
0.00
OilS Grease (mg/I)
6.0
2.4
0.0
BODE (mg/I)
66
58
45
pH
6.8
6.9
7.0
Jug BOO 2 (mg/I)
48
60
12
f ol (mg/I)
0.06
0.00
0.12
Jug BODs (mg/I)
102
90
24
rotal Phosphorus nq./1)
3. 52
3. 83
3.67
Jug BOD 7 t T%Q/I)
Jug BOD 4 (mQ/I)
Jug BOOt, (mg/I)
114
138
138
126
132
132
24
24
40
Sulfate (mg/I)
Surfoclants (mg/I)
Total Solids (mg/I)
68.0 1
32
376
68.0
40
738
57.0
30
498
admium (mg/I)
COD (mg/I)
0.00
219
0.00
190
0.00
227
Fixed (mg/I)
uspendedSollds*Tlq/I)
231
48
587
70
303
62
Chloride (mg/I)
Chromium (ma/I)
Color (Vnits)
Copper (mq/I)
K eIdahIN 4mg/I)
53.81
0.03
90
0. 13
19.6
201.78
0.02
230
0. 17
23.5
103. 37
0.04
200
0. 14
21.0
Fixed (mg/I)
Settlecthle SoIids(mg/I
Fixed (mg/I)
;ettleoble S01 jds(JT1I/l)
Turbidity (JTU)
0
z
0
Trace
35
8
18
0
0. 2
50
10
8
0
Trace
50
Leod (mg/I)
0.04
0.16
0.16
Zinc (mg/I)
0.38
0.38
8.2
DO (mg/I)
3.7
4.1
3.9
Flow (MGD)
19.50
19.08
21.30
FIGURE 33
WASTEWATER DISCHARGE SURVEY FORM
-------
TABLE 1 3
MASSACHUSETTS WASTE WATER DISCHARGE
SURVEY SAMPLES
(mg / 1)
1971
MAIN STREAM OF’ THE CONNECTICUT RIVER
Toxic Metal No. of Samples Minimum Maximum Mean
As 79 0.0 .03 .0042
Cd 49 0.0 0.1 .009
Cr 89 0.0 7.5 .311
Pb 89 0.0 38.0 .7067
ug 89 0.0 .019 .0025
1972
MAIM STREAM OF THE CONNECTICUT RIVER
As 81 0.0 0.0 0.0
Cd 82 0.0 .05 .0061
Cr 81 0.0 .27 .0583
Pb 81 0.0 190.0 4.8912
Hg 82 .0001 .025 .0013
120
-------
TABLE 13
(Continued)
1971
CHICOPEE RIVER
Toxic Metal No. of Samples Minimum Maximum Mean
As 1 0.0 0.0 0.0
Cd 1 0.0 0.0 0.0
Cr 1 0.3 .03 .03
Pb 1 .16 .16 .16
Hg 1 .0007 .0007 .0007
1972
CHICOPEE RIVER
As 62 0.0 0.0 0.0
Cd 62 0.0 .05 .0024
Cr 62 0.0 12.0 .3284
Pb 62 0.0 2.9 .1868
Hg 62 .0001 .036 .0036
121
-------
TABLE 1 3
(Continued)
1972
QUABOAG RIVER
Toxic Metal No. of Samples Minimum Maximum Mean
As 48 0.0 0.0 0.0
Cd 48 0.0 .01 .0009
Cr 48 0.0 41.0 .8963
Pb 48 00 1.5 .1858
Hg 48 .0001 .0181 .0034
1972
WARE RIVER
As 52 0.0 .18 .0121
Cd 52 0.0 .04 .0025
Cr 52 0.0 .19 .0546
Pb 52 0.0 .51 .0904
Hg 51 .0001 .0166 .0023
122
-------
TABLE 1 3
(Continued)
1972
WESTFIELD RIVER
Toxic Metal No. of Samples Minimum Maximum Mean
As 68 0.0 .11 .0016
Cd 69 0.0 .1 .0014
Cr 69 0.0 ..23 .0406
Pb 69 0.0 .71 .0465
Hg 69 .0001 .0120 .001
1972
DEERFIELD RIVER
As 12 0.0 0.0 0.0
Cd 12 0.0 .03 .0025
Cr 12 .03 .22 .0717
Pb 12 .03 .09 .0542
Kg 12 .0003 .0165 .0032
1972
MILLERS RIVER
As 47 0.0 0.0 0.0
Cd 47 0.0 .01 .0015
Cr 47 .02 2.2 .1464
Pb 47 0.00 6.0 .4257
Kg 47 .0001 .021 .0012
123
-------
2.0 MASSACHUSETTS DIVISION OF FISHERIES AND GAME
(a) Analysis of Fish Tissue for Mercury Content, July 15, 1970
to March 1971
The objective of this program was to determine if mercury was
present in fish from Massachusetts waters. Fish samples for analysj 5
were largely provided through sampling activities conducted in con—
junction with previously planned fisheries work. In order to
include a sample from streams throughout the state, specific
collections of fish samples were made from nine rivers——Westfield,
Dearfield, Nashua, Squannacook, Taunton, Blackstone, Connecticut,
and Merrimack Housatonic.
Two flameless atomic absorption methods were tried and found
to produce excellent results. First, there was the hot—acid
digestion procedure obtained from the FDA Laboratory in Boston. The
second one was a cold—wet acid digestion procedure obtained from
the Massachusetts Department of Public Health (Lawrence Experjement
Station). This method was evaluated as being more effective in
the handling of a larger number of samples especially in a labora
tory with. a limited number of fume—hood facilities. A Perkin—.
Elmer, Model 303, Atomic Absorption Spectrophotometer which was
equipped with a hollow cathode mercury lamp was used for analysis.
Sample cross checks were made with other state and Federal labora-.
tories, and the results show close agreement (Figure 34).
124
-------
1. Federal Water Quality Administration
F.W.Q.A. Mass. F. 6 G .
Inorganic Mercury 0.34 ugh 0.48 ugh.
Inorganic Mercury 4.2 ugh 4.4 ugh.
Organic & Inorganic 6.3 ugh 6.7 ugh
Mercury
Organic Mercury 4.2 ugh 4.8 ugh.
2. New Hampshire Water Supply and Pollution Control Cot ission
New Hampshire Mass. F. & C .
#375 .63 ppm .66 ppm
#383 .31 ppm .29 ppm
#407 .16 ppm .15 ppm
#422 .36 ppm .38 ppm
#429 .11 ppm .12 ppm
#430 .09 ppm .12 ppm
# 6 .52 ppm .52 ppm
#0147260 .93 ppm 1.86 ppm
#0147270(a) 1.1 ppm 1.2 ppm
3. Federal Food and Drug Administration - Boston
F.D.A. Mass. P. & G .
#0147260 1.69 ppm 1.87 ppm
#0147270(a) 1.21. ppm 1.29 ppm
4. Massachusetts public Health Laboratory - Lawrence
M.PH. Mass. F. & C .
#0147260 2.0 ppm 1.9 ppm
#0147270(b) 3.1 ppm 3.1 ppm
(a) tissue sample
(1,) mixed tiGsue and bone sample
FIGURE 34
MERCURY CROSS CHECKS
125
-------
Analysis of tissues from 59 fishes collected from 27 random
statewide sample sites revealed concentrations of mercury ranging
from 0.03 to 1.36 ppm (Figures 35 and 36). Eight of t1 24 fishes
collected from eleven streams (Figure 18) contained mercury at or
above the 0.5 ppm level (FDA limit). With the exception of two
alewives collected in the vicinity of a known mercury pollution
source on the Taunton River in Dighton (Figure 36), all fishes Con-
taining mercury in excess of 0.5 ppm level were predators. They jj
cluded walleye,smallmouth bass, largemouth bass, and chain pickerel.
These fishes were collected from the Housatonic, Connecticut,
Millers, and Merrimack Rivers.
Fourteen of the 35 fishes collected from lakes and ponds
(IFigure 35) contained mercury above the 0.5 ppm level. Except for
a redbreast sunfish from Billington Sea, Plymouth, all fishes
with mercury above the 0.5 ppm level were predators or of the size
of predators. The chain pickerel (a predator) and yellow perch,
of predator size, collected from Billington Sea did not approach
the level of mercury found in the redbreast sunfish. Salmonids
collected from the wild along with 22 hatchery fishes (Figure 37)
were found to contain low levels of mercury, 0.32 ppm or less.
Conclusions
There was a tentative indication that mercury concentration in
warm water predator fishes may be related to length, weight and/or
126
-------
Length Weight Mercury
Location Speci e8 Total Inci pounds ppm
Quabbin Reservoir Smalimouth bass 12.0 .8 .34
Quabbin Reservoir SmaIJ.mouth bass 10.0 .5 .52
Quabbin Reservoir Sinailmouth bass 12.5 1.0 .49
Quabbin Reservoir Smallinouth bass 13.0 1.1 .73
Quabbin Reservoir Yellow perch 11.5 .6 .59
Quabbin Reservoir Lake trout 18.5 2.2 .33
West Lake, Sandisfield Largemouth bass —- 1.17
BillinSton Sea, Plymouth Chain pickerel 15.0 .9 .40
Bil lington Sea, Plymouth Chapin pickerel 11.0 .3 .16
jllington Sea, Plymouth Yellow perch 11.5 .8 .40
i11ington Sea, Plymouth Yellow perch 9.5 .3 .20
i11ington Sea, Plymouth Redbreast sunfish 7.5 .3 .65
Crow Hill pond, Westminster Chain pickerel 10.5 .3 .50
Crow Hill Pond, Westminster Chain pickerel 10.5 .2 .94
Congemond Lakes, Southwick Largemouth bass 17.0 2.9 .69
x.. .C.I. Pond, Dtghton Largemouth base 14.5 2.1 1.36
Lake Chauncey, Weetboro targemouth bass 10.0 .5 .30
Lake De&u1L un, u .’he*td n Chain pickerel 15.0 .9 .33
Lake DenuisOn, Winchendon Chain pickerel 13.5 .6 .30
Onota Lake, Pittsfield Chain pickereZ 13.0 .4 .09
ota Lake, pittsfield Chain pickerel 12.0 • .4 .05
Watson pond, Taunton Chain pickerel 17.0 1.2 .43
w atson pond, Taunton Chain pickerel 16.0 1.1 .38
Stearns Pond, North Audover Chain pickerel 14.5 .8 .20
Zak. Cochituate, Natick Largemouth bass 15.0 2,6 .52
Lake Cochituate, Natick Largetnouth bass 14.0 1.8 .34
Becket Reservoir, Becket Chain pickerel 13.5 .6 1.35
ucps pond, Groton Chain pickerel 12.0 .5 .21
g iops pond, Groton Chain pickerel 12.5 .5 .21
Xnop$ pond, Groton yellow porch 9.0 .4 .19
Lake Boon, Hudson Chain pickerel 17.0 1.4 .40
Zak. Boon, Hudaon Chain pickerel 12.5 .7 .10
Lake Boon, Hudson Black crappie 11.0 .3 .60
Lake Boon, fludson Black crappie 10.0 .6 .67
Wachusetts Reservoir Rainbow smelt - . .51
(Conipos ite)
FIGURE 35
MERCURY IN FISH—LAKES AND PONDS IN MASSACHUSETTS
127
-------
Length Weight Mercury
Location Species Total Inches pounds ppm
Taunton River, Dighton 1 Alewife 10.0 .3 .50
Tatrnton River, Dighton Alewife 10.0 .3 .59
Blackstone River, Millville 2 Largemouth bass 10.5 .7
Blackatone River, Miliville Largetnouth bass 14.0 1.7 .42
Blacketone River, Blackstone Carp 6.0 .1 .06
Blackstone River, Blackatone Carp 6.0 .2 .07
Connecticut River, Gill 3 Walleye 19.0 1.9 .52
Connecticut River, Radley White perch 10.0 .2 .19
Connecticut River, Hinadale Smal.linouth bass -- .
Merrimack River, Lowell 4 Black crappie 11.0 1.0 .49
Merrimack River, Lowell Largeutouth bass 10.5 .7 .62
Squannacook River, Shirley 5 White sucker 9.0 1.5 .31
Squannacook River, Shirley Goldfish IhO .5 .29
Nashua River, Pepperell 6 Largemouth bass 2.0 .1 .18
Nashua River, Pepperell Yellow perch 6.0 .3 .13
Millers River, Millers Falls 7Walleye 16.0 1.7 .58
Millers River, Millers Falls Walleye 14.5 1.2 .99
Housatonic River, Sheffield 8C1iain pickerel 10.0 .2 .92
Housatonic River, Sheffield puinpkinseed 4,5 .1 .32
Deerfield River, Deerfield 9 Chain pickerel 7.5 .1 .14
Deerfield River, Deerfield Rock bass 7.0 .2 .15
Westfield River, Westfield lOFalifish 10.0 .5 .30
Westfield River, Westfield White sucker 12.5 .7 .16
Sawmill Brook, Manchester Brook trout 6.0 - - .03*
FIGURE 36
MERCURY CONCENTRATION IN FISH—MAJOR RIVER SYSTEMS IN MASSACHUSETTS
128
-------
Length Weight Mercury
Hatchery Species Total Inches Founds ppm
Sunderland Rainbow trout 11.0 .6 09*
Rainbow trout 8.0 .3 .03
Rainbow trout 7.5 .2 .03
Brown trout 9.5 .4 .09
Brown trout 7.5 .2 .03
Brown trout 7.5 .2 .02
Brook trout 9.5 .4 .07
Brook trout 10.0 .5 .10
Rainbow trout 7.0 .2 .08
Brown trout- 6.0 .1 .00
DLUWn LLuut 6.0 .1 .00
Brook trout 7.0 .2 .00
Brook trout 7.0 .2 .00
Rainbow trout 9.5 .4 .00
Rainbow trout 6,5 .1 .00
Brown trout 8.5 .3 .02
Brown trout 7.0 .2 .00
Montague Rainbow trout 8.5 .2 .03
Rainbř r c .r uv- 8.5 .2
Rainbow trout 9.0 .2 .01
p t,o1( crout 6.5 .1 .00
Brook trout 7.0 .5 .00
Mnaiysis by Hot Acid Digestion
FIGURE 37
MERCURY IN HATCHERY TROUT IN MASSACHUSETTS
129
-------
condition factors of the fishes. The age of the fishes at the time
of capture did not appear to be significant.
(b) April 1, 1971 to March 31, 1972 Study
The objective was to investigate further the mercury content
of fish tissue which was initiated in July 15, 1970. Based largely
on the findings of the first study, a selection of three bodies of
water representing different levels of mercury in fishes was made.
Framingham Reservoir #2 was selected as the body of water having
the highest mercury level because of a known source of mercury
pollution. Lake Chauncey was chosen as a medium—level pond (ex-
pected levels about 0.5 ppm) based on results of sampling of a
small number of largemouth bass. Onota Lake was selected as a low—
level lake (expected levels below 0.5 ppm) based on sampling of a
small number of chain pickerel.
Two species of warm water game fishes were collected from each
of the three bodies of water. A total of 148 fishes (43 largemouth
bass and 105 yellow perch) were collected between June 14, 1971
and June 23, 1971. An attempt was made to collect the full range
of lengths and weights of the two species sampled. All of the
fishes were collected using the 230 volt A.C. electro—shockboat.
The selected fishes were weighed, measured, ‘and age determined.
They were tagged, separated by species and length, and stored in
polyethylene bags in freezers. Samples were stored prior to pro-
cessing in the field after selection. Pre—analysis digestion of
130
-------
105 fishes (43 largemouth bass and 62 yellow perch) was done using
the cold—acid digestion. The fillet (muscle tissue) from each fish
was homogenized and five grams of the homogenate was digested. The
digested sample was analyzed using the cold vapor technique with a
Perkin—Elmer 303, Atomic Absorption Spectrophotometer.
To check the precision/reproduceability of the method, a
number of pre—run samples were re—analyzed. The accuracy was
further checked by sending samples to laboratories using the same
and different methods of analysis.
All data was key—punched on standard IBM cards and analyzed
with CDC 3600 computer. Statistical tests were performed with the
assistance of personnel at the Cooperative of Fisheries Unit,
University of Massachusetts. The tests consisted of calculating
correlation coefficients and linear regression equations. Four
transformations were performed with the data:
1. x x,Y=Y
2. X-X,Y—LOGY
3. X-LOGX,Y=LOGY
4. X=LOGX,Y=Y
The results of the 105 fishes analyzed are shown in Figure 38.
Based upon these results, it seems that Onota Lake and Lake
Chauncey show mercury levels that can be considered to be within
the background levels of fishes in Massachusetts. However,
131
-------
Praiuingham Reservoir #2
Mercury
PPM
Length
Weight
(wet weight)
Centi-
First
Re-
Species Inches
metera
Lbs.
Grams Me
Sex Run
Run Commez ts
Largemouth bass 4.8 12.2 .05 22.7 1 M 0.88
5.0 12.7 .10 45.4 2 - 2.78
6.4 16.2 .10 45.4 2 M 2.55
6.9 17.5 .10 45.4 1 M 3.53 3.58 3.5 FDA*
7.0 17.8 .20 90.7 2 F 1.93 1.89
7.8 19.8 .20 90.7 2 F .52 •55-. 4 ) H
8.5 21.6 .30 136.1 2 p 1.07 1.33
10.6 26.9 .70 317.5 2 M 1.89 1.83 1.6 FDA*
12.0 30.5 .90 408.2 3 14 5.97 4.5-4.2 MPR
14.5 36.8 1.80 816.5 4 P 6.23 7.44 6.9 FDA*
16.0 40.6 2.70 1224.7 6 F 9.48 5.9-6.0 MPR**
17.0 43.2 2.90 1315.4 5 P 8.18 5.8-6.0 Mp *
17.0 43.2 3.30 1496.9 6 F 12.43 7.5-7.6 MPH
Yellow perch 3.6 9.1 .05 22.7 1 - 2.50
3.8 9.6 .05 22.7 1 F 3.37
3.9 9.9 .05 22.7 1 - 2.37
4.0 10.2 .05 22.7 1 - 2.10
4.0 10.2 .05 22.7 1 - 2.64
4.6 11.7 .05 22.7 1 — 2.38
4.7 11.9 .05 22.7 2 - 3.40
4.9 12.4 .05 22.7 2 — 2.20
4.9 12.4 .05 22.7 2 - 3.30
5.1 12.9 .10 45.4 2 F 0.93
5.1 12.9 .05 22.7 2 - 2.50
5.2 13.2 .10 45.4 2 - 3.18
5.2 13.2 .10 45.4 2 — 2.80
5.3 13.5 .10 45.4 2 2.20
5.6 14.2 .10 45.4 2 F 1.87
5.6 14.2 .10 45.4 2 M 2.67
5.6 14.2 .10 45.4 2 F 2.87
5.6 14.2 .10 45.4 2 F 2.47
5.6 14.2 .10 45.4 2 - 1.90
*FDA a Federal Food and Drug Administration Laboratory, Boston
MPR a Cowmonweslth of Mass. Dept. of Public Health Laboratory, Lawrence
FIGURE 38
MERCURY LEVELS IN FISH IN MASSACHUSETTS WATERS
132
-------
Lake Chauncey
Mercury
PPM
Length
Weight
(wet weight)
Centi-
First
Re-
Species Inches
meters
Lbs.
Grams Age
Bex Run
Run
Largemouth base 3.6 9.1 .05 22.7 1 0.00
4.4 11.2 .05 22.7 1 F 0.06
4.5 11.4 .05 22.7 1 N 0.10
6.8 17.3 .10 45.4 2 N 0.13
7.0 17.C .20 90.7 2 F 0.18
7.5 19.3 .20 90.7 2 N 0.15
8.0 20.3 .30 136.1 2 N 0.24
8.2 20.8 .30 136.1 2 M 0.15
8.9 22.6 .30 136.1 4 N 0.29
9.4 23.9 .40 181.4 3 N 0.31
9.8 24.9 .50 226.8 3 M 0.26
10.0 25.4 .50 226.8 3 F 0.19 0.17
10.0 25.4 .50 226.8 3 F 0.28
10.2 25.9 .40 181.4 3 F 0.18
11.0 27.9 .70 317.5 4 F 0.17
11.2 28.4 .80 362.9 4 F 0.23
11.9 30.2 1.00 453.6 4 F 0.28 0.32
12.6 32.0 1.00 453.6 4 M 0.25
14.2 36.1 1.50 680.4 5 F 0.42
yellow perch 3.8 9.6 .05 22.7 1 - 0.06
3.9 9.9 .05 22.7 1 - 0.03
4.0 10.2 .05 22.7 1 - 0.05
4.0 10.2 .05 22.7 2 - 0.13
4.7 11.9 .05 22.7 2 N 0.10
5.0 12.7 .05 22.7 2 - 0.08
5.4 13.7 .10 45.4 2 - 0.09
5.6 14.2 .10 45.4 2 M 0.14
5.8 14.7 .10 45.4 2 - 0.16
6.0 15.2 .10 45.4 2 - 0.14
6.2 15.7 .10 45.4 2 F 0.08 0.12
6.5 16.5 .10 45.4 2 N 0.11 0.13
6.7 17.0 .10 45.4 2 H 0.12
7.2 18.3 .10 45.4 2 F 0.11
7.4 18.8 .20 90.7 3 N 0.05 0.05
8.0 20.3 .20 90.7 3 N 0.17
8.0 20.3 .30 136.1 3 N 0.23
8.5 21.6 .30 136.1 5 - 0.20
9.0 22.9 .30 136.1 5 N 0.28
9.2 23.4 .40 181.4 4 F 0.27
10.0 25.4 .50 226.8 4 N 0.33
10.2 25.9 .50 226.8 7 F 0.29
10.3 26.2 .60 272.1 6 H 0.30
11.7 29.7 1.00 453.6 8 H 0.39
18.2 31.0 .90 408.2 9 p 0.53
FIGURE 38 (CONTINUED)
133
-------
Onota Lake
Mercury
PPM
Length
Centi-
Weight
(wet weight)
First Re-
Run
Species Inches
meters
Lbs.
Crams Age
Largetnouth bass 5.7 14.5 .10 45.4 1. - 0.16
6.1 15.5 .10 45.4 2 - 0.14
6.3 16.0 .10 45.4 2 - 0.1.1
6.8 17.3 .20 90.7 2 - 0.15
11.8 30.0 .80 362.9 4 - 0.45 0.31
12.1 30.7 1.00 453.6 5 - 0.57 0.42
12.2 31.0 1.00 453.6 4 - 0.23 0.23
12.6 32.0 1.00 453.6 4 - 0.32 0.30
14.5 36.8 1.70 771.1 4 - 0.85
17.6 44.7 3.30 1496.8 9 - 1.02
19.1 48.5 4.60 2036.5 10 - 1.30
Yellow perch 3.3 8.4 .05 22.7 1 1 4 0.04
3.4 8.6 .05 22.7 1 - 0.11
3.5 8.9 .05 22.7 1 F 0.14
3.5 8.9 .05 22.7 1 14 0.08
4.2 10.7 .05 22.7 1 14 0.06
6.0 15.2 .10 45.4 3 14 0.10
6.7 17.0 .10 45.4 4 11 0.18
6.9 17.5 .1.0 45.4 3 - 0.12
7.0 17.8 .20 90.7 5 F 0.13
7.5 19.0 .20 90.7 6 14 0.10
7.5 19.0 .20 90.7 6 F 0.17 0.20
8.2 20.8 .30 136.1 7 14 0.15
8.4 21.3 .30 136.1 9 - 0.30
8.G 21.3 .30 136.1 7 14 0.33 0.29
9.1 23.1 .30 136.1 9 M 0.46
9.2 23.4 .40 181.4 0 14 0.22 0.15
9.7 24.6 .40 131.4 8 14 0.37
9.8 24.9 .40 181.4 7 14 0.58 0.50
FIGURE 38
134
-------
Framingham Reservoir is a body of water which has received mercury
contamination and far exceeds these background levels.
A positive linear relationship was reportedly found to exist
between mercury concentration (dependent variable) and length,
weight and age (in independent variables) for the two species
from each lake in all instances. A measure of the linear relation-
ship between two variables is shown by the correlation coefficient.
A perfect direct relationship is given by an r—value of r = 1.0,
while a perfect indirect or inverse relationship is given by an
r—value of r 1.0, r —1.0. The samples of yellow perch from
Framingham Reservoir were not completely representative and thus
did not show the above mentioned linear relationship. The fish
population collected from this reservoir lacked older members
unlike the lakes.
An equation of a straight line of the form Y = A + BX was
calculated using the least square method for all combinations of vari-
ables having a significant r—value at the one percent level. These
equations can be used to calculate expected mercury concentrations
of fish at lengths, weights or ages within the sample range. For
example, by calculation a 13—inch largeinouth bass for all three
bodies of water would be Framingham——6. 35 ppm, Lake Chauncey——0. 34
ppm, and Onota Lake—0.61 ppm. Similarly, a 9.5 inch yellow perch
for the two bodies of water that have determined equations would
135
-------
be Lake Chauncey——O.25 ppm; Onota Lake—O.35 ppm. Calculations of
the mercury content can also be done using variables of age and
weight. The calculated values only approximate the actual value
if such a fish were analyzed. The closeness of the calculated
and actual values would depend upon the value of r.
An important aspect of the study was to keep as many variables
as possible constant. First, the time of fish collection was kept
as short as possible as there is evidence that mercury levels in
fish may be related to seasons. All the fishes in this study were
collected between June 14 and June 23, 1971. Thus, there could be
disparity between these results and results of samples collected
during the winter from the same body of water. Second, the method
of collection was the same for all three bodies of water. Electro—
shocking was considered the best method and was used throughout.
Third, collection of fish samples was restricted to a small area
of the body of water. This is particularly important in Framiughani
Reservoir, an impoundment. It could be found that mercury in fishes
nearest the inlet could show levels different from those taken
nearest the dam. The importance of sex as a variable was not
determined, and this creates one source of error which might con-
tribute to a less significant r—value.
The precision of the cold—acid digestion and the atomic
absorption cold—vapor technique was tested by rerunning a number
of samples: Eighteen samples were re—analyzed and the results
136
-------
were included in Figure ‘ 8. The differences, even in the high
concentrations of Framlngham Reservoir, were not substantial.
Variation would be expected to exist even in a homogenized sample.
Furthermore, the higher concentrations have a high dilution factor
incorporated in the final result which tends to enlarge any
variation or error.
The accuracy was tested to some extent by sending pre—analyzed
samples to the Federal FDA, which used a hot—acid digestion.
Samples were also sent to Massachusetts Department of Public Health
Laboratory (MPH) with a similar or cold—acid digestion. All
three determinations were in agreement on the low levels of mercury
(Figure 38) for largemouth bass. The FDA results and those of
the study were in agreement on one moderately high reading.
Disagreement was more obvious between higher values reported by MPH
and the study’s own determinations. The results as determined
by all three sources indicate the same trend——increases in mercury
concentration with increasing length, weight and age.
Conclusion
The study confirmed convincingly that mercury concentration
in fish tissues will vary directly with the length, weight and
age. The relationship between the reported level of mercury in
fish and those of the bodies of water was not shown although they
would have aided a more complete understanding of the mechanism
of mercury pollution.
137
-------
(c) Pesticide Monitoring Programs——April 1, 1970 — March 31, 1971
This report deals with research and demonstration projects which
sought to investigate pesticide monitoring techniques, and demon-
strate the use of specialized analytical methods for quantitative
determination of hydrocarbon concentrations in water and aquatic
organisms. The initial objectives of the project were as follows:
1. To monitor the major watersheds of the Commonwealth of Massachu
setts for organochlorine and organophosphorous pesticide residues
to determine pesticide pollution.
2. To investigate the use of carbon absorption columns for monitor-
ing pesticides at established water quality monitoring stations.
3. To investigate the use of freshwater mussels as indicator organj 8
to supplement fish samples.
4. To demonstrate the use and interpretation of gas chromatography,
infrared spectrophotometry and other analytical techniques for detec-
tion. These objectives were subsequently modified to eliminate
carbon absorption columns because of the properties of the pesti-
cide compounds.
Twenty—five sampling stations were established on major strea
in Massachusetts and fish samples were collected from all except the
Deerfield, Millers, Merrimack and two stations on the Connecticut
River. Lack of samples from these stations did not necessarily
reflect a complete absence of fish, but was more directly a result or
the location of the stations and the capability of the collection
gear.
138
-------
Five fishes, where possible of the same specie, size and weight,
were selected from each station for individual analysis. The entire
fish was pulverized and a one—gram sample used for analysis using
gas chromatography.
Cages for mussels were constructed of one—half inch mesh gal-
vanized hardware cloth, one cubic foot in size. Mussels were
selected from Big Alum Pond, Sturbridge for stocking cages. Three
mussels from each station were selected and prepared for analysis
as individual samples. Because mussel samples were being analyzed
for chlorinated hydrocarbon as well as organophosphate pesticides,
a different method of extraction was used than that used for fish.
The mussels were prepared and screened to determine the presence of
organophosphate compounds prior to analysis for chlorinated hydro-
carbons. All samples were eventually analyzed for chlorinated
hydrocarbons and polychiorinated biphenyls (PCB) with gas
chromatography.
The results of analysis of 85 fishes from 16 stations showed
that PCB’s, specifically Aroclor 1248 and Aroclor 1260 were en-
countered. Mean levels (Table 14) above 5 ppm were found in fishes
from the Blackstone, Ware, Westfield, Chicopee, Little and Housatonic
Rivers with ranges from 5.2 to 32.8 ppm.
Analyses on 337 mussels from 22 stations are shown in Table 15.
PCB’s, Aroclor 1248 and Aroclor 1260 were found at ten of these
stations with values ranging from 2.7 to 415.4 ppb. Tests performed
139
-------
TABLE 14
MEAN CONCENTRATIONS OF PCB COMPOUNDS
FOUND IN FISH
1 August 1970 to 30 April 1971
Stream PCB’s (ppm Dry Weight )
Aroclor 1248 Aroclor 1260
Blackstone 0 13.7
Concord 0 0
Assabet 0 0
Ware 32.8 0.8
North 0 0
Pamet 0 0
Westfield 5.2 2.4
Chicopee 6.2 0.4
French 0 0.8
Quinebaug 0 0
Ipswich 0 0
Little 13.4 2.1
SwIft 0 0
Quaboag 0.9 0.9
Charles 0 2.3
}Lousatonic 1.1 10.8
140
-------
TABLE 15
MEAN CONCENTRATIONS OF PCB COMPOUNDS
FOUND IN MUSSELS
1 August 1970 to 30 April 1971
Stream PCB’s (ppb Dry Weight)
Aroclor 1248 Aroclor 1260
Sudbury 0 0
Concord 0 0
Blackstone 0 74.1
Ware 415.4 0
Taunton 0 9.3
Charles 0 0
North 0 2.7
Chicopee 123.9 0
Connecticut #3 220.4 15.4
Assabet 0 0
Deerfield 0 0
Weweantic 0 0
Patnet 0 0
French 0 0
Little 3.1 0
Connecticut #1 161.2 26
Ipewich 0 0
Westfield 72.3 o
Connecticut #2 264.2 25
141
-------
TABLE 15
(Continued)
Stream
PCB’s (ppb Dry Weight)
Quinebaug
Aroclor 1248 Aroclor 1260
0
0
Swift
0
0
Quaboag
0
0
142
-------
on control mussel samples reveal no PCB’s although background levels
were detected for other pesticides.
Conclusion
The main conclusion drawn from the study is that freshwater
mussels introduç ed into a lotic* environment can be utilized as a
biological monitor of organochioririe and organophosphate insecti-
cides as well as PCB’s.
(d) Presence of PCB In Housatonic River July 1971
This program was planned as a follow—up to the study which
ended in March 1971. In that study, PCB’s were detected in fish
and caged mussels collected from the Housatortic River and the
conclusion was drawn that mussels could be useful as biological
monitors, so a program was planned to test the hypothesis further.
For the July 1971 program, three areas on the Housatonic River were
chosen for sampling and fishes were collected from each. One sample station,
i .l, was an upstream location. It is situated in Hlnsdale on Route 8,
one mile off the intersection of Routes 3 and 143. The water at
that location is cold, clear and fast—flowing. White suckers and
brook trout were collected with dip nets. A second station, H2,
is located in Pittsfield on Routes 8 and 9 behind the K—Mart store,
5.2 miles downstream from Hi. The water In that area is turbid
*Ref ers to running waters, rivers, streams, as different from
lentic waters like ponds and lakes.
143
-------
and fast—flowing, underlain with a gravel bottom. Collection in
this area yielded only white suckers which were used for analysis.
A third location was station H3 in Pittsfield about 6.1 miles
downstream of 112. The river is wider in this area, flows more slowly
and the bottom is sandy. White suckers and pumpkinseeds were
collected. All the fishes from the three stations were collected
on 7 July 1971. Cages of mussels were introduced for subsequent
collection and analysis.
In September, two additional stations were chosen in Pittsfield
near the General Electric plant. They were located between H2 and
113. The station at Newell Street is 3.3 miles downstream from H2.
The other at Lyman Street is 0.6 mile down from Newell Street.
Water and sediment samples were collected at both of these stations.
Fishes and mussels collected were freeze—dried and ground for
analysis by the same method used in the previous study. Water samples
were extracted with hexane, while sediment samples were fan—dried
and extracted with hexane. Final analysis was carried out on a
Tracor gas chromatograph, Model MT—220.
PCB detected in the fish samples collected from sample areas
Hl, H2 and 1-13 was diagnosed to be Aroclor 1260. However, the
chromatograms of Aroclor 1262 are very similar to those of 1260,
so it is possible that 1262 was present. The results are displayed
in Table 16.
144
-------
TABLE 16
FISH SAMPLES COLLECTED IN JULY 1971
(DRY WEIGHT IN ppm)
Station
Number
and Species
Range
Aroclor 1260
Mean
Aroclor 1260
Hi
112
H3
5 Brook Trout
5 White Sucker
5 White Sucker
0
9.9 — 22.9
48.4 — 79.5
0
15.1
69.4
Mussels placed in the river on July 7 were collected on
September 3——a period of 58 days. During this period, it appears
as if the mussels concentrated the PCB (Aroclor 1260) by their
feeding process of filtering water (Table 17).
TABLE 17
PCB’s IN MUSSEL COLLECTED 3 SEPTEMBER 1971
(ppm DRY WEIGHT)
Station
Number of
Mussels
Range
Aroclor 1260
Mean
Aroclor 1260
112
H3
5
5
0
8.4 — 36.5
o
21.5
145
-------
The results suggest that the source of PCB’s in the Housatonic
River lies between 112 and 113. Further investigations were carried
out in the area on water samples from below the Newell Street and
Lyman Street bridges, where oil was seen. There were no PCB’s
detected in the water, probably because of the very low solubility
of PCB’s. Sediment samples taken in the same area revealed the
presence of PCB (Aroclor 1260) in ranges of 0.07 to 19.5 ppm
(Table 18).
TABLE 18
ANALYSIS OF SEDIMENT SAMPLES OF 9 NOVEMBER 1971
Station
Aroclor 1260 Concentration (ppm)
H2
0.07
Newell
050
Lyman
19.5
113
9.5
Conclusions
1. The initial fish collections suggest that the source of PCB’s
in the Housatonic River lies in Pittsfield, Massachusetts, near station
112. Since fishes have the ability to migrate upstream as well as
downstream, the source could be in either direction from H2. The
146
-------
large increase in PCB’s from 1-12 and 113 suggests introduction between
these two sample stations.
2. The results of the analyses of mussels further demonstrate
that the source of Aroclor 1260 in the east branch of the Housatonic
River is between 112 and 113, as the mussels were caged and they fed
by filtering water which flowed in only one direction.
3. The results of the water analysis indicate the low solubility
of PCB’s in water.
4. Analysis of the sediment samples substantiates the results of
the fish and mussels analyses. The most striking observation from
the data in Table 18 is the large difference between the Newell Street
and Lyman Street sampling stations, where an increase of 19 ppm
AroClor 1260 occurs. At sampling station H3 which is a few miles
downstream, the sediments still contain nearly 10 ppm Aroclor 1260.
5. The source of the PCB’s was thought to be General Electric which
j located between Newell and Lyman Streets sampling stations.
( ) pesticide Program—April 1972 — March 1973
This report covers the third year of a three—year research
and demonstration project on chlorinated—hydrocarbon pesticide
monitoring in the aquatic environment.
Fish samples were collected from 22 streams across the connnon—
wealth. As in 1971, fishes were collected from two locations on
the Merrimack River. Previous years’ data had indicated a need for.
re extensive studies on the Chicopee, Ware, Millers and Otter
147
-------
Rivers to determine the sources and extent of PCB pollution. Fish
collection methods were similar to those used in 1971. Freshwater
mussels were obtained from Big Alum Pond, Sturbridge. Recorded
sample data for fish and mussels included date of collection,
location, species, length, girth and weight.
Aroclor 1260 was found in the Blackstone River during the
1912 sampling at a level of 21.3 ppm. No samplings were collected
from the Housatonic River in 1972 owing to the exhaustive sampling
of 1971.
Table 19 shows the results of the PCB analyses for fish
collected in 1972. Aroclor 1248 is the most widespread PCB in
l’ Ia8sachusetts and was detected in nine rivers that year. However,
in six out of seven streams, there was a decrease from the 1971
levels, which might be linked to the fact that its manufacture has
been discontinued. The most significant decrease was in the Blackstone
River, where Aroclor 1248 dropped from 86 ppm in 1971 to 10 ppm In
1972. A dead white sucker collected from the Millers River found in
Athol was analyzed and contained 197 ppm Aroclor 1248. This was
the only fish collected from Millers River since 1967.
Aroclor 1254 was determined in five streams in the 1972
sampling as opposed to four in the 1971 sampling. The addition
was the Quaboag River, while the Charles, Concord, and Sudbury
Rivers showed slight decrease in Aroclor 1254. However, the
Taunton River showed a slight increase. Figure 39 shows ranking for
1971—1973 for the streams sampled.
148
-------
TABLE 19
MEAN CONCENTRATIONS OF PCB’s IN FISH
COLLECTED DURING 1972 (ppm Dry Weight)
Stream
Date of
Collection
No. & Species
Aroclor Compounds
Assabet 8/15/72 5 Bluegills Trace
Blackstone 10/04/72 5 White Sucker 10.10 (1248)
charles 8/13/72 5 Pumpkinseed 8.3 (1254)
Chicopee 10/09/72 5 Putnpkinseed 13.32 (1248)
Concord 8/10/72 5 Bluegill 5.98 (1254)
Deerfield 9/11/72 5 Falifish 23.8 (1248)
French 8/28/72 5 Bluegill
Ipswich 9/27/72 5 Pumpkinseed
Little 9/18/72 5 Golden Shiner 9.43 (1248)
Merrimack 9/27/72 5 Pumpkinseed
Millers 1972 1 White Sucker 197 (1248)
North 8/13/72 5 Bluegill
Pamet 9/15/72 4 Pumpkinseed
Quaboag 9/06/72 5 Redbreast 111 (1254)
Sunfish
Quinebaug 8/07/72 5 Redbreast Trace
Sunfish
Sudbury 8/30/72 5 Bluegill 7.05 (1254)
Swift #2 7/26/72 5 Bluegill
Taunton 10/17/72 5 Bluegill 3.10 (1254)
Ware #2 10/25/72 5 Pumpkinseed 3.35 (1254)
Westfield 10/13/72 5 Pumpkinseed 11.9 (1254)
Weweantic 9/14/72 5 Punipkinseed
149
-------
Stream and
Station
Town
N
o. and Species
(ppm)
1972 1971
Aroclor 1248
Millers
Athol
1
White sucker
197.0
23.8
1
2
*
5
Deerfield
Deerfield
5
Falifish
19.1
3
—
Merrimack #1
Tyngsboro
5
Pumpkinseed
17.7
4
6
ConneCtiCut
Northampton
5
13.3
5
4
Merrimack #2
Haverhill
3
I
1
Alewives
Eel
Banded killifish
6
2
Chicopee
Westfield
Ludl
Westfield
5
5
Puinpkinseed
Pumpkinseed
13.3
11.9
10.1
7
8
3
1
BlackitOfle
Miliville
5
White
9.41
9
7
Little
Westfield
5
Golden shiner
3.32
10
—
Ware
Thorndike
5
Pumpkinseed
Aroclor 1260
BlackatOfle
Miliville
5
White sucker
21.3
Aroclor 1254
Charles #2
cambridge
5
Pumpkinseed
8.3
5.96
1
2
1
2
Concord
Concord
5
Bluegill
3.13
3
3
Taunton
Taunton
5
Bluegill
sunfish
1.11
4
-
Quaboag
Paluer
5
Redbreast
* No fish could be collected in previous years.
FIGURE 39
MEAN POLYCHLORINATED BIPHENYL CONCENTRATIONS (PPM DRY WEIGHT)
IN FISH COLLECTED IN 1972
150
-------
3.0 DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH
(a) Toxic Substances Survey
In 1970, concern about mercury contamination* of shellfish
harvested from Taunton River led to a comprehensive program to
evaluate the levels of mercury in the environment in Massachusetts.
The survey included examinations of:
1. Drinking water supplies
2. Shellfish harvesting areas
3. Industrial waste waters
4. River and estuarine waters and sediments
5. Sewage treatment digestors
The surveillance represented a cooperative effort between
the Department of Natural Resources and the Department of Public
Health. Initial efforts were aimed at ascertaining mercury levels
in drinking water in over 200 municipal supplies in the state.
These were found to contain mercury levels well below the U. S.
Public Health Service proposed standard of 0.005 ppm. The majority
of drinking water samples possessed less than 0.0002 ppm and none
showed mercury concentration higher than 0.0004 ppm. The results
indicated that there was no mercury problem in the drinking water
supplies in Massachusetts.
*Shellfish found to have close to the 0.5 ppm Hg FDA limit
for seafoods.
151
-------
The ability of aquatic organisms to concentrate mercury from the
environment alerted the Division of Environmental Health to investi-
gate mercury levels in shellfish. For this purpose, shellfish
areas yielding over 98 percent of the marketable production In the
state were sampled and analyzed for mercury levels. Two areas
were found to contain levels of mercury in excess of FDA’s limit
of 0.5 (interim) and were subsequently closed. It was found that
mercury contamination resulted from mercury content of anti—fouling
paints used on the hulls of boats.
Sources of Mercury Pollution
A survey of Massachusetts industries uncovered six active
sources of mercury pollution. Two of these have discontinued
using mercury as of January 1, 1971, and other plants have achieved
a 90 percent reduction within six months. Sludge samples from
sewage treatment plants were analyzed for mercury and other
trace metals, so that estimates of amounts of metal being dis-
charged to sewers could be made.
During the early stages of the program, a decision was made
to carry out a two—year in—depth survey of various toxic elements
in fish, shellfish, sediments and water of the Commonwealth.
This was a joint decision involving the Division of Fisheries and
Game. The Division of Water Pollution Control and the Department
of Public Health.
152
-------
The Division of Water Pollution Control is responsible for
collecting and delivering samples, while the analyses were
conducted at the Department of Public Health’s laboratory at the
Lawrence Experiment Station. Other related agencies would also
provide additional samples.
From February 1971 to January 1974, over 1500 samples have
been analyzed——zinc, cadmium, copper, chromium, mercury, nickel,
arsenic, lead and volatile solids. Of these, cadmium, chromium,
mercury, arsenic and lead are pertinent to this report. Most of
the samples are from sewage sludges, river sediments and marine
shoilfish, but water samples, finfish (marine and freshwater)
and freshwater mussels have also been sampled and analyzed. Figure
40 illustrates the recording of these analyses. Table 20 shows
how data was recorded at MITRE.
RESULTS
Shellfish
The ability of shellfish to accumulate detectable concentrations
of heavy metals from their environment is well known. The FDA ini-
tiated a program in 1969 to collect data on metals in shellfish in
areas of the Atlantic, Pacific and Gulf Coasts of the United States.
The following conclusions were subsequently drawn by FDA:
1. The concentrations of metals in shellfish depends upon the
metal concentrations available in the marine environment.
153
-------
Source A h ,ret — Above
Source B — Below
Source C
Source D
Source E
Source F
FIGURE 40
MASSACHUSETTS TOXIC METAL SURVEY DATA SHEET
154
LAWRENCE EXPERIMENT STATION
MASSACHUSETTS DEPARTiIENT OF PUt3LIC HEALTH
SPECIAL EAAMINATION
.1 •J
: M L
Col Iectcir:
0 F
( 3E 2 NT SAI4PL
8 C
A
Sample b. ! 176
fl 177
Date of Collection
6/16
Date of Receipt
6/17
-_-
Merc u’y
0.32
).16_
Ga&&twn
0.]
0.3
Lead
Zlnř
10.
! 3.
TIioke l
C p i
Ciom1u i
7.6
9.3
2,0
3.0 —
7,0
-
0.0
1,4
Areoi io
REMARKS: Conoent ationa rornrtnd ar
dry WSight passing No. 30 sieve,
-------
‘
DATE
SAMPLED
TOXIC
SUBSTANCE
MATERIAL
SAMPLED
DATA
VALUE
UNIT OF
MEASUREMENT
.
SAMPLE ORIGIN
/ 76
/‘ ,‘ii
if,
i EOI/P?E#V7
32
n f /t
o € ,p
mtE sT- ,q o V
,,
/,
c 1 ,(
“
.1
“
“
iF
/06
P.O
“
, .
“
Gr
“
“
‘I
‘
i .o
“
177
“
/19
•
II
rn’M’ sr- 66LDW
Cd
1/
•3
1/
•“
ii
I,
I,
2.0
“
“
I,
/1
Ct
‘
7.0
I,
“
I,
ii
41
Ii
1.1/
F,
‘S
TABLE 20
MASSACHUSETTS TOXIC METAL SURVEY RESULTS
‘I ’
U ’
€ CciWcENr ,’?T/O/IS ReP rEc ‘ 5 /!?6/’#t OR ’ )E/ Nr
P 95s,,V IVO. J 5/l V .
-------
2. The levels of metal varied over different areas within the same
species. For example, the metal content of oysters in the northeast
is generally higher than those from the south.
3. The content of a particular metal varied among species.
Table 21 below shows the statistical characteristics of prelim-.
ary findings.
TABLE 21
STATISTICAL VALUES OF METALS FOUND
IN THREE SPECIES OF SHELLFISH
Oyster Quahog Soft Shell
Toxic Element
Mean
Std. Dev.
Mean
Std. Dev.
Mean
Std. Dev.
Cadmium
0.78
0.48
0.26
0.31
0.30
0.33
Chromium
0.08
0.13
1.2
0.89
1.96
0.77
Lead
0.29
0.13
1.9
1.2
5.45
8.09
Mercury
—
—
0.30
0.21
0.31
1.06
The data is based on 52 samples of four oysters, eighteen
quahogs and thirty soft shell clams.
Between 1971 and 1974, about 211 samples were analyzed for
shellfish which included clams, oysters and quahogs. Cadmium,
chromium, lead and mercury were determined. Table 22 shows the
ranges and mean values of these metals. All 211 samples were
analyzed for mercury, while 141 samples were analyzed for each of
the other metals.
156
-------
TABLE 22
MASSACHUSETTS SHELLFISH SAMPLES
(mg/kg Wet Wt.)
1971
Toxic Metal No. of Samples Minimum Maximum Mean
Hg 103 0.0 6.0 .37
Cd 96 0.0 3.7 .78
Pb 96 0.0 135.0 7.41
Cr 96 0.0 33.0 2.25
1972
Hg 38 .03 1.35 .33
Cd 38 0.0 .5 .22
Pb 38 0.3 12.0 2.35
Cr 38 0.2 6.6 1.69
1973
Hg 29 .06 1.8 .36
Cd 7 .1 .3 .14
Pb 7 1.1 2.5 1.7
Cr 7 .5 1.6 .91
1974
Hg 41 .06 1.0 .39
157
-------
Finfish
Sixty—eight samples were analyzed between 1971 and 1973 for
mercury. Sixty were analyzed for cadmium, chromium and lead.
The ranges and mean values are displayed in Table 23.
Sludge
In 1972, eighty sludge samples were analyzed for arsenic,
cadmium, chromium, lead and mercury. Table 23 shows the means
and ranges of the results.
Core
Forty—five core samples were analyzed for cadmium, chromium,
lead and mercury. Twenty—two samples were tested for arsenic.
The means and ranges are shown in Table 24.
Sediments
Between 1971 and 1974, 550 river sediment samples were analyzed
for mercury. There were 522 samples for arsenic, cadmium, chromium,
and mercury and 516 samples for lead. The data in Table 25 show8
values ranging up to 3,200 mg/kg (dry weight passing #30 sieve)
for chromium.
Water
During 1971, forty water samples from different areas were
analyzed for mercury; forty—two samples were done for cadmium,
chromium and lead, and twenty—eight for arsenic. Detection of
toxic substances in these samples was substantially lower than
other media tested. Lead and chromium registered the highest
158
-------
TABLE 23
MASSACHUSETTS FINFISH SAMPLES
(mg/kg Wet Wt.)
1971
Toxic Metal No. of Samples Minimum Maximum Mean
Hg 22 .10 7.55 2.26
Cd 17 0.0 3.6 .83
Pb 17 0.0 33.0 5.91
Cr 17 .50 2.7 .96
1972
25 .07 9.5 1.32
Cd 25 0.0 .1 .03
Pb 25 .10 1.2 .51
Cr 25 .30 1.0 .87
1973
Hg 21 .16 .94 .51
Cd 2 0.0 0.0 0.0
Pb 2 1.10 1.4 1.25
Cr 2 .30 .30 .30
159
-------
TABLE 24
MASSACHIJSETTS CORE AND SLUDGE SANPLES
(mg/kg Dry Wt. Passing #30 Sieve)
CORE — 1971
Toxic Metal No. of Samples Minimum Maximum Mean
Hg 45 .10 3.20 .67
Cd 45 0.0 7.50 1.15
Pb 45 1.00 250.0 64.07
Cr 45 1.90 250.0 46.49
As 22 2.60 79.0 27.89
SLUDGE — 1972
Hg 80 .02 15.00 .92
Cd 80 0.0 8.1 1.06
Pb 80 .02 400.0 41.72
Cr 80 .2 170.0 18.4
As 2 7.6 31.4 19.50
160
-------
TABLE 25
MASSACHUSETTS SEDIMENT SAMPLES
(mg/kg Dry Wt. Passing #30 Sieve)
1971
Toxic Metal No. of Samples Minimum Maximum Mean
Hg 157 0.01 190.0 5.13
Cd 154 0.0 310.0 14.74
Pb 154 0.0 1040.0 174.13
Cr 154 1.1 3200.0 175.35
1972
Hg 357 0.0 100.0 1.95
Cd 357 0.0 27.0 2.37
Pb 351 .5 2000.0 150.87
Cr 357 1.10 2960.0 78.67
As 357 0.0 200.0 4.56
1973
Hg 11 .27 1.30 .60
Cd 11 1.00 7.80 3.99
Pb 11 100.0 620.0 259.55
Cr 11 1.60 22.0 12.17
11 3.4 15.0 7.65
1974
Hg 8 0.0 3.0 .79
1974 (ppm)
Hg 17 .02 20.0 1.65
161
-------
levels with maximum values as high as 5.10 and 1.20 mg/i respectively.
For 1972, 373 water samples were done for i rcury; 382 for cadmium,
chromium and lead, and 368 samples for arsenic. Lead and chromium
again showed that most significant levels with maximums of 190 and
41 mg/i respectively. Table 26 shows the means and ranges for 1971
and 1972.
CoLlclusions
1. The water bodies sampled generally show a low degree of pollu-
tion of all toxic substances except chromium and lead which are
found in excessive quantities in some sources.
2. Sediments show massive concentrations of all the toxic substances.
3. Core samples reveal large quantities of these substances, but
not to the same extent as the sediments.
4. The analyses on sludges reveal the high potential which the
substances have for being pollutants.
5. Both shellfish and finfish show a large contamination by these
toxic substances. This trend further confirms the idea that these
organisms tend to accununulate these substances from ambient con-
ditions that possess even trace quantities.
(1.,) Interstate Carrier Water Supply Analysis
This is an on—going program to monitor the quality of water
used on interstate carriers, e.g., buses, planes. A wide range
of water quality parameters are determined including arsenic,
cadmium, chromium, lead and mercury.
162
-------
TABLE 26
MASSACHUSETTS WATER SANPLES
(ing / 1)
1971
Toxic Metal No. of Samples Minimum Maximum Mean
Hg 40 .00005 .015 .01265
Cd 42 0.0 .10 .02
Pb 42 0.0 5.1 .29
Cr 42 0.0 1.2 .12
1972
Hg 373 .0001 .360 .0021
Cd 382 0.0 .07 .003
Pb 382 0.0 190.0 1.17
Cr 382 0.0 41.0 .24
As 368 0.0 .18 .0002
163
-------
The data collected from this program consists of about 15
data sheets which represents samples collected from 15 points from
various towns in Massachusetts in November 1972. Figure 41 shoes
the parameters for which analyses were done at the Lawrence
Experiment Station. No values were detected for any of the toxic
suhstan.ces listed.
(c) Bottled Water Program
The Lawrence Experiment Station carried out a testing program
on water ’ from bottled water companies in the spring and summer of
1974. This was a. result of the upsurge in demand for bottled water.
The toxic substances tested were arsenic, cadmium, chromium, lead,
and mercury. About 30 samples were collected from a Cross—section
of companies.
Figure 42 is an example of the data recorded for these tests.
Mo levels o any of the above substances were detected except mer-
cury. In the case of mercury, all samples show levels of less
than 1 ppb which was the minimum level of detection. No pe8ticides
or PCB’s were detected, but varying values were reported for other
water quality parameters, some of which were not consistent
with limits required for public supplies.
164
-------
LAUit NCE IOWERINENT STATION DIVISION OF ENVIOuN}IENTAL HEAL Lii
T r PsTAr 1 APRTFR WATER SUPPLY ANALYSIS
517954 Corcoran Everett —
O• or To m
11/1/72 11/13/72
RffORTED —
:OATE COLLEC LED
Tap on System
SMIPLE SOURCE •- -. .
CHUIICAL kMG/L)
SNIC — 0.00 _____ COLOR ____
FAJ’ IU 4 — 0.00 _____ ODOR _____
C DMIU14 — 0.00 ______ TURBIDITY _____
c:ILo IDE 12. RAD 100 IOCI1CM
“ ‘0MTh 0.00 ______
-— GROSS BELA ________________
DI’PER 0.01
FLUORICE — PCflTICIDE
- 0.0 ALDEIN —
0. CIILORD! Ni
0. DOT _____ o. oc
NES U 01 nIELDi :N — o.co
— o, 00 ElIDiUN
O.Uu
: ITR TE — 0.3 IJEPTACIILOR
IL’ 1 0.30 1IE I 1 TACU L OR
ODL N — 6. LJ.UJ)ANF; — o. on
JLF.TE — 6. }IEIHOXYCIJLO 0.00
____ 0.00 T OXAPI IENE — 0.00
r: rI!JITY 7.3
RDN S3 15. __________________
T 03 _____ 60
C’iT IAL
FIGURE 41
INTERSTATE CARRIER WATER SUPPLY ANALYSIS—TAP WATER
165
-------
FIGURE 42
INTERSTATE CARRI ER WATER SUPPLY ANALYSIS—BOTTLED WATER
166
LM RENCE EPERD 21T STATION — DIVISION OF ENVIRONMF JTAL HEALTH
INTERSTATE CAER WATER SUPPLY ANALYSIS
E ,d
SAMi’LE NO. Z47Ue corLEC1 R
DATE COLLEC TED _____________ RECEIVED —
SA} LE SOURCEROC 11-CE7 tQ1 IAlk tU (;o.
CHEMIcAL ( /L1
.00
City or Town
4W74 p . oai’ ?/DOt7!.
PWISICAL
0
.00
6 0
.00
2 Cc
0
RkDIOCH 21ICAL
ARSENIC
BARIUM
CAI (IUM
CHLORIDE
CI OMIUM
COPP!
FtIJORIDE
ABS
INON
LEAD
MANGANI .SE
MERCURY
NITHATE —
SILVER -
SODIUM -
SULFATE
ZIUC
COLOR
O R
WREIDITY
GROSS BETA
ALDRIN
C}ILORDANE
DDT _______
DIELDREN —
ENDRIN
HEPTAcHIOR ________
HEPTACHWR EPOXIDE
LINDANE
PESTICID -• ! ono d&ectec’
.00
0.6
0.6
.13
.00
.10
. 1 çpb
0.0
.03
3).
11
.00
lic
56 .
7.7
140
ttF 0
HETHOXYCHIOR
TOXLPBENE
ALKALINITY
HARDNESS —
pH ____
TDS__
BACTERIAL -
-------
THIRD QUARTER
DATA SU}IMARY AND ANALYSIS
167
-------
RESULTS OF DATA ANALYSIS
1.0 MISSOURI AGENCY DATA ANALYSIS
1.1 Missouri Water Supply Program
The Missouri water supply program is responsible for monitoring
all drinking water sources in Missouri with the exception of Kansas
City, St. Louis county, and St. Louis city. Until the acquisition
of atomic absorption equipment in 1972, water analysis was
limited to wet chemistry methods and none of the toxic substances
of interest were monitored. In 1972, a two—year program of
phase monitoring was initiated, All water supplies in the state
(approximately 1,000) were analyzed once each during the period
1972—1973 for metals, including arsenic, cadmium, chromium, lead,
and mercury. Of about 1,000 analysis sheets that were available,
approximately only 100 report sheets showed values of constituents
within detectable limits. Of the approximately 100 cases where a
constituent was detected, the constituent was lead. A summary of
the lead values is displayed in Table 2 7. The data where values
were below detectable limits were not analyzed, but are available
at EPA.
TABLE 27
LEAD IN MISSOURI WATER SUPPLIES (ppm)
NO. OF
YEAR SAMPLES RANGE MEAN
1972 66 O.0Ol—.067 0.006
1973 9 O.01—.025 0.0139
1974 3 0.008—.02 0.0127
168
-------
1.2 Missouri Clean Water Commission
The 1{issouri Clean Water Commission engages in a limited sampling
program of certain waste water treatment facilities which have in-
dustrial effluents (mostly from plating operations) tied into the
sanitation systems. The effluent was usually pretreated by the
industry, then further treated by the municipal plant, and then the
sample was taken of the plant effluent. Since 1972 when the sampling
began, cadmium, chromium, and lead were among the metals screened
for, and in the great majority of cases, no metals were detected.
If the presence of metals was qualitatively determined by rudimentary
screening, then those samples were taken to the Air Conservation
Commission laboratory for atomic absorption analysis. Data was
provided for samples analyzed at the Air Conservation Commission,
and these included 34 plants from 1972 to the present. Of the 34
samples analyzed for cadmium, chromium and lead, 19 total values
were within the detectable limits of the method. Table 28 shows
the values obtained from analyzing this data.
169
-------
-J
0
TABLE 28
TOXIC SUBSTANCES IN MISSOURI SEWAGE (ppm)
TOXIC SUBSTANCE ) NO. OF SAMPLES RANGE MEAN
1972
LEAD
CADMIUM
CHROMIUM
6*
6*
6*
0 — 15000
0 — 1700
0 — 700
2500
283.3
116.6
1973
LEAD
CADMIUM
CHROMIUM
21
21
21
0 — 0
0 — 45
0 — 3440
0
8.19
421.8
1974
LEAD
CADMIUM
CHROMIUM
8
8
8
0 — 0
0 — 27
0 — 315
0
5.37
*In each case, five values were zero.
-------
1.3 Missouri Air Conservation Commission
The state of Missouri operates an air monitoring network that
is comprised of 36 total sampling sites. A variety of sampling
techniques and instruments are used at these sites, such as
gulfation plates, multi gas bubblers, Aisi tape, etc. MITRE
requested the data recorded from the high volume particulate sampl-
ing and also from the settleable particulate sampling since the
trace metal analysis for these sampling techniques yielded data on
two of the toxic substances of interest to OTS, lead and cadmium.
The high volume sampling is conducted at 22 of the 36 total
sampling sites. The sampling time was based on a 24 hour or
“daily” sampling period. This daily data was transferred to
SABDAD daily data forms for key punching, and then processed by a
MITRE statistical program to produce data by site and constituent
for the following parameters:
• Number of samples
• Maximum
• Minimum
• Average
• Standard Deviation
A sample of the Missouri Hi—Vol data and the SAROAD daily data form
are shown in Figures 43and44.
The final data printouts displaying the Hi—Vol data in final format
appear in Appendix A.
171
-------
SUSPENDED PARTICULATE
1 race Me a1 Analysts [ or Lead, Cadmium, Iron and Copper
Wt. Sample Air Flow \Vt. Element in Sample % Element in sa: ole /L / ri° J\i r o; :icu
C u ii Tiun rO e) ( cc ft/coin) Ph Cd Fe Cu Pb Cd Fe Cu P (2 Fe Cu
a 11-5-7 I ii .1185 46.0 .0045 .000012 .0017 .00026 3.8 .010 1.43 .22 1.2 .003 .5 Cli
11-12—77
Ui u.ui 11-23-72 24 .0353 47.0 .0010 .000009 .0014 .00010 1.3 .026 3.97 .45 .5 .005 .7
7 ahu ju 11-29-72 24 .0862 45.0 .0018 .000007 .0018 .00016 2.1 .008 2.09 .19 1.0 .004 1.0 .C
17 Hovcc 11-110-72 24 .0273 51.0 .0034 .000019 .0023 .00102 12.5 .070 8.43 3.71 1.6 .010 1.1 .1
17 lover 10-2-H
l0-7—2 93 .5445 41.5 .0925 .000950 .0025 .00483 17.0 .174 10.92 .89 13.7 .110 1.5
10—13 72
H C lover 10-20-72
16-27-77 72 .3195 50.5 .0268 .000120 .0107 .00328 9.3 .038 3.30 1.03 4.3 . 313 1.7 1
11—1—12
4.1 Clover 11—5—72
11-12-72 39 .1343 53.5 .0340 .000250 .0036 .00196 25.3 .186 2.68 1.40 9. 6 . 071 1. 0 . 3:
• 1 ?lovcr 11-10-72 2-1 .0611 53.5 .0019 .000033 .0020 .00119 3.1 .054 3.27 1.95 .9 .012 .9 . H
FIGURE 43
SAMPLE OF MISSOURI HI-VOL DATA
-------
Name
PARAcTER
__________________ Code
___ ___ ___ llIl1
65 66 67 68 69
______ Method Units OP
____ ____ ____ ____ ____ i i iii ui
Day St Hr 70 71 72 73 74
19 20 21 22 _____________ _____________ 7 5 76 77 78
01 ______ ______
02 ______ _______ ______ _______
03 ______ _______ ______
04 ______ ______ ______ ______
05 ______ ______ ______
06 ______ _______ ______ _______
07 ______ _______ ______
08 ______ _______ ______ _______
09 ______ _______ ______ _______
10 ______ ______ ______ ______
11 ________ ________ ________ ________
12 ______ ______ ______ ______
13 ______ ______ ______ ______
14 ______ ______ ______ ______
15 ______ ______ ______ ______
16 ______ ______ ______ ______
17 ______ ______ ______ _______
18 ______ ______ ______ ______
19 ______ ______ ______ ______
20 ______ ______ ______ ______
21 ______ ______ ______ ______
22 ______ ______ ______ ______
23 ______ ______ ______ ______
24 ______ ______ ______ ______
25 ______ _______ ______ _______
26 ______ ______ ______ ______
27 ______ ______ ______ ______
28 ______ ______ ______ ______
29 ______ ______ ______ ______
3 0 ____________ ____________ ____________ ____________
31 ______ ______ ______ ______
DPi 1. 3 2 1 0
FIGURE 44
SAROAD DAILY DATA FORM
24-HOUR OR GREATER
[ 1
SAMPLING
National Aerometric Data Bank
P.O. Box 12055
Research Triangle Park, N.C. 27711
INTERVAL
Time Interval
I Agency
City Name
Site Address
Project
St te Area Site
12131)51617181 II
A ency Project Time Year Month
b Li I II II II
I I 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
Name
PARAMETER
Code
II I III
23 24 25 26 27
Method Units DP
[ I III I
28 29 30 31 32
33 34 35 35
1.3210
Name
PARAMETER
Code
II III I
37 38 39 40 41
Method Units
I I II I I
42 43 44 45 46
47 48 1.9 50
1.3210
name
PARAMETER
Code
1111 II
51 52 53 54 55
Method Units DP
II II I 11J
56 57 58 59 60
61 62 63 64
43210
173
-------
MITRE also received settleable particulate data from the state
sampling network. One portion of the data involved lead determinatjo
of the samples for the years 1971 and 1972. The remaining portion
dealt with trace metal analysis of the settleable particulate.
This produced data on lead and cadmium for the year 1971. These
two sets of data were processed manually for the following para-
meters:
• Number of samples
• Maximum
• Minimum
• Average
An example of the settleable particulate data is shown in Figure 45
Tables 29 , 30 and 31 contain the results of the settleable
particulate data analysis.
1.4 St. Louis County Air Sampling Network
St. Louis County operates a sampling network similar to the
state of Missouri in that it also employs a variety of sampling
techniques and instruments. Sampling is conducted at a total of
12 sampling sites, 11 of which utilize high volume particulate
samplers. MITRE received air data that was in monthly composite
form. Lead and cadmium data for the years 1971—1974 was extracted
from the County data and coded on SARDAD composite data forms. This
data was then key punched and processed in the same format as the
state air data. Figure 46 shows an example of the St. Louis
County air data, and Figure 47 shows a SAROAD composite data form.
174
-------
SETTLEABLE PARTICULATES
Lead Analysis
October, 1972
FIGURE 45
MISSOUR I SETTLEABLE PARTICULATE DATA
U’
Site
4
Location
Joplin
Exposure
Period
Wt. Sample
(grams)
.2035
Wt. Lead
(grams)
.00020
%
in
Lead
Sample
.09
Lead Values
Tons/Mile 2 /30
In
Day
9—30—72
to
10—30—72
.020
11
Herculaneum
9—27—72
to
11—3—72
.1483
.00871
5.87
.769
22
Ironton
9—26—72
to
11—2—72
.1095
.00019
.17
.015
24
Taurn Sauk
9—26—72
to
11—2—72
.0645
.00007
.11
.006
42
Glover
9—26—72
to
11—2—72
.5532
.00358
.65
.290
43
Glover
9—26—72
to
11—2—72
.1233
.01132
9.18
.918
54
Galena
10—4—72
to
11—6—72
.0610
.00030
.49
.027
504
Glover
9—26—72
to
11—2—72
.0941
.00030
.32
.024
-------
TABLE 29
LEAD DETERMINATION OF DUSTFALL ANALYSIS
MISSOURI AIR CONSERVATION COMMISSION SAMPLING NETWORK
(Tons/Mile 2 /30 Days)
1971
SITE LOCATION MONTHLY SAMPLES ___ MAX. MEAN
4A Joplin 2 .01 .015 .0125
11 Herculaneum 3 .32 1.67 1.097
22 Ironton 2 .009 .05 .0295
42 Clover 3 .26 .47 .356
43 Glover 3 .51 .99 .713
54 Galena 2 .003 .03 .0165
57 Pilot Knob 3 .01 .03 .0233
19 Pevely 1 .12 .12 .12
24 Tauxn Sauk 1 .02 .02 .02
176
-------
TABLE 3 0
LEAD DETERMINATION OF DUSTFALL ANALYSIS
MISSOURI AIR CONSERVATION COMMISSION SAMPLING NETWORK
(Tons/M11e 2 /30 Days)
1972
SITE LOCATION # MONTHLY SAMPLES MIN. MAX. MEAN
11 Herculaneum 12 .11 3.16 .9205
19 Pevely 8 .06 .34 .1522
22 Ironton 11 .014 .07 .039
24 Taum Sauk 10 .002 .06 .0197
42 Glover (Govero) 12 .26 1.29 .4849
43 Glover (Sutton) 12 1.29 2.1 1.302
54 Galena 12 .01 .07 .0276
57 Pilot Knob 4 .01 .04 .025
4A Joplin 3 .01 .06 .04
4 Joplin 7 .02 .05 .0327
177
-------
TABLE 31
SETTLEABLE PARTICULATE TRACE METAL ANALYSIS FOR LEAD AND CADMIUM
MISSOURI AIR CONSERVATION COMMISSION SAMPLING NETWORK
(Tons/Mile 2 /30 Days)
1971
SITE LOCATION JMBER OF __________ C _______
L NO . NAME MONTHLY SAMPLES MIN. AN M1N. MAX. MEAN
7 Columbia 10 .01 .02 .0123 .0001 .006 .0009
6 Columbia 2 .01 .01 .01 .0003 .0003 .0003
11 Herculaneun1 10 .13 .81 .352 .004 .024 .011
19 Pevely 6 .004 .11 .049 .0001 .003 .0017
22 Iromton 9 .01 .04 .0189 .0001 .001 .0006
41 STE Genevieve 9 .01 .03 .02 .0008 .005 .0023
49 New Madrid 4 .003 .01 .0065 .0001 .002 .0011
53 Maryville 8 .002 .01 .0031 .0001 .005 .0011
43 Glover 5 .25 1.20 .584 .014 .031 .022
1 St. Joseph 3 .01 .01 .01 .0003 .0004 .0003
14 Weldon Springs 3 .01 .03 .0167 .001 .004 .003
18 West Alton 3 .002 .07 .0273 .0002 .001 .0005
38 st. Charles 3 .001 .01 .0007 .0001 .0004 .0003
67 Jefferson City 3 .002 .01 .0053 .0001 .001 .0005
106 Raytown 2 .01 .01 .01 .0001 .0004 .00025
45 Mexico 2 .005 .01 .0075 .0002 .0003 .00025
28 Mexico 2 .003 .01 .0065 .0001 .0002 .00015
58 Fulton 2 .001 .002 .0015 .0002 .0002 .0002
32 Sikeston 3 .002 .004 .0033 .0002 .0003 .00023
36 Poplar Bluff 2 .003 .004 .0035 .0001 .0002 .00015
-------
DIVISION OF LABORATORIES
ST. lOUTS COUNTY HEALTH DEPAR LEGT
Trace Metals Analyses
(ug/m 3 )
June, 1972
Mt. Trailer St. Ann State Farm
Northland Sinks Chai bers SLCHD St. Rose Harold ACIC ______ ( T -7) ( : _ 3 )
Fe 1.26 1.16 1.59 0.99 1.66 1.28 2.59 1.20 1.36 1.35
Pb 1.89 0.56 1.13 2.88 0.81 0.96 0.83 2.56 0.86 0.73
Zr 0.79 0.17 0. 1 2 0.114 0.59 0.09 0.21 0.76 0.511 0.22
Cu 0.003 0.111 0.000 0.000 0.033 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.021 0.386
0.080 0.055 0.082 0.0311 0.0119 0.01e8 0.061 0.028 0.052 0.068
Cd 0.012 0.007 0.002 0.016 0.009 0.010 0.0011 0.063 0.002 0.002
FIGURE 46
ST. LOUIS COUNTY AIR DATA
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
National Aerometric Data Bank
P.O. Box 12055
Research Triangle Park, NC. 27711
I -I
Co
0
-- PROJECT
STATE AREA 1 ITE
L fl_III{UJ1
2 3 3 5 s 7 8 9 0
TEAR PERIOD
LII1E
IS 6 17 15
TOTAL
FILTER
E3UIVALENT
AIR VOLIJUF
N 3
PARAMETER CODE 4FTHOD UNITS DP
23—32 I
37—46 1 I _________
5 1—60 ’ ________
165—74 1 _____________
I IHPT
TSP CODE METHOD UNITS OF
I I
pA DA ME
23—]?
37—46
51—60
os-74 LL LJ
PARA AET ER COt E I lET -101 UNITS OP
123—32
37—46
I5I —60’
65—74
3 UNITS D
it
I
I I
- HE
III
THOD LI
NtIS D
CODE ME
THOD UNITS
PARAMETER CODE MET901
23—32 _________
37—461 _________ _________
51—601 _________ ________
65—74
PARAMERER CODE
23—32
37—46 ’
151 60 ’
6S—74
PARAMETER
123—321
3 7_4 6’
53 —501
55—741
FIGURE 47
SAROAD COMPOSITE DATA FORM
H
I AGENCY
CITY NAME
SITE ADDRESS
TIME INTERVAL
PARAMETER
NAME METHOD UNITS
AGENCY PROjECT
2 13
_LH
TIME
14
PARAMETER
NAME METHO(
NUMBER OF
SAMPLES
19 70
103 L
AIR VOLUME
U?
F ILTER
NUMBER
UNITS
I I 33 —36
______ 47—50 __________
L i i 61—54 ________
I 7 5 —7B [
SAMPI F
DATE
COMP SAMPLE
TYPE TIME
27 22
PART ICULATE
CONC
g N 3
_ NAM 9ETHO UNITS
33_3 5 1 ____________
Ff__
51—Sd
i75—7B
PARAMETER
NAME METHOIUNITS
U 33 . 36LI1I
‘47—53 ______________
61—64 ____________
I I75— B ’ ______________
PARAMETER
NAME
MET-lOD
UNITS
METHOD
UNITS
PARAMETER
NAME
33.36’
‘47 —30 1
‘61—64’
73—78 1 _______________
33.36
47.- SO
161—64 I
75—78
-------
The results of the St. Louis County data analyses appear in
Appendix A.
1.5 St. Louis City Air Sampling Network
The city of St. Louis operates an air sampling network similar
to the county and state networks. The city network is comprised of
37 total sampling sites, 10 of which conduct high volume particulate
sampling. MITRE was supplied with lead, cadmium, and chromium data
for the years 1970—1973. The greater majority of this data was in
monthly composite form, although a small portion of the chromium
data was in quarterly composite form. This data was transferred to
SAROAD composite data forms (Figure 47), keypunched, and processed
with the MITRE statistical program to produce the desired data
values and parameters. An example of the St. Louis City data
appears as Figure 48, and the resulting data in final printout format
is shown in Appendix A.
181
-------
7)7
— /37 ,i/7/
-!3? ;:1..2 .. .;:
“ j ’ 2 ‘ ;
. .
t CFM
w
ei I2 /i 7.l3, 3(oS
EJ JZWo/2//00)&’1S) .__j_j.ji-
3)171
Cd— im
2_Is
i’ 3 t?
Ci t O Ji4-
?‘e f. i/ ? J ‘
‘ !-J/ ( _____
hi.?
ft .1/ J
F.S,P/eP t; ,.2j
ZA) )ciD
2,
: Lik:;
L/7i i- /fi 3
., :) . ‘1
2
L.” ’ ••/.,
3/ / 6/ .. ._7 _______
rD
/hia / 3?.
ql.3
(O - Th3
1 L
C”i ., ‘3;i 1/
-i ,
/iihi .ct r
I/ Ii! 2 .S’ -‘ ‘7
1r_ h) il2. 6 ‘,.;e
Cdz C .P . & ) 2
C ( . Jp.42
Sr/e_ 1OO/)/l 1 7’
9)t /Y:, /00/ 0.1/
f’IA)
I.L, 0
1
ZA) .4 J,1 .?
. 23O
/0/
I7. I
:
9 ‘- r 2 . i J ; 2
.7 t 3 lL3 yi ’ ; :w;
7 V :3-” . 1 c/ 1 . 1 ;’j ; ;, .5 Ł h7
7 /1 3 - 14? c . c7
(,
7
I .?
I? V
7 /
3 - I SO
3. i.c,
Ph
> ,,;I7d ;
-.
fb /A J/1
— 73/S
1
fe. -9?
J’sa
. r.PL Łrn .’’ r”
4.c 7
1 )
)
_,i Q( oIy
I 1d- ’ -
1 ,035
)
1
I 2.4
us, Is
i o
2AJ JOLP
, . 7
Q Q)s I/ _ /y J7/ /71
O L 4 . /fW 1 c, / 40 / _1 2J ‘ CF’i = 123.2
2 A! 1 IC -
. 5 — - -- LLL? J - . o/-.
77 i2V
1, S3,
FIGURE 48
ST. LOUIS CITY AIR DATA.
182
-------
2.0 WASHINGTON AGENCY DATA ANALYSIS
2.1 Department of Fisheries —- Management and Research Division
In 1972, sediment samples were taken from the Olympia harbor by
the above—mentioned agency. A prelf” f”ary evaluation was made for
two toxic substances, lead and chromium. Ten stations were sampled.
The values obtained for chromium varied between 30 and 46 mg/gm
with a mean of 39 mg/gm. There were no finite values for lead,
although it was detected between less than 28 and less than 84 mg/gm
dry weight for the set of 10 samples.
2.1.1 Pacific Oyster Embryo Bioaasays of Bottom Sediment from
Washington Water
This study was a short investigation conducted between 14 June
and 10 August 1973. It is a phase of the research program instituted
between 1971 and 1973 to evaluate the effects of channel dredging
and the disposal of the dredged spoil on the local marine environ—
ment. It involved an evaluation of bottom sediments from several
locations in Washington using a Pacific oyster embryo bioassay
procedure.
The bioassay technique utilized sediments from the chosen
areas to contaminate larvae of veliger oysters over a 29—hour
-,.riod under controlled laboratory conditions. After that time, the
Larvae were assessed as normal if they had shells, and as abnormal
Lf they did not. The basis of this criterion was apparently the
dyers. effect of components of the sediment on the unshelled larvae.
183
-------
Subsequent chemical analysis were performed on the sediments for
chromium, lead, mercury and PCB’s.
The results are shown in Table 32 which also shows the locations
from which the sediments were taken. The concentrations in the
toxic substances do not clearly correlate with the degree of
abnormal or normal oysters. For example, it was observed that 0.2 g/l
(dry weight) of sediments from Gray’s harbor composite samples caused
a significant increase in percentage of abnormality, while greater
than 30 percent of sediments from Bud Inlet was required to give the
same effect. Apparently, the quantity of sediments needed will be
determined by the concentration of the constituent toxic substances
and also probably on the synergistic adverse impacts on the oyster
larvae. These larvae appear to be very sensitive biological monitors
of the quality of bottom sediments and the method shows promise in
subsequent efforts to evaluate sediments.
2.2 Department of Game
2.2.1 Effect of Some Insecticide Sprays in Washington State
A report was received on insecticides used in orchards
throughout the state of Washington. No PCB’s were included or
identified.
Studies on pesticides and insecticides conducted in the
state of Washington were mostly for DDT. No analyses were done for
PCB’s. Samples of fatty tissue were taken from birds, deers, elk,
wild goats, etc.
184
-------
TABLE 32
SEDIMENT ANALYSIS FOR TOXIC
SUBSTANCES IN STATE OF WASHINGTON
(mg/kg)
TOXIC NO. OF
AREA SUBSTANCE SANPLES RANGE 1EAN
Grays Harbor Cr 3 26—27 26.3
Pb 3 18—23 20.0
Hg 3 1.3—6.3 3.0
PCB 1260 3 0.0005—0.0005 0.0005
1248 & 1254 3 0.048—.300 0.134
Druwamish Cr 3 20—67 45.3
Pb 3 35—340 145
Hg 3 1.0—1.8 1.4
PCB 1260 3 trace—O. 0005
1248 & 1254 1.6—6.0 3.4
Bud Inlet Cr 1 27 27
Pb 1 14 14
Hg 1 3.5 3.5
PCB 1260 1 0.0005 0.0005
1248 & 1254 1 0.031 0.031
OroBay Cr 1 26 26
Pb 1 17 17
Hg 1 1.4 1.4
PCB 1260 1 0.0005 0.0005
1248 & 1254 1 0.025 0.025
Bilhinghanl Cr 3 32—47 38
Pb 3 28—71 44.3
Hg 3 2.4—78 4.4
PCB 1260 3 0.0005—0.0005 0.0005—0.0005
1248 & 1254 3 0.100—.148 1.2
185
-------
TABLE 32 (continued)
TOXIC NO. OF
AREA SUBSTANCE SM PLES RANGE MEAN
Eld Inlet Cr 1 33 33
Pb N.D. —
Rg 1 0.9 0.9
PCB 1260
1248 & 1254 1 20 20
Liberty Bay Cr 1 26 26
Pb 1 15 15
Hg 1 1.2 1.2
PCB 1260 1 0.5 0.5
1248 & 1254 1 37 37
Pt. Whitney Cr 1 31 31
Lagoon Pb 1 7 7
Hg 1 2.7 2.7
PCB 1260 1 0.5 0.5
1248 & 1254 1 1.0 1.0
N.D. None determined
186
-------
2.2.2 Lead Shot in Washington Waterfowl 1973—74 Hunting Season
Collection of waterfowl gizzards to determine the incidence of
ingested lead shot in Washington was initiated in November 1973 in
three major waterfowl hunting areas. No quantitative analysis was
performed, but the X—ray photographs revealed that only 4 percent
of the 692 gizzards contained lead shots. This would represent a
loss of 1 to 5 birds per thousand, and was slightly lower than the
4.9 percent loss recorded for earlier periods.
2.2.3 Mercury in Washington Wildlife
Thirty—seven wild pheasants were collected from birds killed
on the road and from birds collected from eastern Washington farming
areas. Results from analyses showed that only five birds exceeded
the 0.5 ppm level of mercury in liver tissue and only one exceeded
that value in breast tissue. One pheasant (road—killed) showed
0.75 ppm in the liver but only a 0.046 ppm in breast tissue.
Another bird collected showed 0.72 ppm in the liver and 0.117 ppm
in the breast. Only one bird had an excessive mercury concentration
both the liver and the breast, viz: 4.84 and 4.61 ppm respectively.
The source of thIs high level of mercury was not determined.
In another survey, analyses were done on birds (control)
exposed to mercury—treated grains, as well as to birds fed on mixture
of such grain8 and untreated grains, and birds fed only on treated
grains. The control birds showed a similarly low level as found in
the statewide survey of pheasants collected. Those fed the mixture
187
-------
of grains survived some minor losses and their mercury levels were
slightly higher in both liver and breast tissue than in the control
group. Out of eleven birds tested one had a 0.71 ppm and one had
0.60 ppm. Those fed only mercury—treated grain generally refused
to feed and most died of starvation. Thirteen birds of that group
were tested and four had over 1 ppm in liver tissue, with a high of
2.65 ppm. Two exceeded 0.5 ppm in breast tissue and the highest
value was 0.75 ppm.
Five band—tailed pigeons were killed near two fields seeded
with mercury—treated grains, and their liver and breast tissue
were analyzed. The liver generally showed high levels, but the
breast tissue was all less than 0.5 ppm. The highest value was 5.32
ppm in the liver and 0.40 in the breast. This sample of pigeons
seemed to have had more than an average exposure to mercury—treated
grains.
The survey showed that mercury contamination in upland birds j 5
not as serious a problem as was anticipated. The birds’ apparent
refusal to consume treated grain was a positive factor. The public
health was not thought to be endangered and there was no impelling
justification for a hunting closure.
2.3 Department of Ecology
The department made an inventory of industrial and hazardous
waste in the state. The program started in April 1973 and was
culminated in May 1974. Of the 600 firms contacted 450 completed
188
-------
reports for the inventory. The following table shows the broad
categories of industries and the type of hazardous and toxic wastes
produced.
TABLE 33
CATEGORIES OF INDUSTRIAL WASTE IN WASHINGTON
Chemicals or Toxic Substances
— Hg sludges
— Pesticide (PCBtS), other
chemicals
— Pb sludges
— Cyanide
— Plating sludges
— Cyanide
No analytical/chemical determinations were done. Only qualitative
assessments which classify sources of wastes were conducted. This
will enable the development of systematic programs for handling and
disposing of such waste.
Indus y
1. Paper and Allied Products
2. Chemicals and Allied Products
3. Petroleum Refining
4. Primary Metal Industries
5. Fabricated Metal Products
6. MachInery
189
-------
2.4 Department of Social and Health Services, Office of Environmental
Health Programs, Tacoma Smelter Study
The monitoring program for the Tacoma smelter is by far the main
focus of activity for the Office of Environmental Health programs, as
well as for most other environmental agencies in Washington. Terrence
Strong, Section Head of the Radiation, Chemical and Physical Hazards
Section of the Office of Environmental Health programs has been in-
volved mainly with the analysis of potential health effects of the
arsenic, lead, and cadmium emissions from the smelter. He was able
to provide data on levels of these materials in human hair, urine,
and blood; and in soil and the air near the smelter. Table 34 shows
a summary of multi—media data received from the Tacoma smelter study.
It is interesting to note the high values obtained for arsenic in
household dusts, where values ranged from 23.4 ppm to 427.1 ppm with
an. average of 191.47. High levels of arsenic and lead were found
in soil in the Tacoma smelter area with mean values of 119.04 ppm
and 180 ppm respectively. Arsenic levels in blood in 1972 were also
high with a mean value of 116 ig/l00 ml.
Messrs. Terrence Strong and Samuel Milham, Jr., published tenta-
tive findings in Environmental Science, Volume 7, Number 2 in April
1974. The findings indicate that children living near the smelter j
Tacoma had increased levels of arsenic in hair and urine. The level
in the urine was found to be Inversely related to the distance of the
residences from the smelter stack, and this was also true for the
190
-------
TABLE 34
TACOMA SMELTER STUDY
SUMMARY OF MULTI—MEDIA DATA
TOXIC DATE NO. OF uNIT OF
SUBSTANCES SAMPLED SAMPLES MEDIA MEASUREMENT MIN MAX MEM
As 1972 178 Urine ppm .01 .58 .08
As 1973 312 Urine ppm .01 .47 .07
As 1974 224 Urine ppm .01 .68 .08
As 1974 9 Household ppm 23.4 427.1 191.47
Dusts
As 1972 7 Blood g/100 ml 10 330 116
As 1973 12 Hair ppm 6 104 64
As 1970 4 Water ppm .11 4.9 2.36
As 1970 9 Water mg/i .01 6.7 1.76
As — 31 Soil ppm 1 797 119.04
Pb 1970 4 Water ppm .40 4.6 2.55
Pb 1970 6 Water mg/i .2 7 2.5
Pb — 31 Soil ppm 18 692 180
Pb 1972 18 Urine /1 10 50 23
Pb —— 199 Blood g/100 m1 9 68 27
Hg 5 Soil ppm 2 10 6
Cd 5 Soil ppm 4 16 9
-------
concentration in vacuum—cleaner dust. The arsenic level in urine also
varied with distance from the smelter, and there was an indication
that inhalation was the likely exposure medium. The urinary level of
arsenic also showed an inverse relationship with age, with younger
children having higher levels consistently.
Another conclusion from the article was that the death record
analysis showed an increased incidence of respiratory cancer in men
working in the smelter. Since the published data on arsenic levels
in the urine of men working in the smelter is shown to be similar to
residents in the vicinity of the smelter, it was felt that the
community surrounding the smelter might be exposed to an increased
risk of cancer.
The management of the smelter is reported to be very cooperative
in supplying data throughout the survey, and has been responsive to
the necessity of reducing emissions from the stacks. A state standard for
arsenic emission was adopted after six months of negotiation follow-
ing a public hearing of the Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Board.
The standard simply states that no visible emissions of arsenic
dusts or smoke shall be allowed, and that the best available tech-
nology shall be employed. It is not clear if the standard will be
effective in reducing arsenic levels in the environment. Monitoring
of the children in the study will continue and it is planned to
expand the program to include other heavy metals in the atmosphere
surrounding the smelter.
192
-------
MITRE was informed during the Washington contact meeting that
the Department of Social and Health Services is currently in the
process of compiling and an.alyzlug data for the Tacoma smelter study,
and that a final analysis report will be forthcoming. The report
was not received at the time the final report was prepared.
2.5 City of Tacoma — Department of Public Utilities — Water Division
MITRE received water analysis data for surface water and ground
water from the city of Tacoma. Table 35 shows the results of the
data calculations. The surface water that was sampled came from the
Green River headworks, some thirty miles east of Tacoma. The ground
water was taken from wells within the city limits of Tacoma. The
values that were utilized to get the numbers displayed in Table 35
were from the year 1968 to the year 1974.
193
-------
TABLE 35
CITY OF TACOMA - WATER ANALYSIS IN PPM
SURFACE WATER GROUND WATER
NO. OF STD. NO. OF STI).
CONSTITUENT SAMPLES RANGE MEAN DEV. CONSTITUENT SAMPLES RANGE NEAN DEV .
Arsenic 10 O—.O1 .0027 .0035 Arsenic 10 O—.O1 .0018 .0032
Cadmium 10 O—.O1 .0035 .0041 Cadmium 10 O—.O1 .0115 .0308
Chromium 10 O—.O1 .001 .0031 Chromium 10 0—01 .017 .0319
Lead 10 0—0.02 .0105 .0082 Lead 10 O —.O5 .01 .0002
‘ .O
Mercury 10 0—.005 .0006 .005 Mercury 10 0— .01 .002 .004
-------
3.0 GEORGIA AGENCY DATA ANALYSIS
3.1 Georgia Water Quality Control Board
In May 1970 the U.S. Department of the Interior expressed
concern to the Georgia Water Quality Control Board (GWQCB) about
the mercury content of effluents leaving chlorine and caustic
soda manufacturing plants. Samples of wastes from these plants were
collected and analyzed for mercury. The samples revealed a signifi-
cant amount of mercury ranging from 8 to 420 g/g, which was in
excess of the US-FDA limit of 0.5 g/g. ConsequetLtly, in July 1970,
a cooperative program was initiated between two agencies to investigate
mercury concentration in fish and other aquatic organisms.
The first phase of the survey in Georgia dealt with determining
the mercury levels in waste discharges from industries manufacturing
chlorine gas and caustic soda through the electrolysis of brine. In
these processes mercury is used as an electrode and the industries
are referred to as mercury—cell—type, chior—alkali industries which
were believed to contribute mercury to the aquatic environment. The
second phase comprised the collection and analysis of organisms from
areas receiving waste discharges from such industries. These phases
culminated in confirming the presence of mercury, thus aiding in the
delineation of the affected areas.
The third phase of the investigation was a statewide sampling
program by the Game and Fish Commission and the GWQCB. The purpose
was to determine mercury levels in the biota and to identify
195
-------
additional problem areas if they existed. Stations were established
downstream from possible mercury sources. Waste sources included
textile and pulp—paper, paint manufacturers, agricultural seed
processors and urban areas. The period of investigation was from
July 1970 to October 1971.
Statewide Investigation
Samples from fresh and saline waters were collected with the
equipment and under the supervision of the State Game and Fish
Commission. Samples from saline waters were collected primarily
with shrimp trawl. Other methods employed were gill net, seine, hand
picking (oysters), crab pots and nets. Samples were also obtained
from commercial shrimp collectors, crab collectors and sport fisher...
men. Fresh water fish were mostly collected with electronic fishing
equipment. Other fresh water methods included seine and set hooks,
as well as collection from commercial fishermen. Gill net was used
to collect American shad.
Samples were prepared in the field using only edible portions
of each organism. A portion of muscle tissue was taken from finfish
with the skin removed. Fillet meat and/or claw meat was collected
from crabs, while th& whole edible portion of shrimp was used. The
samples were placed in plastic bags, tagged and frozen with dry ice.
Replicates were prepared so that interlaboratory comparison could
be made by two or three laboratories.
At the outset, the laboratory analysis of samples from the
196
-------
statewide investigation was undertaken by GWQCB during the summer of
1970 usIng AAS. However, the large volume of samples generated made
it impractical for the laboratory to carry this extra load along with
its other programs. Consequently a contract was made with the
Georgia Institute of Technology (Ga. Tech) which used neutron
activation analysis. Cross checks were routinely done by GWQCB and
US EPA Southeast Water Laboratory (SEWL) both of which used flameless
A1S (detection limits were 0.04 /g using 0.5 g sampl4
Results and Discussion
Results are discussed in 5 geographical areas:
1. Seven (7) Freshwater River Basins, exclusive of the
Savannah River (Augusta to Savannah).
2. The Savannah River from Augusta to Savannah.
3. The Savannah Estuarine Area.
4. The Georgia Coast, exclusive of the Brunswick area and the
Savannah Estuarine area.
5. The Brunswick Area.
1. Seven River Basins
This region was investigated between September 1970 to
FebrUa 1971. It was surveyed at 32 stations from which 141 organ—
jems representing 23 species were collected and analyzed for mercury.
Table3b shows the species collected and enumerates the number of
197
-------
TABLE 36
MERCURY DETERMINATION IN BIOTA FROM SEVEN MAJOR RIVER BASINS
IN GEORGIA (EXCLUSIVE OF THE SAVANNAH RIVER) 1970—1971
Hg i- g/g
NO. OF STANDARD
SPECIES SAMPLES RANGE MEAN DEVIATION
Largemouth Bass 42 O.07—.99 0.37 0.22
Coosa Bass 2 O.39—.5O 0.45 *
Bowfin 3 0.24—1.3 0.65 *
Chain Pickerel 3 O.20—.52 0.31 *
Redfin Pickerel 1 0.73 0.73 *
White Bass 2 O.25—.34 0.30 *
Channel Catfish 23 O.07—.52 0.21 0.11
Brown Bullhead 17 O.04—.38 0.19 0.09
White Catfish 1 0.37 0.37 *
Flat Bullhead 3 0.05—.61 0.25 *
Flathead Catfish 3 0.32—. 45 0.40 *
Stonecat 1 0.08 0.08 *
Bluegill 2 O.23—.82 0.53 *
Shellcracker 2 O.l7—.58 0.38 *
Redbreast Sunfish 2 O.17—.24 0.21
Spotted Sucker 3 0.22—.88 0.44 *
Redhorse Sucker 10 0.09—1.4 0.44 0.37
Chubsucker 1 0.31 0.31 *
Carpsucker 2 O.4l—.42 0.42 *
Carp 7 0.22—.71 0.51 *
*Where less than 10 samples were analyzed over the 1—year period,
the standard deviation was not determined.
198
-------
TABLE 36 (continued)
NO. OF STANDARD
SPECIES SANPLES RANGE MEAN DEVIATION
American Shad 8 O.24—.64 0.38
Stoneroller 1 0.07 0.07 *
Clam 2 0.04—06 0.05 *
*Where less than 10 samples were analyzed over the 1—year period,
the standard deviation was not determined.
199
-------
samples of each. Also shown are the mean mercury concentration and
the standard deviatiot for four of the species found. Largemouth
bass and catfish were regarded as the desired fish in the freshwater
basins and priority was placed on collecting them. The largemouth
bass occupies a position at the top of the food chain and is dis-
tributed throughout much of the state in a variety of aquatic habitats
The various catfish are also widely distributed and are caught
commercially in many areas. The catfish is omnivorous and is
primarily a bottom feeder. When these two species were not available,
the other species shown in Table36 were collected, where possible.
This emphasis on collecting largemouth bass and catfish in-
jected a bias in the collection, and makes a direct comparison of the
data with that of the other rough species like carp and bowf in questj 0 . ..
able. Two conclusions resulted from this approach. First, the bass an
catfish were collected from the cleaner water and thus had generally
lower levels of mercury than the rough types. Second, the bass
specimens were collected in larger numbers and thus provide a more
representative mean than would be the case with the rough types. For
example, 42 samples of largemouth bass were analyzed while only 7
samples were analyzed for carp. However, the data indicates a
relationship which seems to exist between fish size, weight, length,
and concentration of mercury. There is generally a direct relation-
ship; that is, the mercury level is proportional to the size of the
fish. The data in Table 36 is taken from analyses done by the Georgj
200
-------
Institute of Technology which did analyses on all the samples from
the river basins. There were also some interlaboratory values done
by the Southeast Water Laboratory and the Georgia Water Quality Control
Board. Although the report states that the values from the interlab—
oratory analyses were similar, a close scrutiny of the values from
the three sources reveals a fairly wide variation among values (Figure 49).
This might result from the fact that the methodology for determining
mercury in fish tissue was relatively new in these laboratories and
was not completely routinized.
2. Savannah River (Augusta to Savannah )
Samples were collected from the Savannah River six
times between July 1970 and October 1971. Up to six stations were
used on each collecting trip. Two hundred and fifty six (256) fish,
representing 22 species were collected. The predominant species
collected were largemouth bass, spotted sucker and American shad
(Table37). The mean mercury concentration in largemouth bass in
this phase of the study was 1.51 tg/g which is three times the US—FDA ’s
maximum allowable concentration for human consumption. This was in
contrast to 0.37 .tg/g in the same species in the Seven River Basin
Study. On the basis of the data from the Savannah River (Table 37) a
section of the river was closed to fishing. The American shad was
exempted from this regulation as mercury content was only 0.23 .g/g
and sport fishing was subsequently allowed ona catch—and—release
basis.
201
-------
CHATTAHOOCHEE RIVER
GEORGIA HIGHWAY 91 TO FAIRCHILDS STATE PARK
GWQCB STATION NO. 60
DATE: 11-9-70
SAMPLE NO. SPECIES LENGTh WEIGHT MERCURY (ug/grn Wet Weight Basis)
(inches) (ibs) lABORATORY
GA. TECH SEWL GWQCB
6001 Largemout:h Bass 16.5 2.75 0.64 0.47
6002 Largetnouth Bass 13.25 1.25 0.48 0.37
6003 Channel Catfish 11.0 0.25 0.09 -
6004 Brown Bullhead 11.0 0.5 0.14 -
CHATTAHOOCIIEE RIVER
WALTER F. GEORGE RESERVOIR AT GEORGETOWN, GA.
GWQCB STATION NO. 61
DATE: 11-9-70
6101 Largeniouth Bass 12.5 1.0 0.25
6102 Largeinouth Bass 14.5 1.25 0.49 0.46
6103 Channel Catfish 13.0 0.5 0.30
6104 Channel Catfish 11.5 0.3 0.25
CHATTAHOOCHEE RIVER
BARTLE11 S FERRY RESERVOIR - DOWNSTREAM FROM OSANIPPA CREEK
GWQCB STATION NO. 63
DATE: 10-23-71
6301 Largemouth Bass 19.0 4.75 0.41 - 0.54
6302 Largetnouth Bass 13.5 1.5 0.19 -
6303 White Catfish 10.0 0.5 0.37 -
6304 Channel Catfish 12.0 1.0 0.15 -
FIGURE 49
COMPARISON OF GEORGIA INTERLABORATORY ANALYSES
202
-------
TABLE 37
MERCURY DETERMINATIONS FROM THE SAVANNAH RIVER
(AUGUSTA TO SAVANNAH) 1970—1971
Hg g/g
SPECIES
NO.OF
SAMPLES RANGE
MEAN
STANDARD
DEVIATION
LargemoUth Bass
38 0.15—5.4
1.51
0.92
Striped Bass
0.34—1.01
0.70
White Bass
1
0.54
*
Chain pickerel
5 0.76—2.4
1.61
*
yellow Perch
11 0.58—4.00
1.35
1.33
Black Crappie
7 0.66—1.4
1.00
*
White Crappie
8 0.27—1.59
0.86
Bowf in
3 2.03—5.71
3.48
*
Channel Catfish
10 0.83—1.87
1.17
0.31
white Catfish
2 1.00—1.59
1.30
*
Brown Bullhead
3 0.23—0.51
0.38
*
Bluegill
16 0.06—1.23
0.50
0.26
She l lcracker
21 0.3—2.6
0.96
0.69
gedbreast Sunfish
13 0.26—1.06
0.60
0.26
Round Flier
1
0.45
*
Spatted Sucker
34 0.28—2.29
1.31
0.56
RedbOrBe Sucker
5 0.60—1.60
1.35
*
Carp
18 0.22—1.2
0.71
0.29,
American Shad
15 0.08—.96
0.23
0.29
Gizzard Shad
i e less than 10 samples
the standard deviation was
21 0.03—.96
were analyzed over
not determined.
0.38
the 1—year
0.25
period,
203
-------
TABLE 37 (contInued)
NO. OF STANDARD
SPECIES SAMPLES RANGE MEAN DEVIATION
Mullet 16 O.06—.32 0.17 0.10
Channel Bass 1 1.00 *
*Where less than 10 samples were analyzed over the 1—year period,
the standard deviation was not determined.
204
-------
It should be noted here that the mean mercury reported as
1.5 g/g in largemouth bass for example, is not entirely representa-
tive of a true mean. This is so because the values from the 38
samples that were used to compute the mean were not all done by the
same laboratory. Instead it represents a mean from a mix of values
from the three laboratories. While one laboratory might determine
mercury in largemouth bass on a given batch of samples, the others did
not, and no one laboratory performed all the analyses. This fault is
significant because where values were submittedby all three laboratories,
they do not show a close degree of agreement. Despite this statis-
tical limitation the mean value signifies the importance of the level
of mercury found in these species. This technique of averaging was
used throughout Table 7.
3. Savannah Estuarine Area
This area was investigated in August 1970. Five stations
were selected representing the coastal waters of the Savannah,
Georgia area from the mouth of Savannah Harbor to the south end of
Wassaw Sound. Sixty—two organisms from nine species were collected.
Shrimp, blue crab, flounder and eastern oysters were the
predominant species collected. The mean concentrations of mercury
in these species were less than the 05 pg/g FDA limit (Table 38).
205
-------
TABLE 38
MERCURY DETERMINATIONS IN BIOTA
FROM THE SAVANNAH ESTUARINE AREA
(19 70—19 71)
Hg g/g
NO. OF STANDARD
SPECIES SAMPLES RANGE MEAN DEVIATION
Shrimp 13 0.16 0.14
Blue Crab 15 0.43 0.22
Flounder 10 0.25 0.17
Spot 4 0.10—0.14 0.17 *
Speckled Trout 1 0.32 *
Weakfish 1 0.61 *
Mullet 3 0.10—0.17 0.10 *
Sea Catfish 3 0.19—0.83 0.42 *
Eastern Oyster 12 0.17 0.14
*Where less than 10 samples were analyzed over the 1—year period,
the standard deviation was not determined.
206
-------
4. Georgia Coast
This area was exclusive of the Brunswick area and Savannah
estuary. It was investigated from July 1970. Eleven stations in six
coastal areas were sampled and 174 organisms were collected. This
collection included seven species. Blue crab, shrimp, flounder and
spot were the predominant species collected.
Mercury concentrations in the biota in this region of
the Georgia coast were very low. The mercury found in these crabs was
the highest with an average of 0.14 g/g as shown in Table 39.
5. Brunswick Area
Sampling was done in this area eight times between July
1970 and August 1971. From one to twelve stations were sampled on each
date, and the samples ranged from aquatic biota to bottom sediments.
Two hundred and eighty—two fish, crabs, and shellfish
were collected and represented 16 species. The predominant species
collected in the Brunswick area were the same as those collected from
the remainder of the Georgia Coast, namely; shrimp, blue crab, spot
and flounder. A summary of the data is shown in Table 40. Mercury
concentrations in the biota appear to have decreased during the
survey period. The average mercury concentration in blue crabs
collected initially at four stations was 1.09 }L /g. The average
at the last sampling from the same stations was 0.56 g/g.
The results from the first phase of the investigation brought
207
-------
TABLE 3:9
ME1 CURY DETERMINATIONS IN BIOTA FROM THE
GEORGIA COAST EXCLUSIVE OF THE BRUNSWICK
AREA AND SAVANNAH ESTUARINE AREA (1970—1971)
Hg .igm/gm
NO. OF STANDARD
SPECIES SAMPLES RANGE MEAN DEVIATION
Shrinip 31 0.02—0.33 0.06 0.06
Blue Crab 22 0.05—1.6 0.14 0.17
Flounder 7 0.03—0.17 0.10 *
Spot 11 0.03—0.14 0.08 0.03
Speckled Trout 1 0.48 *
Weakfish 2 0.07—0.08 0.075 *
Hog Choker 1 0.05 *
*Where the number of samples analyzed was less than 10 per species
for the period, no calculation was done for the standard deviation.
208
-------
TABLE 40
MERCURY DETERMINATIONS IN BIOTA FROM
TIlE BRUNSWICK AREA (1970—1971)
Hg 1 . g/g
NO. OF STANDARD
SPECIES SAMPLES RAI GE MEAN DEVIATION
Shrimp 76 0.03—1.31 0.26 0.23
Blue Crab 104 0.07—4.18 0.94 0.75
Speckled Trout 11 0.12—1.72 0.64 0.57
Weakfi sh 3 0.81—1.66 *
Spot 28 0.04—1.31 0.30 0.31
Drt 4 0.39—3.41 *
Flounder 16 0.03—2.85 0.63 0.52
Shad “type” 2 0.04—.05 *
Butterfish 4 0.04—.14 *
Sea Catfish 5 0.58—1.15 *
Croaker 14 0.05—1.2 0.45 0.42
Hog Choker 1 0.60 *
gpadefish 1 0.34 *
Eastern Oyster 14 0.03—.94 0.21 0.26
Mullet 1 0.05 *
Grunt 1 0.30 *
*Ijhere less than 10 samples were analyzed over the 1—year period,
the standard deviation was not determined.
209
-------
about the recommendation that fish and crabs should not be taken
from the Brunswick area and fishing and crabbing was subsequently
banned. Later as the levels decreased the ban was lifted and a warning
was instituted against consumption of excessive quantities of fish
and crabs from the area. Bottom samples from the Brunswick Area
and the Savannah River were also analyzed and presented for the
period July 1970 through March 1971. TWenty—nine samples were done
from the Brunswick Area with a mean concentration of 0.42 }.ig/gm
mercury. For the Savannah River 31 samples were analyzed and yielded
a mean value of 0.15 g/g mercury. These values are shown in
Table 41 along with the range and standard deviation. The
individual values over the period show a decline in the level of
mercury in sediments.
TABLE 41.
MERCURY DETERMINATION IN SEDIMENTS 1970—1971
NO. OF STANDARD
SOURCE SAMPLES RANGE MEAN DEVIATION
Brunswick Area 29 0.04—1.90 0.42 0.52
Savannah River 31 0.04—0.60 0.15 0.14
210
-------
CONCLUS ION
1. The results of the investigation show that mercury pollution
is a result of waste from two mercury—cell—type chior—alkali plants.
The pollution is localized to the water systems receiving the
wastes from these plants. Both companies* involved were directed to
reduce mercury discharges to less than 0.25 lbs per day, and to
continue a program which would eventually eliminate mercury concen-
trations in their discharges.
2. Mercury in excess of 0.5 i g/g was found consistently in the
biota of the Savannah River (Augusta to Savannah). The data did not
indicate a reduction of mercury concentration in the biota of this
section of the river during the period of the study. For this reason
fj that were caught were deemed unfit for human consumption with
the exception of the American shad which showed levels consistently
below the maximum acceptable level of 0.5 g/g.
3. In the Brunswick Area, mercury concentrations were generally
greater than 0.5 g/g in blue crab, speckled trout, and flounder,
but showed a decreasing trend over the period of the study. Although
the ban on fishing and crabbing was lifted, the public was warned
not to eat excessive amounts of fish and crab caught in the area.
4. Mercury was detected in areas with no known mercury discharge
in a few fish at greater than 0.5 &g/g. This pollution could result
from sources such as the weathering of rocks, fall—out from air
1 , 0 j].ution, and runoff from agricultural areas.
*oljn Corporation and Allied Chemical Corp.
211
-------
5. The mercury concentrations found tn organisms was generally
directly proportional to size.
6. Piscivorous fish (species that eat other fishes) were
found to contain higher concentrations of mercury then insectivorous
species as well as those that fed on plankton. However suckers
were generally found to contain levels of mercury comparable to the
piscivorous species.
212
-------
3.2 Georgia Department of Natural Resources:
Environmental Protection Division
A three—volume report, Water Quality Monitoring Data for Georgia
streama 1973, was published in 1973 containing the data generated
froa a monitoring program of the streams in the state of Georgia
hich began in 1964. This was a comprehensive report and was the
second in a series which sought to compile all the data collected
roughout the state in one publication. In addition 4 the 1973
report contained biological data for the first time as well as that
for the physical and chemical characteristics. The data was
deriVed from analyses of samples from 179 permanent stations of which
39 are regarded as key or primary stations. The Georgia report deals
only with freshwater streams. Data on estuaries and major reservoirs
is to be published in separate reports in the future.
Fifteen river basins were monitored and analyses were performed
— a wide range of water quality parameters. Frequency of sampling
generally monthly but some stations were sampled quarterly and
055 j_annually for special studies. Metals, including chromium,
arsenic, lead, cadmium and mercury were determined for samples from
y of the monthly stations.
The values reported show all these substances to be below levels
of detection and thus not of any significance as components of
pullutinS wastes. Figure 5Ois illustrative of the type of data
presented.
213
-------
STATION 1207000
LOCATION: CHATTAHOOCHEE RIVER — COBB COUNTY WATER INTAKE
STREAM CLASSIFICATION: DRINKING WATER
TYPE OF STATION: ROUTINE’ KEY
PERIOD OF RECORD: 02/01/68 TO DATE
SAMPLING FREQUENCY: MONTHLY
COOPERATING AGENCY: ATLANTA WATER WORKS
COMMENTS: THIS STATION WAS SELECTED TO MONITOR FOR
COMPLIANCE WITH THE DRINKING WATER CRITERIA.
Mnn /1 0.14
Cr m/1 <0.05
Zn n /1 <0.05
Cu n /1 <0.05
Ni im/1 <0.2
m/1 <0.05
Ba xw/1 -
As pg/i <5
Pb pg/i <10
Cd pg/i <5
I pg/i <0.2
FIGURE 50
SAMPLE OF GEORGIA WATER QUALITY MONITORING DATA
214
-------
Sediment samples were collected from most of the key or
primary stations in 1973 and analyzed for metals and PCB’s.
Substances detected were chromium, lead, cadmium, mercury and
PCB’ a.
A breakdown of the data from the analyses shows that definite
values for PCB were obtained from 15 of the 39 stations and
represented 11 of the 22 river basins. The average value from the
15 stations is 288.9 pg/kg of PCB(Table42).• Eight of the individual
values ranged from 9 to 57 pg/kg while seven ranged from 180 to 1800
pg/kg. The largest concentrations were 1800 and 930 tg/g from the
Cooaa River. High levels —— 260, 200 and 180 pg/kg were also
reported for the Chattahoochee River. The source of the PCB
contamination has been traced to the General Electric Plant in the
area.
The sediment samples from 25 stations within 16 river basins
also showed a significant concentration of chromium ranging from
6 to 81 pg/kg with an average of 17.72 i.g/kg; lead ranged between
50 and 191 ig/kg; one station showed cadmium.at a level of 7 mg/kg,
while 10 stations had mercury ranging from 0.13 to 0.74 8 mg/kg for
an average of 0.28 mg/kg. The remaining stations from which no
definite values were reported indicated the presence of the five
toxic substances mentioned, but at concentrations which were below
detection points. Table 4i displays the detection limits.
215
-------
TABLE 42
TOXIC SUBSTANCES
DETEBMINATION IN SEDIMENTS
FROM ELEVEN RIVER BASINS 1973
TOXIC NO. OF .i .gm/k.gm STANDAPJ )
SUBSTANCE SAMPLES RANGE MEAN DEVIATION
PCB 15 9—1800 288.9 •486.3
Chromium 25 6—81 17.7 17.9
Lead 3 50—191 97.0 *
Mercury 10 0.13—0.74 0.28 2.6
Cadmium 1 7.0 *
*For less than 10 samples, no calculation was made for the
standard deviation.
216
-------
TABLE 43
DETECTION LIMITS FOR FIVE TOXIC SUBSTANCES
IN GEORGIA*
TOXIC SUBSTANCE LIMITS
Cd 5 mg/kg
Cr 5 mg/kg
li.g 0.1 mg/kg
Pb 50 rug/kg
PCB 6 pg/kg
iorgia, DNR
217
-------
3.3 Game and Fish Division, Department of Natural Resources
Mercury contamination of Georgia Rails was studied in a
report presented to the Southeastern Association of Game and Fish
Commissioners, White Sulphur Springs, West Virginia, November 1974.
Ninety—four specimens of rails (marsh birds hunted by sports—
men each fall), crabs, and snails collected at ten separate locations
along the Georgia Coast between October 1971 and September 1973 were
analyzed for residual mercury. The monitoring program wh1ch took
place previously, between 1970 and 1971, was restricted to fish,
crabs, shrimp and shellfish with no attempt to monitor levels in
marsh birds or mammals within the contaminated area. Birds and
mammals were present in large numbers and were an integral part of
the salt marsh ecosystem. Hence, the desirability to investigate
these birds and their food chain for mercury accumulation was evident.
In the first phase, a total of 62 rails, 12 snails, and 7 crabs
from the ten stations were collected. The rail samples consisted
of breast tissue, livers, feathers, beaks, eggs, and egg shells.
Most specimens were collected in the Turtle River — Brunswick River
Area, which was known to be heavily polluted with mercury. The
initial collections were made in the Turtle River Marsh adjacent
to Allied Chemical Plant at Brunswick in October, 1971. Seven
rails, three snails, and one fiddler crab were collected at that time.
Specimens were dissected on the same day with samples of breast muscle
and liver being taken from each bird and frozen in the field prior
218
-------
to shipment to the laboratory in Atlanta.
A second set of specimens was collected between 15 February
and 3 September 1973 at various locations along the Georgia Coast.
This collection consisted of 65 rails, 6 snails, 3 square—back crabs
and 3 fiddler crabs. All specimens were frozen upon return to the
laboratory to be dissected later while they were partially frozen
to avoid water loss from the tissues. Only the breast tissue from
the rails was analyzed as priority in view of its potential as a
health hazard through human consumption.
Results and Discussion
The results for the analyses are presented in Table 44. Six
samples were done in 1971 on rail breast and liver tissue and
resulted in mean values of 2.93 ppm and 5.38 ppm respectively.
The data shown in Table 44 came from chemical analyses of
samples taken during 1973. The Table reveals that 63 breast samples
were analyzed, 29 liver samples and 19 samples of food specimen
(rail’s food). The values in all three categories varied widely but
show a substantial accumulation of mercury. The food specimens ——
crabs and snails, show the highest level of mercury with a mean
value of 2.05 ppm and also the highest individual value of 16.8 ppm
mercury.
219
-------
TABLE 44
MERCURY CONCENTRATION IN GEORGIA RAILS
AND RAIL FOOD (ppm wet weIght) 1973
NO. OF STANDARD
SAMPLES SAMPLES RANGE MEAN DEVIATION
Rails (breast tissue) 63 0.01—9.45 1.72 1.91
Rails (LLver) 29 0.33—12.08 1.70 244
Rail Foods 19 0.12—16.80 2.05 370
220
-------
3.4 Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife
The Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife reported results of
chemical analyses of samples of fish from the Savannah River and
Altamaha River. Table 45 shows the breakdown of the data. Three
species, catfish, largemouth bass, and bluegill were sampled and
analyzed on a very limted basis for four of the toxic substances,
arsenic, cadmium, mercury and lead. While this sampling was
obviously too sparse to indicate any distribution or trend, data
shows generally that values for all four substances were low in this
series of tests. The highest value was 0.6 ppm mercury determined
in largemouth bass taken from the Savannah River.
221
-------
TABLE 45
TOXIC SUBSTANCES DETERMINATION IN
FISH FROM THE SAVANNAH RIVER 1971
(ppm)
TOXIC NO. OF
SPECIES SUBSTANCES SAMPLES RANGE MEAN
Catfish Arsenic 1 0.01 o.oi
Cadmium 2 0.05 0.05
Mercury 2 0.01—0.36 0.37
Lead 2 0.10—0.14 0.12
Largemouth Bass Arsenic 1 0.06 0.06
Cadmium 2 0.05—0.05 0.05
Mercury 2 0.34—0.60 0.47
Lead 2 0.10—0.10 0.10
Bluegill Arsenic 1 0.06 0.06
Cadmium 2 0.05—0.50 0.28
Lead 2 0.10—0.21 0.16
Mercury 2 0.10—0.44 0.27
222
-------
TABLE 45 (continued)
TOXIC SUBSTANCES DETERMINATION IN
FISH FROM THE ALTAMAHA RIVER (Among the 7 River Basins)
TOXIC NO. OF
SPECIES SUBSTANCES SAMPLES RANGE MEAN
Largemouth Bass Arsenic 2 0.02—0.03 0.03
Cadmium 1 0.05 0.05
Lead 1 0.10 0.10
Mercury 2 0.40 0.40
Spotted Sucker Arsenic 2 0.06 0.06
Cadmium 2 0.10—0.12 0.11
Lead 1 0.16 0.16
Mercury 2 0.22—0.23 0.23
Bluegill Arsenic 2 0.09 0.09
Cadmium
Lead
Mercury 2 0.12 0.12
223
-------
Tables 46 through 50 show mercury determination in Biota from the
surface water systems of Georgia for 1971—1974. Tables 46 and 47
represent data for 1971 for the Savannah River and the Brunswick
Area. The concentrations of mercury found in both of these rivers
were substantial with the highest values of 5.4 kg/gm in largeinouth
bass and 5.71 in bowfin (Table 46). The levels in the Brunswick Area
were somewhat lower with the highest, 2.8 1.lg/gm found in the
yellow tail perch (Table 47).
The 1972 data for samples from the Savannah River continued to
show high levels of mercury for most species. The ranges for
species like largemouth bass and spotted sucker increased over 1971,
while species like yellow perch and striped bass decreased from the
1971 level (Table 48 vs Table 46). Mercury determined in tissue from
the Brunswick Area are also high in 1972 and in most of the cases
where similar species were tested in 1971 and 1972. The levels
have shown increases in the upper limits of the range of values.
The mercury levels in six species were above the US—FDA 0.5 p.gm/gm
limit (Table 49): as judged by the upper limits. However, only
two species of crab showed mean concentrations above 0.5 ugm/gtn.
The 1973 and 1974 data, Table 50, show that the species that
were analyzed for mercury continue to display high levels of the
substance. For example, in 1973, 11 of the 14 species had a mean
mercury level above 0.5 Jgm/gm with values as high as 2.5 pgm/gm
for the shelicracker for which 19 samples were analyzed (Table 50).
224
-------
TABLE 46
MERCURY DETERMINATION IN BIOTA
FROM THE SAVANNAH RIVER 1971 ( 1 j.g/g)
NO. OF STANDARD
SPECIES SAMPLES RANGE MEAN DEVIATION
LargemOuth Bass 21 0.44—5.40 1.55 1.08
Yellow Perch 13 0.54—4.00 1.3 1.28
Mullet 10 O.04.95 0.18 0.28
Bluegill 5 0.25—1.25 0.59 *
Redbreast 11 0.26—1.06 0.53 0.24
Spotted Sucker 14 0.28—1.45 0.85 0.41
Black Crappie 10 0.66—1.40 1.07 0.27
Carp 7 0.47—. 89 0.58 *
American Shad 1 O.09—.09 0.09 *
Striped Bass 5 0.34—.90 0.60 *
White Bass 1 0.54—54 0.54 *
ShelicraCker 15 0.39—2.6 1.20 0.61
Redhorse Sucker 4 1.25—2.0 1.54 *
Brown Bullhead 3 0.23—.51 0.38 *
channel Catfish 10 0.83—1.87 1.12 0.32
channel Bass 2 1.0—1.0 1.00 *
chain Pickerel 5 0.76—2.4 1.61 *
Bowfifl 3 2.7—5.71 3.70 *
Round Flier 1 O.45—.45 0.45 *
White C rappie 2 0.27—.43 0.35 *
or less than 10 samples, no calculation was made for the
standard deviation.
225
-------
TABLE 4 7
MERCURY DETERMINATION IN BIOTA
FROM THE BRUNSWICK AREA 1971 ( /g)
NO. OP STANDARD
SPECIES SAMPLES RANGE MEAN DEVIATION
Sea Cat 4 0.89—1.09 1.00
Blue Crab 39 0.11—4.50 1.04 0.98
Shrimp 17 0.09—0.34 .27 0.13
Croker 13 0.05—1.20 .42 0.39
Drum 1 1.8—1.80 1.80 *
Speckled Trout 1 0.46—0.46 0.46 *
Flounder 1 0.7—0.70 0.70 *
Sheepshead 1 0.64—0.64 0.64 *
Summer Trout 2 0.28—0.37 0.33 *
Grunt 1 0.74—0.74 0.74 *
Black Drum 2 1.0—1.00 1.00 *
White Shrimp 7 0.11—0.53 0.35 *
Spot 3 0.06—0.09 0.08 *
Silver Perch 7 0.15—2.80 1.57 *
(Yellow Tail)
*For less than 10 samples, no calculation was made for the
standard deviation.
226
-------
TABLE 48
MERCURY DETERMINATION IN BIOTA
FROM THE SAVANNAH RIVER 1972 ( i.g/g)
NO. OF STANDARD
SPECIES SAMPLES RANGE MEAN DEVIATION
Chain Pickerel 20 0.25—1.60 0.85 0.37
Bowfin 4 0.80—1.20 0.92 *
Spotted Sucker 22 0.12—2.00 0.84 .0.57
Shell Cracker 5 0.21—3.20 0.90 *
R .edbreast 11 0.18—0.54 0.33 0.12
Bluegill 14 0.10—0.98 0.37 0.25
Redear Sunfish 11 0.17—0.64 0.37 0.31
Chub Sucker 2 0.21—0.25 0.23 *
Largemouth Bass 19 0.13—6.00 1.66 1.18
Blue Back Herring 2 0.11—0.12 0.12 *
Carp 12 0.53—1.20 0.84 0.22
Gizzard Shad 6 0.08—0.17 0.11 *
Yellow Perch 1 0.20—0.20 0.20 *
Striped Bass 4 0.55—0.80 0.63 *
Channel Catfish 1 1.10—1.10 1.10 *
White Catfish 2 1.40—1.50 1.45 *
*For less than 10 samples, no calculation was made for the
Standard Deviation.
227
-------
TABLE 49
MERCURY DETERMINATION IN BIOTA
FROM THE BRUNSWICK AREA 1972 ( g/g)
NO. OF STANDARj
SPECIES SAMPLES RANGE MEAN DEVIATION
Blue Crab 32 0.16—1.80 0.81 0.46
Shrimp 28 0.05—0.42 0.21 0.13
Croaker 11 0.06—1.50 0.24 0.42
Rock Sea Bass 2 0.39—0.40 0.39 *
White Shrimp 12 0.05—0.22 0.13 0.05
Black Sea Bass 1 0.15—0.15 0.15 *
Spot 11 0.05—0.84 0.15 0.23
Crab 20 0.18—3.60 1.79 1.14
Brown Shrimp 3 0.06—0.17 0.11 *
Yellow Tail 11 0.08—1.60 0.76 0.42
Menhaden 3 0.15-0.17 0.17 *
Summer Trout 3 0.13—0.64 0.31 *
Whiting 2 0.11-0.12 0.12 *
Sea Trout 1 0.29-0.29 0.29 *
*For less than 10 samples, no calculation was made for the
Standard Deviation.
228
-------
TABLE 50
MERCURY DETERMINATION IN BIOTA
FROM THE SAVANNAH RIVER 1973 - 1974
Hg .igfg
1973
NO. OF STANDARD
SPECIES SAMPLES RANGE MEAN DEVIATION
Bluegill 7 0.08—0.26 0.21 *
Redbreast 10 0.12—1.70 0.76 0.59
Largemouth Bass 31 0.47—2.90 1.16 0.55
Chain Pickerel 10 0.18—1.90 0.97 0.26
Carp 18 0.13—1.21 o. 0.29
Spotted Sucker 11 0.18—1.40 0.70 0.35
Carp Sucker 2 0.42—0.46 0.44 *
Flyer Bream 1 0.82—0.82 0.82 *
yellow Perch 3 0.40—0.88 0.58 *
Blue Crappie 3 0.96—0.98 0.97 *
Sucker 8 0.17—2.50 120 *
Shelicracker 19 0.18—1.30 0.54 0.33
Striped Bass 3 0.38—0.48 0.42 *
Red Horse Sucker 4 0.31—1.10 0.85 *
bere number of samples analyzed were less than 10, the standard
deviation was not calculated.
229
-------
TABLE 50 (continued)
1974
NO. OF STANDARD
SPECIES SAMPLES RANGE MEAN DEVIATION
Jack 2 0.38—0.96 0.67 *
Largeniouth Bass 18 0.32—2.40 1.35 0.57
Redear 2 0.75—0.82 0.79 *
Warmouth 1 0.49—0.49 0.49 *
Redbreast 12 0.24—1.90 0.66 0.48
Spotted Sucker 9 0.32—1.80 1.16 *
Shell Cracker 10 0.27—1.20 0.65 0.28
Sucker 3 1.10—1.15 1.27 *
Carp 9 0.48—2.20 0.92 *
Chain Pickerel 7 0.25—1.50 0.86 *
Blue Gill 2 0.67—0.77 0.72 *
Red Horse Sucker 5 0.31—1.80 1.13 *
Bowfin 2 1.30—1.70 1.50 *
*Where number of samples analyzed were less than 10, the standard
deviation was not calculated.
230
-------
Overall, the survey for mercury over the four—year period
revealed no consistent decreasing pattern in the fish analyzed. An
examinat ion of the mean values for those species that were common
to the analysis each year from the Savannah River illustrates this
point (Table 51). Only three species, bluegill, shelicracker, and
spotted sucker consistently decreased between 1971 and 1973, but
then the values rose again in 1974. Three species, largemouth
bass, chain pickerel and bowfin had less mercury in 1974 than in
1973, while four species, bluegill, redbreast, sunfish carp,and
spotted sucker had more mercury than in 1971.
That there was not a definite consistent decrease in mercury
level is somewhat puzzling in view of the fact that the concentration
of the metal in the effluent from the primary dischargers decreased
substantially. Table 52 shows the drop in mercury levels in the
wastes of the Allied Chemical Corporation and Olin Corporation.
prior to 1970 and June of 1972 there was a reduction from 3 to 0.13
and 10 to 0.04 lb per day respectively. In spite of these major
reductions in mercury in the waste, there were no remarkable
differences in levels from the biota of the water systems. This
could be a result of residuals in the bottom layers of the waters
and probable resuspension of previously deposited insoluble mercury.
231
-------
TABLE 51
MEAN CONCENTRATION OF MERCURY
THE SAVANNAH RIVER 1971—1974 ( 1 ig/g)
SPECIES 1971 1972 1973 1974
Largeinouth Bass 1.55 1.66 1.16 1.34
Bluegill 0.59 0.37 0.21 0.72
Chain Pickerel 1.61 0.85 0.97 0.86
Redbreast Sunfish 0.53 0.33 0.70 0.66
Carp 0.58 0.84 0.78 0.92
Yellow Perch 1.35 0.20 0.58
Bowfin 3.70 0.92 1.50
Spotted Sucker 0.85 0.84 0.70 1.16
Striped Bass 0.60 0.63 0.42
Shelicracker 1.20 0.90 0.54 0.65
232
-------
TABLE 52
GEORGIA MERCURY DISCHARGERS*
DATE ALLIED CHEMICAL CORP. OLIN CORPORATION
BRUNSWICK AUGUSTA
pounds/day pounds/day
PRIOR TO
.iAY 1970 approx. 3.0 approx 10.0
June 1970 1.03 1.50
December 1970 0.14 0.21
June 1971 0.14 0.10
December 1971 0.10
June 1972 0.13 0.04
*Georgia DNR — Environmental Protection Divi8iou
233
-------
3.5 Georgia Department of Agriculture
One area in which the Georgia Department of Agriculture supplied
a significant amount of data was in the area of PCB contamination.
In 1970 there was a major incident where PCB’s got into feed used by
chick.en farmers in a several—state region. A number of chicks died,
and the thin eggshell effect was threatening the livelihood of a
large number of farmers. At the time, the Georgia Department of
Agriculture was one of the few agencies in the region experienced
in PCB analysis, and since the Georgia laboratory was equipped for
PCB analysis, the U.S.D.A. and F.D.A. enlisted Georgia’s support
in analyzing chickens and eggs for possible contamination. For a
period of several months the pesticides—residue laboratory concentrated
on PCB’s and accumulated a large amount of data. This data was
received by MITRE and analyzed. Tables 53, 54 , and 55 show
the PCB data on various types of poultry farm media broken down
into categories of AROCLOR 1242, AROCLOR 1254, AROCLOR 1260, and
general PCB. As is evident from the tables, the bulk of the PCB
study effort took place in 1971. It is the case that for the
different types of FCB compounds calculated for the study effort,
the values were consistently high in silage and in various types of
poultry feed. These high values are consistently reflected in the
animal tissue, eggs, and milk values as shown in the tables. The
highest incidence of PCB contamination was an isolated case in 1971
where nesting material (shredded IBM paper) was found to have
32,000 ppm of AROCLOR 1242.
234
-------
TABLE 53
GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
PCB CONTAMINATION STUDY — PCB’s (ppm)
AROCLOR 1242
NO. OF
SAMPLE MATERIAL SAMPLES RANGE MEAN STANDARD DEVIATION
1971
FEEDS 31 0.1 — 594 29.66 111.13
BLOOD SERUM 2 0.1 — 0.6 0.35
TISSUE 2 0.3 — 20.6 10.45
LIVER 5 0.01 — 12 2.41
WATER 1 0.01 — 0.01 0.01
POULTRY FAT 14 0.2 — 32.4 13.03 12.84
EGGS 19 0.1 — 31.0 3.27 6.79
IBM PAPER (Nesting 1 32000 32000 32000
Material)
STABILIZER 3 0.1 — 0.1 0.1
POULTRY BY—PRODUCTS 5 0.1 — 0.1 0.1
CHICKEN CARCASS 1 0.3 — 0.3 0.3
1972
CHICKEN FAT 4 0.1 — 2.1 0.69
EGGS 1 0.1 — 0.1 0.1
1974
SOYNEAL 1 0.39 — 0.39 0 • 39
COMPOST 1 2.13 — 2.13 2.13
-------
TABLE 54
GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
PCB CONTAMINATION STUDY — PC ’s (ppm)
AROCLOR 1254
NO. OF
SAMPLE MATERIAL SAMPLES RANGE MEAN STANDARD DEVIATION
1971
SILAGE 2 0.33—4100 2050.17
MILK 3 1.3 — 4.9 2.94
CHICKEN CARCASSES 1 1.0 — 1.0 1.0
1972
SILAGE 15 0.37—6500 1118.95 2089.27
MILK 25 0—16.3 5.27 4.04
CHICKEN FAT 1 0.83— 0.83 0.83 ——
1’) FEED 1 0.05— 0.05 0.05
C’
1973
MILK 6 1.31— 4.78 3.57
SILAGE 5 3.47—7500 1829.4
GROUND BEEF 1 0.5 — 0.5 0.5
AROCULOR 1260
1974
TEA 1 40—40 40
-------
TABLE 55
GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
PCB CONTAMINATION STUDY — PCB’ s (ppm)
NO. OP
SAMPLE MATERIAL SAMPLES RANGE MEAN STANDARD DEVIATION
1971
SILAGE 1 0.10—0.10 0.1
MILK 5 1.70—11.70 5.48
POULTRY FAT 86 0.10—41.20 4.82 7.33
EGGS 86 0.10—0.98 0.231 .289
ROOSTER TISSUE 1 0.56—0.56 0.56
FEEDS 17 0.10—1700 104.6 411.4
CATFISH 1 0.10—0.10 0.1
CHICKEN LITTER 3 0.33—0.57 0.48
POULTRY BY—PRODUCTS 7 0.10—0.10 0.1
FIBERGLASS BIN USED
FOR CHICKEN NESTING 1 0 0
1972
MILK 25 0.00—3.10 0.336 .743
FEED 4 0 0
EGGS 2 0.00—0.10 0.05
SILA E 2 0 0
POULTRY FAT 5 1.00—2.52 1.58
1973
MILK 1 1.44—1.44 1.44
SILAGE 1 0 0
1974
SILAGE 1 0 0
LATEX 1 0 0
-------
3.6 Georgia Air Sampling Network
The state of Georgia’s Air Monitoring Network consists of a
total of 50 sites. Various sampling techniques and methods are used
at these sites, although high volume particulate sampling is the
most prevalent. Of the 50 sites, 44 conduct Hi—Vol sampling. MITRE
received HI—Vol data for 13 sites for the years 1970 through 1973,
and processed the air data from 1971—1973. The only toxic substance
checked in the filter analysis was lead.
An example of the air data as received from Georgia appears
as Figure 51. ThIs data was coded on SAROAD Monthly Composite Data
forms, keypunched, and processed with a statistical program to
produce the desired data parameters. The Georgia data Is presented
in Appendix A in its final computer printout form.
238
-------
FEBRUARY
MARCH
UI\RTLRLY
o : pos I TE
(;LoN(;II / IU Si !.iL]l: : J.
AIR Qi Ji 1• Y IV/’LU ’i ii: : [ _I :’. CC
yI 1 R1 ¶J73
UI Nil
50 1_FIB IFS
TtIEIiS - CLARKE COUUTY
FIGURE 51
GEORGIA AIR SAMPLING NETWORK DATA
239
MON TI
SUSF [ I:D [ D PAUl I [ UI 1.1 C ANALYSES
DAY lINT] Clii Al F:,
ug/m 3
11)1
ElI,
2.0
GASI (INS ANAl. VS V S
8 15
21
22
fl4
1107,
I)i’I1
507,
F_ i)Ifl*
.
42
5
31
29
‘ii :
TI)
0.3
TIITI
4.0
0.9 4.0
r=
-ii---
L .L J
: T
T
ET
i
::T
TI
MAY
j_
16
64.
_
0.7
_
3.0
.
,.
.
JUNE
_]2 __
21
34
0.6
.———
QUARTERLY
-
COMPOSITE.
Lv
•
3
0.5,
.3.O
—
15
43
0.5
27
37
.
.
sT
8
0.9
21
69
4.4
-__
SEPTEF BER
4
.
.
13
33
0.6
.
QUARTERLY
Po IT E
.
9 _
.
._
* [ stir. Icd 1i ure - No CFII on data card
* UG/il — ‘licrw.jr inis per cubic ueter
PPI’I Parts P r M i 11 ion
-------
3.7 City of Atlanta—Department of Waterworks—Water Treatment Divisj 0
MITRE received a brief summary of concentrations and related
analytical data for eight chemical constituents; cadmium, chromium,
cyanide, arsenic, lead, mercury, beryllium, and PCB’s.
Cadmium, chromium, and lead are determined by atomic absorption
spectrophotometry. These analyses are performed on weekly composite
samples. The minimum detectable limit is 5 ppb.
Cyanide determinations are performed by either distillation or
specific ion electrode. The electrode method is used for
analysis of a weekly composite sample, with a minimum detectable
limit of 0.01 ppm.
Arsenic determinations are performed by the diethyldithiocar—
batnate method. Analysis is done on a weekly composite sample with
a minimum detectability limit of 0.03 ppm.
Mercury analysis is performed daily using the Coleman mercury
analyzer, which is an emission technique. Minimum detectable limits
are 0.1 ppb.
At the present time analyses are not performed for beryllium,
although it will be done in the near future using AAS.
PCB analysis is not done at this time because of the lack of a
gas chroniatograph equipped with an electron capture detector.
Analytical results of the most recent data available through
the Department of Waterworks——Water Treatment Division, is shown in
Table 56. As can be seen from this table, there are no areas j
240
-------
which the Atlanta river water or tap water is in violation of the
current standards.
CITY
RIVER AND
TABLE 56
OF ATLANTA
TAP WATER ANALYSIS
ELEMENT
Cadmium
Chromium
Lead
Cyanide
Arsenic
Mercury
Beryllium
PCB
STANDARD
<0.01 ppm
<0.05 ppm
‘ O.05 ppm
0.2 ppm
<0.05 ppm
<0.002 ppm
N. A.*
N. A.*
RIVER WATER
<0.01. ppm
<0.01 ppm
<0.01 ppm
<0.01 ppm
<0.03 ppm
:o.i .ppb
N. D.**
N. D.**
TAP WATER
0.01 ppm
0.01 ppm
0.01 ppm
0.01 ppm
0.03 ppm
0.1 ppb
N. D.**
N. D.**
* Not Applicable
** Not Determined
241
-------
4 • 0 TEXAS AGENCY DATA ANALYS IS
4.1 Texas State Department of Health
OrganochiOritte pesticide residue levels were determined in
221 samples of human adipose tissue from elective surgery in 1969—72
in the lower Rio Grande Valley of Texas. Standard electron capture —
gas — liquid chromatographic methods were used. PCB’s were detected
in 15 samples in 1971 but none were detected in the other 3 years.
The type of surgery from which adipose samples were drawn is
shown in Table 5’T. The proportion of lipid in the samples averaged
77.2 percent. There was no correlation between age and pesticide
residues; almost all tissue samples were from adults.
The detection of PCB’s is detailed in Table 58; surprisingly,
these residues appeared only during 1971. This group of 13 people,
compared to people not having PCB’s, did not differ significantly
in sex, ethnic background, sample storage time, surgical procedure
or level of pesticide residues; but they were slightly older:
62.5 years vs 51.5 years.
4.1.1 Texas State Department of Health — Division of Shellfj 8
Sanitation Control
MITRE received data from the survey on metals in seafood conducted
by the Division of Shellfish Sanitation Control. This agency monitors
shellfish, primarily oysters, along the Texas coast for bacterio logjcaj
parameters and some select heavy metals. This data is entered into a
data processing system which is maintained by this agency. Tables
60, 61, and 62 display the values calculated for chromium, arsenic,
242
-------
TABLE 57*
CLASSIFICATION OF ELECTIVE SURGERY
SUPPLYING ADIPOSE TISSUE — TEXAS, 1969—72
INGUINAL HERNIA 44%
UMBILICAL HERNIA 27%
INCISIONAL HERNIA 13%
HERNIA, OTHER 4%
LIPOMA 6%
OTHER TYPES OF SURGERY 6%
100%
TABLE 58
PCB’s IN HUMAN ADIPOSE TISSUE FROM
ELECTIVE SURGERY — TEXAS, 1969—72
PCB’s (0” >0.5 PPM)
NO. SAMPLES %POSITIVE MEAN, RANGE,
ppm ppm
TOTAL 221 7 0 • 1 0—9.9
YEAR
1969 26 0 0 0
1970 68 0 0 0
1971 88 15 1.7 0.6—9.9
1972 39 0 0 0
SEX (1971 only)
Male 42 24 2.3 0.6—9.9
Female 46 11 0.9 0.6—1.0
ETHNIC BACKGROUND 1
(1971 only)
MEX.—AMER. 61 15 0.9 0.6—1.4
ANGLO.—AMER. 27 22 2.9 0.8—9.9
W urce: Texas State Department of Health
‘By Surname
243
-------
TABLE 59
STUDY OF METALS IN SEAFOODS IN TEXAS ESTURARIES—Cr and As (m Ikg)
CHROMIUM
OYSTERS CRABS FINFISH SHRIMP
LOCATION
YEAR
NO. OF
SAMPLES
RANGE
MEAN
STD.
DEV.
NO. OF
SAMPLES
RANGE MEAN
STD.
DRy.
NO. OF
SAMPLES
RANGE
MEAN
STD.
DEW.
NO. OF
SAMPLES
RANGE
MEAN
STD.
0EV.
Sabine Lake
1972
2
.5—.6
.55
—
4
.5—.5 .5
—
6
.5—.5
.5
—
1
.5—.5
.5
—
Trinity Bay
1972
1
.5.5
.5
—
Galveston Bay
1973
3
.4—.4
.4
—
3
.4—.4 .4
—
1
.4—.4
.4
West Bay
1971
1
.4—. 4
.4
—
Lavaca Bay
1971
1973
17
4
.2—.6
.4—.4
.447
.4
.142
—
9
.4—.6 .422
—
ARSENIC
Lavaca Bay
1971
16
.6—1.4
.913
.2726
-------
TABLE 60
STUDY OF METALS IN SEAFOODS IN TEXAS ESTUARIES—Cd (mg/kg)
LOCATION
YEAR
NO. OF
SAMPLES
RANGE
MEAN
STD.
DEV.
NO. OF
SAMPLES
RANGE
MEAN
STO.
0EV.
NO. OF
SAMPLES
RANGE
MEAN
STD.
0EV.
NO. OF
SAMPLES
RANGE
MEAN
STO.
0EV.
Sabine Lake 1972 2 .76—.86 .81 4 .O5—.05 .05 — 6 .OS—.05 .05 — 1 .05—.05 .05
1974 3 .5—.7 .6
East Bay 1972 1 .63—.63 .63 —
Trinity Bay 1972 1 .51—.51 .51 2 .05—.11 .08 1 .05—.O5 .05 1 .22—.22 .22
1974 2 .2—.2 .2 1 .2—.2 .2
Galveston Bay 1972 4 .05—. 11 .08 4 .O5—.1 .0875 4 .05—.1 .0675 —
1973 4 .31—.44 .395 — 3 .04—.07 .6 1 .04—.04 .04 —
1974 11 .5—.7 .6 .1 2 .1—2 .15 1 .2—.2 .2 1 .2—.2 2 —
West Bay 1971 1 2.7—2.7 2.7
1974 6 .5—.76 .646
Freeport Area 1974 6 .2—. 38 .312
EaBt Matagordo Bay 1974 1 .5—.5 .5
Tres Palacios Bay 1973 1 .75—.75 .75 —
Lavaca Bay 1971 17 .1—2.7 .641 .555
1973 6 .05—.63 .312 — 9 .2—.2 .2
1974 14 .5—.9 .757 .1284 9 .1—.5 .356
Copano Bay 1974 3 .6—. 7 .633 1 .3—.3 .3
Aransaa Bay 1974 3 .6—.7 .633 1 .4.4 .4
Corpus Christi Bay 1974 8 .9—1.8 1.262
Nueces Bay 1974 7 1.8—4.1 3.186
South Bay 1914 1 .6—.6 .6
-------
o
TABLE 61
STUDY OF METALS IN SEAF000S IN TEXAS ESTUARIES—Pb (mglkg)
OYSTERS
CRABS
FINFISH
SHRIMP
LOCATI(1
TEAR
NO. OF
SAMPLES
RANGE
MEAN
STD.
0EV.
NO. OF
SAMPLES
RANGE
MEAN
STD.
0EV.
NO. OF
SAMPLES
RANGE
MEAN
STD.
0EV.
NO. OF
SAMPLE
RANGE
MEAN
STD.
DEV.
Sabine Lake
1972
1974
2
3
56—1.35 .955
.2—.2 .2
—
—
4
.62—2.28 1.27
—
6
.19—. 72
.398
—
1
L. 74—1.74 1.74
—
East Bay
1972
1
.5—.5
.5
—
Trinity Bay
1972
1974
1
31—.31 .31
—
2
2
.05—.11 .08
.2—.2 .2
—
—
1
1
.5—.5
.3—.3
.5
.3
—
—
1
.22—22
.22
—
Galveston 8 ay
1972
1973
1974
4
11
.2—.5
.2—.4
.425 —
.2182 .0608
3
4
2
.5—.15
.5—.7
.3—.6
.2667
.55
.45
—
—
—
1
1
.5—.5
.2—.2
.5
.2
—
—
3
1
1
.13—.5
.7—.7
.2—.2
.28
.7
.2
—
—
—
West Bay
1974
6
.1—.2
.15
—
Preeport Area
1974
6
.1—.2
.183
-
East Matagordo
Bay
1974
1
1.0—1.0
1.0
—
Thea Palacios
Bay
1973
1
.3—.3
.3
—
Lavaca Bay
1971
1973
1974
15
6
14
.3—1.5
.2—.5
.2—.5
.687
.417
.243
.2798
—
.0848
9
9
.5—.5
.2—. 7
.5
.444
—
—
Copano Bay
1974
3
.2—.3
.233
—
1
.2—.2
.2
—
Aranaaa Bay
1974
3
.1—.2
.133
—
1
.7—.7
.7
—
Corpus O rieti
Bay
1974
8
.2—1.3
.378
—
Nueces Bay
1974
7
.2—.4
.243
—
South Bay
1974
1
.2—.2
.2
—
-------
TABLE 62
STUDY OF METALS IN SEAF000S IN TEXAS ESTUARIES—Hg (mg/kg)
FINFISH
LOCATION - YEAR NO. OF RANGE MEAN STD. NO. OP RANGE MEAN SIB. NO. OF RANGE STD. NO. OF RANGE I MEAN STI).
SAMPLES ______ 0EV. SAMPLE ______ — SAMPLES ______ — SAMPLES ______ I
Sabine Lake 1971 2 .05—.1 .75 3 .07—.1 .0567
1972 3 .05—.9 .33 5 .O8—.13 .112 6 .08—.2 .12 1 .05—.05 .05
East Bay 1972 1 .05—.05 .05
Trinity Bay 1971 2 .1—. 1 .1 3 .06—.27 .19 — 3 .05-.12 .0734 — 4 .01 -.05 .04
1972 2 .05—.06 .055 3 .1—.17 .1234 — 2 .05—.1 .075 — 2 .05—.1 .075
1974 2 .12—.15 .135 — 1 .06—.O6 .06 —
Galveston Bay 1971 6 .05—. 1 .0834 — 11 .04—.53 .2282 .1503 11 .04—. 13 .0609 .0282 9 .Ol—.05 .0456
1972 1 .05—.05 .05 — S .07—.37 .1720 — 3 .05—.1 .25 — 5 .05—.1 .07
1973 4 .01—.11 .0693 — 3 .17—.28 .24 — 1 .02—.02 .02
1974 11 009—.2 .0287 .0574 2 .05—.30 .175 — 1 .02—.O2 .02 1 .O2—.02 .02
West Bay 1971 1 .02—.02 .02 —
1974 6 .01—.05 .0234 —
Freeport Area 1971 2 .09—. 16 .1250
1974 6 .02—.03 .025
East Matagordo Bay 1971 1 .1—.1 .1 1 .13—.13 .13 —
Matagordo Bay 1971 1 .05—. 05 .05
Tree Palacios Bay 1971 1 .1—.1 .1 —
1973 1 .05—.05 .05 —
Lavaca Bay 1971 112 .02—.66 .2204 .1233 25 .42—2.9 .3976 .7023 9 .17- .99 .5778 — 1 .O8.08 .08
1972 32 .09—.37 .1857 .0728 2 .53—1.1 .815 — 1 .l—.1 .1
1973 6 .13—.28 .185 — 18 .19—3.6 .2112 .9911
1974 17 .05—.22 .1159 .0539 17 .2—1.1 .7118 .2764
San Antonio Bay 1971 2 .05—.05 .05 —
Copano Bay 1971 1 .1
1974 3 .02—.03 .0267 — 1 .2—.2 .2
Aransas Bay 1974 3 .02—.03 .0267 1 .22—.22 .22
Corpus Christi Bay 1971 1 .1—.1 .1
1974 8 .02—.04 .0288
Nueces Bay 1974 7 .02—.05 .0315
South Bay 1974 1 .02—.02 .02
-------
cadmium, lead, and mercury. As can be seen from the tables,
of the sampling effort has been directed toward the detection of
mercury. This keen interest in mercury detection was initiated in
1970 when a considerable amount of mercury contamination Occurred in
Lavaca Bay owing to mercury discharge from an Alcoa plant in that
immediate area. A monetary loss was incurred by the oyster fisherj e
during this period, and legal action was taken to remedy this contaa...
ination problem. As can be seen from Table 62, 112 samples of oysters
were taken in Lavaca Bay in 1971, showing a mean mercury value of
0.2204 mg/kg. Only 17 samples were taken in 1974, showing a mean
value of 0.1159 mg/kg. This demonstrates an approximate 50% re—
duction in average detected mercury levels over this four year
sampling period.
Data is also displayed for chromium and arsenic in Table 5-9.
The mean levels of chromium in all the sampling locations seem fair]
consistent in nature, ranging from 0.4 mg/kg to 0.55 mg/kg. The
only arsenic sampling that was undertaken was done in Lavaca Bay in
1971 showing a mean value of 0.913 mg/kg.
The cadmium values displayed in Table 60 show the highest val 3 $
In 1974 in Corpus Chriati Bay and Nueces Bay oysters with mean value*
of 1.262 mg/kg and 3.186 mg/kg respectively.
Table 61 shows the lead values calculated from the data, and
shows the highest lead values in 1972 in Sabine Lake in oysters and
crabs with mean values of 0.955 mg/kg and 1.27 mg/kg, respectively.
248
-------
4.2 Texas Parks and Wildlife
In August of 1971 the Texas State Department of Health in
cooperation with Texas Parks and Wildlife initiated a study of- the
incidency of mercury in fishes of The Concho River System. The
laboratory report of preliminary samples taken from sampling
stations on the Concho indicated a mean mercury level of .34 mg/kg
in four specimens of large mouth bass with the maximum level of
.55 mg/kg being found in one specimen of approximately four pounds
body weight. Other samples analyzed include warinouth and white
crappie with mercury levels being found at .11 and .37 mg/kg
respectively. The sample analysis results appear as Table 63.
TABLE 63
SAMPLE ANALYSIS RESULTS
SAMPLE ing/kg of Hg
Station #1 — Warmouth 8/19/71 0.11
Station #1 — White Crappie 8/19/71 0.37
Station #2 — Largetnouth Bass 8/19/71 (4 lb) 0.55
Station #2 — Largemouth Bass 8/19/71 (2 1/2 ib) 0.30
Station #3 — Largemouth Bass 8/16/71 0.24
249
-------
An additional group of data was attached to the preliminary
group of data. A statistical summary of this data appears in
Table 64. This data was generated from fish samples from four
locations in Texas and includes 10 species from June and July of
1971. The four locations were Concho River, Lake Nasworthy, Twin
Buttes, and Spring Creek.
TABLE 64
MERCURY IN TEXAS FISH IN JUNE AND JULY 1971
(Hg, ppm)
SPECIES NO. SAMPLES RANGE MEAN STD. DEV.
White Bass 36 .2—2.47 0.842 0.704
Flathead Catfish 1 .820 0.820 *
Channel Catfish 34 .066—.596 0.221 0.122
Shad 33 .005.551 0.156 0.149
Crappie 7 .04—. 739 0.237 *
Car 4 .096.253 0.189 *
Drum 11 .091.870 0.342 0.234
Carp 3 .217.306 0.266 *
Carp Sucker 6 .137—.436 0.312 *
*Where less than 10 samples were analyzed, the standard deviation
was not calculated.
250
-------
4,3 Texas Air Control Board — ASARCO Zinc Smelter—Amarillo. Texas
Previous Studies
Four previous studies were conducted at the ASARCO Smelter;
property line sampling, soil and vegetation sampling, stack sampling,
and a study of retort shed emissions. Of these four, two are of
interest to the study on toxic substances.
Property line sampling was conducted using Ui—Vol sampling
down—wind of the ASARCOretort sheds in May of 1970. The closer
samples showed as much as .15 percent cadmium, and 2.6 percent lead.
Surface soil samples were taken but were listed as upwind and
down—Wind and were not analyzed below the 100 ppm level. Four grass
samples were analyzed. Average results were 2.5 ppm cadmium, and
31 ppm lead.
Roaster Duct and Sintering Plant Duct Sampling
During the period of May 8—22, 1972, samples were taken from
the roaster duct and the sintering plant duct at AARCO, Amarillo.
The emissions from both ducts are vented to the atmosphere through
a single 400 foot stack. This sampling revealed that the average
mercurY concentration in the roaster duct was 1.805 .g/ft 3 , and
the sintering plant duct average was .216 g/ft 3 of mercury.
Ambient Air Sampling for Heavy Metals
Ambient air sampling was conducted with 24 high—volume air
samplers over about a 30—square mile area within a radius of
approximately 0.6 to 4.5 miles from ASARCO. During the sampling
251
-------
period (April—May ‘72), prevailing winds give a down—wind quadra
North—Northwest of ASARCO. Samplers were placed to give adequate
coverage of the area, although it is sparsely populated. The upwind
area (South—Southeast of ASAj co) is relatively heavily populated
and commercialized.
The high volume samplers were calibrated and operated in
accordance with the reference method specified in the federal
register. Sampling and equipment calibration and maintenance
were performed by Texas air pollution control services personnel.
Sampling was conducted continuously over approximately 24—hour
intervals from April 23 to 1 June. Sampling periods for all Hi —Vol 5
began between 0900—1500 hours and sampling was initiated at
approximately the same hour daily for any given Hi—Vol.
Measured Pb levels were corrected from Pb derived from
gasoline combustion (vehicle exhausts) by measurement of Br levels
In the samples and application of the following correction: Pb
(corrected) Pb (measured) — (Br x 2.6); this correction was
developed by the laboratory of the Texas air pollution control
services. The corrected Pb levels, ranging from .03—.12 g/m 3 ,
are distributed randomly over the sampling area; no consistent
relationship is indicated between Pb level and the proximity of
the site to ASARCO. It cannot be concluded that emissions from
ASARCO contribute significantly to measured Pb levels in the
Amarillo area; these levels are attributable predominantly to
252
-------
vehicle exhausts.
Cadmium was not detected in some 40 percent of all samples ana-
lyzed. Mean Cd concentrations measured over the 39 day survey, period
ranged from .0l—.05 g/m 3 . The maximum level was measured 1 mile
north of ASARCO, but other concentrations (.0l—.03 ig/m 3 ) were
essentially randomly distributed over the survey area. It was
shown by this sampling study that significantly higher Cd concentra-
tions were measured in samples down—wind of ASARCO and that .the
concentration decreased somewhat with distance from ASARCO.
Arsenic was not detected in some 60 percent of all samples analyzed.
an As concentrations measured during the 39’ day s’urvey period
ranged from .0l.03 )J.g/fl1 3 ; concentrations were randomly distributed
over the survey area. It was not demonstrated that samples taken
down—wind of ASARCO had higher As concentrations than samples taken
upwind.
Abundance and Distribution of Zinc 1 Lead, and Cadmium in Soils
An investigation of the abundance of zinc, lead, and cadmium
in soils of the Amarillo area of Texas was undertaken. The purpose
of this study was to determine the extent of contamination of the
řoile by emissions from ASARCO Amarillo.
It was concluded from this study that the concentration of
lead, zinc, and cadmium in these materials is not found to be
outside of the ranges found for normal soils across the U.S. Within
a radius of five miles of the ASARCO Plant, the soils contain
253
-------
abundantly more lead and zinc than equivalent soils of the region.
The levels also exceed the normal distribution in U.S. soils.
Cadmium follows the same pattern Out to about three miles. Zinc
occurs in concentrations up to 6300 ppm, lead up to 540 ppm, and
cadmium up to 22 ppm in the top four inches of soil. The concentra...
dons are highest at 0.67 miles from the plant and fall off linearly
on a log—log plot with distance from the plant.
Levels of Lead and Cadmium in Blood of School Children .
Blood sampling for lead and Cadmium was conducted on 180
students in four elementary schools of the Amarillo school system
and one elementary school in Canyon. The study was statistically
designed to determine possible differences in blood metal levels
due to living location, sex, and time of sampling. A major
assumption In the study is that the school location accurately
represents the living location of the student.
Blood lead levels were found to range from 4 to 39 /100 .
whole blood with the average at 13.5 g/lOO ml there was no
significant difference between test and control groups.
Blood cadmium levels ranged from below detectable limits to
2.78 pg/10 0 ml whole blood. The averages for the three major test
areas varied widely. Students In sampled schools located nearest
the stack had blood cadmium levels significantly higher than those
at some distance from and assumed to be unaffected by the smelter.
Students located four miles north of the plant (prevailing down-.
254
-------
wind) showed a blood cadmium average level of .45 .Lg/l00 ml.
Students located approximately four miles east of the plant (minimal
down—wind) had an average of .23 p.g/ 100 ml cadmium. Students In
Canyon (twenty miles south and presumably unaffected by the smelter)
had blood cadmium levels averaging .08 g/l00 ml.
4.4 Texas Department of Agriculture
The Texas Department of Agriculture in 1970 recognized a need
for detailed studies to define the extent of pesticide pollvtion in
Texas streams. A monitoring study was thereby initiated with the
dual purpose of defining geographic areas of high residue con—
centration, while following the movement of these residues in an
attempt to identify the means by which pesticides are transported
in the environment.
silt samples were collected from a total of 50 stations on eight
major Texas rivers and three smaller streams, encompassing the entire
Eastern, North Central, Central, and Southern areas of the state.
For convenience, the state was divided geographically Into a
Northern and Southern sampling region. Monthly sample collections
were made alternately in each region, thus providing a two month
interval between samples taken at each site. Ideally, six samples
were collected from each site each year.
A total of 433 samples were taken over a 23 mouth period and
236 or 54.5 percent were positive for one or more pesticide residues.
This total also includes non—pesticidal Pc B residues. The frequency
255
-------
distribution of PCB residues is shown in Table 65 with the percentage
and mean concentration.
TABLE 65
PCB’a ( rig/kg)
FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE AND MEAN CONCENTRATION
TOTAL POSITIVE SAMPLES 40
Z FREQUENCY 17.3
MEAN CONCENTRATION 163.7
During the course of this study, the largest frequency for any
residue other than DDT was for PCB compounds, which were found in
17.3 percent of all positive samples. (Table 65)
Aroclor residues, being chlorinated hydrocarbons, exhibit
many of the properties of pesticide chemicals, including water in-
solubility and lipid insolubility, acute toxicity to marine species,
biological magnification in the food chain, and persistence. For
purposes of calculation in this study, Aroclor 1254 and Aroclor 1260
were consolidated under the general heading PCB.
A great deal of sampling was done in the Trinity River during
the pesticide residue study. A comparison was made between rural
and urban sites for pesticide and PCB residues. A comparison of
PCB residues is shown iii Table 6 .
256
-------
TABLE 66
TRINITY RIVER PCB RESIDUES:
A COMPARISON OF RURAL AND URBAN SITES
RURAL URBAN
NO. OF SAMPLES 33 51
NO. OF POSITIVE SAMPLES 6 18
Z POSITIVE 18.2% 353Z
MEAN CONCENTRATION C pg/kg) 78.9 244.5
Lt is evident from the data presented in Table 66 that signi-
ficant PCB contamination does Indeed exist in the urban areas
and do mstream samples reflect the PCB contamination that entered
the river as it passed through the metropolitan area.
Table 67 compares the Trinity River with all other major
rivers sampled, for frequency of positive samples, percentage of
occurrence, and concentration. It Is interesting to note that for
all the sampling performed, 60 percent of all positive PCB samples
occurred in the Trinity River. PCB’s occurred in 17 positive samples
where no. pesticide residues were detected. PCB’s were present in
54.5 percent of the positive Trinity River aamples,.-while they were
present in only 8.3 percent of all other samples taken.
257
-------
TABLE 67
FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE AND MEAN CONCENTRATION
OF PCB RESIDUES IN TRINITY RIVER SAMPLES
COMPARED WITH ALL OTHER SAMPLES
TOTAL SAMPLES 40
TOTAL POSITIVE TRINITY RIVER SAMPLES 24
TOTAL POSITIVE ALL OTHER SAMPLES 16
% POSITIVE TRINITY RIVER SAMPLES
OF TOTAL POSITIVE 54.5%
% POSITIVE ALL OTHER SAMPLES OF
TOTAL POSITIVE 8.3%
MEAN CONCENTRATION ( rig/Kg) OF
TRINITY RIVER SAMPLES 20.3
MEAN CONCENTRATION ( g/I(g)
OF ALL OTHER SAMPLES 62.8
It can be readily seen that point source contamination is apparently
the cause of residues coming from the metropolitan urban areas of
Ft. Worth and Dallas and that contamination proceeds downstream
with the flow of the river. Identification of these sources wag
not within the scope of this study. Possible point sources
would include pesticide formulation or pesticide plants, or from
some industrial source other than a formulating plant.
In suary, this study has shown that metropolitan areas
contribute significant quantities of pesticide and PCB contam1natj 0
to streams and rivers and the greatest part of the contamination
is likely to come from point source discharges.
258
-------
5.0 CALIFORNIA AGENCY DATA ANALYSIS
5.1 California State Department of Health — Epideiniological Studies
Laboratory
The above agency published a report entitled: “Food Chain and
Health Implications of Airborne Lead” in 1975. A discussion of the
survey and its findings follows.
In January 1970, lead poisoning among horses in the Carquinez
Strait Area led to questions as to whether lead in air might be
affecting human food supplies in that area or elsewhere in California.
This added further urgency to the Department’s interest in seeing
whether sensitive methods could be applied to distinguishing blood
lead levels in population samples of California adults and children.
Air samples and food samples, reflecting usual purchase and
consumption habits, were obtained in five areas. In addition, blood
and urine samples from adults and children were obtained and analyzed
for lead or for metabolic evidence of lead exposure. The five
communities that were used in this study represented high and low
lead exposure areas. Benicia and Crockett were chosen to represent
relatively high exposure in Northern Cal1for iia, partly because of
the relatively high exposure to lead suggested by the high levels
of lead found in vegetation sampled in the area, and partly as a
result of the concern for the effects on human health of the
exposure through the food chain which was believed to be a cause of
the horse deaths in the Benicia area. Alpine County was chosen for
an area of low exposure because it had previously been shown to yield
relatively low levels of lead in blood and urine obtained from
residents. In Southern California, Burbank and Manhattan Beaches
259
-------
were chosen as areas of high and low exposure, respectively. In
addition to the study conducted in these five areas, this report also
discussed and presented data on a six community study in Los Angeles
and a housing study in San Diego, both dealing with blood lead levels.
Avena (vegetation) sampling was also conducted in Manhattan Beach.
Population Sampling in Five Area Study
The household samples and successful contacts for population
sampling are shown in Table 68. Alpine County is not on this
table since their data had already been received. The results of
the sampling of adults and children are shown in Tables 69 and 70.
When men and women in Benicia and Crockett are compared with
respect to blood lead, the Crockett populations have significantly
higher values. The sources might have been via food In the past or
may reflect respiratory exposure. It was not due to occupational
exposure, for occupationally exposed individuals were not included.
The levels observed were not in the range likely to be clinically
important. No significant differences in blood lead in children
from Benicia and Crockett were noted.
Significant differences in blood lead from both male and female
children were observed between Burbank and Manhattan Beach. Burbank
boys have mean blood lead slightly greater than 23 pg/l00 g and girls
greater than 20 pg/l0O g, both of which exceed the “acceptable
biological limits” proposed for groups of children by Zielhuis. 1 -
1 Lead Absorption and Public Eealth: An Appraisal of Hazards Inter-
national Symposiuin Environmental Aspects of Lead, Amsterdam,
October 2—6, 1972.
260
-------
TABLE 68
p ..)
0 .
p..’
HOUSEHOLD SAMPLES AND SUCCESSFUL CONTACTS
HOUSEHOLD SAMPLE
BENICIA
CROCKETF
MANHATFAN
BEACH
BURBANK
Number of Housing Units
194
160
205
201
Vacant housing units
8
4
1
5
Unable to locate occupant
9
0
10
31
Contacts made
177
156
194
165
Refused interview
13
17
23
25
Screening criteria not met
75
38
41
24
Less than 3 yrs. residence
Occupational exposure to lead
Past lead poisoning
55
20
0
26
12
0
24
17
0
19
5
0
Interviews completed
89
101
130
116
No specimens collected
Specimens collected
37
52
50
51
89
41
73
43
Source: California Department of Health
-------
TABLE 69
p .3
‘ . 3
SUMMARY OF LABORATORY RESULTS
SPECIMENS FROM ADULTS
* Differences between means are significant at the 5% level.
** Differences between means are significant at the 1% level.
NA Not available.
Note: Signicance tests refer to differences between means for Benicia—Crockett
and Burbank—Manhattan Beach.
ANALYSIS
MALE
FEMALE
I
Manhattan
Alpine Benicia Crockett
Burbank
Beach
Alpine
Benicia
Crockett
Burbani
Manhattan
Beach
Blood Lead( /1OO g)
N
15
27
20
20
Mean
15.40
16.30*
20.75*
16.85
22
20
25
31
22
19
S.E. of Mean
1.51
0.79
2.21
1.00
0.84
11.75
1.05
11.76**
0.40
14.29*
0.55
15.45
0.82
13.79
0.83
ALAD Units
N
NA
26
20
NA
NA
Mean
NA
100.92*
71.25*
NA
NA
NA
25
31
NA
NA
S.E. of Mean
NA
7.97
7.50
NA
NA
NA
NA
127.16
7.40
110.06
6.68
NA
NA
NA
NA
Urine Lead ( /100ml)
N
10
26
20
17
21
3
21
30
Mean
1.74
1.21*
2.04*
2.16
1.64
2.97
1.30
1.46
17
S.E.ofMean
0.19
0.67
0.25
0.24
0.12
1.52
0.18
0.14
1.94
0.22
1.39
0.17
D—ALA ( /100 ml)
N
10
26
20
20
22
5
23
31
Mean
0.27
0.16
0.16
0.21
0.25
0.30
0.23*
19
S.E. of Mean
0.03
0.02
0.02
0.03
0.03
0.06
0.02
0.02
0.23
0.03
0.17
0.03
Source: California Department of Health
-------
‘tABLE 70
SUMMARY OF LJ ORATORY RESULTS
EC MENS FROM CIftLDREN
ANALYSIS
MALE
‘
FEMALE
Manhattan
Manhattan
Benicia
Crockett
Burbank
Beach
Benica
Crockett
Burbank
Blood Lead(sgIlOO g
17
21
17
10
19
19
N
Mean
17
13.12
18
14.33
23.29**
l6.81
13,71
13.80
20.37
l7.05 *
S.E. of Mean
0.64
0.89
1.14
0.88
0.76
1.53
0.67
1.00
ALAD Units
NA
16
10
NA
NA
N
Mean
14
116.50
18
94.61
NA
NA
NA
111.60
100.50
NA
NA
of Mean
9.42
9.62
NA
NA
6.33
11.36
NA
NA
lkine Lead ( lAg ! 100 ml)
NA
NA
14
6
NA
NA
N
19
2.70
14
2.24
NA
NA
235
3.13
NA
NA
S.E. f Mean
0.22
0.27
NA
NA
0.24
0.33
NA
NA
1)-ALA (p&J 100 ml)
NA
NA
17
10
NA
NA
N
20
033
18
031
NA
NA
0.31
0.30
NA
NA
NA
Mean
of Mean
0.04
0.02
NA
NA
0.02
1 0.03
NA
5 1.
Differences between means significant at the 1% level.
NA Not available.
Note Significance test refer to differences between nicans for Benicia—Crockett and
Burbank —Manhattan Beach.
oure i i1I rnia Departi flt of Kealtb
-------
It should be noted that the California laboratory methods may not be
strictly comparable with those used in defining the Zielhuis standards
Also, the California blood lead results are reported in p.g/lOO. g.
These should be multiplied by a conversion factor of about 1.05
to give results for comparison with the Zielhuis standards, which
are expressed as g/lOO ml. Zielhuis’ standards are shown in Table 7].
Food Chain Hazards in Five Area Study
Food intake was sampled by purchasing common food items from
local grocery stores and by obtaining samples of food grown in
backyard gardens in each area. Results of interviews were used to
determine whether diets differed appreciably in the different
locations and to determine which grocery stores were used most
frequently. Comparable items of food could not be obtained con-.
aistently in all areas because of differences in seasonal or local
availability and problems of transportation and storage. Lead
concentrations in some common food items obtained from most areas
are shown in the slnmnRry tables (Tables 72 and 73), and no consistent
area differences can be detected. When more than one sample was
obtained from an area, values for each sample are shown. Considerable
variation occurred between different food items as well as between
different samples of the same food. The highest concentration of lead
was reported to occur in carrot greens from a backyard garden in
Benicia (5.60 ig/g). Other vegetables with high values were chard,
parsley, lettuce, mustard greens, and spinach, with concentrations
264
-------
TABLE 7].
ZIELHTJIS’ STANDARDS*
ADULTS
INDIVIDUAL GROUP
UPPER LIMIT AVERAGE UNIT
p . 40 25 g Pb/lOO ml
ALAU< 6 3 mg/i urin
ALAD 20 30 procentual
decrease from
100% (at PbB
10 p g Pb/lao ml)
CHILDREN
INDIVIDUAL GROUP
UPPER LIMIT AVERAGE UNIT
PbB 35 20 pg Pb/lao ml
ALAU 5 3 mg/i urin
ALAD 30 40 procentual
decrease from
100% (at PbB =
10 g Pb/100 ml)
uideiines presented by Zielhuis at International Symposium on
Environmental Aspects of Lead, Amsterdam, October 2—6, 1972.
265
-------
TABLE 72
COMPARISON OF LEAD CONCENTRATIONS IN FOOD BY AREA
(pg/g for individual samples)
ALPINE
BENICIA CROC
KETT BURBANK
MANHATTAN
BEACH —
FRUIT
Apples .1 5 .09 <.01 .08 .05
.20 .09 .03 .05
.02 .03
.06
.04
.07
.06
Tomatoes .02 <.01 <.01 .02 .02
.18
Oranges NA .12 .06 .04 .05
.08 .08 .10
.05
.04
VEGETABLES
Lettuce .05 NA .54 .04 .10
.26
Parsley .20 .66 .24 1.25 .49
.88
Spinach .32 .23 .85 .69 .42
Romaine .26 .09 .08 .35 .15
.40
Celery .04 NA .00 .05 .12
Eggplant .02 .05 .02 NA .03
.05
Carrots .31 .12 <.01 .03 .17
.12 .10
Potatoes .02 .09 .02 .05 .05
.04 .13 .05
.03
NA: Not available
Source: California Departn eflt of Health
266
-------
TABLE 73
COMPARISON OF LEAD CONCENTRATIONS IN FOOD BY AREA
(pg/g for individual samples)
ALPINE
BENICIA
CROCKETT
BURBANK
MANHAVFAN
BEACH
MEAT
Ground Beef .16 <.03 .12 .08(x2) .07
.09(X2)
Chicken .16 <.03 .10 .10 .09
.42 .16
Bacon .30 .20 .28 .03 .24
.06 .44
Ham .84 .13 .22 .11 .16
.08 .32
Lamb Chops .10 .18 .17 .08 .25
.16 <.03
Pork Chops .16 .27 .15 .10 .07
.19 .38
<.03
DAIRY
Butter .12 .45 .05 .09 .05
.17
Milk <.01 .03 .06 .07 .03
.08 .06
Eggs .02 .12 .08 .05 .07
.04
Cottage Cheese NA .06 .08 .15 .04
GRAIN PRODUCTS
Bread .18 .83 NA .10 .13
.63
Margarine .52 .08 NA .06 .06
_________________ ________ . 13 _______
NA: Not available
x2: Two eamples each
urce: California Department of Health
267
-------
ranging from 0.85 — 2.41 g/g. Table 74 displays a comparison of
lead concentrations in backyard garden produce by area. Other foods
showing relatively high concentrations of lead were anchovies and
anchovy paste, veal kidney, top round, tuna, and ham, with values
ranging from 0.84 to 2.00 p.g/g.
The Bureau of Radiological Health routinely collects samples of
hospital diets for surveillance of background radiation. Each sample
consists of all food and beverages from a hospital tray as it Is
served to patients, including all liquids. Twenty—four samples
from throughout the State were analyzed for lead concentration. The
values were uniformly low and range from <0.01 ig/g to 0.17, all
but three of the values being less than 0.10.
No evidence was found that a significant amount of lead would
be ingested through the food chain, nor were significant area
differences detected.
Air Monitoring in Five Area Study
Tables 75 and 76 display the air monitoring data obtained durj g
the monitoring program.
Table 77 shows a summary of the air monitoring data. High
volume sampling stations were set up within each of the residentj j
areas studied. The u an lead concentrations by quarter for Burbank
are consistently higher than the comparable means for Manhattan Beach,
but only the differences for the second quarter of 1972 are statis
tically significant using a two—tailed t—test (p 0.05). The
268
-------
TABLE 74.
COMPARISON OF LEAD CONCENTRATIONS IN BACKYARD
GARDEN PRODUCE BY AREA
(pg/g for individual samples)
BENICIA
AND
MANHArrAN
CROCKETF
BURBANK
BEACH
Apples NA .24
.23 .07
Carrots .47 .30 .07
.16 .06
.18
Zucchini .19 .02 .02
.07
.05
<.04
Chard .15 .30 .57
.29
2.41
Lettuce NA .70 .42
Bell Peppers .08 .10 .02
.03
.05
<.09
Tomatoes .08 .04 .02
.01 .04
.07
.06
.12
Cherry Tomatoes NA .04 .03
Figs .29 .18 .16
.09
.26
Lemons .21 .09 .06
.14 .08
.08
.06
Strawberries .47 NA .45
NA: Not available
Source: California Department of Health
269
-------
TABLE 75
AIR MONITORING DAT . 6. HI VOL SAMPLER
(pgIm )
Burbank and Manhattan Beach
24-Hours
Lead
Concentration
24-Hours
Lead
Con c ’n tra ion
Manhattan
Manhattan
Starting
Burbank
Beach
Starting
Burbank
Beach
•
Third Quarter
First Quarter
October, 1971
November, 1971
9
10
11
14
15
16
17
18
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
1
2
3
4
5
3.33
1.09
3.91
1.47
0.49
0.55
0.91
1.67
2.89
5.24
4.06
1.57
1.18
2.12
1.71
1.15
0.23
1.42
2.25
2.48
2.20
2.82
1.96
4.85
6.32
2.94
2.81
0.80
0.65
0.37
1.27
2.11
2.77
3.36
5.00
2.77
1.95
0.95
0.67
1.09
0.42
0.83
1.52
0.98
1.92
1.78
2.55
2.80
2.25
4.91
January, 1972
Second Quarter
April. 1972
12
13
14
17
18
19
24
5
26
27
28
29
30
4
5
6
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
10.506
5.405
8.907
5.803
4.763
7.831
3.909
2.224
3.622
2.910
7.016
4.159
3.893
5.948
3.144
2.551
1.283
1.462
3.251
5.062
4.524
3.811
1.635
5.485
2.565
7.002
1.736
1.589
3.389
39
0.862
2.019
2.273
5.968
6.611
4082
1.624
0.617
1.055
0.270
1.262
3.076
1.554
2.867
1.507
4.850
Source: California Department of Health
270
-------
p. .,
-J
TABLE 76
AIR MONITORING DATA HI VOL SAMPLING
( tg/m )
Benicia and Crockett
24-Hours
Lead
Concentration
24-Hours
Lead
Concentration
Starting
Benicia
Crockett
Starting
Benicia
Crockett
Third Quarter
First Quarter
September, 1972
3
0.11
0.19
January. 1973
1
0.18
0.24
9
21
27
0.16
0.22
0.22
0.15
0.33
0.32
7
13
19
25
0.79
0.12
0.26
0.06
0.16
0.05
0.20
0.03
Fourth Quarter
31
0.14
0.13
October, 1972
3
0.15
0.42
February. 1973
6
0.17
0.28
15
21
27
0.38
0.43
0.19
0.14
0.48
0.25
12
18
24
0.42
1.01
0.21
0.12
0.35
0.11
November, 1972
8
14
26
0.61
0.15 -
0.46
0.25
0.12
0.21
March, 1973
2
8
14
0.38
0.25
0.60
0.23
0.21
0.55
December, 1972
8
20
26
0.43
0.23
0.25
0.11
0.18
0.34
20
26
0.13
0.19
0.10
0.16
Second Quarter
April, 1972
1
13
19
25
0.16
0.17
0.13
0.32
0.18
0.16
0.16
2.22
Source: California Department of Health
-------
TABLE 77
SUMMARY OF AIR S4 MPLING DATA
( gIm ’ )
Time Interval
Burbank
Manhattan Beach
N
Mean
S.E.
N
Mean
S.E.
Fourth Quarter, 1971
10/8 — 11/7
First Quarter, 1972
1/12 — 1/30
Second Quarter, 1972*
4/4 - 4&23
25
13
10
2.315
5.458
3.267
0.312
0.684
0.502
25
13
10
1.979
3.658
1.868
0.253
0.569
0.432
Time Interval
Benicia
Crockett
N
Mean
S.E.
N
Mean
S.E.
First Quarter, 1972
2/7 — 3/23
Second Quarter, 1972
3/30 — 6/29
Third Quarter, 1972**
7/5 — 9/27
Fourth Quarter, 1972
10/3 - 12/26
8
9
14
10
0.741
0.211
0.195
0.328
0.211
0.052
0.018
0.049
8
11
15
10
0.598
0.317
0.303
0.250
0.140
0.088
0.033
0.040
* Difference between means significant at 5% level, two-tailed t-test.
** Difference between means significant at 1% level, two-tailed t-test.
Source: California Department of Health
272
-------
differences between means for Benicia and Crockett are not consistent
in direction, and the only statistically significant difference
using a two—tailed t—test is for the third quarter of 1972 (p
-------
Avena Sampling in Five Area Studi
It was originally planned that Avena be used in this study as
a supplemental method of indicating exposure to airborne lead. How-
ever, Avena was not generally available in the Alpine County Study
area nor in the Burbank Area. Several Avena samp1e were collected
in the Manhattan Beach Area. The results of these analyses are shown
in Table 78.
Six—Community Study in Los Angeles
The six community study in Los Angeles was designed to compare
the effects of air pollution on lung function and other indicators in
communities representing high, moderate, and low exposure. Two
communities were chosen to represent each exposure level. Results
reported here are limited to blood lead concentrations in elementary
school boys and girls, mostly 10 years old, and in male high school
athletes (Table 79). In most cases, male—female differences among
the elementary school children were slight, although males showed
consistently higher concentrations than females. No consistent
differences were observed between elementary school children and
high school students. The lowest mean concentrations of lead
occurred in the two low pollution coianunities for both elementary
and high school students, but the highest mean value In elementary
school students occurred in an area of moderate pollution. Means
from the two high pollution areas combined (Riverside and Azusa) and
the two low pollution areas combined (Lancaster and Oceanside) were
274
-------
TABLE 78
CONCENTRATION OF LEAD AND CADMIUM IN AVENA
Manhattan Beach
April, 1972
SpeciflEn Lead Cadmium
(ug/g)
MB]. 133 <.4
MB2 23 <.5
32 < .5
MB4 64 <.5
1435 <7 <‘.4.
1436 21 <.5
1437 12 <.5
1438 <8 <.5
$310 14 <.5
jirce: California Department of Health
275
-------
TABLE 79
BLOOD LEAD CONCENTRATION ( p g /i00 g) BY LOCATION AND SEX
SIX—COMMUNITY STUDY OF SCHOOL CHILDREN
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
POPULATION
HIGH
POLLUTION
MODERATE
POLLUTION
LOW
POLLUTION
—
Riverside
Azusa
Long
Beach
Culver
City
Lancaster
Oceanside
Elementary School
Male
N
27
18
22
28
10
24
Median
11,0
11.0
11.0
14.0
8.0
10.5
Mean
12.1
12.6
11.4
14.6
9.2
10.8
S.E. of Mean
0.6
0.7
0.6
0.8
1.0
0.5
Female
N
23
23
24
21
28
19
Median
11.0
12.0
10.0
12.0
8.0
9.0
Mean
11.4
12.0
10.7
12.4
8.5
9.8
S.E. of Mean
0.5
0.7
0.6
0.6
0.4
0.5
High School
Male
N
17
23
30
19
20
26
Median
11.0
14.0
12.0
13.0
9.0
9 5
Mean
12.1
14.6
12.6
14.0
9.0
10.1
S.E. of Mean
1.0
0.6
0.5
0.6
0.5
0.6
Note: Differences between pooled means for the high and low pollution
areas were statistically significant at the 1% level for both high
school and elementary school differences.
Source: California Department of Health
276
-------
tested for each sex for statistically significant differences. Both
high school and elementary school differences were significant at
the 5 percent level.
Housing in San Di o
Population samples of preschool children were chosen in several
areas of San Diego County representing pre—Worid War II housing con-
taining lead—based paint. These included east San Diego, represent-
ing whites with non—Spanish surnames, and others who were n ot of low
economic status; Southeast San Diego, representing low economic status
and a variety of ethnic backgrounds; National City, representing low
economic status and with all but two individuals in the sample
having Spanish surnames; Pala, an Indian reservation; Escondido, with
a sample consisting entirely of individuals with Spanish surnames;
and Oceanside and Carlsbad represented by one child each.
East San Diego, southeast San Diego, and National City were
each represented by children who could be classified as living near
traffic or away from traffic. Boundaries between “near” and “away
from” traffic were set to coincide with divisions between city blocks.
“Near” was within 380 feet of traffic; “away from” was between 380
and 700 feet. Differences between mean blood lead concentrations
in the groups living near and away from traffic were tested
separately for each of these three areas and for all three areas
combined using a two—tailed t—test. The only statistically signi-
ficant difference was for National City (p <0.05). These results,
277
-------
along with mean values for other areas, are shown in Table 80.
There were no mean values or individual values that exceeded the
suggested limits from the Amsterdam Symposium.
Lead concentrations in soil ranged from 45 ppm to 2256 ppm. A
rank correlation test (Spearman’s rho) was used to determine whether
there existed a significant correlation between blood lead concentra_.
tion and concentration of lead in soil from corresponding play areas,
either within any of the study areas or for all areas combined. The
results were not statistically significant at the 5 percent level.
For all areas combined, a median test was done to determine whether
significant differences in soil lead concentration occurred between
samples collected from households near traffic compared with those
away from traffic. These results, also, were not statistically
significant at the 5 percent level.
278
-------
TABLE 80
San Diego County Study of School Children
Comparison of Mean Blood Lead Concentrations
pg/ lOOg
Total
Away From Traffic
Near Traffic
N.
Mean
S. E.
N.
Mean
S. E.
N.
Mean
S. E.
Total, Three
Areas
74
15.9
0.57
26
15.2
1.03
48
16.3
0.68
East San
Diego
20
15.6
0.82
8
17.4
1.46
12
14.4
0.83
Southeast
San
Diego
34
17.1
0.93
11
16.2
1.79
23
17.5
1.09
National
City
20
14.2
1.08
7
11.0*
1.11
13
16.0*
1.33
Pa].a
4
11.2
2.02
4
11.2
2.02
—
—
—
Escondi.do
5
12.2
1.98
5
12.2
1.98
—
—
—
*Difference between n ana statistically significant (p < 0.05, two—tailed t-test).
S irce: California Department of Health
-------
5.1.1 California State Department of Health — Interagency
Committee on Environmental Mercury
Mercury contamination in the environment has become apparent
over the past few years. To study the effects of mercury pollution
in California, the Interagency Committee on Environmental Mercury
was formed. The committee has studied samples gathered from fish,
game birds, water, sediments, and waste water.
The fish data that was analyzed showed that over 30 percent of
the fish sampled had mercury residues exceeding the 0.5 ppm federal
tolerance level. Values ranged from 0 to 1.27 ppm, with an average
mean value of 0.27 ppm (Table 81).
Analyses that were performed on game birds, water, sediments,
and waste water were not conclusive. No trends were evident with
the exception of the water supply samples. A majority of these
samples showed mercury content below the detectable limits. More
testing will have to be done before any conclusions can be drawn.
5.1.2 Mercury Residues in Harbor Seals
Ten samples were taken from harbor seals living in California
coastal waters. These samples were analyzed for content of mercury,
lead, and cadmium (Table 82 displays results).
Mercury results showed a high value of 3.1 ppm, a low value of
0.23 ppm, and an average value of 1.139. Lead values were 3.2 ppm
for high, 0.10 for low, and 0.525 for a mean, while the high cadmium
value was 0.76 ppm, low value was 0.01 ppm, and average was 0.116
280
-------
TABLE 81
MERCURY RESIDUES IN FISH FROM CALIFORNIA (ppm)
APRIL - JULY 1970
NO. OF STANDARD
SPECIES SAMPLES RANGE MEAN DEVIATION
Striped Bass 29 0.06—1.27 0.50 0.306
Sturgeon 12 O.08—.8 0.25 0.235
Shad 3 0.0—0.06 0.03
Catfish 41 0.0—1.18 0.27 0.269
Largemouth Bass 5 0.0—0.76 0.25
Squawfish 10 0.11—1.16 0.36 0.337
Carp 3 0.29—1.16 0.56 —
Bluegill 17 0.08—0.71 0.30 0.158
Rainbow Trout 14 0.03—0.21 0.09 0.054
Brown Trout 1 0.36
Sucker 1 0.29
Crappie 1 0.23
Shark 2 0.52—.52 0.52
Rex Shark 4 0.08—0.12 0.1
Sand Dab 3 0.11—0.15 0.12
Halibut 3 0.07
King Salmon 1 0.07
oysters 1 0.06
ürce: MITRE analysis.
281
-------
TABLE 82
HEAVY METAL RESIDUES IN HARBOR SEALS (ppm)
METAL NO. OF SAMPLES RANGE MEAN
MERCURY 20 0.23 — 3.10 1.139
LEAD 17 0.10 — 3.20 0.525
CADMIUM 17 0.01 — 0.76 0.116
Source: MITRE analysis.
282
-------
5.2 Universities in California
5.2.1 University of California — Lawrence Livermore Laboratory
An article from the University of California entitled: “Lead
Source Identification by Multi—Element Analysis of Diurnal Samples
of Ambient Air” describes the development of a method for determining
the existence and nature of non—automotive lead sources irt a given
area from ambient air particulate samples. The method consists of
first measuring the diurnal variations of the Br/Pb ratio using x—ray
flourescence to determine those days on which the non—automotive lead
source is operating. For the episodal days the diurnal concentration
patterns of about 20 metals are measured using neutron activation
analysis. The correlation of these patterns with the lead pattern
characterizes the source. The method has been tested in Benicia,
California and has successfully established the existence of a non—
automotive lead source In that area and characterized the type of
source.
From November of 1970 to March 1, 1971., the air was monitored
in Benicia in two—hour time intervals for three days each week with
the anticipation that the analysis of the concentration variations
of many elements might answer three que8tions:
1) Is some of the Pb in the ;air of non—automotive origin?
2) In what direction with respect to the sampler are the
sources located?
3) What is the nature of these sources?
Although most of the sampling data obtained indicated that the
283
-------
lead values were attributable to automotive emissions, the x—ray
flourescence analysis selected three days as candidates for days on
which a major component of the Pb aerosol was from a non—autonx,tjv
source. To establish that this was the case and actually to determine
the nature of the non—automotive source, a multi—element analysis on
all the samples for these three days was carried out using neutron
activation analysis. Table 83 shows the elemental concentrations
at the episode peaks. The data in Table 83 not only confirm the
existence of a non—automotive Pb source but also determined the
nature of the source. The correlated elements for the three episodes
described would be consistent with a smelter source. There is j 1
fact a smelter in the area located about two miles WSW from the
sampler with stacks 100 ft and 600 ft high. In April of 1970 a
source test of the 600—foot stack was carried out by the Bay Area
Air Pollution Control District. The results which were given in
lbs/day are presented in Table 84 normalized to arsenic to make
meaningful comparisons with the diurnal data of this experiment.
The qualitative agreement between stack and ambient air data further
implicated the smelter as the source of the episodes on these three
days.
284
-------
TABLE 83
CONCENTRATIONS AT EPISODE PEAK FOR
CORRELATED ELEMENTS, NANOGRAN/M 3
2100 0900 0300
ELEMENT 11/16/70 12/10/70 1/21/71
Pb 4150 9400 4500
Zn 1160 1770 1840
Hg 44 630 45.
Ba 33 104 35
Se 11 82 5
176 630 1400
Sb 97 148 760
In 3.1 8.6 1.9
Ag 4.5 175 58
Cd 290 <30 <30
TABLE 84
CO ARISON OF TYPICAL STACK SAMPLE CONCENTRATIONS
WITH AMBIENT AIR SAMPLE CONCENTRATIONS
AT EPISODE PEAK NORMLIZED TO ARSENIC
ELEMENT
RATIO STACK NOV 16-17 DEC 9—10 JAN 20—21
As/Zn 0.31 0.15 0.36 0.76
As/Pb 0.17 0.042 0.067 0.31
As/Cd 0.40 0.61
285
-------
5.2.2 Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of
California, San Diego
The following are abstracts from published research done at
Scripps. Copies of the reprints are at EPA.
1. Lead Accumulation in Roadside Soil and Grass
Soil and grass samples taken along U.S. Highway 1 in Mary-
land were checked for lead content. Lead accumulation was highest
on the top layer of soil and decreased at lower depths. Traffic and
wind pattern also determined lead content.
2. Lead and Uranium in Pennsylvanian Anthracite
Lead has been found in Pennsylvanian anthracites. It was
determined that this lead was embodied prior to coalification while
uranium came after coalification.
3. Occurrence of Lead In Tuna
The validity of lead concentration measurement in water
and fish (including shellfish) was found to be unreliable. These
measurement techniques of atomic absorption and anodic stripping
voltainmetry have been in error by factors of 10 to 100. A reliable
technique has now been determined, finding that lead in muscle Is
four tlmes.lower in value than lead in epidermis.
4. Lead Pollution: Records in Southern California Coastal
Sediments
Lead in coastal sediments comes mainly from combustion of
lead additives in gasoline.
286
-------
5. Our Daily Lead
Dr. Chow discusses the distribution of lead in our environ-
ment and discusses how the U.S. Government is combatting this lead
pollution.
6. History of Metal Pollution in Southern California Coastal
Zone
This outline discusses metal content fluctuation in coastal
California sediments.
7. Mercury in the California Environment
Mercury has been foi.md in fish from both fresh and estuarine
water bodies. Sport fish had elevated levels of mercury in their
flesh while most commercial fish and shellfish had only minor
mercury traces.
8. Lead Aerosol Baseline: Concentration at White Mountain
and LagunaMo mtain, California
This article states that lead aerosol concentration at
White Mountain should be used as present baseline concentrations
for atmospheric lead in the continental u.s.
9. Lead Isotopes in North American Coals
Lead isotopes in North American coals are equally or more
radiogenic than those in present continental crust.
287
-------
6.0 MICHIGAN AGENCY DATA ANALYSIS
6.1 Michigan Department of Natural Resources
6.1.1 Wildlife Division
The Wildlife Division is responsible for monitoring wildlife
for levels of toxic substances. The Division monitored two of the
toxic substances of interest——mercury and PBB.
From June through October of 1974, pheasant samples were tested
and found to contain levels of PBB. These levels were found in samples
of game farm adult breeders, in eggs produced by these breeders, and
in young pheasants hatched from eggs produced by the breeders.
The Michigan Department of Agriculture Laboratories performed
the analyses and determined that feed manufactured by the Farm
Bureau Services contained PBB, and this feed was fed to the pheasants,
causing subsequent PBB contamination.
As a result, examination of the pheasant samples (fat was used
when available, in all other cases breast muscle was used) displayed
levels of PBB contamination. Findings showed a relationship between
animal age and a level of PBB concentration; the older the animal,
the higher the concentration (Table 85).
The Wildlife Division also monitored various species of birds
and mammals for mercury content. Included were breast muscle samples
from pheasants, miscellaneous birds and mammals, and various types
of ducks. Data is shown in Table 86).
Only two different analyses of ducks showed mean mercury levels
288
-------
TABLE 85
LEVELS OF PBB IN MICHIGAN PHEASANTS (ppm)
JUNE—OCTOBER 1974
TY:PE OF NO. OF
SAMPLE SAMPLES RANGE MEAN
Male Adult Breeder 6 0.49 — 6.1 2.455
Pheasants
pemale Adult Breeder 6 0.16 — 4.422 1.223
Pheasants Analysis 1
Female Adult Breeder 5 0.12 — 1.7 0.896
Pheasants Analysis 2
Pheasant Eggs 5 0.091 — 0.175 0.113
yo*mg Pheasants 18 0.002 — 0.202 .034
13 were
0
289
-------
TABLE 86
MERCURY IN MICHIGAN WILDLIFE (ppm)
TYPE OF NO. OF
SAMPLE DATE SAMPLES RANGE MEAN
Miscellaneous 1969—1970 38 0.01 — 0.69 0.1265
Birds and Mammals
Muscle
Pheasant 2/70—4/70 19 0.01 — 0.64 0.1373
Breast Muscle
Puddle Ducks Fall 1969 32 0.015 — 0.595 0.150
Breast Muscle
Fall Samples
Puddle Ducks 1968—1970 13 0.101 — 0.401 0.244
Breast Muscle
Late Spring &
Summer Samples
Detroit River 20 0.060 — 0.779 0.26
Ducks
Pte. Mouillee
Lake St. Clair 16 0.040 — 0.699 0.259
Harsen t s Island
Ducks
Duck 4/1970 39 0.01 — 1.76 0.653
Breast Muscle
Puddle Ducks 4/1970 13 0.03 — 0.589 0.234
Early Spring Samples
Diving Ducks Fall 1969 35 0.032 — 1.299 0.274
Fall Samples
Diving Ducks 4/1970 32 0.18 — 1.76 0.761
Spring Samples
290
-------
TABLE 87
MICHIGAN WATER RESOURCES COMMISSION
1973 SURVEILLANCE DATA
POUNDS DISCHARGED BY PLANT PER YEAR
TOXIC
UBSTANCZ
TOTAL NO.
OF PLANTS
0 lbs
211 lbs
11—100 lbs
101—500 lbs
501—1000 lbs
1001—
10,000—
ARSENIC
85
21
49
9
6
10,000
100,000
lbs
100,000 lbs
CADMIUM
149
36
78
25
6
1
3
CHROMIUM
440
66
132
92
79
26
35
9
1
LEAD
199
57
71
30
17
12
11
1
WECURY
99
34
58
5
2
CYANIDES
257
45
100
48
31
14
15
4
FGB
39
17
15
6
1
1%)
‘0
-------
greater than the 0.5 ppm U.S.—FDA limit. Other mean values were veil
below the federal limits.
6.1.2 Department of Natural Resources, Bureau of Water Martage—
ment Water Resources Commission
The Comprehensive Studies Section (CSS) of the Water Resources
Commission expanded its water quality monitoring Programs in 1972.
Instead of five separate programs, a single river monitoring effort
began. This new effort included a total of 291 stations.
The CSS provided a complete list of all the sampling locations,
along with the appropriate STORET numbers.
Table 87 shows the results of the 1973 surveillance data. Seven
of the eight toxic substances of interest were included on the Michi-
gan list of critical materials (beryllium was missing).
6.1.3 Michigan Department of Natural Resources — Division of
Air Pollution Control
The Michigan Division of Air Pollution Control submitted heavy
metal air data for 1974 for two high volume sites, Macomb
Company and Grand Rapids, Michigan. This data was obtained by sampl-
ing every six days for a 24—hour sampling period. The heavy metals
of interest were lead, cadmium, and beryllium. These data were
transferred to SAROAD daily data forms, keypunched, and analyzed
with MITRE’s statistical computer program. The results of the
data analysis are shown in Appendix A.
292
-------
6.2 Michigan Department of Public Health
The Department of Public Health is responsible for monitoring
all municipal water supplies in the state of Michigan. Samples are
recorded on a monthly or seasonal basis and stored for a period of
time up to ten years.
The Department provided the procedures for recording and
storing the water data and included a tabulation of selected analyses.
These analyses were performed during the past year. Eleven
sites were included and seven of the eight toxic substances of
interest were determined.
Results showed that all the water submitted for analysis
contained no toxic substances above the detectable limits as can
be seen in Table 88. PCB’s and PBB’s were not generally
detected and only one supply, Harrison, showed the presence of PBB
which was less than the lowest limit of 0.1 ppb. There was no trace
of beryllium in any of the water supplies.
6.3 Wayne County Department of Health-Trace Metal Data
The Wayne County Health Department runs Hi—Vol samplers for
particulate samples every 6 days for a 24—hour sampling period.
m. atmospheric metal data displayed in Tables 89 and 90 was
derived from the suspended particulate data on a quarterly composite
basis using atomic absorption Spectroscopy. These data were taken
from the 1972 and 1973 annual reports provided by the Wayne County
Health Department.
293
-------
TABLE 88
DETECTION LIMITS FOR TOXIC SUBSTANCES
IN MICHIGAN DRINKING WATER
Toxic Substance Detection Limit
arsenic 10 ppb
beryllium not specified
cadmium 10 ppb
chromium 10 ppb
cyanide 10 ppb
lead 50 ppb
PBB not specified
PcB not specified
294
-------
TABLE 89
ATMOSPHERIC METALS — 1972
WAYNE COUNTY, MICHIGAN
STATION
01 04 05 06 012 32 34
.0055
.0051
.0064
.0051
.0101
.0037
.0034
.0038
.0017
.0018
.0078
..0034
.0037
.0055
.0019
.0034
.0038
.0046
trace
trace
trace
trace trace
0
trace
0
trace
trace
trace trace trace trace
trace 0
trace 0
trace trace
trace trace
trace trace
trace
CADMIUM (p g/m 3 )
1972 JAN—MAR .1076
APR—JUN .0055
JUL—SEP .0034
OCT—DEC .0055
BERYLLIUM (nanog rains fin 3 )
1972 JAN—MAR 0
APR—JUN trace
JUL—SEP trace
OCT—DEC
LEAD (p g/m 3 )
1972 JAN—MAR .80
1.13
1.29
.71
.39
.79
.75
APR—JUN .87
1.18
.96
.93
.47
.94
.43
JUL—SEPT .92
1.32
.64
.58
.49
.66
.46
OCT—DEC .74
.37
.61
.57
.52
.65
.49
MERCURY ( .ig/ni 3 )
1972 JAN—MAR .32
.79
.53
.27
1.41
APR—JUN .49
1.44
1.07
.57
.29
2.03
.80
JULY—SEP .46
1.73
.66
.50
.13
1.35
.70
OCT—DEC .22
.35
.23
.28
.05
.43
•]o
295
-------
TABLE 90
ATMOSPHERIC METALS — 1973
WAYNE COUNTY, MICHIGAN
STATION
01 04 05 06 012 32 34
CADMIUM ( ig/m 3 )
1973 JAN—MAR .0036 .0050 .0054 .0031 .0072 .0090 .0032
APR—J1JNE .0030 .0036 .0049 .0027 .0031 .0094 .0027
JULY—SEPT .0036 .0040 .0054 .0027 .0027 .0112 .0027
OCT—DEC .0042 .0048 .0069 .0028 .0031 .0093 .0056
BERYLLIUM (Nanograms /m 3 )
1973 JAN—MAR .48 .54 .47 .27 .36 .69 .37
APR—JUNE .46 .60 .54 .21 .20 .62
JULY—SEPT .28 .32 .52 .25 .20 .48 .20
OCT—DEC .18 .34 .38 .26 .15 .51 .26
LEAD ( J.g/m 3 )
1973 JAN—MAR .52 1.15 .57 .44 .29 .48 .16
APR—JUNE .41 .35 .39 .30 .20 .36 .18
JULY—SEPT .48 .73 1.03 .42 .24 .38 .18
OCT—DEC .60 1.03 .98 .68 .42 .63 .33
296
-------
6.4 Michigan State Department of Agriculture
Many industries in Michigan are disposing of the effluent from
their waste water management systems by spray irrigating this
effluent on fodder and other crops. As a result, the Michigan State
Department of Agriculture has been working closely with local farmers
to find out the effect of feeding these spray—irrigated crops to
dairy cows. The Department has also been checking the milk from
these cows for any problems.
Samples were submitted from selected farms from all parts of
Michigan. Where the Department sampled crops, it also tried to
sample the soil upon which the crops grew. Milk composite samples
were used for milk control samples. Hay was tested from both treated
and untreated fields. Crops and grasses were tested from many farms
throughout the state.
The data resulting from the initial sampling program is shown
in Table 91. The samples taken were insufficient to warrant any
definite conclusions. There were many inconsistencies in the results
and further investigation will be necessary to determine, for example,
the transmission and fate of the heavy metals in the plants. The
occurrence of higher levels of metals in the milk from cows eating
untreated haylage than from those eating the treated type cannot
be explained. This could reflect difficulties in sampling and analyses
which further research should clarify.
297
-------
TABLE 91
MICHIGAN STATE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
HEAVY METALS PROGRAM
ND—NONE DETECTED
AVERAGE METAL CONCENTRATION in ppm MATERIAL
UNBER OF SAMPLES Hg Pb Cd Cr SAMPLED
15 .013 5.26 .118 1.844 SOIL
—— .025 2.7 .08 1.10 SOIL
(FROM SPRAY IRRIGATED FIELDS)
—— ND 3.80 1.22 .95 HAYLAGE
(FROM SPRAY IRRIGAFED FIELDS)
—— ND 7.9 .24 3.80 SOIL
(FROM NON—IRRIGATED FIELDS)
—— ND 1.2 .14 1.98 HAYLAGE
(FROM NON—IRRIGATED FIELDS)
6 ! ENTHLY AVERAGES .0003 .19 .048 .083 MILK
(NON—SPRAY IRRIGATED)
8 MONTHLY AVERAGES .0015 .27 .027 .086 MILK
(SPRAY IRRIGATED)
6 ND 1.48 .031 .63 VEGETABLES
(LAGOON)
3 ND ND MD .096 VEGETABLES
_____________________________ (SANDY_LOAN)
4 ND 1.175 .072 .225 CORN
__________________________________- (SPRAYED AREA )
1 ND 3.5 .08 1.20 SOIL (CORN)
(SPRAYED AREA)
1 ND 5.0 .18 1.59 SOIL (CORN)
(UNSPRAYED AREA)
3 ND 1.0 .106 .246 CORN
(UNSPRAYED AREA)
-------
6.5 International Reference Group on Upper Lakes Pollution—Study of
Pollution Problems of Lake Huron and Lake Superior
This document discusses the study of Lake Superior, Lake Huron,
and their connecting waters. The International Joint Commission (IJC)
which was comprised of representatives from both the United States and
Canada, prepared a specific set of questions to be studied by the
Upper Lakes Reference Group (ULRG). This group, formed in the autumn
of 1972, is a fourteen—member panel, with representatives from
specific Federal, Provincial, and State agencies. The ULRG has the
responsibility for studying the Reference Questions proposed by the
IJC, and should report any findings by December 1975.
These reference questions discuss all facets of pollution
problems In Lake Huron and Lake Superior. Seven of the eight toxic
substances of interest are studied for their contaminating effects in
fish tissue, water, soil and sediment, and air. These substances
are PCB’s, mercury, arsenic, cadmium, chromium and lead. The report
does not present any data on the research which has been done $0 far.
299
-------
7.0 CONNECTICUT AGENCY DATA ANALYSIS
7.1 Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection—Air
Compliance Section
The concentrations of metals in the ambient air over Connecticut
are measured at many sites throughout the state. The air compliance
monitoring section in the Department of Environmental Protection ow
most of the instrumentation, calibrates, and maintains the monitoring
network. The chemical analysis of the speciments however, is perfo ed
by the Kealth Department.
High volume samplers are used to collect specimens. Samples
are taken every sixth day; at the end of a calendar quarter a single
chemical analysis is performed on the composite samples.
The Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection Supplied
data for 10 metals from 1969—1973. An example of this data
is shown in Figure 52. The data for cadmium, lead, chromium,
and beryllium for the years 1971—1973 was reduced using MITRE’s
statistical air data program. The data was transferred from the
Connecticut Air Data Sheets to SAROAD Composite Data Forms for
computer analysis. The results of this data are shown in Appendix A.
300
-------
Suspended Part icula te
Metals Analysis ug/m 3 cont .
2nd Quarter 1971
Cd Fe Pu Cr Cu Mn Ni Zn Be V
New Britain
City Hal ]. 0.0031 0.148 0.84 0.007 0.11414 0.0114 0.022 0.53 0.0000 0.25
Mid — A 0.0007 0.65 0.62 D.003 0.116 0.021 0.008 0.32 0.0000 0.13
Pulaski U.S. 0.0016 0.21 0.31 0.003 . 0.149 0.009 0.005 Q•4 14 0.0000 0.13
Smith Sch. 0.0015 0.25 0.31 0.003 0.107 0.010 0.013 0.50 0.0000 0.18
New Haven
Airport
Beecher Sch.
Bul.lard Bldg.
Clinton Sch. 0.0022 0.55 0.87 0.004 0.163 0.018 0.020 0.50 0.0000 0.18
Trun an Sch.
9 Nur a1k
A.S.C. Bldg. 0.0020 0.26 0.38 0.004 0.071 0.009 0.006 0.55 0.0000 0.06
Health Dept. 0.0021 0.35 0.59 0.004 0.072 0.016 0.006 0.69 0.0000 0.06
Norwich
Say. & Loan 0.0008 0.30 0.41 0.007 0.174 0.008 0.010 0.29 0.0000 0.15
Orange
Air Nat’l. Guard 0.00114 0.39 0.29 0.003 0.228 0.015 0.007 0.37 0.0000 0.014
Putnam
Su erjor Court 0.0029 0.38 0.61 0.005 0.065 0.017 0.025 0.57 0.0000 0.23
Stamford
Dolon Sch. 0.0030 0.38 0.86 0.003 1.1114 1.015 0.014 0.23 0.0000 0.13
?kiin Fire House 0.0018 O.3’i 0.76 trace 0.1407 0.011 0.009 0.20 0.0000 0.06
Stra tford
Bunnell H.S. 0.0025 0.21 0.30 0.009 1.374 0.010 0.0114 0.144 0.0000 0.13
Stratford H.S-. 0.0016 0.27 0.58 0.009 0.078 0.012 0.031 0.55 0.0000 0.35
FIGURE 52
SAMPLE OF CONNECTICUT AIR DATA
-------
FOURTH QUARTER
DATA SUNMARY AND ANALYSIS
303
-------
RESULTS OF DATA ANALYSIS
1.0 CONNECTICUT AGENCY DATA ANALYSIS
1.1 Connecticut State Department of Health, Environmental Health
Services
This agency provided the results of a study of heavy metal con-
tent in shellfish, January 1970—June 1974. Species of shellfish
used were the oyster in New Haven Harbor, Housatonic River and
Bridgeport Harbor. The oyster and clam were. used in Norwalk Harbor due
to availability of the clam resource. The data in Table 92 was obtained
by sampling shellfish in closed areas.* There was no open (approved)
area sampling for heavy metals done from 1970—73.
The New Haven Harbor appeared to be satisfactory with results show-
ing that all heavy metals were within Interim FDA guidelines.** The
Housatonic River had some relatively high lead values but remained Within
FDA guidelines. In Bridgeport Harbor, the cadmium levels In oysters ex—
ceeded FDA guidelines. The chromium level approached and exceeded the
FDA limit on different occasions. Norwalk Harbor oysters did not approach
or exceed FDA guidelines. Clam samples, however, did exceed the cadmium
guideline with chromium content approaching the guideline level. it
would appear from the data that the high cadmium content in the clams
due to waste discharges containing cadmium entering the waterways. The
remaining cadmium values for samples taken in 1972-1974 were below the
guideline level.
Areas not approved for market harvesting.
**Defined to be an attempt to correlate the chemical water quality of
shellfish growing waters with average background levels found in North .
East part of the country. Not intended to relate to public health
significance of a particular metal found in the shellfish themselves.
304
-------
TABLE 92
CONNECTICUT DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SERVICES
(nag/kg of Shellfish Meat)
HEAVY METAL CONTENT IN SHELLFISH JANUARY 1970 — JUNE 1974
NAME OF HARBOR
SHELLFISH
NO. OF SAMPLES
METAL
RANGE
MEAN
0
U i
New Haven
Oyster
36
Hg
0.01 - 0.10
0.04
36
Pb
0.08 — 6.00
0.78
36
Cr
0.00 — 6.00
0.94
31
Cd
0.16 — 9.6
2.3
Housatonic
River
Oyster
10
9
9
8
Hg
Pb
Cr
Cd
0.00 - 0.13
0.40 — 2.00
0.00 — 1.70
0.00 — 6.00
0.047
1.26
0.99
2.68
Bridgeport
Harbor
Oyster
22
19
22
22
Hg
Pb
Cr
Cd
0.00 — 0.18
0.12 — 10.80
0.00 - 8.50
0.00 - 43.00
0.04
0.84
1.60
7.91
Norwalk
Oyster
13
12
13
13
Hg
Pb
Cr
Cd
0.00 - 0.03
0.11 — 1.40
0.00 - 2.90
0.10 — 7.3
0.02
0.58
0.60
2.4
Clam
4
4
5
4
Hg
Pb
Cr
Cd
0.01 — 0.08
0.18 — 1.20
0.00 — 2.00
0.00 - 1.6
0.04
0.67
0.80
0.54
-------
1.2 University of Connecticut—Annual Report of the Department
of Pathobiology 1972—73
The annual report was received from the above—mentioned
university department. This report discusses all of the activities
of the Department of Pathoblology, of which two particular animal
studies are of interest.
The first study dealt with fetal and neuropathology of Inethy1
mercury toxicosis in the dog, pig, and cat. Methylinercury is one f
the most widespread and toxic mercury compounds, and it is presently
one of the most important pollutants in our environment. It affects
several species of wildlife in addition to domestic animals and mai’.
Preliminary experimental studies have been encouraging in that the
estimated experimental toxic dose caused reproducible, well defined
neurological changes within three weeks. They revealed histologic
changes in the brain of cats and pigs and in the medium sized
arteries of the procine meninges. The dog appeared relatively
resistant to mercury in comparison with the two other species.
The second study dealt with lead toxicosis in rabbits, in
which an experimental study was carried out with forty—eight
rabbits that were fed various levels of lead acetate, in order to
study the effect of plumbism on the nervous system and red cell
formation. A comparison was made of three different assay systems
——the erythrocyte flourescence test, the A1i A’ levels in the urine,
and the erythrocyte morphology. The study was conducted in cooperati
with the Department of Nutritional Sciences.
* #mj ol vu1jfljc Acid
3 o6
-------
1.3 University of Connecticut - Master’s Thesis: “Presence and
Influence of Certain Heavy Metals on the Yield and Utilization
of Medicago Sativa L.”*
The thesis is based on data obtained by experimentation and,
as such, this data will not be presented in this report but will be
kept at EPA in the data files.
The paper deals mainly with the ability of animals (meadow
voles) and forage crops (alfalfa) to accumulate heavy metals; in
particular lead, cadmium, and nickel.
In Connecticut, the primary agricultural industry is dairy
farming, with forage crops playing a major role. The first phase
of this thesis determined the ambient levels of lead, cadmium,
and nickel in Connecticut alfalfa. This phase was initiated
primarily because of automotive emissions, a major source of heavy
metal pollution.
This phase was followed by greenhouse experimentation to
determine how lead, nickel, and cadmium influenced alfalfa growth.
The final phase involved a study of animal consumption of
contaminated forage, using the meadow vole as the test animal.
Voles that were fed the contaminated diets were necropsied and
their tissue analyzed for heavy metal content.
The conclusions derived from the Connecticut alfalfa survey
are as follows:
ijchard Wayne Taylor, Master’s Thesis, University of Connecticut, 1974.
307
-------
• The concentrations of Pb, Ni, Cd found in alfalfa in 1972
and 1973 surveys were within normal ranges for plant tissue,
2.8 — 33.2 ppm, 0.5 — .4 ppm, 0.00 — 0.96 ppm respectively.
• Grouping the sampling sites into rural, suburban, and
industrial highway categories showed consistently greater
alfalfa lead values in the industrial/highway categories.
In 1973 significant differences were evident between sites
for Pb, Ni, Cd alfalfa concentrations.
• Washing of samples did not affect detected levels of Pb,
Ni, Cd.
• The correlations between percent IVDMD*and concentrations
of either Pb, Cd, or Ni in alfalfa were not significant.
The basic conclusions derived from the greenhouse experiments
are as follows:
• Pb applied to soil did not consistently affect alfalfa yield.
• Increasing soil Pb concentrations resulted in increased
alfalfa Pb concentrarions.
• Uptake of Pb in the first harvest was greatest when Pb
nitrate was used as compared to Pb sulfate. In both expei-j...
ments Pb concentrations were greater in the first harvest
than in the second harvest.
• Cd, applied to the soil, consistently depressed alfalfa
yields, particularly at the 250 ppm rate and in the first
harvest.
• Alfalfa effectively absorbed cadmium from the soil.
Levels of cadmium in alfalfa were greatest in the first
harvest compared to the second.
• The 250 ppm rate of applied cadmium caused some plant
mortality as well as growth reduction.
• Applied nickel depressed alfalfa growth.
• The 250 ppm applied nickel caused considerable plant
mortality and stunted growth.
*In Vitro d tter digestabj jties.
308
-------
• Nickel concentrations in alfalfa were greatest in the first
harvest compared to the second harvest and concentrations
appeared as a function of soil concentration.
• Nickel concentrations in alfalfa were greater in soils treated
with sulfate compared to nitrate salt of nickel.
• None of the metals at the rates and methods of application
used, appeared to move through the soil mass in anything
other than trace quantities.
The conclusions derived from the meadow vole studies are as
follows:
• Diets containing “organic” copper or Pb at a rate of 200 ppm
did not affect weanling growth.
• Diets containing inorganic lead (5200 ppm) plus organic
copper (125 ppm) resulted in significantly higher weight
gains compared to diets containing the lead alone.
• Diets of organic lead (5200 ppm) resulted in growth depression
even though copper was present. Lead was excreted in the
feces and accumulated In skeletal tissues.
• Voles fed diets containing 5200 ppm organic lead tended to
accumulate less lead in the skeletal tissues than voles
given diets containing 5200 ppm inorganic lead, regardless
of the presence of copper.
• Weanling voles fed diets containing 450 or 550 ppm cadmium
showed significant growth reduction, regardless of the type
of cadmium, organic or Inorganic. Cadmium was excreted in
the feces and accumulated primarily in the liver and kidney.
• Diets containing organic nickel at concentrations of 270 ppm
resulted in reduced weanling vole growth compared to control
diets • Nickel was excreted In the feces and appeared to
accumulate in the skeletal tissue.
309
-------
1.4 The Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station 1 New Haven,
Connecticut
The following are abstracts of published research done at the
Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station. Copies of the reprints
are at EPA.
1. Lead Content of Printed Polyethylene Food Bags , by Lester
Hankin, C. H. Heichel, and Richard A. Botsford
Plastic sheets and film used in making polyethylene bags for
bread, rolls, candy, snacks and cereal are often printed by flexography,
a variation of the letterpress process widely used in printing magazine 8 .
It has previously been shown that letterpress inks used in magazines,
especially the colored pages, contain up to 29,000 ppm of lead. xz o ._
ledge of this prompted the authors to examine polyethylene bags.
It was found that even though the ink markings on the exterior
of the bags contained large amounts of lead, the interior of the bags
contained less than the limit of detectibility.
2. Lead Content on Wrappers of Specialty Foods as a Potential
Hazard for Children , by Lester Hankin, G. H. Heichel, ai
Richard A. Botsford
Knowledge of lead content of letterpress inks led to the
examination of lead content of printed paper wrappers used to package
bakery confections, loilypops, chewing gum, candy, confection—filled
straws, and frozen confections such as ice cream bars.
The authors noted the danger is not one of migration of lead
from printed side to the food, but one of handling the wrappers and
placing them into the mouth, as with the straws, or licking or chewi 8
the wrapper to remove adhering edible material.
310
-------
3. Lead Poisoning from Colored Printing Inks , by Lester Hankin,
Gary H. Heichel, and Richard A. Botsford
The author set out to discover the cause of the abnormally
high blood lead level in a nine—year—old child with pica after he had
ruled out lead based paint chips as the source.
It was discovered that of the many things the child had in
this diet of non—food items, that magazines, especially the colored
pages, contained from 8 — 3,600 ppm lead. It was also discovered that
the cause of this was the color pigments of the ink and not the paper,
even though recycled paper contains up to 12 times the amount of lead
of virgin paper. Among the inks, yellow contained 29,000 ppm, red
4,100 ppm, blue 445 ppm, and black 275 ppm lead.
4. Newspapers and Magazines as Potential Sources of Dietary Lead
for Dogs , by Lester Hankin, Gary U. Heichel, and Richard A.
Botsford
It has been shown that magazine and newspaper inks often con-
tain high levels of lead which may be potentially dangerous to small
children. This article looks at the same problem in dogs who may
ingest shredded newspapers and magazines used as litter——pups are
especially prone to this type of behavior.
5. Lead in Paper: A Potential Source of Food Contamination , by
C. H. Heichel, Lester Hankin, and Richard A. Botaford
The article explores possible contamination of food from
wrappers made of recycled paper printed with lead—based inks, the
feeding of waste paper to beef and dairy cattle and its effect on
meat and milk products, and the use of waste paper as a mulch in
gardens and its effect on lead content of the plants.
31].
-------
The authors conclude that the packaging of food in printed
paper may be a cause of lead contamination, but it is unlikely since
most foods are separated from the printing by an intervening barrier.
Similarly, it was found that the feeding of waste paper to beef and
dairy cattle has little additional effect on the lead content of meat
and milk products. They also found no effect on the plants using
waste paper as mulch in vegetable gardens.
6. Lead Emission from Incinerated Sewage Sludge Detected on
Tree Foliage , by George R. Stephens, Lester Hankin, anF
William D. Glower, Jr.
The article discusses the contamination of trees with lead
emitted with the incineration of sewage sludge. The study was con-
ducted with samples taken from trees near two sewage treatment facili...
ties, a highway, and a rural setting. The results of the tests (Table 93)
show the greatest amounts of lead on the trees near the two treat nt
plants and the least amount from the rural setting. Other heavy metals
were tested, but only traces were found.
TABLE 93
RESULTS OF SEWAGE SLUDGE STUDY
Source
No. Samples
Lead
Content
(ppm)*
Facility
No.
1
16
49
±
5.4
Highway
N of
Facility
No.
1
5
29
2.3
Facility
No.
2
7
15
±
1.6
Rural
1
6
*Mean and Standard Error
312
-------
7. Particles Containing Lead, Chlorine, and Bromine Detected and
Trees With An Electron Microprobe , by Gary H. Heichel, and
Lester Hankin
The article explores the association of lead with chlorine
and bromine on particles of about 7pm in diameter which are embedded
or are on the bark of trees. Similarities between these lead bearing
particles found on trees and some of the compounds found in automobiles
exhaust are discussed.
8. Lead in Pet Food and Processed Organ Meats , by Lester Hankin,
Gary H. Heichel, and Richard A. Botsford
The authors have raised concerns over the lead content of pet
foods because it has been shown that this may also be a human problem.
it has been alleged that some of these products are used for human
ousumpti 1. The lead content of certain sandwich spreads and liver—
vurat is explored in order to determine whether a health problem exists.
9. Modification and Use of the Dipstick Teat, Based on Urinary
Delta—Aminolevulinic Acid (ALA), for the Detection of Lead
Poisoning in Children , by Joseph M. Kornfeld, William W.
Uliman, and Lester Hankin
Modification of the dipstick test used to detect delta—
amenolevUlin1 acid in urine, and thus find potential victims of lead
0 j oning, has been made. A method has been developed to remove inter-
fering materials found in some urines. Use of this dipstick test in
Connecticut is discussed.
313
-------
10. School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, Yale Univers ,
New Haven, Connecticut , by William H. Smith
Metal Contamination of Urban Woody Plants
During the fall of 1970, leaf and twig tissue from six woody
plant species was collected throughout the city of New Haven. Sugar
maple samples were obtained from New Hampshire and Vermont to repre-
sent woody tissue from a non—urban environment. The samples were
tested for 13 metals by atomic absorption spectrophotometry. Of these,
only Pb, Cr, Cd, Ni, Cu, and Zn were of interest in this report.
Table 94 has been extracted from the tables in the report. Cd and Cu
were present in “normal” amounts; Cr and Ni in “slightly above normal”
amounts; Pb and Zn were present in “above normal” amounts.
The article discusses the various factors taken into consid-
eration during the experiments and explains the effects of these sub-
stances upon the plant life subjected to them.
314
-------
TABLE 94
METAL CONTAMINATION OF URBAN WOODY PLANTS
C-)
Species
Tissue Analyzed
Organ No. of sum
Cd*
Cu
Ni______
Range
Mean
Range
Mean
Range
Mean
Range
Mean
Range
Mean
Range
Mean
Pin Oak
(Quercus Palustri
Muenchh.)
Leaves
12
1.5—3.
2.3
9—
15
11
2.3—
12.5
3.8
6—
13
10
55—
220
121
65-
209
137
Twigs
12
1.—3.
2.3
6—
11
1.2—
5.7
2.8
5—
16
8
25—
125
67
19—
68
49
Sugar Maple
(Acer Sacebarm
Marsh.)
Leaves
—
7
.5—1.5
1.0
6—
6
1.2—
1.9
9—
28
14
35—
120
64
47—
158
Twigs
7
.5—1.5
0.8
7—
14
1.8—
2.3
8—
17
11
38—
195
113
36—
134
72
Norway Maple
(Acer Platanoides
L.)
Leaves
32
.5—
2.0
1.1
0.5—
31
9
1.2—
6.2
2.8
.05—
15
6
45
485
146
28—
429
21—
142
Twigs
32
.5—
2.0
0.7
7—
10
1.1—
2.3
1.6
.05—
6
2
10—
300
101
66
Eastern He 1ock
(isuja Canadensis
[ L.J Carr.)
Vew (Taxua app.)
Leaves
8
0.5—
1.0
.
6—
11
8
1.2—
4.6
2 8
13
8
25—
180
91
30
98
54
Twigs
Leaves
8
10
1.8
0.5—
2.5
1.2
1 2
13—
19
1.2
16
1.2—
4.6
2.3
5.7
6—
22
19
o
155—
760
40—
240
315
139
70—
177
109
117
351
Twigs
10
0.5—
4.1
2.0
8—
21
2.3—
12 16.3
6.0
4—
13
10—
371
177
116—
293
Norway Spruce
(Picea Abies [ L.]
Karat
Leaves
4
0.5—
1.0
0 7
5—
8
6
2.3—
3.4
2 6
8
7
45—
100
80—
122
102
Twigs
4
0.8
15
4.9
7
163
119
CAll nu ers are on a dry wt. basis, gfg
-------
1.5 Connecticut Water Compliance and Hazardous Substances,
Division of Environmental Quality
Copies of data obtained during an intensive survey of the
lower Housatonic River during 1973 were received. Of all the
parameters studied during this survey, only one was of interest
to OTS, chromium. Most of the other parameters were biological.
Of the 32 chroniium samples received, there was a mean value of
27.19 mg/i with a standard deviation of 37.61 mg/l. The range of
values was from 0.0 to 1.40 mg/i.
Copies of discharge forms were also received as submitted to
the Water Compliance Division by three companies. The only toxic
substances shown on the discharge forms were cadmium and hexavalent
chromium. These values were either left blank or below detectable
limits.
316
-------
1.6 University of Connecticut, Marine Sciences Institute
The University of Connecticut provided a report entitled
“Investigations on Concentrations, Distributions, and Fates of
Heavy Metal Wastes in Parts of Long Island Sound” which was submitted
by them to the Office of Sea Grant Programs, National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Adininis tration.
This report deals with a two—year investigation on heavy metal
wastes in Long Island Sound with emphasis on the Eastern Sound and
the Connecticut coast. The program consisted of five integrated
projects with the ultimate objective being to determine a preliminary
distribution of these wastes. The projects were concerned with concen-
trations, distributions, and fates of heavy metals in the water column,
water circulation patterns and water renewal times in the Sound, the
transport of suspended materials in the Sound, and the uptake of
metals in oysters at various locations along the Connecticut coast.
317
-------
2.0 NORTH CAROLINA AGENCY DATA ANALYSIS
2.1 North Carolina Department of Human Resources — Division of
Health Services
A copy of a printout for chemical analyses of water for public
water supplies in North Carolina for the years 1971 and 1972 was
received. There were approximately 1,890 samples, each of which
were analyzed for a wide variety of parameters, including color,
alkalinity, hardness, pH, turbidity, etc. Of the 12 trace elements
analyzed for, arsenic, cadmium, hexavalent chromium (Cr +6), and
lead were the parameters of Interest to this study.
Different types of water data were coded categorically on the
printout data sheets. As can be seen in Figure 53, four major head—
ings were used to characterize the nature of the sample;
• A — Type of Supplier
• B — Source of Water
• C — Source of Sample
• D — Type of Sample
It is interesting to note the consistency of trace metal levels
throughout the entire group of data, considering the fact that the
data values were representative of a wide variety of sample types.
Table 95 shows the ten instances where a deviation from the recurring
data readings occurred. In five of the cases, a higher reading was
observed in arsenic for raw (untreated) tap water. In three cases,
lower than normal readings were observed for Cr +6 and Pb in untreated
water, and two cases showed lower than normal readings in treated water
318
-------
A. 1000 OF 50771404
1 .3.0*24
I S. .37*tV D I II
l . .3 1II 11040 01*0
(0 . 43 1 IV
4*44181 8 0
,, 1 1 01 3 4204
*81044
0 058*
.SOillCE OF WATI4
802040.4
1 114*1030
I IOTH
1-01 ,01*410
C 50040! 07 5*34710
I-
24.44,10 TI?
3 D*0U*iT10T1 TAP
• 2.717! OF S*36’01
1. 140
1.11001 1*
‘3
‘0
boIC 14,1l
01404! OF OWNES
i s 0050711.7
2 001 ;ooI1
3i26 OOVOT 4.l000_SUI3OlVTSl0l 5 72
L 7. 50I4LS07PO 07 I I I 0 71
‘
7579! 01500145 78 1 00 4440 I I II I 211 05 72
I
!
005 083
3301070
. I---
oool 079
• ‘
003 ,4 1 00.20
330 079 00.00
094 00, • ° °I
*00.03
00.03
00.10
—r— —————
*
iL
0011000
005306
0O3 005
. .
003
004
OIl
-
.
029
006
047
-
i
03.4
02.5
05.1
—
-‘
0.1
4.13
3.1
—
0.411
—
8
o
—
70 0 .4lDU.0100. oo 0
I
0.01 O.L . - ... . o C .. ..
01 •0.C5 ’ . .’...5 . 0. Ct
•—- —---I--- -1- —
973 2 j_ oI1lIe-rpAILeOroolc 1 3]J !f.l 0572
7191 0101010014 “03150 l-0 CS 31 011 05 74
— jj 0572
4? 342 0971
27 0l!0C04OO7 190ILCO CIII 3 a4. 0672
‘453 6Ci0004O00 T941 801’I - 2i2
60 0G0C0O 04 8 1 L C D 04 j3 02 72
7567 oooooo 073140 ° j j i J* 4572
7535 170100580030051L1- 004IO1I3+1.I! 1 0072
0740 75 ror. 4 000 DILL 0 :00141 3. i I 2 0372
007100 TOA 1 572
7 O7i’ 2 0.109030 40065 o0 I Cl 3 1 j .o I 0672
0 00110S I 0672
--1---
000 075 228 219 00.14 *00.03
0401074 333 37 44.10 •O s.03
007 063 000 079 400.051 00.03
0 0 073 I I o36 11 05 0 3
4 5I077 !144iI82 ,II.24 1 43.II
00411066 35614145 000.05 044.03
1140 070 7 * ,0.05 *114.03
085 075 ili4 1*33.00 *40.03
353L20 1 50.05I000.03
000 075 ooo ol 4! . , s.o o .40.03
005 071 339 031 *00.05 *00.03
500 1170 037 o0 *00.05 *00.03
000 072 041 032 *00.05 800.03
-1--
C DI 070
060 409
330I . j f
0041330
003 4107
083 3*0
064 026
004 0*4
001 019
006 019
007 016
029
003
057
0,4
006
0115
002
056
401
002
001
002
005
020
004
044
402
0*0
41.19
007
030
046
036
0446
048
006
00.6
00.9
02.5
0*0
01.7
00.8
01.4
05.7
01.1
00.7
00.7
00.8
01.1
0.19
0.10
0.14
OIl
0.14
4.1
7.12
0.03
0.I5
0.09
5.12
0.12
0.10
* ,.L4
15.01
00.01
01
• s.3l
*3.o
00.00
•J.u1
.j.oj
*4.41
.0.31
*0.50
n ..OI
‘4.01
•.. ..31
Dl
4 ..0l
o4. 4
05.01
*0.01
—s.oa
.4.111
*0.01
*0.01
10... •. 0 .. . I .,. .,c . . . . .
03.00 *3.C0I .o.sr.i o.. .
D C. 0 ,0 . ,4.3
S
o . _J
lo.SJ ..:o
4O.3s 0 :3. 5 *5. O s
.:o.:o 4. .7!
l0 .o *3130 00.30
•0.O 0117.45 00.05 ot.lo
0C.0b 0110. 5 ‘0.Co Os.l1-
4722156
DONOLYC TkAlsC11 00
-
3 1 I 1 00 70
0011
064
31,6
.100 *00.00 *30.33 3114 015 003 002
009 *0005 *0003 1165 41041 042 008
00.7
0.00
0
0.01*0.01
*3 .5
- -
0044*14 LYPIIo 80441 0 04
3 1 I 0772
000
374
004
018
086
‘301
*401
*35
35
000
3
l j O
S8 3 9j
.0725143
0005014 10811.69 049 CI
00 13011E D .400*1.0 740
1,3140545 000ILE 4 0M
3 I II 1 0 . 14
- 6 72
-
000
003
30..)
073
079
057
398
164
004
. .90
176
olD
00.15
011.70
*30.04
000.03
*1111.03
04.113
025
000
033
02*
015
013
0144
008
01 )6
009
0 .05
7
01.0
01.2
00.7
0.10
0.10
0.38
*0.0*
40.01
04.411
*4.01
0 ,.01
.0.0)
l0.sC
*0.45*3,
*0.53
.5 0.4,
3.35
.11.52
0 0._C
03.34
.3.0,
*44... 5
5 .4o
c0...7
478o 25
OOvEO 02
I I I 1 09 II
007
003
176
114
00.00
*00.03
009
0112
080
09.1
0.32
80.41
80.01
00.05
*511.55
*3.
456.3). ,r .
7738 27
07509 78119 OILL I. 01
I 1 2 0. , 72
1103
073
400
1176
02.00
00.13
025
016
013
Oh
02.5
0.14
*0.01
*0.01
‘0.00
*70.05
‘0.00
0 .. ‘7
II47 3 47
3 j 7
J a
7700. I11.t_ CII
.3.700 -IL07l7 70 3ILE C
0700850140 407150 H —
DI 1000L
L ’OFTD000 VILLASO
10 I I 05 72 1107
3 I I I 0672 007
iZoa C97 j
32 00 701050
060 ‘310
071 114
079 039
073
1-27
112
1416
092
*20.45
411.05
00.07
*00.00
8110.03
00.08
*00 3
*04.03
1109
040
002
007
426
007
002
018
307
003
005
012
013
004
0
012
01.6
01.1
0l
00.9
0.10
0.12
1.05
0.b9
40.31
40.31
*11.411
*0.111
•0.OI
*6.01
*0.0*
*4.01
*0.35
*0.04
*0 5
*0.05
*70.011
07.1.05
400.45
*05.45
20.03
*0.05
10 ,
07.Ss
00.10
90,.75
00.
*flrt tabje LL it.
FIGURE 53
CHEMICAL ANALYSIS OF WATER
-------
TABLE 95
SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT DEVIATIONS
FROM NORMAL TRACE METAL VALUES IN NORTH
CAROLINA CHEMICAL WATER ANALYSES
FOR As, Cd, Cr+ 6 , AND Pb
DATE SOURCE TYPE OF DEVIANT DATA VALUE*
MONTH YEAR OF H 2 0 SAMPLE As Cd Cr+ 6 Pb
04/72 Ground Raw <.03
09/71 Ground Raw
06/72 Ground Raw <02
07/72 Ground Raw <.05
07/72 Ground Raw <.04
06/72 Ground Raw <.03
06/72 Ground Raw <.07
08/72 Ground Raw 45
02/72 Surface Treated <.01
02/72 Surface Treated <.03
*Recurring Values: As <0.01
Cd <0.01
cr+ 6 <0.05
Pb <0.05
320
-------
It is fair to assume a high level of consistency of trace
metal levels in North Carolina water supplies since only these ten
isolated deviations were detected out of 1,890 total samples.
321
-------
3.0 FLORIDA AGENCY DATA ANALYSIS
3.1 Florida/Metropolitan Dade County Pollution Control
The Dade County Pollution Control Office provided a variety of
data on air, dust and water.
Some lead data was received from the Hi—Vol sampling system for
1970—1974, but since it is already in the SAROAD system, it will not
be analyzed.
A report entitled “The Miami River” was also received. This
report deals primarily with environmental clean up measures that
were undertaken to restore the aesthetic and biological quality to
the Miami River. The only piece of data on toxic substances in this
report was the fact that recent research In several cities of the
United States and in Europe found that state road type, two lane high-
ways, accumulate 350 lbs/mile of dust and dirt a day, which contaj
the following heavy metals and PCB (average values) values:
• Lead 0.65 lb.
• Mercury 0.07 lb.
• Chromium 0.11 lb.
• PcB 1100 x io 6
In addition to the high volume sampling lead data that is in the
SAROAD data bank, Hi—Volume lead sampling data was received for the
special lead study program dealing with Sahara dust in Florida.
According to sources in Florida, dust becomes air—borne in the
African Sahara Desert, reaches tremendous altitudes, and undergoes
transoceanic transport. The purpose of this study is to provide the
statistics of the number of particulates, organics, and metals that
322
-------
settle in Florida as a result of this transport process. Of the
metals for which analyses are done, lead is the only one of current
interest to OTS.
Tables 9.6 and 97 illustrate the lead data obtained using
selected sampling sites based on August 7th, 1974 background data,
and a comparison of background data with the data obtained through
the September 1973 to February 1974 data.
rabies 98 and 99 display lead data sampled at random sites
for the same time period and its comparison with background data
obtained at Site No. 27.
Water quality data was also received from Dade County. Samples
were taken from 20 sites comparing canals without STP effluents in
residential areas with canals in agricultural areas without SW
effluents for biological and chemical parameters. This included
Pb, Cr, and Cd in the trace metal section. The values given for
each site were averages of six samples taken at each site in either
the fourth quarter of 1974 or the first quarter of 1975. AU values
for Pb, Cd, and Cr were zero in this survey, except for one case
where the Black Creek Canal, in an agricultural area, and the Ludlain
Canal in a residential section, showed an average reading of 0.3 ppm
jn January of 1975.
323
-------
TABLE 96
SAHARA DUST STUDY IN DADE COUNTY—STATISTICS OF SAHARA DUST STUDY
IN DADE COUNTY USING SELECTED SAMPLING SITES BASED ON 24-HOUR
AUGUST 7th, 1974 HI-VOL RESULTS
SEPTEMBER 1973 THRU FEBRUARY 1974
Pb pg/rn 3
k ,
8
10
12
14
16
19
20
21
23
25
28
6 S
DATA
NO. OF
OBSER.
21
19
20
24
24
22
22
20
17
23
23
235
AVER.
2.1
1.3
1.5
1.1
1.4
1.5
0.8
0.9
0.5
1.3
2.8
1.4
S TD.
DEV.
1.1
1.0
0.8
0.8
1.2
0.9
0.7
1.0
0.4
0.9
1.7
1.2
MAX
5.5
3.8
3.9
3.0
3.7
3.7
2.1
3.5
1.4
4.0
6.8
6.8
MIN
0.6
0.4
0.6
0.3
0.2
0.4
0.3
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.5
0.1
-------
TABLE 97
SAHARA DUST STUDY IN DADE COUNTY-
SUMI4ARY OF AMBIENT AIR POLLUTANT CONCENTRATIONS FOR
TEST PERIODS OF SEPTEMBER 1973 IIIRU FEBRUARY 1974 AND AUGUST 7, 1974
3
Pb .ig/m
SEPTEMBER 1973 ThRU FEBRUARY 1974 AUGUST 7th, 1974*
NO. OF ARI Th S TD. MAX. MIN. NO. OF ARITh S TD. MAX. MIN.
OBS. MEAN DEV. RDC. RDG. OBS. MEAN DEV. RDG. RDG.
“ LEAD 235 1.4 1.2 6.8 0.1 U 1.1 0.8 2.8 0.2
* Day with High—Volume Filter Discoloration
NOTE: High—Volume results during both sampling periods were taken from the same 11 sampling sites.
Sampling Site No’s: 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, 19, 20, 21, 23, 25, and 28.
-------
TABLE 98
STATISTICS OF SAHARA DUST IN DADE COUNTY USING HI-VOL SAMPLING
SEPTEMBER 1973 THRU FEBRUARY 1974
Pb
La
0 ’
i ,
1
8
10 12
13
14
15
16
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
28
6MOS
DATA
NO. OF
OBSERV.
18
21
19 20
17
24
21
24
22
22
20
15
17
23
23
23
339
AVER.
1.4
2.1
1.3 1.5
1.5
1.1
0.9
1.4
1.5
0.8
0.9
1.5
0.5
0.9
1.3
2.8
1.3
S TD.
DEV.
0.8
1.1
1.0 0.8
0.8
0.8
0.7
1.2
0.9
0.7
1.0
1.5
0.4
0.6
0.9
1.7
1.1
MAX.
3.7
5.5
3.8 3.9
2.9
3.0
3.3
3.7
3.7
2.1
3.5
3.0
1.4
2.4
4.0
6.8
6.8
MIN.
0.6
0.6
0.4 0.6
0.0
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.4
0.3
0.1
0.3
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.5
0.0
-------
TABLE 99
SAHARA DUST ST JDY IN DADE COUNTY
COMPARISON OF AMBIENT AIR POLLUTANT CONCENTRATION AT
16 SAMPLING SITES AND BACKGROUND SITE DURING
TEST PERIOD FROM SEPTEM3ER 1973-FEBRUARY 1974 BY 24-HOUR
HIGH-VOLUME SAMPLER
3
Pb p.g/m
SEPTEMBER 1973 JIIRU FEBRUARY 1974 SEPTEMBER 1973 ThRU DECEMBER 1973
16 SAMPLING SITES BACKGROUND SITE
(SITE #11 OMITTED) (NO. 27)
NO. OF ARITh STD. MAX. MIN. No. OF ARITh STD. MAX. MIN.
OBS. MEAN DEV. RDG. RDG. OBS. MEAN DEV. RDC. RDG.
I . . )
- .4
LEAD 339 1.3 1.1 6.8 0.0 13 0.1 0.3 1.0 0.0
NOTE: Sampling results from background site (No. 27) not used in computing statistics for 16 sampling
sites ARITH. MEAN, STD. DEV., ETC.
Sampling Site No. 11 data omitted due to insufficie’t amount of data collected.
-------
3.2 FlorIda Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services,
Division of Health
The Florida Division of Health provided sotne water analysis
data forms for January and February of 1975. The samples were taken
from raw and treated water sources in Duval, Pasco, Escambia, and
Collier counties. Among the toxic substances examined on the data
forms were As, Cd, Pb, Cr, and CM. For all samples, the values
were low, being either zero or just above detectable limit.
328
-------
4.0 ] NNESSEE AGENCY DATA ANALYSIS
4.1 Tennessee Department of Public Health, Division of Air Pollution
Control
The state of Tennessee monitors trace metals in the atmosphere
by analyzing the filters received from the Hi—Vol sampling units
which are dispersed throughout the state sampling network. The
division of air pollution control employs fifty—one fixed sites in
thirty—seven cities, eight continuous monitoring sites and five
special studies sites. Sampling is conducted randomly on a twenty—
four hour or “daily” sampling period.
Heavy metal data was received from fifteen fixed sampling
sites for many parameters including arsenic, beryllium, cadmium,
chromium and lead covering the period of years 1972 through 1974.
This daily trace metal data was transferred to SAROAD daily
data forns, keypunched, and analyzed statistically by computer
program to produce data by site and constituent for the following
parameters
• Number of Samples
• Minimum
• Maximum
• Average
• Standard Deviation
A sample of the Tennessee data appears as Figure 54. The
results of the data analysis are displayed in Appendix A of
Volume IV of the Final Report, Compilation of the Summaries and
analyses of State Data .
329
-------
UNITS: ug/m 3
DArE: 7-1-72 to 6—30—73
METHOD: HI —VOL & ATOMIC ABSORPTION
STATION COPPEP I IILL 1fl IBEP
DArE
2—10
3—18
4—23
5-29
6—10
AUJMINJM
———-
————
————
2.55
1.38
ARSENIC
.262*
.282 ’
BERVLL IIIM
004’
004’
.002*
.002*
.002*
CADMIW.1
.033*
.033*
.016*
.016e
—
.016*
CHROMIUM
.013
.013*
.006*
.006*
.006*
SnIJALT
.020*
.020*
.010*
.010’
.010*
COPPER
.300
.503
.091
.119
•377
POlI
22.26
16.9
3.59
4.48
12.7
LEAD
.349
.679
.185
.255
.637
MAGNESIUM
1.50
.390
.789
.721
—
.416
NICI
-------
4.2 Tennessee Department of Agriculture
The Department of Agriculture routinely monitors and analyzes
samples of various media for pesticide residues. Samples are taken
from dairy products, meat products, and other assorted media such as
cake mixes, silage, feed, flour, and garden plants.
Table lOOshows the results of the Pesticide Residue Sampling
Program for January 1971 through April 1975. PCB is the substance of
interest. Analyses of dairy products, including raw milk, homogenized
milk, cheese, and eggs, showed an overwhelming majority of the samples
had no PCB contamination. Of the dairy samples showing PCB’s, the
highest value was 4.121 ppm. This value was found in raw milk with
ti e analysis Implications performed on a fat basis.
Ihe beef products and other miscellaneous media also had a
majority of values at zero. Of the values above zero, the highest
was 2,16U 1 pm f PCB, found in a silage sample analyzed in 1973.
No explanation has been obtained for the abnormally high value.
The Meat Inspection Section of the Department of Agriculture
checks meat samples for arsenic on a regular basis. For the years
197 .—1973, a total of 111 samples were analyzed for arsenic
contamination. Only three samples had values above detectable limits.
The values were 0.1, .15 and 0.2 ppm.
331
-------
TABLE 100
TENNESSEE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
PESTICIDE RESIDUE SAMPLING PROGRAM - PCi ’s (ppm)
TOTAL NO. NO. OF VALUES RANGE AVERAGE OF
YEAR MEDIA OF SAMPLES ZERO VALUES >ZERO VALUES ZERO VALUES ZERO
1971 Raw Mi.lk 234 234 — — —
1971 Homogenized Miik 157 157 — — —
1971 Cheese & Eggs 20 15 5 0.36—0.45 0.39
1971 Beef, Pork, & Other 98 98 — — —
Meats
1971 Miscellaneous Media 24 24 — — —
1972 Raw Milk 375 344 31 0.025—0.478 0.19
1972 Beef, Pork, & Other 70 69 1 0.4 0.4
Meats
1972 Miscellaneous Media 12 12 — — —
1973 Raw Milk 262 226 36 0.01—4.5 0.368
1973 Beef, Pork, & Other 59 57 2 0.010—3.75 1.875
Meats
1973 Miscellaneous Media 31 19 11 0.032—2,160 271.032
1974 Raw Milk 228 218 10 0.01—2.39 0.438
1974 Beef, Pork, & Other 164 163 1 1.33 —
Meats
1974 Miscellaneous Media 66 61 5 0.05—1652.4 315.975
1975 Raw Milk 24 24 — — —
1975 Beef, Pork, & Other 65 65 — — —
Meats
1975 Miscellaneous Media 44 44 — — —
-------
4.3 Tennessee Game and Fish Commission
Two annual progress reports were received from the Tennessee
Fish and Game Couuriission. The first report covered the time span
July 1, 1971 to June 30, 1972. The second report dealt with progress
from July 1, 1972 through June 30, 1973.
The earlier report dealt with two specific tasks, one of which
was to set up a pesticide monitoring program, and the other to
investigate disease and pollution—caused fish kills. A considerable
amount of PCB data was obtained from this report as a result of the
pesticide monitoring program, and is summarized in Table 101. This
report tentatively concluded that more pesticides were found in the
1971 samples than in any taken in previous years. The PCB levels
are of particular concern in six out of about 57 different species
in which average values exceed existing F.D.A. standards of 5.0 ppm.
Catfish, carp, and carpsuckers show particularly high levels of PCB
with channel catfish averaging 20.53 ppm in Fort Loudon Reservoir.
The progress report for the following year was essentially a
follow—on to the aforementioned study, with the addition of a new
task, fresh water mussel investigations. Again, data of interest
was found in the pesticide monitoring section. The PCB monitoring
data is sunmiarized in Table 102. Ten species, two from Fort Loudon,
one from Guntersville, one from Cheatham, one from Kentucky Lake,
two from Cherokee, and three from Little River, showed average
values in. excess of the 5 ppm limit. Some limited metals analyses
333
-------
were performed for lead, zinc, cadmium, arsenic, and mercury in
the brain, liver, kidney, muscle, and gonads of two rockfish taken
from the Cherokee Reservoir. The results are shown in Table 103.
Although none of the values of the metals were high enough to kill
the fish, their affect on people and the general well being of the
fish are unknown at this time. The analyses for metals were perforn d
with atomic absorption §pectrophotoxnetry.
334
-------
TABLE 101
SUMMARY OF AVERAGE PCB CONTENT BY SPECIES
BY BODY OF WATER, 1971
NO. OF
STATION SPECIES SAMPLES PCB (ppm)
Fort Loudon Carp 5 * 8.97
Channel Catfish 5 * 20.53
Largemouth Bass 4 4.97
Spotted Bass 1 4.37
Bluegill 5 4.01
Guntersvil le Carp 2 2.64
Buffalo 3 2.97
Bluegill 5 2.37
Largemouth Bass 4 3.26
Spotted Bass 1 * 8.23
Channel Catfish 3 * 8.70
Duck River Carp 3 1.86
Carpsucker 2 1.77
Channel Catfish 5 0.20
Bass 5 0.28
Bluegill 5 0.27
Cbeathafll (below Nash. ) Carp 5 * 9.46
Bullhead 1 2.16
Largemouth Bass 3 3.61
Spotted Bass 2 2.71
Bluegill 5 2.91
335
-------
TABLE 101 (continued)
SUW RY OF AVERAGE PCB CONTENT BY SPECIES
BY BODY OF WATER, 1971
NO. OF
STATION SPECIES SMIPLES PCB (ppm)
Bush Lake Carp 5 0.15
Channel Catfish 5 0.32
Largeinouth Bass 3 0.22
Bluegill 5 0.09
Kentucky Reser1,9. &r Carp 5 1.36
Blue Catfish 1 0.58
Channel Catfish 3 2.7].
Largemouth Bass 4 1.46
White Crappie 5 0.60
Bluegill 5 0.57
Forked Deer Carp 5 0.93
Channel Catfish 1 1.04
Longnose Gar 1 0.042
Gizzard Shad 5 2.08
Largemouth Bass 2 0.12
White Crappie 3 0.12
Hatchie River Carp 1 2.5
Bullhead 1 0.12
Gizzard Shad 5 1.17
Largemouth Bass 3 0.32
White & Black Crappie 4 0.25
Bluegill 5 0.17
336
-------
TABLE 101 (continued)
SUMMARY OF AVERAGE PCB CONTENT BY SPECIES
BY BODY OF WATER, 1971
NO. OF
STATION SPECIES SAMPLES PCB (ppm)
Obion River Carp 4 2.08
Longnose Car 5 1.45
Gizzard Shad 5 2.83
Carpsucker 1 * 7.71
Drum 4 1.37
Bluecat 1 0.83
Ree lfoot** Largemouth Bass 2 0.83
Bowfjn 1 0.050
Yellow Bass 2 0.100
Channel Catfish 3 0.14
Bullhead 1 None Detected
Bluegill 5 0.05
White Crappie 5 0.033
Black Crappie 5 0.042
Viiue Exceeds F.D,A. Standard of 5.0 ppm
**Samples Suspect — lateness of sample 1/8/72
337
-------
TABLE 102
SUMMARY OF AVERAGE PESTICIDE CONTENT
BY SPECIES BY BODY OF WATER, 1972
NO. OF
STATION SPECIES SAMPLES PCB (ppm)
Fort Loudon Bluegill 5 2.33
Carp 5 437
Smailmouth Bass 3 * 8.07
Largemouth Bass 3 3.46
Drum 3 3.23
Channel Catfish 5 *11.70
GuntersVille Redear 5 1.93
Largemouth Bass 5 1.50
Smailmouth Buffalo 5 4.22
Channel Catfish 5 *16.70
Duck River Carp 5 1.93
Spotted Bass 5 0.49
Bluegill 5 0.25
Bullhead 5 • 0.08
Cheatham Bluegill 5 1.83
Largemouth Bass 5 3.41
Carp 5 * 7.03
338
-------
TABLE 102 (continued)
SUNMARY OF AVERAGE PESTICIDE CONTENT
BY SPECIES BY BODY OF WATER, 1972
NO. OF
STATION SPECIES SAM I’LES PCB (ppm)
Kentucky Lake White Bass (female) 5 2.24
White Bass (eggs) 10 1.25
White Bass (male) 5 3.65
White Bass (testes) 10 0.13
Carp 5 * 5.21
Bluegill 5 0.62
White Crappie 5 0.49
Largemouth Bass 5 2.08
Channel Catfish (small) 5 1.12
cherokee Bluegill 5 0.70
Largemouth Bass 5 3.96
Smallmouth Bass 3 3.13
Carp 5 0.98
Rockfish (medium) 1 * 7.81
Rockflsh (small) 1 2.81
Rockfish (medium) 1 * 6.51
Hybrid Rockfish (medium) 1 4.32
Hybrid Rockfish (medium) 1 2.08
339
-------
TA BLE 102 (continued)
SUMMARY OF AVERAGE PESTICIDE CONTENT
BY SPECIES BY BODY OF WATER, 1972
SPECIES
White Sucker
Channel Catfish
Bluegill
Bluegill
Largeinouth Bass (small)
Yellow Bass
Channel Catfish (small)
Bullhead
White Crappie (small)
Black Crappie (small)
NO. OF
SAMPLES
4
4
3
PCB
* 797
*27.30
* 9.48
0.13
0.13
0.17
0.83
0.17
0.058
0.13
*Value Exceeds F.D.A. Standard of 5.0 ppm
STATION
Little River
Reelfoot
5
3
5
3
2
5
5
340
-------
TABLE 103
RESULTS OF HEAVY METALS ANALYSIS OF ORGANS
FROM CHEROKEE ROCKFISH, FALL 1972
Mercury
Tissu PROGRAM A PROGRAM B
Brain <0.10 ppm <0.10 ppm
Liver 0.98 ppm 0.88 ppm
Kidney 0.29 ppm 0.33 ppm
Muscle 0.67 ppm 0.60 ppm
Gonads 0.45 ppm 0.26 ppm
Arsenic
Tissue PROGRAM A PROGRAM B
Brain 1.1 ppm 1.3 ppm
Liver 1.2 ppm 1.0 ppm
Kidney 0.62 ppm 0.59 ppm
Muscle 0.25 ppm 0.26 ppm
Gonads 0.46 ppm 0.58 ppm
Cadmium
flee PROGRAM A PROGRAM B
Brain <0.05 ppm 1.1 ppm
Liver 0.08 ppm <0.05 ppm
Kidney 0.20 ppm <0.10 ppm
Muscle <0.05 ppm <0.05 ppm
Gonads O.05 ppm <0.05 ppm
Zinc
Tissue PROGRAM A PROGRAM B
Brain 4.8 ppm 12.9 ppm
Liver 31.0 ppm 15.0 ppm
Kidney 12.9 ppm 10.5 ppm
Muscle 3.1 ppm 3.4 ppm
Gonads 20.3 ppm 20.3 ppm
A 14 lb.—6 yr. old rock
B 10 lb.—5 yr. old rock
341
-------
TABLE 103 (continued)
RESULTS OF HEAVY METALS ANALYSIS OF ORGANS
FROM CHEROKEE ROCKFISH, FALL 1972
Tissue
Brain
Liver
Kidney
Muscle
Gonads
Lead
PROGRAM A
<0.3 ppm
<0.2 ppm
<0.8 ppm
<0.2 ppm
<0.2 ppm
PROGRAM B
<0.8 ppm
<0.2 ppm
<0.6 ppm
<0.2 ppm
<0.2 ppm
A 14 lb.—6 yr. old rock
B 10 lb.—5 yr. old rock
342
-------
5.0 NEW YORK AGENCY DATA ANALYSIS
5.]. New York State — Nassau County Department of Health
Nassau County has been involved in two programs that monitored
toxic substance content. The blood lead data program was established
to correlate the lead level in blood to the lead level in water from
corrosion of lead service lines. The water data program was designed
to assess the need for corrosion control programs in Nassau County.
The blood lead data was collected during the Spring of 1971,
while the lead levels in water data was collected between 1971 and
1974.
Residents serviced with leaded service lines had blood lead
levels higher than those residents serviced by non—leaded lines.
Mean values were 24 i.g/l00 ml and 13 g/l00 ml. Lead content in
water flowing from leaded service lines had a mean value of 0.10
(mg/i). These results show that people drinking water from leaded
pipes have a higher blood lead level than those who are serviced
from non—leaded pipes.
The analysis of the water supply distribution system data
showed that levels of copper averaged .44 mg/i while lead levels
averaged 0.128 mg/i. Both of these values exceeded the U.S. Public
Service limit of 0.05 mg/i. TablelO4 shows the comparative
statistics of this survey.
343
-------
TABLE 104
NASSAU C . HEALTH DEPT. LEAD STUDY
PLES
24
NO. OF SAMPLES.
27
RESIDENTS WITH LEADED SERVICE LINES
Pb IN BLOOD ( g/lOO ml)
RESIDENTS WITH NON—LEADED SERVICE LINES
Pb IN BLOOD ( g/lOO ml)
RANGE
5—21
MEAN
13.75
STANDARD
DEVIATION
4.75
RESIDENTS WITH LEADED SERVICE LINES
Pb IN WATER (mg/i)
STANDARD
DEVIATION
.440
.111.
STANDARD
RANGE
MEAN
DEVIATION
14—39
24.67
9.59
STANDARD
nPUTATTnN
NO. OF SAMPLES
RANGE MEAN
.08
12
0.01—0.29 .095
WATER
SUPPLY DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM
DATA
(mg/i)
NO. OP SAMPLES
407
398
TOXIC SUBSTANCE RANGE
Cu
Pb
<0.05—2.25
<0.02—0.69
• MEAN
.383
068
344
-------
5.2 City of New York — Environmental Protection Administration,
partment of Water Resources
The above—mentioned agency supplied the annual report
of the Bureau of Water Supply for the years 1971, 1972, and 1973.
The Water Quality Control Division is responsible for the direction
and control of all phases of treatment, purification, sanitation
and monitoring of the New York City water supply system extending
from the upland watersheds 125 miles north down into the distribution
network of mains in the five boroughs of the city.
The water supply bureau checks for trace metals in various
portions of its water quality surveillance program. The number of
sampling stations for chemical characteristics in 1971, 1972, and 1973
was 14, 13, and 13 respectively. As can be seen from the values of
, As, Cd, Cr+ô, Hg, and Pb, in Tables 105 throughlll, the
sanitary quality of the distribution system conforms to the water
standards promulgated by the U.S. Public Health Service in 1962.
In 1972 and 1973 the Department of Water Resources undertook a
survey of trace elements in the New York upstate watershed. Tables 28
and 29 display the average, minimum, and maximum for the elements that
were of Interest to OTS, As, Cd, Cr, Hg, and Pb. As can be seen
from the tables, none of the values were significantly high, and
no problem Is foreseen In the future.
345
-------
TABLE 105
RANGE AND AVERAGE - REPRESENTATIVE SAMPLING STA.TIONS - 1971
TRACE
METAL
mg/i
Cyanide
Arsenic
Cadmium
+6
Chromium
Mercury
Lead
S ILVER LAKE
EFFL
RANGE MEAN
.000—.003 .001
.0003— .0006 .0004
.00—.00 .00
.00-.00 .00
<.001— <.001<.. 001
.00—. 00 .00
J.P.RES
G}15
RANGE MEAN
.000—.007 .004
.0005—.0008 .0006
.00—.00 .00
.00—.00 .00
<.001— <.001<. 001
.0O—.00 .00
J.P • RES
CR7
RANGE MEAN
•001—.005 .003
.0004—. 0008 .0006
.0O—.00 .00
.00—.00 .00
<.001— <.001<. 001
.00—.00 .00
135th St.
GH
RANGE MEAN
.001—.005 .003
.0005—.0006 .0005
.00—.00 .00
.00—.00 .00
<.001 <.001<001
.00—. 00 .00
TRACE
ME TAL
rn /1
Cyanide
Arsenic
Cadmium
+6
Chromium
Mercury
Lead
C.P.RES
EFFL
RANGE MEAN
000— .005 .002
.0004—. 0008 .0006
.00—.00 .00
.00—.00 .00
<.001—<.001<. 001
.00 .00 .00
101 AV-90 ST
637
RANGE MEAN
.001—.003 .002
< ..001—<.001 <.001
.00—.00 .00
.00—.00 .00
<.001— <001 <.001
.00—.00 .00
MERRICK &
HILLSIDE 782
RANGE MEAN
.000—.003 .002
<.001—<.001 <.001
.00-.00 .00
.0O-.00 .00
<.001- <.001 <.001
.00—.00 .00
189 & HILLSIDE
783
RANGE MEAN
‘z.. 001— <.001 <.001
.00—.00 .00
.00-.00 .00
<.001— <. 001<. 001
.00—.00 .00
-------
TABLE 105 (contInued)
RANGE ND ANEP.AGE - REPRESENTATIVE SAMPLING STATIONS - 1971
TRACE
METAL
mg/i
SHAFT
RANGE
2
MEAN
SHAFT
RANGE
3k
MEAN
SHAFT
RANGE
9A
MEAN
Cyanide
.000.009
.004
.000—.005
.002
.000—. 003
.001
Arsenic
.0003—.0008
.0005
.0002—.0009
.0004
.0002—.0008
.0005
Cadmium
.00—.00
.00
.00—.00
.00
.00—.00
.00
Chromium 6
.00-.00
.00
.00—. 00
.00
.00—. 00
.00
Mercury
<.001-<.001
<.001
<.00l—<.001
<.001
<.001—<.001
<.001
Lead
.00—.00
.00
.00—.00
.00
.00—. 00
.00
—4
METAL
m R/i
SHAFT
RANGE
15A
MEAN
SHAFT
RANGE
24
MEAN
S .R.
RANGE
EFFL
MEAN
Cyanide
.000—.006
.002
.O01—.005
.003
.000-.000
.000
Arsenic
.0003—.0005
.0004
.0004—.0007
.0006
.0003
Cadmium
.00—.00
.00
.00—.00
.00
.00-.00
.00
Chromium 6
.oo—.oo
.00
.oo—.oo
.00
.crn-.oo
.00
Mercury
<.ooi—<.ooi
<.001
<.001—cOol
<.001
<.0O1 —<.OO1
<.001
Lead
.00—.00
.00
.00—.00
.00
.00—.00
Courtesy New York City Environmental Protection Administration
-------
TABLE 106
RANGE AND AVERAGE - REPRESENTATIVE SAMPLING STATIONS - 1972
TRACE
METAL SHAFT 2 SHAFT 3A SHAFT 9A SHAFT ISA
mg/i RANGE MEAN RANGE MEAN RANGE MEAN RANGE MEAN
Cyanide .002 .002 .003
Arsenic <.001 <.001 <.001
Cadmium .00 .00 .00 00
Chromiuin 6 .00—.00 .00 .00—.00 .00 .00—.00 .00 .00—.00 .00
Mercury <.001 <.001 <.001 <.001
Lead
.00—.0O
.00
.00—.00
.00
.00—.00 .00
.00—.00
TRACE
SILVER LAKE
J .P . RES
METAL
SHAFT
24
R.R.
EFFL
EFFL
G117
mg/i
RANGE
MEAN
RANGE
MEAN
RANGE MEAN
RANGE
MEAN
Cyanide .002 .003
Arsenic <.001 <.001 <.001 <.001
Cadmium .00 .00 .00 .00
Chromium .O0—.OO .00 .OO—.0O .00 .O0 —.0Q .00 .00—.00 .00
Mercury <.001 <.001 <.001 <.001
Lead .O0—.00 .00 .00—.O0 .00 .00—.O0 .00 .00.00 .00
-------
TABLE 106
RANGE AND AVERAGE - REPRESENTATIVE SAMPLING
STATIONS — 1972
(continued)
TRACE
METAL
mzIl
<.001
.00
.OO—.0O .00
<.001
.0O—.0O .00
.003
<.001
.00
.0O—.0O .00
<.001
.00—.O0 .00
<.001
.00
.00—.00 .00
<.001
.00—.00 .00
101—12
JAMAICA AVE
G 39
RANGE MEAN
<.001
.00
.00
<.001
.00—.00 .00
NO CONDUIT
SPRINGFIELD BLVD
790
RANGE MEAN
<.001
.00
.00
<.001
.00—.00 .00
j.i.it s 135th St
GR5 C l i C.P.EFFL
RANGE - MEAN RANGE MEAN RANGE MEAN
Cyanide
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium+ 6
Mercury
0
Lead
Courtesy N York City Environmental Protection Administration
-------
TABLE 107
RANGE AND AVERAGE - REPRESENTATIVE SAMPLING STATIONS - 1973
TRACE
SHAFT 2 SHAFT 3A SHAFT 9A
mg/i RANGE MEAN RANGE MEAN RANGE MEAN
Cyanide <.OOi—.O0i <.001 <.O01—.OO1 <.001 <.0Oi—.0Oi <.001
Arsenic <.O01—.002 <.001 <.001—.OO1 <.001 <.ooi—.ooz .001
Cadmium .0O—.OO .00 .0O—.OO .00 .OO—.oo .00
chromium+ 6 .00.00 .00 .O0—.0O .00 .00—. 00 .00
Mercury <.001<.O01 <.001 <.O01—<.OO1 <.001 <.001—cOOl <.001
Lead .00—.00 .00 .00-.00 .00 .0O—.0O .00
TRACE
METAL SHAFT 15A SHAFT 24 R.R. EFFL
mg/i RANGE MEAN RANGE MEAN RANGE MEAN
Cyanide <.OO1—.001 <.001 cOOl-.001 <.001 cOOl—.001 .001
Arsenic .000—. 002 .001 <.001—.002 .001 cOOl—.002 .001
Cadmium .00—.00 .00 .0O—.00 .00 .0O-.OO .00
Chromium .00—.00 .00 .00—.O0 .00 .O0-.00 .00
Mercury <.001— .001 <.001 <.O01—<.001 <.001 <.001—<.OO1 <.001
Lead .00—.O0 .00 .00—.00 .00 .00—.0O .00
-------
TABLE 107 (continued)
RANGE AND AVERACE - REPRESENTATIVE SA}IPLING STATIONS - 1973
TRACE
METAL
mg / 1
Cyanide
Arsenic
Cadmium
+6
Chromium
Mercury
Lead
TRACE
METAL
mg/i
Cyanide
Arsenic
Cadmium
+6
(iiromium
Mercury
Lead
SILVER LAKE
EFFL
RANGE MEAN
<.O01—.0O1 .001
.000—<.O01 .000
.0O—.O0 .00
.OO—.OO .00
<.OO1—<.OO1 <.001
.O0—.OO .00
135th St
GR
RANGE MEAN
<.OO1—.OO1 .001
.000—< .001 .000
.OO—.OO .00
.O0—.OO .00
<.O01—<.001<.OO1
.00—.00 .00
RANGE
<.O01—.O01
.000—<. 001
.00—. 00
.O0—.02
<.O01—<. 001
.OO—.o0
C.P.RES
EFFL
RANGE MEAN
<.0O1—.O01 .001
.000—<.OO1 .001
.O0—.00 .00
.OO—.03 .01
<.0O1—<.0O1<.O01
.00—.0O .00
CR7
MEAN
<.001
<.001
.00
.02
<.001
00
UTILITIES &
INDUSTRIES
RANGE MEAN
< O01—.O01 <.001
<.001— .002 .001
.0O—.OO .Oó
.0O—.O1 .00
<.o01—< .OO1<.001
.00—.01 .01
J.P. RES
GH5
RAN GE
<.001—.0o1
.000— .001
.00—.00
.00—. 00
<.001—<.o01
.0O—.00
JAMAICA
WATER Co.(790)
RANGE MEAN
<.001—.001 <.001
<.000—.001 <.001
.00—.00 .00
.0O—.0O .00
<<.001—<.001<.001
.00— .01 .00
J.P. RES
s -n
MEAN
.001
.000
.00
.00
<.001
.00
Courtesy New York City Environmental Protection Administration
-------
TABLE 108
TRACE ELEMENT STUDIES IN UPSTATE WATERSHED - 1972
LOCATION As Cd Cr Hg Pb
Schoharie AVER <.005 <.02 <.002 <.01
k below MAX <.005 <.02 <.002 .01
Prattsvil 1 e MIN <.005 <.02 <.002 <.01
Schoharie AVER <.005 <.02 <.003 <.01
Res. MAX <.005 <.02 .007 .01
Intake MIN <.005 <.02 <.002 <.01
EsopuS Creek AVER <.005 <.02 <.002 <.01
at MAX <.005 <.02 .004 .01
Boiseville MIN <.005 <.02 <.002 <.01
Ashokan AVER <.005 <.02 .002 <.01
Res. MAX <.005 <.02 .008
CL — EFF XLN <.005 <.02 <.002 <.01
West Branch AVER <.005 <.02 .002 .015
BeerStefl MAX <.005 < .02 .004 .03
MIN <.005 <.02 <.002 <.01
East Branch AVER <.01 < .02 .002 .01
Delaware MAX .045 <.02 .0009 .04
below MIN <.005 <.02 <.002 <.oi
Mar garet
yule
NeversinK AVER <.005 <.02 .007 .01
EFF MAX <.005 .03 .068
Grahanisville KEN <.005 <.02 <.002 .01
Rondout AVER <.005 <.02 <.002 .01
Gaging MAX <.005 <.02 <.002 .02
Str. MIN <.005 <.02 <.002 .00
Rondout AVER <.005 <.02 .002 .075
EFF MAX .02 <.02 .004 .02
Laskawack NIN <.005 <.02 <.002 .00
W. Delaware AVER <.005 <.02 <.002 .01
Tunnel MAX <.005 <.02 <.002 .02
Outlet KEN <.005 <.02 <.002 .01
352
-------
TABLE 108 (continued)
TRACE ELEMENT STUDIES IN UPSTATE WATERSHED — 1972
LOCATION As Cd Cr Hg Pb
Cannoflaville AVER <.005 <.02 .237 .03
Res. <.005 <.02 .004 .24
ELEV MIN <.005 <.02 .610 <.01
COMP
Rondout AVER .006 .00
w. Br MAX .04 .00
Sh17 L MEN .00 .00
Delaware AQ AVER .003 .00
sI i8 EFF MAX .02 .00
MIN .00 .00
p leasant AVER .003 .00
vile MAX .02 .00
INFL. MIN .000 .00
Catskill AVER .006 .00
EFF MAX .04 .00
MIN .00 .00
Croton Lake AVER .005 .00
EFF MAX .03 .00
CHLOR MIN .00 .00
urtesy New York City Environmental Protection Administration
353
-------
TABLE 109
TRACE ELEMENT STUDIES IN UPSTATE WATERSHED - 1973
LOCATION As Cd Cr Hg Pb
Schoharie AVER <.0005 .002 <.0002 <.001
Ck below MAX <.0005 .002 <.0002 <.001
Prattsville MIN <.0005 .002 <.0002 <.001
Schoharie AVER <.0005 <.002 <.0002. <.001
Res. MAX <.0005 <.002 .001 <.001
Intake NIH <.0005 .002 <.0002 <.001
Esopus Creek AVER <.0005 <.002 <.0002 <.01
at MAX <.001 <.002 <.0002 <.01
Boiseville NIH <.0005 <.002 <.0002 <.01
Ashokan AVER <.0005 <.002 <.0002 <.01
Res. MAX <.0005 <.002 .001 <.01
CL — EFFL NIH <.0005 <.002 <.0002 <.01
West Branch AVER <.0005 <.0002 .003 <.01
Beersten MAX .004 <.0004 .008 <.01
NIH <.0005 <.0002 .002 <.01
East Branch AVER <.0005 <.0002 .0003 <.01
Delaware MAX <.0002 <.0002 .0005 <.01
below MIN <.0005 <.0002 <.0002 <.01
Margaret—
ville
NeversinK AVER <.0009 <.002 .0005 <.01
EFFL MAX <.008 <.003 .0022 <.01
Grahamsvil le KEN <.0005 <.002 <.0002 <.0].
Rondout Ck AVER <.0005 <.002 .0003 <.0]
Gaging MAX <.0005 <.002 .0012 <.01
Str. NIH <.0005 <.002 <.0002 <.01
Rondout AVER <.0005 <.002 .0003 <.01
EFFL MAX <.0036 <.002 .0005 <.01
Laskawack KEN <.0005 <.002 <.0002 <.01
W. Delaware AVER <.0006 <.0002 .0012 <.01
Tunnel MAX <.0025 <.0002 .0018 <.01
Outlet MIN <.0005 <.0002 .0007 <.01
354
-------
TABLE 109 (continued)
TRACE ELEMENT STUDIES IN UPSTATE WATERSHED — 1973
LOCATION As Cd Cr Pb
Rondout AVER .000 .00 .00
W. Br MAX .000 .00 .00
SH17 CL MIN .000 .00 .00
(Influent to
Kensico)
Delaware A AVER .000 .00 .00
Sh18 EFFL CL MAX .000 .01 .00
(Effluent from MIN .000 .00 .00
Kens I co)
Pleasant- AVER .000 .00 .00
yule MAX .000 .01 .00
INFL MIN .000 .00 .00
Catskill AVER .000 .00 .00
EFFL MAX .000 .00 .00
MIN .000 .00 .00
Croton Lake AVER .000 .00 .00
EFFL MAX .000 .00 .00
CHLOR MIN .000 .00 .00
Courtesy New York City Environmental Protection Administration
355
-------
TABLE 110
RANGE AND AVERAGE CHARACTERISTIC ANALYSES OF THE
CATSKILLDEL AND CROTON SUPPLIES IN THE DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM
mg/i
Cyanide
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium+ 6
1972
CATSKILL-DELAWARE
RANGE AVERAGE
CR0 ION
RANGE - AVERAGE
RANGE AND AVERAGE CHARACTERISTIC ANALYSES OF THE
CATSKILL-DELAWARE AND CROTON SUPPLIES IN ThE DISTRIBUTION SYST
1971
mg/i
Cyanide
Arsenic
Ca dm1 urn
+6
Chromium
Mercury
Lead
CATSKILL-DELAWARE
RANGE - AVERAGE
.000—.O09 .002
.000—. 001 .001
.O0—.OO .00
.OO—.OO .00
< .001—<.0O1 <.001
.O0—.OO .00
CR0 TON
RANGE - AVERAGE
.000 —.007 .003
•0 00 —.001 .001
.00—.00 .00
•OO—.O0 .00
<.ooi—<.ooi <.001
.0O—.00 .00
Ci ty Environmental Protection Administration
. 002—.003 .002
<.O01—.<0O1 <.001
.00 —.00 .00
.O0—.O0 .00
Mercury
Lead
.002—.003 .003
<.001-<. 001 <.001
.00 -.00 .00
.00—.OO .00
<.OO1-<.OO1 <.001
.00—. 00 .00
<.O01—<. 001
.00 —.00
<.001
.00
Courtesy New York
356
-------
TABLE 111
RANGE AND AVERAGE CHARACTERISTIC ANALYSES OF THE
CAISKILL—DELAWARE AND CROTON SUPPLIES IN THE DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM
TRACE ELEMENT
mg/i
Cyanide
Arsenic
Cadmium
+6
Ghrotnium
Mercury
Lead
1973
CATSKILL-DE LAWARE
RANGE - AVERAGE
<.O01—.OO1 .001
.000—.OOZ .001
.000—. 000 .000
.0O—.OO .00
<.O01—<.OO1< .004
.0O—.O1 .00
CROTON
RANGE - AVERAGE
<.0O1—.OO1 .001
.000—<.OO1 .000
.000—.000 .000
.OO—.oO .00
<.oo1—< .001< .001
.00—.o0 .00
Courtesy New York City Environmental Protection Administration
357
-------
5.3 New York St ate Department of Environmental Cons e rvat ion,
Division of Air Resources
High volume sampling lead data was received from the state of
New York for the year 1973. Lead data was also received for three
sites sampled during the years 1970—1972.
Sampling for particulate lead in ambient air, using the high
volume sampler, was started in New York state in 1970 with four
stations. The network grew to 13 stations in 1972.
At a lead sampling station, two high volume samplers are run j
parallel on the every sixth day schedule. One of them, using the
glass fiber filter, samples for TSP while the other samples for
lead using a cellulose filter. Each sampler takes a 24—hour sample,
Annual averages for all the stations are displayed in Figuress.
Figure 55 shows TSP, lead in (.Lg/m 3 , and percent lead, whith is
calculated as percent of TSP collected by the parallel Hi—Vol
sampler. The reduction from 1970 to 1973 in annual percent lead
concentration varies from 19 percent at Buffalo (1401—18) to 36
percent at Roosevelt Island (7093—03).
MIT1 E has coded all the lead data for the year 1973 in SARO&j
format and processed it with a statistical program. The results
of this program are shown in Appendix A of Final Report Volume iv,
Compilation of the Summaries and Analyses of State Data ,
*Total suspended particulate
358
-------
Station
Albany
Jamestown
Buffalo
Buffalo
Buffalo
Rochester
Eisenhower Pk
‘0
Niagara Falls
Utica
Syracuse
Maniaroneck
Roosevelt i .2
Number
0101-02
0602-03
1401-01
1401—18
1401—19
2701—01
2950-10
3102-01
3202-01
3 301-08
5956-01
709 3-03
FIGURE 55
NEW YORK STATE AMBIENT AIR LEAD DATA
____ 1973
TSP Pb
117 0.74
54 0.27
79 0.73
113 0.94 0.82 110 0.73
90 0.64
83 0.90
68 1.40 2.06 88 1.34
92 0.46
70 0.53
81 0.74
62 1.08
82 0.90 1.09 78 0.73
1972
TSP Pb %Pb
1970 1971
TSP 1 Pb %Pb TSP Pb %Pb
126 1.02 0.81 136 0.93 0.68
89 1.98 2.22 99 1.83 1.85
97 1.42 1.47 90 1.06 1.18
%Pb
0.62
0 • 50
0.92
0.66
0.71
1.08
1.52
0.50
0.76
0.91
1 • 74
0 • 94
1 TSP Total Suspended Particulates
2 Formerly Welfare Island
-------
5.4 New York State Department of Health
Two reports covering the periods of time from October 1970
to March 1971, and M Y 1971 to April 1972 were received and en-
titled “A Study of Chemicals in Drinking Water from Selected Public
Water Systems.” These reports were done in cooperation with the
united States Geological Survey, therefore, a detailed statistical
ana1y - Will not be done as the data is sorted in the USGS data b k.
The first study dealt with water sampling done in the fall and
winter months of 1970 to 1971 at selected distribution outlets of
publiC drinking water systems across the state. The purpose of the
study was to find out not only what chemicals may be found in son
rinkiflg waters of New York state but also the ranges of concentratj
of these chemicals.
A conclusion of interest in this report was the difference noted
between groundwater and surface water. No pesticides, for example,
were detected in groundwater. It was determined that additional
sampling would be needed to verify this tentative conclusion, It
was recommended that a determination of the geographic distribution
of the undesirable chemical constituents such as heavy metals COuld
be beneficial in the study of possible relationships between certain
diseases and public drinking water sources. The trace elements of
interest that were studied are as follows.
• Arsenic • Cyanide
• Beryllium • Lead
• Cadmium • Mercury
• Chromium • PCB’s
360
-------
The second report dealt with the sane area of studies as the
first. It was found that pesticides and herbicides are not a problem
in the state of New York. Arsenic was found above the acceptable
limit in two systems, 12 miles apart, drawing from the same aquifer.
The arsenic appeared to be naturally occurring.
It was also found that raw water samples, from lakes and reservoirs
receiving man-made or natural discharges containing lead, showed
seasonal increases.
It was recommended by this report that additional studies be
undertaken to determine the source of the high concentration of arsenic
jn the groundwater, and also to study the seasonal variations in lead
concentrations
361
-------
5.5 New York Department of Environmental Conservation, Fish and Wild-
life Management
The data s1 wn in Table 112 are the results of
what was an ongoing mercury study in New York initiated in 1969. At
the end of 1974, this program reached a state of dormancy and j
currently being reevaluated. This particular data was Obtained by
sampling in Cranberry Lake in New York state.
The analyses for this project were done jointly by the New York
Health Department and the environmental conservation department’s
Rome Pollution Laboratory.
As can be seen from the tables, only one fish 7.8 inches long
and one fish 7.0 Inches long was below 0.5 ppm Hg. Also, of ten legaj.
sized smalimouth bass, nine exceeded the 0.5 ppm actionable Hg level.
362
-------
TABLE 112
ASH AND WiLDLiFE Hg STUDY’
MERCURY LEVELS IN CRANBERRY LAKE
Species Item 1969 1970 1972 1974
Si a11i outh bass No. 3 2 24 24
Size range (In.) 14.0—15.2 13.5—14.2 10.6—15.7 10.6—16.9
Weight range (Lb.) 1.40—1.96 1.50—2.00 0.57—1.80 0.46—2.40
g conc. range (ppm) 1.95—3.10 1.42—1.57 0.50—3.08 0.84—2.93
X Hg conc. (ppm) 2.47 1.49 1.39 1.34
Yellow perch No. 3
Size range (In.) 10.5—11.5
Weight range (Lb.) 0.49—0.61
g conc. range (ppm) 1.33—2.18
X Hg conc. (ppm) 1.65
Coimi n white sucker No. 3
Size range (In.) 13.2—14.6
Weight range (Lb.) —
conc. range (ppm) 0.16—0.34
X Hg conc. (ppm) 0.28
*Courtesy New York State Fish and Wildlife
-------
TABLE 112 (CONTINUED)
Item 1971* 1974
No. 3 17
Size range (In.) 10.3—14.3 9.6—15.4
Weight range (Lb.) —— 0.44—1.81
Range Hg conc. (ppm) 0.06—1.00 0.54—2.12
X Hg cone. (ppm) 0.48 1.2
No. 2
Size range (In.) 16.2—16.7 13.2—20.6
Weight range (Lb.) 1.25—1.31 0.75—3.75
Range Hg conc. (ppm) 0.80—1.30 0.95—2.74
X Hg cone. (ppm) 1.05 1.62
No. 2 7
Size range (In.) 9.0—11.2 7.7—11.2
Weight range (Lb.) 0.38—0.68 0.19—0.75
Range Hg cone. (ppm) 0.70—2.80 0.58—1.81
X Hg cone. (ppm) 1.75 1.24
No. 15
Size range (In.) 11.2—15.9
Weight range (Lb.) 0.56—1.75
Range Hg conc. (ppm) 0.17—1.10
X Hg conc. (ppm) 0.52
No. 2
Size range (In.) 15.2—17.3
Weight range (L .) 1.06—1.69
Range Hg cone. (ppm) 0.92—1.10
X Hg cone. (ppm) 1.01
No.
Size range (In.) 13.6
Weight range (Lb) 0.81
Range Hg conc. (ppm) 0.37
X Hg conc. (ppm) 0.37
Species
Smalluiouth bass
Splake
Yellow perch
Conm n white sucker
Longnose sucker
Whitefish
1
“Health Department analysis in 1971.
-------
TABLE 112 (CONTINUED)
I tern
19 70 (1)
1972
1973
1974
Species
White perch
Smallnxrnth bass
Wal leye
Yellow Perch
Brown bullhead
Black crappie
No.
Size
(In.)
.
7(2)
34(3)
30
range
Weight (Lb.)
—
7.5—10.0
7.0—11.1
7.0—10.2
Range Hg conc. (ppm)
—
0.42—0.84
0.12—0.87
0.19—0.71
X Hg cone. (ppm)
—
0.49—3.55
2.11
0.36—2.65
1.43
0.20—2.65
0.90
No.
Size (In.)
—
—
16
—
Weight
(Lb.)
8.5—13.5
—
7.0—13.0
range
Range Hg conc. (ppm)
—
0.43—1.31
—
0.17—1.25
I Hg cone. (ppm)
—
0.61—2.23
1.26
—
—
0.21—1.40
0.81
No.
Size range (In.)
—
—
—
5
4
Weight (Lb.)
—
—
11.4—22.1
18.5—21.0
Range Hg conc. (ppm)
—
0.44—4.35
3.63 -8.26
X Hg cone. (ppm)
—
—
—
1.15—7.91
5.76
1.25—2.61
1.96
No.
2
Size range (In.)
9.25—9.75
2
8.5—9.5
2
1
Weight
(Lb.)
0.53—0.63
7.0—7.5
9.0
range
Range Hg cone. (ppm)
3.5—8.2
avg
1.56—2.39
0.21—0.25
0.41
X Hg cone. (ppm)
5.8
1.98
0.69—0.71
0.70
0.60
0.60
No.
3
Size (In.)
10.0—11.2
2
Weight
(Lb.)
range
Range Hg cone. (ppm)
X Hg (ppm)
4.0—4.1
4.03
0.25.-0.37
2.16—2.47
No. 2 4 4
Size range (In.) 9.0—9.8 7.6—10.7 6.5—8.5
Weight range (Lb.) — 0.40—0.77 0.21—0.39
ange Hg cone. (ppm) 1.0—2.2 0.31—1.47 0.33—0.55
________________ X Hg cone. (ppm) 1.60 0.79 0.45
(l)Health Dept. ana1 sis, all others by Environmental Conservation Department’s Rome
(2)Only one fish 7.8’ long below 0.5 ppm Hg.
( 3 )Only one fish 7.0” long below 0.5 ppm Hg.
(4)Of 10 legal sized smallmouth bass, 9 exceeded the 0.5 ppm action 1e Hg. level.
1
9.4
0.43
0.76
0.76
Pollution Laboratory.
-------
5.6 New York State Department of Environmental Conservation,
Division of Pure Waters
A compilation of all water quality information concerning
toxic substances data was received from the Division of Pure Waters,
which acts as a central repository for New York State. This data
bank facilitates the fulfillment of the water quality data needs
of all various entities concerned.
The majority of the heavy metals data contained in the data
sheets has already been entered into the USGS data bank, or the
EPA files. The small portion of the data not included in these
data banks was analyzed statistically by MITRE. The results are
shown in Table 113.
366
-------
TABLE 113
NEW YORK STATE WATER QUALITY DATA
g/ 1
NO. OF STANDARD
SAMPLES MINIMUM MAXIMUM MEAN DEVIATION
1972
CADMIUM 3 0 10.0 5.0
CHROMIUM 6 0 20.0 6.66
CYANIDE 4 0 10.0 2.5
1.973
ADM’UM 17 0 11.0 2.47 2.7
CHROMIUM 21 0 10.0 2.38 4.36
CYANIDE 19 .01 40.0 7.37 11.94
1974
cADMIUM 96 0 15.0 1.09 2.06
CHROMIUM 97 0 20.0 9.28 5.25
CyANIDE 7 0 10.0 4.29 5.35
ARSENIC 2 1.0 1.0 1.0
MERCURY 2 .5 .5 .5
LEAD 2 4.0 9.0 6.5
CADMIUM 19 1.0 17.0 4.26 4.65
CHROMIUM 19 0.0 10.0 4.74 5.13
367
-------
5,7 New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
The above—mentioned agency with the help of Cornell University
did a study of the arsenic content of fish from New York state waters
in 1969. A survey was taken of 471 fish sampled in 1969 from 49
New York state waters for total arsenic content. Arsenic levels
ranged up to about 0.5 ppm with fish from Lake Ontario, Cananbaigua
Lake and the Hudon, St. Lawrence and Salmon Rivers being relatively
higher. Larger fish generally contained higher arsenic concentration 3
Arsenic did not appear to be cumulative with increasing age in lake
trout ranging from two to 11 years old.
368
-------
5.8 New York State Department of Health, Division of Laboratories
and Research Environmental Health Center
A landfill leaching survey was begun in the State of New York
in 1972 examining surface and groundwater for As, Be, Cd, Cr, Pb, Hg
and CN. Table 114 shows the statistical analysis performed on the
raw data by MITRE. The samples were taken in various surface and
groundwater locations receiving landfill leachate in the state of New
York. This survey is still being conducted in New York.
369
-------
TABLE 114
NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH LANDFILL. LEACHING SURVEY
mg /i
1972
1973
1975
1925
—
tRACE
N (IF
STE.
N OF
SOD.
N SF
SOD.
#30
SOD.
METAL
SAME
818
MAN
MEAN
0EV.
SAIl?
HIM
MAX
NEAL
0EV.
SAN?
MI S
MAX
MEA3
DXV.
SAMP
MID
114.8 MEAN
DXV.
As
7
.82
.02
.02
0.0
8
.02
.05
.03
.003
.01
.05 .081
.185
R
14
.02
25
.048
.065
6
.02
.02
.02
0.0
N 0
S A 8 P 1 E S
Cd
2
.05
.05
.05
0
18
.005
.05
.023
.022
32
.002
.14
.023
.0224
4
.002
.02 .013
.009
Cr
2
.1
.1
.1
0
23
.01
.28
.084
.059
30
.01
.9
.1403
.171
0
.1 .057
.048
Pb
2
.1
.1
.1
0
14
.01
.2
.107
.046
20
.1
.1
.1
0.0
7
.01
.18 .086
.059
Hg
10
.0004
.0016
.0006
.0004
18
.0004
.0000
.0004
.0001
.0004
.0004 .0004
0.0
Cn
2
.01
.01
.01
0.0
4
.1
.1
.1
5
-------
6.0 IDAHO AGENCY DATE ANALYSIS
6.1 Idaho State Department of Fish and Game and Department of Health
During the years 1970—1971, the above—mentioned agencies jointly
conducted a study entitled “Mercury Levels in Idaho Fishes and
Aquatic Environments, 1970-1971.” The Idaho Fish and Game Department
collected 1,096 fish, 3 samples of aquatic organisms, 60 water samples,
and 17 sediment samples from 93 geographical locations to determine
the extent of mercury contamination in Idaho waters. Neutron
activation and atomic absorption were used in 1970 and 1971, respec-
tively. Mercury occurrence in Idaho waters was found to be widespread,
although the sources were not pinpointed.
Of the twenty—six species of fish analyzed, piscivorous fish had
higher mercury levels than fish with plankton insect diets. Nongame
warimqater fish contained approximately twice the mercury levels
found in coidwater (trout and whitefish) gamefish species. Fish
sampled from reservoirs contained higher mercury levels than fish
sampled from reservoir tributaries. The highest mercury concentration
measured in the 1,096 sampled was 1.70 ppm in a squawfish. Fifty—
nine fish or 5.3 percent of the total number of fish collected
exceeded the 0.50 ppm F.D.A. level. However, over half of these
were nongame species and were infrequently used by fishermen.
Table 115 displays the wide variance found in mercury contents
between species inhabiting the same water. This seems to be
attributable to feeding habits. Insect/plankton fish species
and young piscivorous species still feeding on vegetation had
371
-------
TABLE 115
MERCURY RESIDUES IN IDAHO FISHES BY SPECIES, 1970-1971
Species Sample No. Aver. - Hg PP!
Coldwater Species .112
Hatchery Rainbow 41 .057
Wild Rainbow 218 .094
Steelhead - Juvenile (Hatchery) 20 .050
Steelhead — juvenile (wild) 10 .008
Steelhead - Adult 10 .140
Kamloops - Adult 10 .482
Cutthroat 66 .106
Dolly Varden 9 .533
Brooi< Trout 3 .127
1 rown Trout 3 .438
Kokanee 25 .074
Coho (Resident) 14 .068
Chinook - Juvenile (Wild) 8 .194
Chinook - Juvenile (Hatchery) 10 .116
Chinook - Adult 5 .051
Whitefish 95 .121
Cisco 10 .088
Wartnwater Species .211
Largemouth Bass 3 .367
SmaiLmouth Bass 23 .190
Sunfish 10 .175
Crappie 33 .138
Yellow Perch 96 .242
Channel Catfish 38 .214
Bull head Catfish 5 .150
372
-------
TABLE 115 (CONTINUED)
Species Sample No. Aver. - Hg ppm
Nongame Species .217
Squa fish 39 .247
Utah Chub 38 .276
peamouth Chub 2 .250
Chiselmouth Chub 9 .142
Redside Shiner to .074
Carp 61 .167
Sucker 172 .227
373
-------
consistently lower mercury levels. For example, a rainbow trout
less than two pounds collected from American Falls Reservoir
averaged 0.256 ppm mercury while larger rainbow and cutthroat trout
five to six pounds in weight averaged 0.910 ppm and 0.822 ppm respec .
tively.
Tablell6shows a comparison of mercury levels In reservoir fish
and fish in reservoir tributaries. Movement of stream sediment and
running water may Inhibit the methylization of mercury, resulting
in lower mercury levels in stream fish.
Fish were tested from one national fish hatchery and seven
Idaho fish and game hatcheries. Tablell7shows that the mercury
residues ranged from <0,002 ppm to 0.186 ppm. Analysis of dry fish
feed constituents used in the Idaho Fish and Game Department feed
formula showed herring meal to be highest in mercury residue (Table 118)
6.2 Environmental Improvement Division — Idaho Department of Health
A report was received from the above—mentioned agency entitled
“Water Quality Survey — Coeur D’Alene River — Coeur D’Alene Lake”.
The Coeur d’Alene river and lake have been periodically examined to
determine the chemical quality of the water and the composition of
the aquatic biota.
Two of the toxic substances of interest, lead and cadmium, we e
analyzed for in this survey. In the Coeur d’Alene River system,
significantlY high concentrations of lead were present in Canyon
Creek, Nine Mile Creek, Government Gulch, and the lower part of the
374
-------
TABLE 116
COMPARISON OF MERCURY RESIDUES IN STREAM AND RESERVOIR FISHES
Location ecies Average - Hg ppm
Big Wood River Rainbow .014
Magic Reservoir. Rainbow .052
gig Lost River Rainbow .073
Mackay Reservoir Rainbow .186
Snake River (South Fork) Sucker .090
Snake River (Henrys s Fork) Sucker .002
Snake River (Idaho Falls) Sucker .175
American Falls Reservoir Sucker .558
Jordan Creek Sucker .520
pntelope Reservoir (Oregon) Sucker .742
Jordan Creek Rainbow .231
Antelope Reservoir (Oregon) Rainbow .gio
TABLE 117
MERCURY RESIDUES iN IDAHO HATCHERY FISH, 1970-1971
Lish Hatchery Species Sample No,. Average - Hg ppm
*American Falls Rainbow 5 .118
*Aghton Rainbow 6 .092
Dworshak National Steelhead (Smolts) 10 .015
Eagle Rainbow 10 Neg.**
HagerTflafl (State) Rainbow 10 .106
Mackay Rainbow 10 .186
Niagara Springs Steelhead (Smolts) 10 095
Rapid River Chinook Smolts 10 .116
*Chinook Adults .110
*Sampled in 1970
‘: Less than 0.002 ppm
375
-------
TABLE 118
MERCURY RESIDUES IN DRY FISH FEED (IDAHO FISH AND GAME FORMULA), 1971
It: g r c di en t
( c”posite Sample
Caiadian Herring Meal
C nadi in Herring Meal.
( afl d at1 Herring Meal.
Canadi3n Herring Meal
Fish Oil
bLood Meal (Sample #1)
BILjod Meal (Sample #2)
caL S. op Meal
actosed Whey
Soybean Flour Meal
KLl.p Meal
1 1 heat iddlings
(Sample #1) 31
(Sample 2)
(Sample #3)
(Sample #4)
2
5
10
8
10
3
19
.060
.170
• 165
.063
• 102
.020
.005
.004
.038
.008
.005
.018
.002
Percent iii Formula (Wt. )
376
-------
Southfork Coeur d’Alene River. Cadmium was present in significant
amounts in Canyon Creek below the Star Mine, Nine Mile Creek
below the Rex and Day Rock Mines, Government Gulch, and the lower part
of the South Fork. The Spokane River at stateline contained essentially
no lead or cadmium on the five sampling dates.
En the Coeur d’Alene Lake the only heavy metal found consistently
was zinc.
Table 119 displays the lead and cadmium Values found in 1970 and
1971 of this study. As can be seen from the table, lead and cadmium
values are significantly lower in Coeur d’Alene Lake than in the
river system of the sa name.
377
-------
TABLE 1i9
HEAVY METALS CONCENTRATIONS
Coeur River System
ppm
LEAD 1970
LEAD 1971
CADMIUM 1970
CADMIUM 1971
RANGE
<0.01 —8.78
<0.01 —9.08
<0.001—2.96
<0.001—3.59
Coeur d’Alene Lake System
ppm
MEAN
0.55 1
0. 705
0.1634
0.3017
NO. OF
SA}IPLES
62
46
62
47
STANDAJn
DEVIATION
1.55
2.04
0.5519
0.8334
STANDA nJ
TION
0.009 ].
0.00
0.1296
0.00
NO. OF
SAMPLES
59
14
59
14
LEAD 1970
LEAD 1971
CADMIUM 1970
CADMIUM 1971
RANGE
<0.01 —0.07
<0.01 —<0.01
<0 .OO1—<1. 00
<0. O01— <0. 001
MEAN
0.012
<0.01
0.0218
<0.001
378
-------
7.0 OREGON AGENCY DATA ANALY SI S
7 3. Oregon State Department of Agriculture
A voluminous package of assorted toxic substance information
was received from the above—mentioned agency. This package contained
various toxic substance items from different agencies within the
state of Oregon, since the Department of Agriculture laboratory
performs analysis for the same• The package was Separated into two
time periods: prior to and Including 1970, and post 1970. The 1970
group included roughly thirty pieces of information while the 1971
group contained approximately 40 pieces.
This data is not being analyzed by MITRE since it was received
after the data analysis cut-off point in the project sthedule.
towever, this data will be available at EPA for inspection by
interested agencies. Table 120 dIsplays the types of literature
contained in each group of data.
379
-------
TABLE 120
OREGON STATE DEPARTMENT OP AGRICULTURE
TOXIC SUBSTANCE SUBJECT MATTER
1970
• Conference reviews
• Lab analysis results
• Mercury in milk
• Pesticides in fish and food
• Mercury in rivers
• Industrial mercury release
• Solid waste
• Interoffice communication
• Episodal monitoring reports
• News releases and letters
• Mercury in fish, pheasants,
various birds and shellfish
• Mercury in grains
• Magazine articles
1971
• Abstracts of Mercury Research,
“Mercury in the Western
Envi ronmen
• Analysis methods for gas chromato...
graph, A.A., digestion, etc.
• Mercurial pesticides
• Milk studies
• Symposium reviews
• Methods of mercury determination
• Mercury treated seed
• Methyl mercury in marine products
• Mercury in fish and pheasants
• Mercury in Barnett chickens
• Mercury in food products
• Mercury and pesticide in fish
• Mercury and PCB’s in eggs
• Aflatoxins in Imported wine
• Analysis list of industrial
products
• Lead In pottery
• Lead in evaporated milk
• Lead poisoning
• Mercury, lead, cadmium, and
arsenic residues in starlings
380
-------
7.2 Oregon Environmental Quality Conmiission
Ambient lead data obtained in a special study of lead levels
in three selected locations collected in the Terwilliger area survey
in 1973 and 1974 f or the purpose of instituting an ambient lead air
quality standard for the state of Oregon was received. The data was
tabulated and is presented in Table 121 • The standard proposed
as a result of this study is as follows: “The lead concentration
measured at any individual sampling station, using sampling and
analytical methods on file with the department, shall not exceed
3.0 g/m 3 as an arithmetic average concentration of all samples
collected at that station during any one calendar month period”*.
As can be seen from the yearly averages, the three selected sites
are safely within the limits of the standard.
Three-month average ambient air lead concentration data was also
received for statewide and Portland area stations (approximately 40
stations) for the years 1971—1973. This data is given in the form
of minimum and maximun three—month averages, although the months
used are not specified. This data will be kept on file at EPA
until further analysis is warranted necessary.
*Memorandum from the Director of Environmental Quality Conmilsalon to
the Commission, January 10, 1975.
381
-------
TABLE 121
ORE CON -TERWILLIGER AREA LEAD S TIJDY
3
p.g/m
1973
# OF STANDARD
LOCATION SAMPLES MINIMUM MAXIMUM MEAN DEVIATION
Kneeland and
Kneeland 29 0.37 5.72 1.67 1.01
Terwilliger
School 24 0.24 3.57 1.26 0.83
View Point
Terrace 26 0.32 4.88 2.09 1.13
1974
Kneeland and
Kneeland 5 0.55 2.05 1.05 0.59
Terwilliger
School 5 0.16 1.87 0.67 0.68
View Point
Terrace 4 0.78 1.95 1.37 0.83
-------
8.0 I MA AG C l DATA ANALY SI S
8.1 Iowa Department of Agriculture — Pesticide Residue Division
Pesticide residue forms with analyses for PCB’s were received.
There were essentially two groups of data in this package.
The first group of ten reports dealt with pesticide residues
in fish meal in 1975. The values shown in Table 122 were derived
by combining three different PCB mixtures——AROCLOR 1242, 1248,
and 1254.
The second group of 20 sheets dealt with pesticide residues
in three different types of fish: carp (12), buffalo fish (7),
and channel catfish (1) for the year 1972. The specific PCB mixture
identified was AROCLOR 1254. A 8Uiflfl t of values is shown in
Table 122.
According to the Department of Agriculture, the “action” limit
for PCB compounds is 2.0 ppm. As can be seen from the mean values
in Table 122, the PCB residues are sufficiently high to generate some
investigation of PCB contamination, to the time of the meeting
jn Iowa, the source of PCB’s had not been determined. However, one
explanation was that the source of contamination resulted from the
use of rough fish like the carp in the preparation of the fjsbmeal.
These fish might contain minute amounts which become maznified
by the manufacture of the fishmeal through the process of concentrat-
ing the PCB content of different species of fish.
383
-------
TABLE 122
IOWA DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE — PCB
DATA SUMMARY
1975 — FISH MEAL
PCB’s — AROCLOR 1242, 1248, 1254
ppm
NO. OF STANDARD
SANPLES MINIMUM MAXIMUM MEAN DEVIATION
10 .354 6.16 2.21 1.61
1972 — FISH (CARP, BUFFALO, CHANNEL CATFISH)
AROCLOR 1254
ppm
NO. OF STANDARD
SAMPLES MINIMUM MAXIMUM MEAN DEVIATION
20 .18 10.26 2.15 2.34
384
-------
8.2 Iowa Department of Environmental Quality
Analysis sheets on raw and finished drinking water supplies
for the period 1971—1975 were received. This group of data was
grouped together statistically since the individual data sheets
were not identified by year. Data on arsenic, cadmium, and lead
was analyzed statistically, with the results being shown in Table 123.
The means of all the finished water data for the three constituents
were within acceptable standards for the state of Iowa. The
standards are shown below.
STANDARDS
Arsenic — *.0l mg/i
Cadmium - .01 mg/l
Lead — .05 mg/i
Drinking water values seem fairly consistent and do not appear
to be a problem in Iowa.
posed Standard.
385
-------
TABLE 123
IOWA RAW AND FINISHED DRINKING WATER
1971 — 1975
mg/i
STANDA1W
NO. SAMPLES MINIMUM MAXIMUM MEAN DEVIATION
Arsenic
Raw 22 .01 .063 .03 .086
Finished 5 .01 .01 .01
Cadmium
Raw 2 .01 .02 .015
Finished 1 .01 .01 .01
Lead
Raw 99 .01 .23 .031 .031
Finished 29 .01 .08 .02 .015
386
-------
8.3 The University of Iowa, State Hygienic Laboratory
The State Hygienic Laboratory sent MITRE copies of data obtained
by sampling in the vicinity of the DeMoss dump in January of 1975.
The analysis sheets included Cr and Pb data .f or samples of dirt and
dtnup barrel particles, and sand bottom and clay-mud bottom water
samples. The values obtained are shown in Table 124. All the Cr
and Pb data received is shown in tabular form. The values of
significance were the high values for Pb and Cr in the dump barrel
gamp].es. The material sampled appeared to be a mixture of absorbent
particles with traces of green paint or grease.
387
-------
TABLE 124
WAThR QUALITY REPORT DATA
DeNOSS DUMP, IOWA
ppm
S ANDBOTIOM
TRACE DIRT AROUND FROM DUMP FROM DUMP FRO}I DUMP DOWNSTREAM OF
METALS BARREL BARREL BARREL - BARREL DUMP
Cr 4.5 8000.0 15,000.0 2.0 0.01
Pb 27.0 43,000 81,000.0 12 0.01
(J
SANDBOTTOM CLAY, MUD BOTIOM CLAY, MUD BOT1UK SANDBOTIOM SANDBOTTOM
TRACE DOWNSTREAN II IPOUDED IMPOUNDED UPSTREAM UPSTREAM
METALS OF DUMP WATER WATER OF DUMP OF PUMP
Cr 2.3 0.01 25 0.01 2.3
Pb 0.01 35 0.01 1.2
-------
9.0 CALIFORNIA AGENCY DATA ANALYSIS
9.1 California Air Resources Board
Daily high volume sampling data from the California Air
Resources Board was received. Lead data was received for the years
1971—1974 and cadmium data was received for the years 1972—1974.
The data was coded on SAROAD daily data forms and analyzed for the
usual parameters:
• Minimum
• Maximum
• Mean
• Standard Deviation
Approximately fifty of the SAROAD site numbers that appear with
the California air data are not official. The reason for this is the
failure to locate SAROAD numbers for these sites through the usual
reference* or the California Agency itself. ] that some
of the sites were used only for a special lead study program. A
key to the Lab ricated** site number.s with their respective loc atjons
appears as Table 125. The data itself in analyzed form appears in
Appendix A of Volume IV of the ina1 Report, Con pilatjon of the
Swanaries and Analyses of State Data .
rectory of Air Quality Monitoring StatiOnS—USEPA.
**Sjte numbers fabricated by MITRE for purposes of computer processing.
389
-------
TABLE 125
UNIDENTIFIED CALIFORNIA SITES
051111111 ARCATA FIRE STATION 051111137 BRIDGEPORT CO. MAINT. YD.
051111112 SAMOA 051111138 HANFORD H.D.
051111113 RIALTO AIRPORT 051111139 CORCORAN FIRE STATION
051111114 FONTANA CYPRESS 051111140 COLIThBIA
05 1111115 CRESTLINE 051111141 NORD
051111116 CHINO RIVERSIDE 051111142 CANINO
051111117 PASADENA WALNUT 051111143 HOLLISTER
051111118 BIG BEAR CITY, MOONRIDGE 051111144 LAKEPORT
051111119 MISSION VALLEY 051111145 SANTA ROSA, HUMBOLDT
051111110 MADERA H.D. 051111147 FORT BRAGG, FIRESTONE
051111121 NEEDLES, H.S. 051111148 FORT BRAGG, CENTRAL
051111122 LUCERNE VALLEY 051111149 SANTA MARIA, WTR & STOR.
051111124 RED BLUFF AG COMM OFF 051111150 EL CENTRO, BROADWAY
051111125 YREKA 051111151 SONORA
051111126 TIJLELAKE 051111153 FORT BRAGG, SO. MAIN
051111127 ALTURAS 051111154 SKY FOREST
051111128 TRAILER WATSONVILLE 051111155 MERCED TRAILER
051111129 BISHOP 051111156 RIVERSIDE RUBIDOUX
051111130 LONE PINE AIRPORT 051111157 COSTA MESA HAREOR
051111131 LEE VINING 051111158 EL TORO
051111132 MARIPOSA 051111159 LAGUNA BEACH, BROADWAY
051111134 CAMINO 051111160 RIVERSIDE MAGNOLIA
051111135 PLACERVILLE 051111161 MANZANITA
051111136 MADERA LIBRARY
-------
9.2 State of California, Department of Water Resources
MITRE contracted with the above—mentioned agency to produce
a colIputer listing of all toxic substance information that would be
of value to the project. The final unputer printout received
consisted of 8—1/2 X 11” copies of the data in statistically
analyzed form for the parameters arsenic, cadmium, chromium,
hexavaleflt chromium, lead, and mercury for the years 1971 through
1974.
The data listing contains 1,150 analyses for 328 stations on 171
streams, lakes, bays, canals, drains, etc., and 733 analyses from
650 wells in 48 groundwater basins or areas. The statistical analyses
are arranged by parameter and then by year, and finally for the four—
year period 1971—74 for that parameter.
391
-------
10.0 TEXAS AGENCY DATA ANALYSIS
10.1 lexas State Department of Health, Air Pollution Control Servjc
The state of Texas performs extensive trace metal analyses on
Hi—Vol filters sent in for analysis from the states 60 sampling
stations, along with filters sent In from local programs with some
metal analysis of their own, such as Dallas. None of this heavy metal
air data is in the SAROAD system, but is currently in the Texas state
air data bank. Texas provided all pertinent air data on As, Cd,
Cr, and Pb for the years 1973 and 1974 on magnetic tape in sA1 DAJJ
format.
The bulk of the air data has been analyzed by one of the most
up—to—date techniques, X-ray fluorescence, although some of the lead
data was analyzed by atomic absorption. The air data was analyzed
with a statistical program, the results of which are shown in
Appendix A of Volume IV of the Final Report, Compilation of the
Summaries and Analyses of State Data .
392
-------
10.2 El Paso City—County Health Department
Because a large volume of data on lead, zinc, arsenic, and
cadmium in air, dust, soil and blood was received from the El Paso
City—County Health Department near the end of the project, it was not
possible to process and analyze all the data in the time remaining.
The dust and soil data and the air sampling data has been processed
and summarized by sampling location, year, and toxic substances.
The remaining data is available for further analysis and has been
turned over to OTS with all other data received from agencies in the
states In the course of the project.
10.2.1 El Paso Ambient Air Data
Ambient air data for the years 1972 through 1975 for 13 locations
in SmeltertOwn an area of El Paso adjacent to the ASARCO smelter
was received. The heavy metals that were monitored for in this
study were arsenic, cadmium, lead, and zinc.
The sampling procedures were performed jointly at each sampling
gite by ASARCO and El Paso City—County Health Department sampling
teams Each team served as a check on the other since the data
obtained from the sampling was to be presented later in a court
case involving ASARCO’s compliance with Texas State Air Emission
Standards. The air data in statistically analyzed form is presented
jn Appendix A of Volume IV of Final Report No. M75—52, Simi ry and
*nalysis of State Toxic Substances Data. Table 126 displays the
jj—Vol sampling site locations with their respective code numbers.
393
-------
TABLE 126
SITE IDENTIFICATION CODES - EL PASO AIR DATA*
000000001 2473 Veterans of Foreign Wars
900000001 2473 Veterans of Foreign Wars
000000002 International Boundary and Water Commission
900000002 International Boundary and Water Commission
000000003 Tiliman Health Center, 222 South Campbell
900000003 Tiliman Health Center, 222 South Campbell
000000004 Kern—Fire Station #8, 301 East Robinson
900000004 Kern—Fire Station #8, 301 East Robinson
000000005 Executive Center—Roger Bldg, 4120 Rio Bravo
900000005 Executive Center—Roger Bldg, 4120 Rio Bravo
000000006 Highland—Highland School 2300 San Diego
900000006 Highland—Highland School, 2300 San Diego
000000007 Rudolph—Rudolph Chevrolet, 3003 North Mesa
900000007 Rudolph—Rudolph Chevrolet, 3003 North Mesa
000000008 Holy Family—Holy Family Church, 900 West Missouri
900000008 Holy Family—Holy Family Church, 900 West Missouri
000000009 Buena Vista—Buena Vista Clinic, 120 Courchesne
900000009 Buena Vista—Buena Vista Clinic, 120 Courchesne
000000010 4201 Emory Road — Dr. Scruggs, 4201 Emory Road
900000010 4201 Emory Road — Dr. Scruggs, 4201 Emory Road
900000011 International Boundary and Water Commission — B
900000012 117 Carlos Lopez
900000013 E. B. Jones
*Leading 0 in a site number = ASARCO analysis
Leading 9 in a site number El Paso City County Health Analysis
394
-------
10.2.2 El Paso Soil & Dust Data
The El Paso City County Health Department sampling team also
worked in tandem with the ASARCO sampling team in analyzing soil
and dust data obtained in a study run in parallel with the
SmeltertOwn ambient air data study. This data was also used in the
court case concerning ASARCO’s compliance with Texas air quality
standards.
MITRE received soil and dust data for arsenic, cadmium, lead,
and zinc for the years 1972 through 1975. The data was analyzed by
computer in terms of parameter, year, method, units, and site lo-
cation for the usual statistical parameters.
The data in analyzed form appears in Appendix A of Volume IV
Final Report, Compilation of the Summaries and Analyses of State
Data.
Soil and dust analyzed by each different agency are keyed by
the first number in each site description at the far left hand side
c,f the page. The scheme is as follows:
• Leading 1 El Paso Soil Analysis
• Leading 2 — ASARCO Soil Analysis
• Leading 3 a El Paso Dust Analysis
• Leading 4 — ASARCO Dust Analysis
For example, the first location listed for arsenic in 1972 is
1 Alamo. The number 1 indicates that this line of data is soil
data sampled at Alamo and analyzed by the El Paso CityCounty Health
395
-------
Department. The nine characters (columns 2—10) following the
1,2,3 and 4 designators were used to print out the location of the
site in as iaany letters that could possibly fit in that particular
location field size.
396
-------
APPENDIX A
SUNMARY OF TOXIC SUBSTANCES DATA
PROCESS BY C MPUTER
-------
INTRODUCTION
During the course of the Toxic Substances Project, a large
portion of data was analyzed by computer methods. The majority of
this data was air data provided by several different air agencies,
One portion of the data was soil and dust data from the El Paso City —
County Health Department.
The program that was used for processing of Hi—Vol air data
basically followed the guidelines presented in EPA ’s SAROAD users
manual for computer processing of data values. MITRE’s method of
operation was to take the raw air data from the contributing agencje 8 ,
code it on standard SAROAD forms, keypunch it, and analyze it
statistically by computer.
The purpose of this processing was twofold:
• To provide analysis of the toxic substance air data
to OTS
• To arrange the data in SAROAD format for entry into the
MAD B.
The output of this program was a presentation of the data of
Interest in a concise, simple format. The final data printouts
report the data by the following parameters:
• Toxic substance
• Method
• Units
• Year
A-2
-------
• Site
• Number of samples
The results yielded by the analysis program include the
following:
• Average
• Minimum
• Maximum
• Standard deviation
The soil and dust data that was received from El Paso City—
County health Department was also processed with the air data
program, with. some modifications in the variable portions of the
program. Since this program was basically a statistical package,
it was possible to modify it to process other types of toxic
gubstance data. The following pages of this appendix list the
program used to process the SAROAD air data, and the air data
summary printout sheets for all agencies. Also included is the data
summary of the El Paso soil and dust study.
A-3
-------
SAROAD DATA STATISTICAL
ANALYSIS PROGRAM
A-4
-------
SAROAD DATA STATISTICAL ANALYSIS PROGRAM
2’T:P , 1)tJP IPTI)GS(IAIN) ;
STMT L -V .1 N ST
S?r)PI:P I1CV UPE QPTIONS(MAI ) ;
‘ A Y REIO T co SAR”&D TYPE 2 CARDS
2 1 CCL 1 I UNALIGNED BA$FD(PJ
a C D CHAR4I)
2 LOC CI-4A t9) ,
2 AGENCY CHAR Ii)
2 PRC1J CHAR(Z) ,
2 TIME CHAR(II
2 YW CHAPI2) ,
2 MONTH CHA (2)
2 DAY CHAR (2)
2 HUU CHAR(2I ,
2 OASI4)
3 CODE CMAR(9)
3 DP CHARC1 )
3 SAMPLE CHAF(41 ,
2 D1JM Y CHARI2 ;
3 1 CCL 1 !N2 UNALIGNED PASFD(P)
2 P1 CHAR(18 ) .
2 92 CN& (6O1 ,
2 P3 CHAA(2) ;
4 1 DCL 1 OLD
2 CODE CHAR(9)
2 YR CHAR 2 ) ;
5 3. DCL I 1141 L1DE
2 LOC(12O) CHAR(9P
2 NLOC FIXED BIN(31 )
2 YR( 5) CHA (2I
2 NYR FIXED 81N131 )
2 CDDEI3O) CHAR(9 1
2 NCODF FIXED SIN(31)
CCL I STATIIZO, 5,30)
2 NUM FIXED BIN(3t
2 MINS FLOAT DECI 6)
2 ‘AXS FLOAT DECt 6)
2 SUM FLOAT D€C(06 )
2 SUMSO FLOAT E ’ECt13)
CCL SCALEI5,30) FIXEO 81N115) TNITIAL(UOOIO) ;
CCL CATA FLOAT OECLI3) :
DCL INREC FIXED F !N(3tI !MITIAI(0 )
1* *1
10 1 STAT.NUM(*,*,*) 0 ;
11 1 STAT.SUM(*,*,*I,STAT.jM5*, ’ ) = O.0F4C) ;
12 1 STAT.MINS(*, , ) 999999•
13 1 STA1.MAXSI*,*,*) 999999• ;
14 1 CCI PCOOE (4) CHAR(5) INITIAL
(‘12133’
‘12105’
‘12110’,
‘12128’
A-5
-------
S2 PT:PRt]CFDURE OPTIONS(MAIN)
STHT LE L NEST
15 1 DCL PWORD(4) CHAR(10) INITIAL
(‘ARSENIC
‘BERYLLIUM
‘CADMIUM
‘LEAD ‘ );
16 1 DCL NP FIXED BIM(31) INITIAL(4)
17 1 DCL PC CHAR (5)
18 1 DCL PW CHAR(10)
19 1 DCL MCODE(1 ) CHAR(2) INITIAL
(‘92’);
20 1 CCL M QRD(1) CHAR(18) INITIAL
(‘ATOMIC ABSORPTION ‘)
21 1 DCL ‘IN FIXED BIN(31)INITIAL(1 )
22 1 DC I MC CH4R (2);
23 1 DCL MW CHAR(18);
24 1 CCL UCODE(21 CHAR(2) INITIAL
(‘01’,
‘03’ );
25 1 CCL UwOPD(2) CHAR(23) INITIAL
(‘MICROGRAMSfCUBIC METER ‘,
‘NANUGRAMS/CUBIC METER ‘);
i DCL 1 W FIXED BIN(31) INITIAL(2)
27 1 CCL tiC CHAR(2)
28 1 CCL IJW CHAR(23) ;
29 1 CCL OPT CHAR(L)
30 1 CPEN FILE(SYSPRINT) PAGESIZE(60) LINESIZF(132)
31 1 LNIDIJF.NLOC,LJNIQUE.NYR,UNIQUE.NCODE 0 ;
32 1 CN ENDFILF(SYSIN) GO TO REPORT
1*
EPTION (CCL 1 OF FIRST CARD)
I SKIP CARDS WHOSE CODES ARE NOT IN PROGRAM TABLES
*1
34 1 READ FIIE(SYSIN) SETIP) ; OPT = IN.CD
1* *1
36 1 RO:PEAD FIL((SYSIN) SET(P) ; INREC = INREC • 1
o 1 IF VER IFY(1N2.P2,’ 0123456789’) — 0 THFN DO
40 1 1 PUT ED!T(’** INVALID CHARACTER **‘) (COL(1 ),A)
41 1 1 GO TO ERR ;
42 1 1 END
43 1 IF VERIFY(IN.LJC,’0123456789’1 —= 0 THEN 130
45 1 1 PUT FI3IT(’** LOCATION FIELD ERROR (CUES 2—
10) **1) (COL(1),A)
46 1 1 ERR: PUT ED 1T ( IN, ‘ REC13RO NUM8FP’,
INPEC) (CO1 (1),22 A ,A,F(fl)
47 1 1 GO TO PD;
1 .8 1 1 END:
4C) 1 IF vERIFY(I 4.YR,’012345&789’( — 0 THFN D C )
1 1 PUT FOIT(’** YEAR FIELD ERROR (COLS 15—163
*‘) (COL) 1) ,A) ;
52 1 1 GO TO ERR:
53 1 i END;
A-6
-------
S2RPT PROCEDURE OPTIONS MAIM) ;
sTMT LEVEL NEST
54 1 001s1T 04;
55 1 1 IF IN.OBS(I).CODF —a (9) ‘ THEN
56 1 1 IF VERIFY( IN.OBS(I).CODE, ’ 01234567891 3 — 0
1 1 SUBSTR (IN.OBSUI.CODE,1,2 ; 120 THEN DO;
92 1 1 PUT EDIT (‘TOO MANY LOCATIONS’) (SKIP(2),A);
91 1 1 STOP;
1 1 END;
1 LNIQUF.LOC(fl a IN.LOC ;
96 1 A1
CO J 1 TO UNIQUE.NYR ;
1 1 IF (JNIQUE.YR(J) a IN.YR THEN GO TO A2;
1 1 END;
1 INIQUE.NYR UNIQUE.NYR • 1
131 1 IF UNIQUE.NYR > 5 THEN DO;
103 1 1 PUT EDIT (‘TOO MANY YEARS’) (SKIP(2),A);
1 1 STOP;
i 05 1 END;
1 LNIQUE.YR(J) a IN.YR
i07 1 A2:
CO L 1 TO 4 ;
108 1 1 IF IN.OBS(L).CODE a (9) • THEN GO TO A4
A-7
-------
SZRPT:PROCEDURE OPTIUNSCMAIN) ;
STHT LEVEL NEST
110 1 1 IF IN.O&S(L).SAMPLE = (4)’ ‘ THEN GO TO *4;
112 1 1 IF IN.OBS(L).SAMPLE (4)9 THEN GD TO Ł4;
114 1 1 DO K = 1 TO UNIQUE.NCOOE ;
115 1 2 IF UMIQUE.CODE(K ) IN.OBS(L).COOE THEN GO TO Ł3;
117 1 2 END;
118 1 1 UNIQUE.NCODE = UNIQUE.NCDOE + 1 ;
119 1 1 IF UNIQUE.NCODE ) 30 THEN DO;
121 1 2 PUT EDIT (‘TOO MANY PARAMETER CODES’) (SKIP(2),A);
122 1 2 STOP;
123 1 2 END;
124 1 1 UNIQUE.CODE(KI = IN.OBS(L).CODE ;
125 1 1 *3:
126 1 1 IF IN.OBS(1).DP = ‘ THEN DATA IN.OBS(L ).SAMPIE
127 1 1 ELSE Do; DATA = IN.DES(L).SAMPLE *
1O.EfO**NIN.OBS(L).DP) ;
129 1 2 SCALE(J,K) MAX(SCAL.E(J,K ),
IN, OBS(L I. 1 W)
130 1 2 END
131 1 1 STAT(I,J, K l.NUM STAT(1,J,K).NUM + 1
132 1 1 STAT(I,J,K).SUM STAT(I,J,K).SUM + DATA
133 1 1 STAT(I,J ,K).SUMSQ STAT(I,J,K).SUMSQ DATA*DATA ;
134 1 1 TAT(I,J,K).MINS = MIN (STAT(I,J,K).MINS ,DATA) ;
135 1 1 STAT(I,J,K).MAXS = MAX (STAT(I,J,K).MAXS ,DATA
136 1 1 44:
F JO;
137 1 C l) 111 . fl;
133 1 QEPCPT:
Cfl I = 1 1) NIOC ;
139 1 1 DO J = 1 TO NYR
140 1 2 CO K = 1 TO NC]DE ;
141 1 ‘ iF cTAT(I,J,K).NUM < 0 THEN GO TO SKP;
143 1 3 IF STAT(I,J,K).NUH > 1 THEN
144 1 3 STAT(I,J,K).SUMSC SQRT( (STAT(I,J,K).SUMSQ —
STAT(I,J,KLSUM * STATtI,J,K).SUM /
ST#T(I,J,K).NUM ) /
( STAT(I,J,k).NUM — 1.E+0) ) ;
145 1 3 STAT(I,J,K).SUM STAT(I,J,K1 ,SUM / STAT(I,J,K).NUM ;
146 1 SKP: END;
147 1 2 END:
148 1 1 ENJO;
149 1 ON NDPAl,E(SY5PRINT) BEGIN;
151 2 PUT PAGE FDIT(’PARAMETFR: ,PW ,‘METHCD: ‘,
MA ,‘UNITS: ‘,UW
‘YEAR: 19’,IJLD.YP, ‘NUMBER OF’,’STANDARD’,’SITE’,
• SAMPLES AVERAGE MINIMUM MAXIMUM DEVIATION’,’
COL ( 16) ,A , A, SKIPI2) , COL( 19) , A,
3,SK!P ,COL(20),A ,A ,SKIP(2),COL(21),
A ,A, SiKIP(3),COL(12),A, COL(53) ,A,SKIP,CCL(2),4,CrJl(11,,A,
15c 2 ENI);
1)3 1 C I) K = 1 TO NC)OE
i I ILr.Cj I )F = UNI OUE.0 0 0E(K)
A-8
-------
S2RPT:PROCEDURE OPTIONS(MAINI
STMT LEVEL NEST
155 i 1 FC = SUBSTR(OID.CODE,1,5)
156 1 1 00 I ITONP;
157 1 2 IF PC = PCODE(I) THEN Do;
159 3 PW PWO D(I)
160 1 3 GOTOX 1;
161 1 3 END;
162 1 2 END
163 1 1 IF OPT 1’ THEN GO TO SKP3;
165 1 1 PW PC;
166 1 1 X1:NC SUBSTR(OLD,CODE,6,2)
167 1 1 COI= 1TONM;
168 1 2 IF MC = MCODE(I) THEN DO;
170 1 MW MWORD(I) ;
171 1 3 GOTOX2;
172 1 3 END;
173 1 2 END;
j74 1 1 IF OPT ‘1’ THEN GO TO SKP3;
176 1 1 MW MC;
1 1 X2:LJC SUBSTR(OLD.CODE,8,2) ;
178 1 1 COI =1TONU;
179 1 2 IFUC UCODE(I) THEN 00;
181 1 3 UW UWORD(I)
182 1 3 GOTOX3;
i83 1 3 END;
184 1 2 END ;
185 1 1 IF OPT = ‘1’ THEN GO TO SKP3
187 1 1 UW UC
188 1 1 X3:
CO J * 1 10 NYR ;
189 1 2 OLD.YR UNIQUE.YR(J) ;
190 1 2 FLAGz1;
191 1 2 1 — SCALE(J,K)
192 1 2 CO 1 1. TO NbC;
193 1 3 IF STAT(I,J,K),NUM <= 0 THEN GO TO SKP2;
i95 1 3 IF FLAG — 1. THEN SIGNAL ENDPAGEISYSPRINr) ;
1 3 PUT EDIT( UNIQUE.LOC(I),STAT(I,J,K).NLJM,STAT(t,J,K),SUpl,
STAT( I,J,K).MINS,STATU,J,K).MAXS)
COLfl),A,COL(1I),F(13), 3 FU0,L ) ;
198 3 [ F STAT(I,J,K).NUM > 1 THEN
19 1 3 PUT EDIT(STAT(I,J,K .SuMSQ (F(10,L)) ;
200 1 3 FLAG O;
201 1 3 SKP2:END;
202 1 2 END;
203 i SKP3:END;
204 END S2RPT;
-------
PENNSYLVANIA BUREAU OF AIR QUALITY
SAROAD DAILY DATA
A-i 0
-------
Pt RAMETER: CAD’UUM
METi- OD: ATOMIC ABSORPTION
UNITS: MICROGRAMS/CUBIC METER
YEAR: 1971
NUiIF3ER (]F STANDARL)
SITE SAMPLES AVERAGE MIN!MIJM MAXIMUM DEVIATION
39c4 O32l 23 0.003 0 .002 0.005 0.001
3995b0322 23 C.003 0.002 0.010 0 002
399570323 23 0.303 0.002 0.006 0.0 1
399570324 23 0.003 0.002 0.006 0.001
399400325 24 0.002 0.002 0.005 0.001
399570326 23 C.305 0.001 0.040 0.008
3930o 0601 36 0,004 0.002 0 .046 0.007
3930606 ( 2 48 C.003 0.002 0.025 0.003
393060604 36 C.002 0.002 0.005 0.001
393080605 39 C .0 02 0.002 0.005 0.001
393060603 36 0.002 0.002 0.004 0.001
390720711 67 0.003 0,002 0.013 0.002
397620712 70 0.003 0.002 0.014 0.002
398240713 69 C.)04 0.002 0.043 0.005
398270714 69 C.004 0.002 0,031 0.004
397620715 69 C.004 0.002 0.012 0.002
390720716 69 0.004 0.002 0.030 0 ,304
394820717 69 0.004 0.002 0.032 0.005
395700301 66 0.003 0.002 0.006 0.002
392340302 62 0.003 0.002 0,006 0.002
398640303 60 0.002 0.002 0.012 0.001
394980304 68 0.003 0.002 0.006 0.001
39 340305 63 0.003 0.002 0.013 0.002
393880306 66 0.)03 0.002 0.008 0.002
392180307 58 0,003 0.002 0.006 0.001
3964405 31 39 0.003 0.002 0.015 0,002
394840502 39 0.003 0.002 0.010 0.002
390560503 18 C.004 0.002 0.021 0.005
390580504 17 0.011 0.002 0.080 0.019
390560505 39 C.018 0.002 0.170 0.036
397800506 17 0.019 0.002 0.051 0.018
390180507 17 0.011 0.001 0.048 0.014
390440508 17 0.041 0.002 0.385 0.091
395740509 17 0.015 0.002 0.038 0.013
390560510 17 0,005 0.002 0,027 0.006
399430201 57 0.003 0.002 0.018 0.004
392400202 57 0.003 0.002 0.009 0.002
394410203 56 0.003 0.002 0.019 0.003
397280204 57 0.003 0.002 0.014 0.002
399520205 56 0.004 0.002 0.023 0.004
396300206 57 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.000
399430207 57 0.003 0,002 0.020 0.004
398040208 57 0.003 0.002 0,012 0.002
395220209 57 0.003 0.002 0.020 0.004
395220210 28 0.002 0.002 0.008 0.002
399200511 17 C .005 0.002 0.020 0.005
395920512 17 0.010 0.002 0.070 0.017
399200513 17 0.003 0.002 0.011 0.002
399200514 17 0.003 0.002 0.008 0.002
A-it
-------
PARAMETER: CADMIUM
METHOD: ITOMIC ABSORPTION
UNITS: ICROGRAMS,CuBIC METER
YEAR; 1971
NUM FR OF STANDARD
SITE SAMPLES AVERAGE MINIMUM MAXIMUM DEVIATION
399200515 17 0.003 0,002 0.011 0.002
399330516 17 0.004 0.002 0.015 0.004
394700311 45 0.003 0.002 0.019 0.003
394660312 0.003 0.002 0.012 0.002
394700313 45 0.003 0.002 0.029 0.004
394660314 48 C.)06 0.002 0.030 0.007
394660315 49 0.004 0,002 0.020 0.005
394700317 49 C .003 0.002 0.009 0.001
394700316 32 0.004 0.002 0.012 0.002
394706316 5 0.302 0.002 0.002 0.000
A-i 2
-------
PAI 4 jETER: CADMIUM
METhOD: ATOMIC ABSORPTION
UNITS: MICROGRAMS/CUBIC METER
YEAR: 1972
NU4BE1 IJF STANDARD
SLTF SAMPLES AVERAGE MINIMUM MAXIMUM DEVIATION
399400321 15 C.002 0.002 0.002 0.000
399560322 12 C 0 002 0.002 0.002 0.000
399570323 12 C.002 0.002 0.002 0.000
399570324 14 C.002 0.302 0.002 0. Oo o
399400325 12 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.000
39957032o 14 C.002 0.002 0.006 0.001
390120701 1.2 C.)04 0.002 0.020 0.005
390780002 12 0.304 0.002 0.020 0.005
390780703 12 C.004 0.002 0.020 3.005
39272J704 1.1 ).003 0.002 0.006 0.002
390780705 9 0.003 0.001 0.009 0.002
398980706 1]. 0.005 0.002 0.030 o oos
396580737 9 0.023 0.002 0.070 0.027
399320801 12 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.000
394460832 14 0.302 0.002 0.002 0.000
394460803 15 0.002 0.002 0.005 0.001
39262O8 4 14 C.002 0.002 0.002 0.000
39446O8 5 11 C.002 0.002 0.002 0.000
392220806 15 C.002 0.002 0.002 0.000
393060601 10 0.)02 0.002 0.002 0.000
393060602 13 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.000
393060634 13 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.000
393080605 14 C.302 0.002 0.002 0.000
393060603 12 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.000
390720711 17 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.000
397620712 15 0.002 0.002 0,005 0.001
398240713 12 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.000
398270714 14 0.002 0.002 0.003 0.000
397620715 12 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.000
39072 071f 12 0.002 0.002 0.003 0.000
394520717 7 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.000
398246713 2 0.302 0.002 0.002 0.000
397626715 3 C.002 0.002 0.002 0.000
394820717 7 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.000
395700301 10 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.000
392340332 14 C.002 0.002 0.002 0.000
398640333 11 0.002 0.001 0.003 0.000
394980334 13 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.000
392340305 11 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.000
393880306 12 0.306 0.002 0.020 0.008
392180307 1] 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.000
396440501 15 0.005 0.002 0.040 0.010
394840532 15 0.004 0.002 0.032 0.008
390560503 10 0.013 0.002 0.040 0.013
390580504 13 0.018 0.002 0.090 0.028
390563505 12 C.026 0.002 0.110 0,037
397800506 15 0.034 0.002 0.220 0.060
390180507 14 0.005 0.002 0.030 0.007
390440508 14 0.010 0.002 0.080 0.021
-------
PARAMETER: CADMIUM
METHOD: ATOMIC ABSORPTiON
UNITS: MICROGRAMS/CUBIC METER
YEAR: 1972
NUMBER OF STANDARD
SITE SAMPLES AVERAGE MINIMUM MAXIMUM DEVIATION
395740509 15 0.015 0.002 0.120 0.030
390560510 15 0.017 0.002 0.184 0.047
399430201 10 0.003 0.002 0.010 0.003
392400202 11 0.003 0.002 0.007 0.002
394410203 9 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.000
397280204 11. 0.003 0.002 0.010 0.002
399520205 13 0.004 0.002 0.020 0.005
396300206 8 0.002 0.002 0.005 0.001
399430207 11 0.006 0.002 0,020 0.007
398040208 10 0.003 0.002 0.008 0.002
395220209 14 0.003 0.002 0.020 0.005
395220210 9 0.002 0.002 0.005 0.001
399200511 14 0.002 0.002 0.004 0.001
395920512 15 0.006 0.002 0.020 0.006
399200513 15 0.003 0.002 0.013 0.003
399200514 15 0.002 0.002 0.005
399200515 13 0.002 0.002 0.007 0.001
399330516 12 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.000
397480101 10 C.002 0.002 0.002 0.000
391080102 10 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.000
396000103 4 C.003 0.002 0.006 0.002
392460104 5 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.000
391200105 11. 0.002 0.002 0.003 0.000
395620106 11 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.000
391620107 13 0.003 0.002 0.006 0.001
397100108 4 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.000
397560109 8 0.006 0.002 0.010 0.004
399280110 10 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.000
394720111 9 0.005 0.002 0.020 0.006
392020112 5 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.000
397200113 7 C.002 0.002 0.002 0.000
391200114 11 0.002 0.002 0.003 0.000
391660115 8 0.024 0.002 0.150 0.051
396900116 8 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.000
391200117 1 0.002 0.002 0.002
394700311 11 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.000
394660312 11 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.000
394700313 11 C,0 02 0.002 0.002 0.000
394660314 11 0.002 0.002 0.003 0.000
394660315 12 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.000
39470 317 11 C.)02 0.002 0.002 0.000
394700316 10 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.000
A-14
-------
pARAMETER: BFRYLLIUM
M TH0D: ATOMIC ABSORPTION
UNITS: P IC QGRAMS/CUBIC METER
YEAR: 1971
NUM3E’ flF STAND4Rr
SITE S4rIPLES A JERAGE MINIMUM MAXIMUM DEVIATION
3994 0321 23 0.002 0.002 0.002
3995f 322 23 0. 02 0.002 0.002 fl. OnO
39c570323 23 0.002 0.002 0.032 0.000
399570324 23 0,04)2 O, 02 0,002 0,0 fl
399 .00325 24 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.000
399570326 23 0.102 0 002 0.002 0.00 (1
393)61611 36 C.002 0.002 0.008 0.0 )].
393060602 47 0.102 0.002 0.004 0.0 )0
393J606 )4 40 C. 0 02 0.002 0.003 0.000
393080605 40 C.)02 0.002 0.004 0.000
393’ (6C 6’13 36 0,002 0.002 0 002 0,300
390720711 68 0.002 0.002 0.005 0.001
397620712 70 C.003 0.002 0.005 0.001
398240(13 69 C.003 0.002 0.009 0.001
3 9 270114 69 0.003 0.002 0.005 0.001
397620715 69 0 .J03 00002 0.008 0 .3)l
390721716 69 C,004 0.002 0.029 0.004
394520717 69 C.003 0.002 0.008 ( 1,001
39570U301 67 C.818 C.002 36.000 4.583
392340302 62 C.003 0.002 0,006 0.002
398640303 54 C.)02 0.002 0,002 0.000
3949803)4 68 0.003 0.002 0.006 0.001
392340305 63 C.002 0.002 0.006 0.001
393880306 66 C.003 0.002 0.042 0.005
392180307 5 0.003 0.002 0.006 0.001
3964405)1 39 C ,0 32 0.002 0.002 0.300
394840502 39 0.002 0.002 0.003 0. Ofl O
390560503 18 C.)02 0.002 0.002 0.000
390580504 17 C.00Z 0.002 0.002 0.000
390560505 39 C,002 0.002 0.002 0.000
397800506 17 0.)02 0.002 0.002 0.000
3901Rr 507 17 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.000
390440508 17 C. O2 0.002 0.002 0,000
395740509 17 0,002 0,002 0,002 0.000
390560510 17 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.000
399430201 57 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.000
392400202 57 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.000
394410203 56 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.000
3 972e0204 57 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.000
399520205 56 0.002 0.002 0.003 0.000
396300206 57 0.002 0.002 0.002 3.000
399430237 57 0,002 0.002 0.04)3 0.000
3980402)8 57 0.002 0.002 0.003 0.000
395220209 57 0.002 0.002 0.005 0.000
395220210 28 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.000
399200511 17 C.)02 0.002 0.002 0.000
395920512 17 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.000
399200513 17 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.000
399200514 17 C,002 0,002 0.002 0.000
A—iS
-------
PARAMETER: PERYLLIUM
METHOD: ATOMIC ABSORPTION
UNITS: MICROGRAMS/CUBIC METER
YEAR; 1911
NUMBER OF STANDARD
SITE SAMPLES A IEPAGE MINIMUM MAXIMUM OEVIATION
399200515 17 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.000
399330516 17 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.000
394700311 45 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.000
394660312 46 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.000
394700313 45 0.002 0.002 0.007 0.001
394660314 48 C.002 0.002 0.002 0.000
394660315 .43 0.004 0.002 0.020 0.005
394700317 49 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.000
394700316 32 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.000
394706316 5 C.002 0.002 0.002 0.000
A-i 6
-------
PARAMETER: EEPYLLIUM
MET -IOD: AIrMIC ABSORPTION
UNiTS: MiCROGRAMS/CUBIC METER
YEAR: 1072
NUMBER OF STANDARO
SITE SAMPLES AVERAGE MINIMUM MAXIMUM DEVIATION
399400321 15 C,0 02 0.002 0.002 0.000
399560322 12 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.000
399570323 12 0.002 0.002 0 Ř0 0.000
399570324 14 C .)02 0.002 0.002 0.0 0 1)
399400325 12 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.000
399570326 14 C . 002 0.002 0.002 0.000
390120701 12 C.002 0,002 0.002 0.000
390780002 12 C.002 0.002 0.002 0,00’ )
390780703 12 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.000
392720704 11 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.000
390780705 9 0.002 0.002 0.0 1)2
398980706 11 C.002 0.002 0,002 0.000
396580707 9 C.3tJ2 0.002 0.002 OO 0 0 0
399323801 12 0.)02 0.002 0.002 0.000
394460802 14 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.000
394460803 15 C .)02 0.002 0.002 o.ono
392620804 14 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.000
3944608 )5 11. 0.002 0.002 0 ,002
392220806 15 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.000
390720716 24 0.003 0.002 0.03.7 0.003
3964405 1 15 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.00 )
394840502 14 C.002 0.002 0.002 o,ooo
390560503 10 0.002 0.002 0.002
390580504 14 0,088 0.002 1.212 0.323
390560505 12 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.000
397800506 15 C.002 0.002 0.002 0.000
390180501 1’t 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.000
390440508 14 0.002 0.002 0.002 o .ooo
395740509 15 0.302 0.002 0.002 0.000
390560510 15 0.)02 0.002 0.002 0.000
399200511 14 C.902 0.002 0.002 0.000
395920512 15 0.302 0.002 0.002 0.000
399200513 15 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.000
399200514 15 0.302 0.002 0.002 0.000
399200515 13 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.000
399330516 12 0.302 0.002 0.002 0.000
397480101 10 0.302 0.002 0.002 0.000
391080102 1]. 0.002 0.002 0,002 0.000
396000103 4 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.000
392460104 4 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.000
391200305 9 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.000
395620106 11 C.)02 0.002 0,002 0.000
391620107 Ii 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.000
397100108 4 C. )02 0.002 0.002 0.000
397560109 8 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.000
399280110 3.’) 0,102 0.002 0.002 0.000
394720111 9 0.00 0,002 0.002 0.000
392020112 5 C .002 0.002 0.002 0.000
397200113 7 C.002 0.002 0.002 0.000
A-li
-------
PARAMETER: EERYLLIUM
ME-THUD: ATOMIC ABS )RPTION
UNITS: , ICROGRAMS/CUBTC METER
YEAR: 1972
SI IF
NUMBER OF
SAMPLES
STANDARD
A EPAGE MINIMUM MAXIMUM DEVIATION
391200114
11
G.002
0.002
0.000
391660115
8
C.002
0.002
0.002
0.000
396900116
8
C.002
0.002
A-18
-------
PARAMETER: LEAr
METHOD: ATOMIC A SORPT!ON
UNITS: MICROGRAMS/CUBiC METER
YEAR: 171
NUMBER OF STAN)App
SITE SAMPLES A EPAGE MINIMUM MAXIMUM flEVjATI( r
399400321 20 C.554 0.010 1.200 0.379
3995t 0322 20 C.654 0.010 1.500 Q)36r)
399573323 20 0.710 0.010 2.860 O.6cn
399570324 20 C.383 0.010 1.610 0 434
399430325 21 0.455 0.010 1.260 0.396
399570326 20 C.649 0.010 1.780 0.494
393060601 41 C . 336 06010 0.670 0 189
393060602 45 0.691 0.000 1.530 0.320
393060694 44 0.577 0.010 1.150 3.248
393080605 41 C.277 0.010 0.820 0.171
393060603 38 C.707 0.220 1.090 0.209
390720711 49 C.449 0.010 1.340 3 351
397620712 52 C.6P8 0.010 1.780 0.462
398240713 48 C.692 0.010 2.950 0.609
398270714 51 C.449 0.010 3.080 n.487
397620715 51 1.404 0.010 5.360 1.084
390720716 51 0.798 0.000 2.720 0.703
394820717 50 2.245 0.010 13.300 2.473
395700301 33 0.542 0.010 1.420 0.311
392340302 21 0.414 0.010 1.230 0.296
398640303 10 C.684 0.310 1.330 0.299
394980304 31 C.84 1 0.010 1.750 0.438
392340305 27 0.497 0.010 1.150 0.314
393880306 31 C.631 0.010 1.810 0.402
392180307 25 0.257 0.010 0.800 0.191
396440501 39 C.890 0.010 2.630 0.637
394840502 39 C.3€7 0.010 2.880 0.499
390560503 18 0.733 0.010 1.870 0.754
390580504 17 0.646 0.010 1.520 0.464
39C560505 37 C.337 0.010 1.240 0.372
397800506 17 0.869 0.010 1.590 0.514
390180507 17 0.760 0.010 1.920 0.524
390440508 17 1.496 0.010 6.540 1.460
395740509 17 0.669 0.010 1.420 0.457
390560510 17 0.264 0.010 0.710 0.200
399430201 57 C.665 0.010 1.730 0.445
392400202 57 C.396 0.001 1.630 0.429
394410233 57 0.312 0.001 0.850 0.229
397280204 57 0.579 0.010 1.560 0.408
399520205 58 0.430 0.001 1.380 0.363
396300206 51 0.103 0.010 0.900 0.220
399430207 56 0.655 0.010 2.060 0.441
398040208 57 0.756 0.010 1.930 0.607
395220209 58 0.631 0.010 2.090 0.492
395220210 17 0,347 0.010 1.070 0.271
399200511 17 C.474 0.010 1.630 0.495
395920512 17 0.875 0.310 2.090 0.694
399200513 17 0.562 0. 10 2.330 0.648
399200514 17 0.739 0.010 1.940 0.672
A-19
-------
PARAMETER: LEAD
METHOD: ATOMIC ABSORPTION
UNITS: MICROGRAMS/CUBIC METER
YEAR: 1971
NUMBER OF STANDARD
SITE SAMPLES A EPAGE MINIMUM MAXIMUM DEVIATION
399200515 17 0.740 0.010 2.300 0.739
399330516 17 0.419 0.010 1.660 0.434
394100311 35 0.510 0.010 1.590 0,441
394660312 35 C.673 0.010 1.250 0.354
394700313 35 0.527 0,010 1.410 0.407
394660314 35 C.763 0.010 2.110 0.516
394660315 35 0.776 0.010 2.150 0.567
394700317 35 0.580 0.010 1.560 0.450
394700316 23 0.366 0.010 0.980 0.289
394706316 6 0.277 0.010 0.490 0.188
A-20
-------
PARAMETER: LEAD
METHOD: ATW4IC ABSORPTION
UNITS: MIC OGRAMS/CU8IC METEP
YEAR: 1972
NUMBER OF STANDAP
SITE SAMPLES AVERAGE MINIMUM MAXIMUM fl VI ’TIVN
399400321 14 0.558 0.010 1.720 0.428
399560322 12 C.690 0.050 1.860 0 ,462
399570323 14 C.586 0.180 1.420 0.378
399570324 14 C.386 0.010 1.150 ( 3315
399400325 14 0.523 0.010 1.350 0.383
399570326 1.3 0.699 0.250 1.730 0.447
390120701 13 C.409 0.010 0.970 0 ,272
390780002 12 0.297 0.070 0.690 0.190
390780703 1 .0 0.456 0.010 0.990 0 3
392720704 10 0.674 0.270 1.370 0.346
390780705 8 0.437 0.200 0.640 0.1 6
398980706 9 0.436 0.010 0.830 0,314
396580707 10 0.309 0.070 0.790 0.201
399320801 12 C.168 0.010 0.610 0.15 3
394460802 15 0.465 0.010 0.910 0.25
394460803 1.5 C.634 0.010 1.080 0.309
392620804 14 1.006 0.280 2.490 0.639
394460835 15 C.423 0.040 1.120 0.297
392220806 14 0.554 0.010 1.030 0,277
393060602 1 0.840 0.840 0.840
393060604 1 0.370 0.370 0.370
393080605 1 0.260 0.260 0.260
393060603 1 1.080 1.080 1.080
394520717 14 1.203 0.010 3.470 1.083
394820717 14 0.979 0.010 2.380 0.665
396440501 13 1.270 0.300 7.130 1.784
394840502 14 0.307 0.010 0.580 0.147
390560503 11 0.441 0.010 0.900 0.287
390580504 13 0.462 0.0 10 1.410 0.382
390560505 12 0.434 0.070 1.000 0.281
397800506 12 0.612 0.150 1.310 0.394
390180507 14 0.534 0.010 1.400 0.380
390440508 13 0.700 0.010 1.320 0.424
395740509 15 0.703 0.230 1.570 0.432
390560310 13 0.230 0.001 0.600 0.208
399200511 13 0.850 0.060 2.430 0.624
395920512 14 C.824 0.010 2.020 0.560
399200313 15 0.547 0.070 1.630 0.422
399200514 1]. 0.525 0.010 1.170 0.368
399200515 14 0.954 0.260 2.590 0.657
399330516 13 0.410 0.100 1.880 0.461
397480101 9 0.458 0.010 0.790 0.293
391080102 10 0.688 0.280 1.320 0.283
396000103 3 0.677 0.380 1.070 0.355
392460104 4 C.375 0.240 0.520 0.119
391200105 9 0.579 0.050 1.450 0.495
395620106 10 0.448 0.010 0 ,740 0.254
391620107 10 0.542 0.010 1.490 0.469
397100108 7 0.276 0.010 0.510 0.185
A-21
-------
PARAMETER: LEAD
METHOD: TONIC ABSORPTION
UNITS: MICROGRAMS/CUBIC METER
YEAR: 1972
SITE
NUML ER OF
SAMPLES
STANDARD
AVERAGE MINIMUM MAXIMUM DEVIATION
3975b0109
7
C.283
0.160
0.470
0.103
399280110
11
C.638
0.120
1.150
0.286
394720111
10
C.432
0.080
0.780
0.224
392020112
3
C.660
0.250
0.910
0.358
397200113
3
C.453
0.330
0.570
0.120
391200114
10
C,456
0.160
0,700
0.zoo
391660115
10
0.593
0.180
1.100
0.302
396900116
8
0.302
0.130
0.580
0.180
391200117
9
C.302
0.080
0.610
0.196
A-22
-------
PARAMETER: LEAD
METHOD: ATOMIC ABSORPTION
UNITS: MICROGRAMS/CUBIC METER
YEAR: 1973
NUMBER OF STANDARD
SITE SAMPLES AVERAGE MINIMUM MAXIMUM DEVIATION
390 1 .20701 8 1.5 0.3 3.8
390780002 6 1.5 0.0 5.8 2.2
390780703 8 1.2 0.5 2.8 0.8
392720704 8 1.2 0.4 2.4 0.6
390780705 8 1.6 0.4 6.4 2 0
398980706 8 1.2 0.1 3.3 1.0
396580707 8 0.5 0.0 1.5 0.5
396780002 2 0.5 0.1 1.’) 0.6
A-23
-------
PARAMETER: ARSENIC
METHOD: tTOMIC ABSORPTION
UNITS: MICROGRAMS/CUBIC METER
YEAR: 1972
NUMBER OF STAND4RD
SITE SAMPLES AVERAGE MINIMUM MAXIMUM DEVIATION
399400321 15 0.25 0.05 0.81
399560322 12 0.18 0.05 0.44 0.17
399570323 12 0.19 0.05 0.76 0.22
399570324 14 0.18 0.05 0.98 0.25
399400325 12 0.22 0.05 1.02 0.29
399570326 14 0.23 0.05 0.96 0.31
390120701 12 0.20 0.05 0.64 0.21
390780002 12 0.19 0.05 0.62 0.18
390780703 12 0.15 0.05 0.44 0.15
392720704 12 0.22 0.05 0.82 0.27
390780705 9 0.24 0.05 0,66 0.23
398980706 11 0.16 0.05 0.70 0,20
396580707 9 0.21 0.05 0.56 0.17
399320801 12 0.15 0.05 0.52
394460802 14 0.17 0.05 0.59 0.18
394460803 lb 0,15 0.05 0.63 0.15
392620804 14 0.19 0.05 0.53 0.16
394460805 11 0.17 0.05 0.52 0.17
39222fl806 15 0.24 0.05 0.96 0.27
393060601 10 0.13 0.05 0.33 0.11
39306fl602 10 0.16 0.05 0.34 0.12
393060604 13 0.1) 0.05 0.31. 0.08
393080605 12 0.17 0.05 0.38 0.13
393060603 12 0.14 0.05 0.45 0.14
390720711 14 0.32 0.05 1.63 0.48
397620112 15 0,13 0.05 0.63 0.15
398240713 12 0.3 ’) 0.05 1.53 0.41
396270714 14 C.32 0.05 1.23 0.37
197620715 1) 0.24 0.05 0.64 0.22
390720716 11 0.51 0.05 1.76 0.61
394520717 5 0.11 0,05 0.22 0.08
398246713 2 o.iq 0.08 0.30 0.16
397626715 3 0.06 0.05 0.09 0.02
394820717 7 0.10 0.05 0.32 0.10
395700301 10 0.13 0.05 0.46 0.13
392340302 14 0 16 0.05 0.41 0.12
398640303 11 0.13 0.05 0.40 0.12
394980304 14 0.16 0.05 0.45 0,15
392340305 13 0.15 0.05 0.62 0.17
393880306 12 0.11 0.05 0.52 0.13
392180307 11 C .05 0.05 0.21 0.05
396440501 15 0.10 0.05 0.68 0.17
394840532 15 C.21 0.05 0.68 0.22
390560503 10 c.io 0.05 0.24 0.08
390580504 13 0.19 0.05 0.57 0.17
390560505 12 C ,22 0.05 0.63 0.18
397800506 15 C.17 0.05 0.80 0.19
3901805)7 14 0.20 3,05 0.77 0.20
39C440508 14 C.16 0.05 0.56 0.17
A-24
-------
PARAMETER: tRSENIC
METHOD: ATOMIC ABSORPTION
UNITS: frICROGRAMSfCUBIC METER
YEAR: 1972
NUMBER OF STAN’JARU
SITE SAMPLES AVERAG! MINIMUM MAXIMUM flFVIATION
395740509 15 0.18 0.05 0.53 0.19
390560510 15 0.16 0.05 0.4fl
399430201 10 0.10 0.05 0.35 0.11
392400202 11 0.12 0.02 0.58 U.15
394410203 10 0.18 0.02 0.69 3.23
397280204 11 C.20 0.05 0,59 0.2 ’)
399520205 13 0.14 0.05 0.38 0.11
396300206 8 0.16 0.05 0.43 0.15
399430207 11 0.21 0.05 0.50 0.18
398040208 10 C.15 0.05 3.71
395220209 14 0.21 0.02 0.46 0.14
395220210 9 0.11 0.05 0.35 0,10
399200511 14 0.21 0.05 0.70 0.19
395920512 15 0.21 0.05 0.57 0.19
399200513 15 C.30 0.05 1.32 0.34
399200514 15 0.26 0.05 1.13 0.29
399200515 13 0.13 0.01. 0.35 0.11)
399330516 12 0.15 0.05 0.58 0.16
397480101 10 C.36 0.05 0.91. 0.27
391080102 11 0.12 0.05 0.27 0.09
396000103 4 0.14 0.05 0.36 0,15
392460104 5 0.15 0.05 0.36 0.12
391200105 11 0.19 0.05 0.50 0.17
395620136 11 0.12 0.05 0.38 0.11
391620107 11 0.19 0.05 0.55 0.16
397100108 4 0.33 0.05 0,93 0.42
397560109 8 0.25 0.05 0.48 0.15
3992801.10 10 0.15 0.05 0.36 0.12
394720111 9 0.1.2 0.05 0,52 0.15
392020112 5 0.18 0.05 0.33 0.13
397200113 7 0.09 0.05 0.15 0.05
391200114 11 0.15 0.05 0.80 0.22
391660115 8 0.14 0.05 0.41 0.16
396900116 8 0.23 0.05 0.71 0.24
391200117 7 0.15 0.05 0.42 0.15
394700311 11 0.16 0.05 0.34 0.11
394660312 11 0.10 0.05 0.23 0.07
39470031.3 11 0.18 0.05 0.78 0.22
394660314 11 0.21 0.05 0.93 0.31
394660315 12 0.20 0.05 0.93 0.25
394700317 11 0.22 0.05 0.70 0.20
394700316 10 0.18 0.05 0.49 0.14
A-25
-------
PARAMETER: RSENIC
METHOD: ATOMIC ABSORPTION
UNITS: NANOGRAMS/CUBIC METER
YEAR: 1972
NUMBER OF STANDARD
SITE SAMPLES AVERAGE MINIMUM MAXIMUM DEVIATION
399400321 8 328 50 915 344
399560322 7 530 50 1851 679
399570323 8 720 50 1868 666
399570324 8 422 50 1550 518
399400325 8 695 50 1648 632
399570326 7 523 50 1240 529
390120701 7 432 50 961 312
390780002 7 321 50 1118 391
390780703 8 407 50 1081 414
392720704 8 339 50 882 354
390780705 7 288 50 975 327
398980706 8 417 50 1050 388
396580707 7 235 50 550 207
399320801 8 530 50 1667 61.9
394460832 8 456 50 1400 575
394460803 7 606 50 2803 982
392620804 8 523 50 1117 452
394460805 8 362 50 896 325
392220806 5 348 50 832 329
393060601 5 518 50 957 339
393060602 7 98 811 243
393060604 7 557 50 1372 474
393080605 9 413 19 1356 422
393060603 8 169 50 551 188
390720711 8 353 50 751 291
398240713 8 378 50 765 289
398270714 8 250 50 598 232
397620715 8 190 5 405 156
390720716 6 193 5 562 243
394520117 2 7 5 9 3
394820717 9 299 50 1524 466
395700301 6 136 8 378 137
392340302 8 641 50 1586 562
396640303 6 382 50 764 252
394980304 8 472 50 1402 532
393880306 7 748 50 2231 803
392180307 7 346 50 1037 361
396440501 8 577 50 1391 488
394840502 8 241 50 582 170
390560503 8 330 50 990 387
390580504 8 512 50 1580 555
390560505 8 377 50 1626 529
397 300506 8 520 50 1140 421
390180507 8 387 50 977 361
390440508 8 550 50 1962 615
395740509 8 457 50 1489 521
390560510 4 523 176 1265 507
399430201 5 190 50 624 249
3924U 0202 6 321 145 534 144
A-26
-------
PARAMETEP: tRSENIC
METHOD: ATOMIC ABSORPTION
UNITS: NANOGRAMS/CUBIC METER
YEAR: 1972
NUMBER OF STANDARD
SITF SAMPLES AVERAGE MINIMUM MAXIMUM DEVIATION
394410203 7 345 50 1305 492
397280204 7 309 50 1163 396
396300206 8 288 28 1068 363
399430207 6 571 50 1900 681
398040208 6 221 50 407 187
395220209 7 148 50 360 144
395220213 6 287 50 695 301
399200511 8 39 50 1340 428
395920512 8 248 50 527 182
399200513 9 350 50 802 342
399200514 8 628 105 1101 351
399200515 8 271 50 1032 323
399330516 7 349 50 925 284
397480101 2 182 50 314 1 7
391080102 4 442 50 106 ’) 436
396000103 6 185 50 553 197
392460104 7 603 50 1588 568
391200105 7 187 50 451 176
395620106 2 300 110 490 269
391620107 6 50]. 50 1666 611
397100108 6 199 50 521 181
397560109 6 708 414 1172 328
399280110 5 599 158 1140 382
394720111 4 327 50 725 323
392020112 4 575 50 1009 404
397200113 3 555 50 953 461
391200114 7 473 132 855 246
391660115 4 732 229 1156 470
396900116 4 416 50 907 357
391200117 4 202 50 572 250
394700311 8 460 50 1038 361
394660312 8 389 50 1026 382
394700313 8 305 50 1019 355
394660314 8 533 50 1324 568
394660315 8 272 50 571 245
394700317 8 419 50 901 334
394700316 8 494 50 1433 422
Ł-27
-------
PARAMETEP CADMIUM
METHOD: ATOMIC ABSORPTION
UNITS: NANOGRAMS/CUBIC METER
YEAR: 1972
NUMBER OF STANDARD
SITE SAMPLES AVERAGE MINIMUM MAXIMUM DEVIATION
399400321 15 2 2 6
399560322 15 2 2 9 2
399570323 16 3 2 7 2
399570324 16 2 2 2
399400325 15 2 2 5 1
399570326 15 2 2 6 1
390120701 14 7 2 29 10
390780002 13 4 2 13 4
390780703 16 4 2 12 3
392720704 16 4 2 16 4
390780705 15 4 2 11 3
398980706 14 6 2 33 10
396560707 14 26 2 155 40
399320801 16 2 2 9 2
394460802 16 3 2 20 5
394460803 15 3 2 13 3
392620804 16 3 2 25 6
394460805 16 3 2 16 4
392220806 14 149 2 1178 340
393060601 13 2 2 2 0
393060602 14 2 2 2 o
393060604 14 2 2 2 0
393080605 14 2 2 2 0
393060603 13 2 2 2 0
390720711 13 3 2 11 3
398240713 16 18 2 250 62
398270714 16 2 2 6 i
397620715 13 11 2 110 30
390720716 13 3 2 13 3
394820717 17 3 2 14 4
395700301 13 5 2 36 q
392340332 16 2 2 3 0
398640303 14 5 2 39 10
394980304 16 2 2 5 1
393880306 15 2 7 1
392180307 12 2 2 3 0
396440501 16 4 2 11 3
394840502 16 a 2 60 15
390560533 16 11 2 67 18
390580504 16 18 2 97 27
390560505 16 51 2 300 73
397800506 16 20 2 78 24
390180537 16 a 2 37 9
3 904405U8 16 14 2 49 17
395740509 16 16 2 135 32
390560510 12 18 2 68 21
399430201 9 3 2 9 2
392400202 12 3 2 13 3
394410203 12 3 2 7 1
A-28
-------
PARAMETER: CADMIUM
METHOD: TOMAC AbS )RPT1O
UNITS: NANOC,RAMS/CUBIC METER
YEAR: 1972
NUMBER OF STANDARD
SITE SAMPLES AVERAGE MINIMUM MAXIMUM 0FVIATIC N
72 O2O4 13 4 2 18 4
3963 21 12 2 2 2 fl
399430207 12 4 2 15 4
398040fl8 11 3 2 16 4
395220219 12 6 2 38 in
395220210 11 5 2 30 8
399200511 16 7 2 28 9
395920512 16 9 2 28 8
399200513 16 4 2 25 6
39920C514 16 3 2 15 3
3992 L’5L5 16 3 2 12 3
39933 )516 1 5 2 18 5
3974 O101 7 ‘ 2 3 0
3910 30102 8 3 2 13 4
3960001)3 7 2 2 2 0
39246010k 12 2 2 4 1
391200105 12 2 2 2 U
39562( 106 10 3 2 9 2
391620107 11 3 2 5 1
397100118 11 3 2 13 3
397560109 12 31 2 304 86
399280110 9 4 2 14 4
394720111 11 67 2 704 211
392020112 10 4 2 20 6
397200113 9 3 2 9 2
391200114 14 3 2 2
391660115 11 3 2 5 1
396900116 6 2 2 2 0
391200117 1’) 3 2 9 2
j94700311 1 2 2 4 1
394660312 16 2 2 2
394700313 16 2 2 4 1
394660314 16 2 2 2 0
394660315 16 2 2 3 0
394700317 15 2 2 0
394701i 16 16 2 2 4 1
A-29
-------
PARAMETER: PERYLLIUM
METHOD: TGM1C ABSORPTION
UNITS: NANOGRAMS/CUBIC METER
YEAR: 1972
NUMBER OF STANDARD
SITE SAMPLES AVERAGE MINIMUM MAXIMUM DEVIATION
399400321 15 2 2 2 0
399560322 15 2 2 2 0
399570323 16 2 2 2
399570324 16 z 2 2 0
399400325 15 2 2 2 0
399570326 15 2 2 2 0
390120701 14 2 2 2
390780002 13 2 2 2 0
390780703 16 2 2 2 0
392720704 16 2 2 2 0
390780705 15 2 2 2 0
398980736 14 2 2
396580797 14 2 2 2 0
399320801 16 2 2 2 0
394460802 16 2 2 2 0
394460803 15 2 2 2 0
392620804 16 2 2 2
394460805 16 2 2 2 0
392220806 14 2 2 2 0
390720716 28 3 2 9 2
396440501 16 2 2 2
394840502 16 2 2 2
390560503 16 2 2 2 o
35 3 534 18 2 2 2 0
390560535 16 2 2 2 0
397800506 16 2 2 2 o
3901805)7 16 2 2 2 0
3904405)8 16 2 2 2 0
395740509 16 2 2 2
390560510 12 2 2 2 0
399200511. 15 2 2 2 0
395920512 15 2 2 2 0
399200513 15 2 2 2 0
399200514 15 2 2 2 0
399200515 15 2 2 2
399330516 12 2 2 2 0
391480101 1 2 2 2 0
3910801)2 11. 2 2 2
396000103 1.0 2 2 2 o
392460104 13 2 2 2 0
391200105 14 2 2 2 0
395620106 10 2 2 2
391620107 13 2 2 2 0
391100108 13 2 2 2 0
397560109 13 2 2 2
399280110 12 2 2 2 o
394720111 10 2 2 2 o
392020112 10 2 2 2
397200113 9 2 2 2 0
A—30
-------
PARAMFTE : EE YLLIUM
‘ l THI)I): / T ) IC ABSI1kPTION
U 1ITS: NAN G A SICU8IC METFI
YEAR: 1 72
NU 1 3I-R OF STAMrARn
SITE A 1PLES AVEPAGE MIF IMUM AXIMUM OEVIATION
391200114 14 2 2 2 0
39166 115 11 2 2 fl
396900116 6 2 2 2 0
391200111 2 2 2
A-31
-------
PARAMETER: LEAD
METHOD: TnMIC ABSORPTION
UNITS: NANOGRAMS/CUBIC METER
YEAR: 1972
NUMBER OF STANDARO
SITE SAMPLES AVERAGE MINPIUM MAXIMUM DEVIATION
399400321 15 734 11 1559 443
399560322 15 870 371 1645 329
399570323 15 67€ 267 1474 346
399510324 15 545 174 1229 297
399400325 15 68’D 225 1473 374
399570326 15 911 2 2063
390120701 14 780 313 1943 410
390780002 14 468 10 1024 286
390780103 18 827 75 1612 479
392720704 17 714 18 1437 398
390780705 12 547 10 1254 346
398980706 17 681 1 2108 542
396580107 14 622 190 2214 510
399320801 15 268 119 1023 221
394460802 15 64 199 1461 328
394460803 15 967 378 1898 393
392620804 15 834 382 1751 354
394460805 14 816 268 1702 417
392220806 15 1047 632 2208 507
394820717 29 1701 10 4460 1256
396440501 14 1243 10 2990 715
394840502 14 520 10 893 236
390560503 15 858 10 2068 640
390580504 15 723 353 1355 284
390560505 15 762 10 2128 556
397800506 17 651 1 1532 396
390180507 15 749 10 1396 383
3904405 8 15 949 293 1159 459
395740539 14 699 10 1197 333
390560510 11 585 196 1681 409
399200511 15 890 372 1664 395
395920512 15 1131 582 1809 419
399200513 15 718 62 1255 363
399200514 18 667 9 1538 478
399200515 14 803 261 1492 335
399330516 9 780 450 1550 353
397480101 11 984 1 1850 630
391080102 12 1237 305 2800 768
396000103 14 1097 1 3423 827
392460104 13 437 1 952 323
391200105 14 743 176 1233 338
395620106 12 847 1 2176 614
391620107 12 1024 1 2641 641
397100108 11 521 1 931 315
397560109 11 1367 337 8060 2229
399280110 13 856 199 2316 516
394720111 9 746 10 1664 545
392020112 10 1146 10 2877 942
397200113 12 569 1 ) 1404 359
A-32
-------
PA AMETEk:
M THUD: IC A SQR PT ION
UNITS: ANOGPAMS/CU C HETER
YEAR: 1’ 72
NU l1 UF ST NL)AFO
SITE SAMPLES 4 EPAGE MINIMUM MAXIMUM DEVI4TION
391200114 13 638 10 1787 433
391660115 11 811 10 1743 431
396900116 11 210 10 688 253
391200117 11 296 10 607 202
A-33
-------
PARAMETER: LEAD
METHOD: ATOMIC ABSORPTION
UNITS: NANOGRAMS/CUBIC METER
YEAR: 1973
NUMBER OF STANDARD
SITE SAMPLES AVERAGE MINIMUM MAXIMUM DEVIATION
399400321 21 593 224 1057 225
399560322 21 781 328 1317 316
399570323 19 440 159 882 197
399570324 19 412 39 782 230
399400325 20 452 135 822 188
399570326 21 778 207 1517 388
390120701 20 675 281 1321 261
390780002 22 462 26 1057 271
390780703 20 791 449 1331 240
392720704 22 860 413 1714 333
390780705 20 481 92 913 224
398980706 20 551 136 1219 285
396580707 11 386 36 854 224
390580707 7 534 195 1209 341
399320801 21 156 55 337 84
394460802 22 684 221 1478 293
394460803 22 1024 461 1942 345
392620804 22 1104 371 1925 374
394460805 22 647 215 1137 258
392220806 22 1106 493 1875 382
393060601 14 309 54 748 169
393060602 18 664 36 1684 368
393060604 19 624 187 1348 315
393080605 20 283 10 842 214
393060603 19 846 356 1951 388
390720711 20 476 26 1036 267
397620712 7 1230 422 1928 460
398240713 13 368 94 756 174
398270714 19 526 90 1043 261
397620715 12 1938 463 3625 1015
390720716 22 1098 288 3348 601
394520717 19 1672 31 4835 1059
398246713 0 378 11 .7 665 189
397626715 8 1422 535 3469 960
395700301 22 778 322 1613 334
392340302 22 512 156 925 243
398640303 22 1089 497 3030 566
394980304 24 952 284 1568 358
392340305 3 1914 1585 2536 539
393880306 21. 676 251 1233 278
392180307 19 374 94 950 227
396440501 28 1358 341 6917 1226
394840502 29 431 66 803 195
390560503 25 1009 366 2806 513
390580504 27 854 222 3199 613
390560505 30 916 185 3163 572
397800506 30 811 350 1602 351
390180507 29 863 93 2443 478
390440538 28 1064 375 2654 471
A-34
-------
PARAMETER: LEAD
METHOD: ATOMIC ABSORPTION
UNITS: NANOGRAMS/CUBIC METER
YEAR: 1973
NUMBER OF STANDARD
SITE SAMPLES AVERAGE MINIMUM MAXIMUM DEVIATION
395740509 29 911 207 2176 397
390560510 27 520 48 1869 435
399430201 17 441 181 1147 234
392400202 22 765 313 1312 240
394410203 20 501 170 876 160
397280204 22 913 399 1363 302
399520205 1. 1225 1225 1225
396300206 21 385 15 1124 237
399430207 21 733 388 1343 262
398040208 16 838 329 1418 338
395220209 17 1100 428 2030 523
395220210 20 489 210 842 180
399200511 21 604 287 895 194
395920512 19 1157 492 2713 566
399200513 2]. 962 283 8274 1705
399200514 20 720 65 1465 423
399200515 21 834 26 1902 382
399330516 18 464 84 1243 335
399300516 3 772 369 1449 590
397480101 22 581 231 1187 277
391080102 20 996 483 1991 410
396000103 20 1013 48 2275 535
392460104 15 620 161 1273 308
391200105 22 583 73 1638 335
395620106 20 934 287 1740 390
391620137 21 946 252 2068 473
397100108 14 452 168 871 219
397560109 22 465 154 789 191
399280110 16 546 26 1016 287
394720111 12 579 26 1495 461
392020112 17 876 273 1776 356
397200113 19 901 121 4653 1061
391200114 20 122 169 1704 371
391660115 20 719 179 2070 482
396900116 10 424 123 788 210
391200117 16 238 42 452 128
394700311 19 638 41 5035 1087
394660312 21 673 151 1369 292
394700313 20 163 420 1255 262
394660314 22 786 27 1585 393
394660315 18 1350 118 7751 1677
394700317 22 713 194 1505 373
394700316 22 480 114 923 250
A—35
-------
ALLEGHENY COUNTY BURL&U OF AIR POLLUTION CONTROL
SAROAD DAILY DATA
A-3 6
-------
PARAMETER: LEAU
METHOD: TO IC ABSORPTION
UNITS: f ICPOGRAMS/Cu8Ic METER
YEAR: 1971
SITE
NUMB & OF
SAMPL ES
ST AN D AR 0
AVERAGE MINIMUi 1 MAXIMUM DEVIATION
391702001
25
0.037
0.001
390100067
24
C.0 13
0.000
0.089
0.024
390100068
33
C.014
0.000
0 083
0.018
390100065
33
0.019
0.000
0.151
0 .029
397260012
36
0.037
0.000
0.118
0.027
97260005
29
0.039
0.000
0.105
0.038
317260005
6
C.034
0.000
0.233
0.064
397260006
32
0.037
0.000
0.081
0.035
390100066
31
0.014
0.000
0.249
0.057
398540002
31
0.016
0.000
0.085
0.022
390100064
34
0.019
0.000
0.110
0.025
399310001
28
0.022
0.000
0.088
0.025
A-37
-------
P .RA’ 1ETE : LEAC
METHUD: ITI1MIC ABSORPTION
UNITS: MIEROtIRAMS/CUBIC METER
y 4R: 1972
NU IBER
OF
STANDARD
SITE
SAMPLES
4V .R&GE
MINIMUM
MAXIMUM
DFV!ATION
390100067
11
C .024
0.000
0.076
0.022
39010)068
12
C fl23
0 3O0
0.048
390100065
11
C .077
0.029
0.188
0.047
397260012
12
C.062
0.000
0.136
0.045
397260005
15
0.128
0.000
0.319
0.088
397260006
10
C.118
0.067
0.189
0.036
3901 .)016ô
12
J . 037
0.000
0.072
0.023
3985400)2
11
0.026
0.000
0.063
0.018
390100064
1.)
C.029
0.012
0.049
0 0 15
39931 031
12
0.043
0.000
0.077
0.019
390660001
398540001
11.
5
C.085
0 033
0.000
0.000
0.276
0.093
0.084
0.035
9364O001
392530001
391720001
10
2
9
0.050
C.0S8
0.045
0.016
0.097
0.022
0.125
0.100
0.086
0.032
0.002
0.021
A-38
-------
A 4METEP: LEAC
METHOD: TOMIC AUSORPTIflN
UNITS: MICROGRAMS/CUBIC METER
YE4 : 1973
SI TI
tJ 1BER flF
SAMPLES
STANDARD
AVERAGE MINIMUM MAXIMUM DEVIATION
39fl11J067
3901’)’)068
3C U1OO06
16
16
16
0.C3Th
0.C327
0.C741
0.0010
0.0060
0.0060
0.1180
0.0950
0.1710
0.0273
0.0228
0.0435
397260’)12
3972600)5
39726 )0’)6
12
15
15
0 0347
0.1417
0.1516
0.0080
0.0390
0.0540
0.0830
0.2840
0.3830
0.0222
0.0942
C. 1078
3 qfljflfl)66
16
0.0434
0.0030
0.1090
0.0279
398540002
3901 )0 )64
3qq. 10001
3 9066N)01
39854tiO 1
393640001
3925 30’)01
1720O01
15
15
15
15
16
14
15
16
0.0604
0.0313
0.0745
.1I79
0.0590
0.0455
0.0820
0.0587
0.0050
0.0004
0.0300
0.0130
0.0050
0.0080
0.0290
0.0035
0.1500
0.0910
0.1550
0.3400
0.1470
0.1040
0.2310
0.1560
0.0476
0.0286
0.0325
0.0897
0.0406
0.0281
0.0535
0.0409
39(’100084
390960002
390960001
39726 1 1017
8
6
12
13
0.0315
0.1027
0.0701
0.1840
0.0070
0.0260
0.0080
0.0120
0.0580
0.1620
0.1560
0.4280
0.0192
0.0581
0.0512
0.1386
A—3 9
-------
O AtiETFR; C4flMIUM
MEIHUD; ATO 1IC ABS t 1RPTION
UNITS: MIC O(, AMS/CtJRIC METFR
YEAR: 1971
SI TE
NUMBER 1W
SAMPLES
STANDARD
AVEPA E MINIMUM MAXIMUM DEVIATION
39172 01
25
0QC023
0 . )O)()
0.0075
0 0O22
390100367
24
0.0015
0.0000
0.0059
0.0014
390100068
33
C.C018
0,0O’ )
0.0127
0.0026
3901 00(Th5
33
0.0010
0.0000
0.0046
0.0014
397260012
36
G .C020
0.0000
0.0071
0.0020
3972600 )5
29
0 0 C311
0.0000
0.0062
0.0016
31726u005
6
0.0328
0.0004
0.0106
0.0039
397260006
32
C.3 016
C.0010
0.0093
0.0021
3901
31
0.0023
0.0000
0.0188
0.0044
398543002
390100064
31
34
0.0015
0o0031
0.0000
0.0000
0.0050
0.0136
0.0015
0,0038
399310001
28
0.0013
0.0000
0.0052
0.0016
A-4 0
-------
PARA lETER: CADMIUM
METHOD: ATOMIC ABSORPTION
UNITS: MICROGRAMS/CUBIC METER
YEAR: 1972
NUMBER 1W STANDARD
SITE SAMPLES AVERAGE MINIMUM MAXIMUM DEVIATION
390100067 11 0.C012 0.0000 0.0045 0.0014
390100068 12 0.C022 0.0000 0.0071 0.0030
390100065 11 0 C020 0.0000 0.0052 0.0021
397260012 12 0.0015 0.0000 0.0049 0.0016
397260005 15 0.0015 0.0000 0.0093 0.0024
397260006 13 0.0025 0.0000 0.0046 0.0017
390100066 12 0.0015 0.0000 0.0086 0.0023
398540002 11 0.0015 0.0000 0.0087 0.0027
390100064 10 0.0022 0.0000 0.0112 0.0034
399310001 12 0.0011 0.0000 0.0060 0.0017
390660001 11 0.0019 0.0000 0.0064 0.0020
395540001 5 0.0024 0.0000 0.0104 0.0045
393640301 10 0.0015 0.0000 0.0045 0.0016
392580001 2 0.0014 0.0012 0.0017 0.0004
391720001 0.0013 o.oooo 0.0055 0.0017
A-41
-------
PARAMETER: CM)MIUM
M THO0: ATOMIC ABSORPTION
UNITS: MICROGRAMS/CUBIC METER
YEAR: 1973
NUMBER
OF
STANDARD
SITE
SAMPLES
AVERAGE
MINIMUM
MAXIMUM
DEVIATION
390100067
16
C.C073
0.0009
0.0416
0.0100
390100068
16
O.C 046
0.0000
0.0202
0.0059
390100065
16
0.0072
0.3007
0.0505
0.0125
397260012
12
C 0065
0.0009
0.0248
0.0382
397260005
12
0 0059
0.0008
0,0186
0.0055
397260006
15
O.C052
0.0008
0.0233
o.oooj.
390100 )66
16
0 0O98
0.0003
O.J829
0.0213
398540002
15
0.0038
0.0000
0.0220
0.0353
390100064
13
0.0194
0.0004
0.1880
0.0514
399310001
15
0 ,0100
0.0009
0.0473
0.0153
390660001
15
0.0095
0.0008
0.0462
0.0131
398540001
16
0.0046
0.0000
0.0243
0.0077
393640001
14
0.0056
0.0004
0.0276
0.0074
392580001
15
0.0054
0.0003
0.0283
0.0072
391720001
14
0.0045
0.0005
0.0143
0.0046
390100084
8
0.0017
0.0004
0.0048
0.0017
390960002
6
0.0024
0.0004
0.0070
0.0024
390960001
12
0.0101
0.0009
0.0466
0.0137
397260017
13
0.0055
0.0000
0.0214
0.0067
A-4 2
-------
MISSOURI AIR CONSERVATION COMMISSION
SAROAD DAILY DATA
A—43
-------
P METEf : LEA1
METHOC: TCMIC ABSORPTION
UNITS: frICROGR#MS/CUBIC METER
YEAR: 1972
SITE
NUNthER OF
SAMPLES
STANDARD
AVERAGE MINIMUM MAXIMUM DEVIATION
262360002
11
C.8
0.30
1.30
0.36
261120003
4
1.04
0.50
1.46
0.41
262200004
7
5.51
0.90
13.70
4.73
262980001
9
0.15
0.00
0.50
0.17
261740001
9
C.10
0.00
0.20
0.10
262360001
3
C..5t)
0.12
0.90
A-44
-------
PARAMETER: LEAD
METHOU: ATOMIC ABSL)1 PTI0N
UNITS: MICROGRAMS/CUBiC METER
YEAR: 1973
NUPl ER OF STANDARD
SITE SAMPLES AVERAGE MIt !MUM MAXIMUM DEVIATION
262360002 20 C.7i 0.0(3 2.13 0.58
261120003 26 0.70 0.26 1.78 0.31
262200004 30 1.07 1.14 47.36 8.72
262980001 34 0.1 ]. 0.00 0.35 0.09
261740001 34 C.14 0.00 U.70 0.14
262360001 13 C.42 0.01 0.73 0.21
261120002 4 C.48 0.29 0.61 0.14
264260002 1 0.54 0.54 0.54
264260003 1 0.23 0.23 0.23
262280005 11 19.14 0.63 141.20 41.00
263020001 6 0.36 0.19 0.78 0.21
263020004 6 0.56 0.26 1.00 0.26
264540002 1 0.64 0.64 0.64
260700002 2 0.48 0.18 0.78 0.42
263800002 6 0.30 0.21 0.42 0.08
263800001 1 0.22 0.22 0.22
261920002 4 C.57 0.40 0.79 0.18
264100001 3 0.36 0.29 0.5]. 0.13
262440031 3 C.47 0.25 0.63 0.20
264740001 3 C.28 0.20 0.39 0.10
263740001 5 C.48 0.20 1.12 0.37
263280001 10 0.39 0.12 0.92 0.29
264320001 1 0.70 0.70 0.70
262760001 1. C.19 0.19 0.19
262200006 1. 0.3]. 0.31 0.31
A-45
-------
PA AMETER: LEAC
METHOD: TOM1C ABS JRPTI1]N
UNITS: MICPQĽ,r AM5/CUB1C METER
YEAR: 1974
NUM 3ER OF STANDARD
SITE SAMPLIS AVERAGL MINIMUM MAXIMUM DEVIATION
261120003 6 0.34 0.20 0.67 0.17
262200004 4 ‘ .44 2.51 3.31 2.62
262980001 9 C.14 0.03 0.20 0.05
261740001 8 C.17 0.03 0.34 0.11
262360001 9 G.43 0.05 0.93 0.23
261120002 8 C.41 0.13 0.90 0.22
264260002 8 0.42 0.09 0.84 0.27
264260003 8 0.2E 0.10 0.55 0.15
262280005 10 1.43 0.27 2.74 0.89
263020001 9 0.29 0.16 0.85 0.22
263020004 9 0.41 0.17 0.73 0.21
264540002 7 C.27 0.11 0.49
260100002 9 C.20 0.07 3.43 0.11
263800002 7 0.39 0.11 0.75 0.22
261920002 9 0.42 0.08 0.66 0.21
264100001 7 0.23 0.16 0.30 0.06
262440001 1 0.31 0.13 0.52 0.14
264740001 5 C.10 0.03 0.14 0.04
263740001 9 0.34 0.16 0.57 0.15
262300001 4 0.26 0.16 0.41 0.11
264460005 4 C.27 0.12 0.63 0.24
263380003 2 C.50 0.40 3.61 0.15
A-4 6
-------
P A1 1 M TL : CAiJP 1UM
MFTHUU: TOMIC BSiJRPTION
UNITS: 1CRUGkAMS/CU6IC METER
YEAR: 1972
SITE
tUMBER OF-
SAMPLES
ST AN 1) A RD
AVERAGE MINIMUM MAXIMUM DEVIATION
262360002
U
C. 1C
0.006
0.020
0.008
261120003
262200004
4
7
C.008
C.054
0.003
0.010
0.140
0.051
0.386
262980001
9
C.141
0.004
1.170
0.020
0.006
261740001
8
C.007
0.000
0.025
262360001
3
C.027
0.000
A-47
-------
PARAMETEk: CADMIUM
METHUfl: Tfl ’I ABS [ )RPTION
UNITS: ICkOGkAMS/CUB1C METF
YEA$: 1q73
SITE
NUMBER OF
SAMPLES
AVEkAGE M1F 1MUM MAXIMUM
STANDARD
DEVIATION
2623L 0 )02
23
C.020
C.006
0.043
0.Ou
261120003
25
C.O11
0.000
0.025
0.007
262200004
30
0.211
0.005
3.500
0.630
262980001
36
C.013
0.001
0.030
0.006
261740001
34
C.21d
0.OuO
7.070
1.211
262360001
10
0.012
0.004
0.020
0.005
261120302
4
C.O06
0.001
0.015
0.006
264260002
1
0.002
0.002
0.002
264260003
1
C.001
0.001
0.001
262280005
11
C.831
0.007
6.812
1.598
263020001
6
C.011
0.003
0.021
0.008
263020004
6
C.008
C.004
0.012
0.003
264540002
1.
0.003
0.003
0.003
260700002
2
C..013
0.003
0.024
0.015
263800002
6
C.010
0.002
0.015
u.oos
263B00001
1
0.006
0.006
0.006
261920002
4
C.008
0.003
0.015
0.005
264100001
3
0.011
0.006
0.020
0.008
262440001
3
C.01O
0.003
0.018
0.008
264740001
3
C.005
C.0O ].
0.008
0.004
263740001
5
C.010
0.008
0.012
0.002
263280001
10
0.015
0.010
0.020
0.005
264 20001
1
0.029
0.029
0.029
262760001
1
C.000
0.000
0.0O()
262200006
1
C.010
0.010
0.013
A-48
-------
PARAMETER: CADMIUM
METHOD: tTOMIC ABSORPTION
UNITS: MICROGRAMS/CUBIC METER
YEAR: 1974
NUMBER
OF
STANDARD
SITE SAMPLES
AVEPAGE
MINIMUM MAXIMUM DEVIATIiJN
261120003
6
G.010
0.0(i2
0.032
0.011
262200004
4
C.132
0.073
0.208
0.056
262980001
9
C.015
0.001
0.068
0.020
261740001
8
C.015
0.002
0.063
0.020
262360001
9
C.010
0.003
0.019
0.005
261120002
8
C.012
0.002
0.053
0.0L7
264260002
8
C.006
0.004
0.015
0.004
26426000
8
C.0 09
0.004
0.014
0.004
262280005
10
0.135
0.018
0.398
0.146
263020001
9
0.009
0.002
0.020
0.006
263020004
9
C.014
0.001
0.055
0.017
264540002
1
0.009
0.003
0.016
0.004
260700002
9
0.006
0.002
0.012
0.004
263800002
7
0.010
0.005
0.015
0.004
261920002
9
0.008
0.003
0.017
0.005
264100001
7
C.010
0.006
0.021
0.005
262440001
7
0.01’.
0.003
0.027
0.008
264740001
5
C.004
0.002
0.009
0.003
263140001
9
0.015
0.005
0.043
0.013
262300001
4
0.005
0.003
0.006
0.002
264460005
4
0.007
0.003
0.013
0.005
263380003
2
C.008
0.005
0.012
0.005
A-49
-------
ST. LOUIS COUNTY DIVISION OF AIR POLLUTION CONTROL
SAROAD MONTHLY COMPOSITE DATA
A-50
-------
PARAMETE : LEAC
METHOD: ATOMIC ABSIJRPTION
UNiTS: MICROGRAMS/CUBIC METER
Y 4R: 1 u71
NU t E
{JF
STAN A [ )
SITE SAMPLES AVERAGE MINIMUM MAXIMU 1 DEVIATION
b232OOOl
12
2.310
1.010
4.540
1.154
264300003
12
C.67 0
O.26 )
1.850
0.477
260200001
12
1.495
0.790
3.550
0.781
zo1 040002
12
2.848
1.000
6.810
1.521
262c.30002
12
I.23
C.570
2.610
3.633
0Zo00O1
12
1.752
0.460
5.340
1.608
262630003
12
1.M)6
0.187
2.640
0.684
2 60030C)01
6
2.62
0.840
5.110
1.425
264120)01
6
.172
1.080
4.270
1.117
ZôCJ2 0 0 0)2
5
2.480
1.650
4.220
1.101
A—SI
-------
PARAMETER: LEA
‘IFIHIJU: TO IC r3SukpTJON
UNITS: IC C MS/CUBIC METER
YEAR: 1972
SI IF-
N(Jt1FjE F
S4MPL S
STAND A ‘ 0
A FFAGF NlIr\IMUM MAXIMUM DEVIATION
2b3200J 1
2643’) ’))3
260200001
261040302
26 63O0J2
26C2bCi3.fl.
626 OO33
260030001
2o412c 001
260200002
12
L
12
12
12
12
10
1
11
12
1. 2
C.4C
C.90
1.68
C.87
C.9’,
C.
1.3
1. 3
C.b
i.ao
0.12
0.43
0.76
J.50
0.48
0.28
J.70
J.a2
0.48
2.34
0.64
1.96
3.08
1.92
2.53
2.79
2.56
2.19
1.70
0.51
0.19
3.44
‘ .72
0.40
0.52
0.70
3.55
•44
0.39
A-52
-------
PARAMETER; LEAC
MrTH(JF): TO IC M3SCiRPTION
UNITS: MICRfJt,. AMS/CUbIC METEP
YEAR: 1973
SITE
NU U E JE
SAM P L S
STAND4 ’L
AVERAGE MINIMUM MAXIMUM DEVIATION
262 20U )1
12
1.24
0.77
2.02
.36
264300003
11
0.43
0.10
.8&
.24
26C200001
11
1.0
0.65
1.72
0.38
26104U002
2.Oo
i.13
3.71
1.01
262630002
12
0.71
3.46
1.01
0.17
2ô0 bO0 01
12
C.72
0.37
1.33
0.27
262630003
10
0.62
0.21
1.01
0.28
260030001
12
1.29
0.71
2.07
0.40
2b4120 00 l
12
0.88
0.44
1.86
0.38
Zb0200U02
11
o.ia
0.38
1.59
0.37
A-53
-------
P 1LTEk: LEAC
M TMJ l: tiTliM1U ScJRPTION
UNITS: ‘10 S/CU IC METLP
YEAR: 1974
t TE
NUMbER OF
SAM ’LES
STANL)ARD
AVE AGE MIr .IMUM MAXIMUM flEVIATION
252320001
?6430C103
2600001
4
7
10
1.5k
C.39
C.85
0.76
0.20
0.50
2.90
0.74
1.77
1.02
ui
0.42
26.L 04000 2
2ô2o30002
25U26 0 001
2 2b30]3i
2bU0 UU)1
26412 0)01
2oU2’i0 1.)2
5
7
9
7
7
1)
9
2.0
0.73
L.9i
0.79
1.19
C.94
C.92
0.76
0.38
0.27
0.43
u.50
0.46
0.31
4.03
1.31
2.75
1.55
3.00
2.07
2.88
1.52
0.32
0.81
0.41
0.87
).58
.80
A-54
-------
PARAMETER: CACMLUM
iIETHIJfl: ATOMIC ABSJRPTION
UNITS; MICRfJ{ RAMS/CU IC METFF
YEAR: iqii.
NUt1C ER
OF
STANiAP. [ ’
Slit SAMt LES AVERAGE MINIMUM MAXIMUM DEVIATION
262320001
12
C.C142
0.U000
0.0530
0.1)164
26433 00J3
12
C.C088
0.0000
0.0430
0.oiig
260200001
12
0.0103
0.uU OO
( ‘.0580
0.O la l
26104U002
12
C.C134
0.0000
0.0550
0.)179
Zo 63OO02
12
0.0153
0.0000
0.0420
0.0137
2.eC2600M
12
0.0175
0.0000
0.1240
Q. J356
26 ô30003
12
U.C22 0
0.1)000
0.1041)
0.0284
260030001
6
0.0202
0.0060
0.0440
0. 0155
264120301
6
0.0087
0.1)030
0.0320
0.1) 115
260200002
5
0.0172
0.0040
0.0480
0.0192
A—55
-------
PARAMETER: CALMIUM
Mbmor : TCfrIC AbSORPTION
UNITS: MtCkO kt4MS/CU jc METEk
YE r : 1 72
NU 1 Ek
OF STANO4RO
SITI SAMPLES RAGE MINIMUM MAXIMUM DEVIATION
2 32 ’)’)1
.64300003
260200001
2h104 .U)02
2602 C)01
26. .ŕ30003
2 0C)3UJ J1
2ó41 2tj)O1
2 U2C C Y)Z
12
12
12
12
12
12
10
12
11
12
C.005
C.003
C.004
C.007
C.U16
C.DCs
C.012
C.01O
C.006
G.00
0.003
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.031
0.001
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
o.oi
0.014
0.011
0.049
0.076
0.067
0.077
0.063
0.049
0.020
0.005
0.004
0.003
‘J,314
0.022
0.019
0.024
0.018
0.014
0.006
A—56
-------
PARAMETER: CACMIUM
METHOD: ATOMIC ABSflRPTILJN
UNITS: MICRUGRAMS/CUBIC MF TLI
YEAR: 1973
NUMBER
OF
STANDARU
SAMPLES
AVERAGE
MINIMUM
MAXIMUM
L EV1ATION
Zo2 20OO1
12
C.003
0.000
0.012
0.004
264300)03
260 flUO01
11
11
C.)04
C.O0 ]
0.000
0.000
0.UV’
0.005
0.()03
0.002
2o4C 002
C.JU7
0.Ot)O
0.036
0.011
262630002
12
C.007
0.0)0
0.018
0.005
260260001
12
C.)03
0.000
0.010
0.003
262b30003
10
C. J04
0.300
0.013
0.004
260030001
12
C.004
0.000
0.317
0.005
2ó4120)01
1Z
C.00b
0.001
0.018
0.005
260200)02
11
C.004
0.000
0.017
0.005
A—57
-------
PARAMt1Ek CADMIUM
M ThDL: ATOMIC AbSURPTION
UNITS: t ICPOG MS/CuBIc METEP
yEdAP: 197
SiT
NUMBER OF
SM 1PLES
ST AN OAR U
AVERA&E MINIMUM MAXIMUM DEVIATION
2oL3iuOr)1
2643UCO
2o 02Uu001
2 1’)400)2
2 ô3OU0Z
2 026O0fj1
2626 0’i0
2600 O001
2o s12O0O1
b0200002
4
7
lu
5
7
9
7
7
10
9
GsJ02
C.Jui
u.004
C.103
C.013
C.)03
C.J04
C.0U2
C.002
C.005
(J.000
0.000
O.Uo
G. 0O
C.000
0.000
0.000
U.OU )
u.000
0.000
U.,U1O
0.007
o.oz].
0.007
0.090
0.012
0.011
0.u07
0.00 9
0.ojg
•
O.fl05
0.003
0,032
*J,0 0 3
0.003
0.007
A-58
-------
ST. LOUIS CITY DIVISION OF AIR POLLUTION CONTROL
SAROAD MONTHLY COMPOSITE DATA
A-59
-------
PARAMETER: LEAD
METE400 iTOMIC ABSORPTION
UNITS: lICRQGRAMS/CUBIC METER
YEAR: 1971
NUMBER OF STANDARD
SITE SAMPLES A SE1 AGE MINIMUM MAXIMUM DEVIATION
264280061 12 6.9 1.5 13.0 3.1
264280007 11 1.6 0.5 4.1. 1.2
264280010 10 2.0 0.9 4 ,9 14
264280012 12 1.6 0.6 5.8 1.4
264280006 10 0.9 2.2 0.4
264280063 12 1.0 0.3 2.2 0.5
264280025 12 1.3 0.8 2.5 0.5
264280015 12 1.9 0.9 4.1 1.1
A-60
-------
PARAMETER: LEAC
METHOD; T0MIC ABSORPTION
UNITS; MICROGRAMS/CUBIC METER
YEAR: 1972
NUMBER OF STANDARD
SITE SAMPLES AVERAGE MINIMUM MAXIMUM DEVIATION
264280061 23 3.3 0.7 8.8 2.3
264280007 12 1.2 0.5 3.6 0.8
264280010 12 1.1 0.5 1.6 0.4
2642800$ 2 32 1.0 0. 2.6 0.6
264280006 3 1. .2 0.9 1.6 0.2
264280063 0.9 0.3 2.6 0.7
26428002 12 1.5 0.7 2.1 0.4
264280015 9 1.6 0.7 2.6 0.6
A—6].
-------
PARAMETER: LEAD
METHOD: ATOMIC ABSORPTION
UNITS: MICROGRAMS/CUBIC METER
YEAR: 1973
NUMBER OF STANDARD
SITE SAMPLES AVERAGE MINIMUM MAXIMUM DEVIATION
264280061 22 3.4 0.8 9.6 z.o
264280007 10 1.0 0.5 1.4 0.3
264280010 12 1.1 0.6 1.5 0.3
264280012 11 0.7 0.3 1.1 0.3
264280006 17 0.5 0.1 1.5 0.3
264280063 12 0.5 0.2 0.9
264280025 11 1.3 0.8 1.8 0,3
264280015 12 1.2 0.7 2.1 0.4
A-62
-------
PARAMETER: CADMIUM
METHOC: TOM1C ABSORPTION
UNITS: PICROGRAMS/CUBIC METER
YEAR: 971
SI IF
NUMBER OF
SAMPLES
ST AN DA K C
AVERAGE MINIMUM MAXIMUM DEVIATION
264280061
9
0.021
0.004
0.053
0.016
264280007
11
0.027
0.010
0.110
0.031
264280010
6
C.024
0.007
0.069
0.023
264280012
12
0.021
0.006
0.070
0.020
264280006
10
.
C.018
0.010
0.026
0.006
264280063
12
0.009
0.002
0.019
0.006
264280025
12
C.009
•
0.001
0.019
0.006
264280015
12
0.023
0.005
0.113
0.030
A-63
-------
PARAMETER CADMIUM
METHOD: ATCMIC ABSORPTION
UN ITS ICROGRAMS/CuB C METER
yEAR; 972
NUMBER OF STANDARD
SITE SAMPLES AVERAGE MIMMUN MAXIMUM DEVIATION
264280061 23 C.014 0.001 0.039
264280007 0.016 0.003 0.069 0.020
264280010 1,2 C 0i3 0.004 0.049 0.013
204280012 1.2 0.017 0.Qo5 0.083 0.022
2 4280006 11 C.0*6 0.005 0.044 0.013
264j80063 12 C.015 0 .005 0.039 0.011
264280025 12 0.018 0.005 0.069 0.018
264280015 9 C.012 0.001 0.036 0.012
A—64
-------
PARAMETER: CADMIUM
METHOD: ATOMIC A8SORPT ION
UNITS: MICROGRAMS/CUBIC METER
YEAR: 1.973
NUMBER OF STANDARD
SITE SAMPLES AVERAGE MINIMUM MAXIMUM DEVIATION
264280061 22 0.006 0.001 0.016 0.003
264280007 10 0.004 0.001 0.005 0.002
264280010 12 0.011 0.005 0.024 0.007
264280012 U. C.002 0.001 0.005 0.002
264280006 17 0.015 0.001 0.069 0.017
264280063 12 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.000
264280025 11 0.014 C.004 0.021 0.006
264280015 12 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.000
A—65
-------
PARAMETER: CHROMIUM
METHOD: ATOMIC ABSORPTION
UNITS: ‘ICROGRAMS/CUBIC METER
YEAR: 1972
NUMBER OF STANDARD
SITE SAMPLES AVERAGE MINIMUM MAXIMUM DEVIATION
264280006 1 C.003 0.003 0.003
A-66
-------
PARAMeTER: CHROMIUM
METHOD: MTOMIC ABSORPTION
UNITS: MICROGRAMS/CUBIC METER
YEAR: 1973
NUMBER OF STANDARD
SITE SAMPLES AVERAGE MINIMUM MAXIMUM DEVIATION
264280061 22 0.002 0.001 0.016 0.003
264280007 10 0.016 0.007 0.032 0.007
264280010 12 C.001 0.001 0.001 0.000
264280012 11 C.010 0.001 0.057 0.016
264280006 17 C .008 0.001 0.100 0.024
264280063 12 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.000
264280025 ii 0.006 0.001 0.015 0.004
264280015 12 C.001 0.001 0.001 0.000
A-67
-------
ST. LOUIS CITY DIVISION OF AIR POLLUTION CONTROL
SAROAD QUARTERLY COMPOSITE DATA
A-6 8
-------
PARAMETER: CHROMIUM
METHOD: &TOMIC ABSORPTION
UNITS: MICROGRAMS/CUBIC METER
YEAR: 1971
NUMBER OF STANDARD
SITE SAMPLES AVERAGE MINIMUM MAXIMUM DEVIATION
264280061 2 0.086 0.013 0.160 0.104
264280007 3 0.004 0.001 0.009 0.005
264280010 3 0.020 0.002 0.046 0.023
264280012 4 C.010 0.001 0.030 0.014
264280006 2 0.010 0.001 0.019 0.013
264280063 4 0.005 0.003 0.010 0.003
264280025 4 0.007 0.001 0.012 0.005
264280015 2 0.012 0.004 0.020 0.011
A-69
-------
PARAMETER: CHRCMIUM
METHOD: ATOMIC ABSORPTION
UNITS; MICROGRAMS/CUBIC METER
YEAR: 1972
NUMBER OF STANDARD
SITE SAMPLES AVERAGE MINIMUM MAXIMUM DEVIATION
264280061 7 0 .006 0.001 0.016 0.006
264280007 3 C.005 0.001 0.007 0.003
264280010 4 0.005 0.001 0.011 0.005
264280012 4 0.001 0.001 0.002 0.001
264280006 2 0.006 0.004 0.008 0.003
264280063 4 0.005 0.005 0.007 0.001
264280025 4 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.000
264280015 4 0.009 0.005 0.013 0.004
A-70
-------
GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION DIVISION
SAROAD MONTHLY COMPOSITE DATA
A-7 1
-------
PARAMETER: LEAC
METHOD: ATOMIC ABSORPTION
UNITS: MICROGRAMS/CUBIC METER
YEAR: 1971
NUMBER OF STANDARD
SITE SAMPLES AVERAGE MINIMUM MAXIMUM DEVIATION
110220001 12 1.3 0.4 3.7 0.9
110040002 6 1.0 0.1 2.1 0.7
115220002 12 0.9 0.3 2.5 0.6
114500006 12 0.7 0.2 2.0 0.5
114400002 12 1.2 0.4 1.9 0.5
114380002 12 1.1 0.4 2.0 0.6
113440001 11 1.1 0.1 2.3 0.7
113340002 12 0.4 0.1 0.9 0.2
112280001 7 0.6 0.1 1.4 0.5
111280001 1 ]. 1.0 0.3 3.5 0.9
110600001 10 0.6 0.1 1.4 0.4
A—7 2
-------
PARAMETER: LEAD
METHOD: ATOMIC ABSORPTION
UNITS: MICROGRAMS/CuBIC METER
YEAR: 1972
NUMBER OF STANDARD
StTE SAMPLES AVERAGE MINIMUM MAXIMUM DEVIATION
110220001 11 0.8 0.4 1.4 0.3
110160001 4 1.6 0.4 4.3 1.8
110040002 12 0.8 0.3 2.2 0.5
115220002 12 1.1 0.4 2.0 0.5
114500006 12 0.6 0.3 1.0 0.2
114400002 12 1.0 0.4 1.8 0.3
114380002 12 0.9 0.6 1.1 0.1
113440001 12 0.9 0.2 1.8 0.4
113340002 12 0.5 0.0 1.0 0.3
112280001 12 0.4 0.2 0.7 0.1
111280001 12 1.1 0.5 2.4 0.7
110600001 11 0.6 0.3 1.5 0.3
A-73
-------
PARAMETER: LEAD
METHOD: ATOMIC ABSORPTION
UNITS: MICROGRAMS/CUBIC METER
YEAR: 1973
NUMBER OF STANDARD
SITE SAMPLES AVERAGE MINIMUM MAXIMUM DEVIATION
110220001 12 0.9 0.3 2.0 0.5
110160001 12 0.7 0.2 2.0 0.5
110040002 11 0.8 0.3 1.6 0.4
115220002 12 0.8 0.4 1.9 0.5
114500006 6 0.5 0.2 0.9 0.2
114500011 6 0.9 0.6 1.3 0.2
114400002 12 0.9 0.5 1.3 0.3
114380002 12 1.0 0.7 1.5 0.3
113440001 12 1.0 0.6 1.9 0.4
113340002 10 0.4 0.2 0.7 0.2
112280001 12 0.5 0.2 1.2 0.3
111280001 12 0.9 0.6 1.6 0.3
110600001 12 1.0 0.5 2.2 0.5
A-74
-------
MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF AIR POLLUTION CONTROL
SAROAD DAILY DATA
A- 75
-------
PARAMETER: CACMIUM
METHOD: TOMIC ABSORPTION
UNITS: MICROGRAMS/CUBIC METER
YEAR: 1974
NUMBEk OF STANDARD
SITE SAMPLES A dERAGE MINIMUM MAXIMUM DEVIATION
2 526OQO1 23 C.COCS C.’)OOl 0.0034 0.0006
231820002 42 C.CUO6 O. OOfli 0.0028 fl.0006
A—i 6
-------
PARAMETER: EERYLLIUt 1
METHOD: ATOMIC ABSDRPTIUN
UNITS: M!CROGRAMS/CuuJc FTER
YLA} ,: 1974
CF STAN’.)AFH)
SIIF A iPLt5 A,LPAC1 MINI 1UM 1AX1t iUM JEVT TJir4
2352 JO1 23 C.CO(J1 C.OO(J1 C.000I)
21 2’ ( ‘2 41 C.C’ Li1 C. )JJ1 ...j)
A-77
-------
PARAMETER: LEAD
METhOD: ATOMIC ABSORPTIflN
UNITS: ? ICROGR4MSfCUBIC METER
YEAR: 19Th
NUMBER OF STANDARD
SITE SAMPLES AVERAGE MINIMUM MAXIMUM DEVIATION
2352b0001 23 C.280 C.081 0.51 ’) 0.114
231820002 42 C.217 C.040 0.370 0.080
A-78
-------
CONNECTICUT DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
SAROAD QUARTERLY COMPOSITE DATA
A- 79
-------
P qAM TFR CACfr IUM
METhOD: ŁTO’IIC t 8SuRPTI(JN
UNITS: 1CROGR.AMS/CU3IC 1ET R
YFAP: 1971
SI
NUMBER OF
S P LE S
STANDARD
M1I\IMUM M XJMUM CEVIATION
070008033
4
C.C537
0.0118
0.1204
0.0460
07Cj6 ’0)1
4
C.C)52
0.4323
D.Ur B2
0.0325
.)7’ j7 3 3j
4
“.C026
( .)t)37
0.0042
0.0015
O 7 2501 3
4
C .C)3 i
0 • ‘)18
L ’ • 052
0.0016
U7C2bv ’)1
3
. .C043
0. )32
• ) 57
0. j013
u7L260002
1
C.Cu5ç
0.3059
0.0059
37 330 ’ )2
4
.C026
0. F 1
0.0)07
J7L iC )9
4
C.C12c
0. ) 3
0.0037
C.0006
073 (i3
4
Z..C)27
i.fl14
J..!45
“.)015
)7 3300’) 7
4
C .C. R
C.’ 19
u.0”37
.
070330001
4
C.Cv23
O.fl017
.QO 2 R
C ’ .O 3(5
‘ 7L350123
s
C.C.’)35
U.O ’32
.)L39
0 .)(V 3
J7 042 0r)3
4
C.(C3
0.3013
(‘.0040
0.0012
‘)7t 4(jj4
1
J.U ’ ’52
J.0052
0.’’ 52
)7 51C: ’1
6
C.f 17
.f’ 5
(
07i54(u o l
4
C.C020
0.1020
‘)036
0.0007
17( 4i ja5
4
C • C 53
. .fl 7
“.356
0.3076
07 540) ’l
A
(.C’ 33
0.1017
0.0058
0.0018
e)7r54 )J2
4
C . ’139
0.0022
•r)r 4 5
.u Olg
U7(540J )
4
.Co75
0.0o3)
0. 2 ’4
•J.j)8
07u 70103
4
C.CU3
0.0023
0.0042
0.0007
7r 57(’ )j
4
C.C04’
0.i0 7
4J.J1 l
0.0342
j7:5 onj
4
t.C )4
C.)017
0.0076
0.0026
j7 (jr4
4
.( ‘2
“.)014
0. 55
C.0018
1
4
C.CU 6
i.’ ’)216
).0u5)
.1)Ol 6
07(s78001
4
0.C013
..0006
0.0017
0.03 j5
O7 o U(J1
4
C.C151
3.i 118
C.’ 113
C.0942
•J7 ,p f 4:j)
4
C. ’44
. 031
0.0074
0.0020
07’c C )3
4
C. )28
J.J ’J J7
. j052
• . ‘)02 ’
Q7tô ti’.)5
4
G.C02 3
0.1116
). 4143
r)..h)l1
07U6c OU)4
4
C.C02
O. ’J315
(‘.0023
0.0004
7.7 t ’ ( ’L
2
C.’02
0.3338
‘‘.L 66
0 7 7r.. t)9
1
C.C 34
‘.fl’)34
0.0034
(.‘)l
1
.C)58
0. J’ 5S
L .’:5d
)77: )j2
4
C.C: 3S
J. i)22
L . 0 )62
‘ ‘.0020
j7o700 0)
1
C.COcc
0.1099
0.0098
•.37U82 “)l
4
C.C ( 27
L.)01i
‘.U.4:
O.’),)fl
7i
4
C.(’2 ’
2.1)16
0.0023
0.0003
J7 34r’ 1
4
.0U 8
.) i jo
• 73552 )3
4
C .0 )25
. M14
.0e41
‘. ‘‘014
071j9 00’)2
4
C.0)36
u.002
0.0061
0.Q(fl7
(7138004
4
C.C’27
• )‘‘25
0. i’ 3)
(;.0Q0
447 U Y ’ 1
4
C .C ‘27
. 3 .318
0.0036
C.0007
Jill 10.,) 1
4
.0443
o. )0
c.0 74
C.r1u23
1711 1@C )2
2
C.( 52
J.1 i1ŕ
0.41 3
.)049
0711300 33
4
C.0039
C.’hJ21
0.0057
0.0015
0711601)1
4
C)3
C. 1317
. •) “p3
(3.0011
37124 o( 3
4
C.Co42
‘ •V 57
0.2384
0.1162
714( ’”41
4
,...C ’13
.• ‘0.6
.. J 25
A—SO
-------
P4RAM TE : CAC 1IL
METI-OD: TflMIC ARSORPTION
UNITS: MICROGRAMS/CUBIC METER
YEAR.: 1972
SITE
UMME OF
SAMPLES
ST AN 0 AR 0
A E AGE MII4IMUM MAXIMUM DEVIATION
07CJ( 80:)3
4
0.C134
( .fl034
.C232
L.0J86
D7C( 2
2
C.C 51
0.0028
0.1275
0.0882
U7( Jb((.” 1
4
(..C)78
0.0052
0.0100
U.)025
07C)70( J1
4
c.cies
0.)015
0.0326
0.0128
070175123
1
.C025
r .)025
r .Y 25
7 25 l123
4
.CJ23
0. 305
().1fl7
07’t’O O l l
2
C.C035
0.0021
0.0050
.002L
07 (2 C002
2
‘).C043
(‘.1326
0.1060
D.0024
Olflj:0:.12
4
0.0)24
. u53
0.)015
O7O33 000E
0.1 1)21
r .0o 4 i
C.0009
3
4
C .C’ 38
9.0028
. 0045
C.slOOl
(7fl3 ij)7
4
C.C )3c
0.0025
0.0050
C.uO lO
)7 3j ’.i’ j
4
.102a
J.)048
( ‘.C008
07135 12
4
2.C122
0.3017
).)026
(. )0G’,
07(420003
4
(.J027
‘).‘ 63
(i.c17
u742 T.iA
4
C .(j37
. )12
C.’1122
17510011
4
C.(045
C.0023
ri.0065
0.0021
(it 54I( 01
4
.C335
i .J?2b
).j043
( .)‘ )U9
L7 54(r.J5
‘s
C. 1P4
1• h)2]
0. 21’)
(.“)07
U7054000.
4
.C)42
C.))29
‘. :j51
.oo lo
I 7C54:C )2
4
C .C’4
.. . ‘OJ 3
2.’ D53
‘ .‘DOC9
fl7C540i)6
4
C.C05
C.)02
0.0103
0.0034
07L570( ’3
4
C .C’43
.)1)16
0. 062
0.1020
u7 57r ,1
4
C.Ci48
0.3)25
0. )70
0.0)20
070570004
1
0.001?
.1)17
0.0(17
(7r59t’) ;2
4
.0U46
•‘)337
(.3055
0.1010
7)59U0)o
4
C.C04e
C.0017
0.0069
0.0022
07 ’59)0)1
4
( .C036
j.029
0.0041
t . 0005
07 A7dfl1 1
4
‘.C)3
U. C 1
•‘. 3054
.0016
070 o(0 01
‘t
.c ) 5
v. )2
•..03.. 4
0.0046
UlLod O()2
C.’?)47
O,.) )3
?. )059
‘).“OlO
370 d0tJ)3
4
C.C)38
0.0021
0.0053
0.0015
O 7Cbbci J5
4
3 .Y 35
. 323
0 . (52
(.0012
o7 o 0r p4
4
r r3ç
0.•J’)32
‘).0046
(‘.3006
07070u 003
4
.UJ53
J.302b
2.0104
C.0035
7L7’ (j9
4
C.C)3B
1.3)26
).C050
0.0010
07’700U 11
3
C.C0 2
O. 024
0.0047
(i.0013
o7 i: )Z
4
C.Wj51
0. i)35
u. 072
C .0018
7 7 ’ t5
4
C.C053
0. ) 2
(.0085
0.0024
07UB 00)1
4
(.003
0.1019
.)051
C.0013
071d2 01’J5
4
C.’ 44
‘.3028
0.fl06’)
0.13013
07” 140DJ1
4
C.C021
U.OOlb
0.0028
C.0005
7 5( )
4
O.(O 7
L.3t’13
0.0 158
0.0018
J70 0 3 ’2
4
.(O1C
C.’) )
U. 0023
(.0006
0710dUOJ4
•
r.)l)18
0.0075
0.0032
o71Je (311
4
‘.C• ’55
•3•1)35
0.C )65
0.0 ,314
‘71u1UO01
4
C.C334
0.Q )1,
0.0066
0.0023
i711 3’ )3
4
• 49
‘.‘)034
‘.0 83
1.0023
r711 ,, 1
4
C.C 2
• . ‘ 117
‘. ‘340
•0D].0
A-81
-------
P RAM TE : CArMIUM
METHOD: ATCMIC BS RPTIfl
UNITS: t ICQCG AMS/CUBIC METEk
YEAR: 1q72
NU4 3ER GF STANDAR )
SiTE SAMPLES 4 E AGE MIt\IMUM MAXIMU 1 DEVIATIflN
j71240003 A C.C223 U.’) )49 O.(714 (. 327
U7146L O 1 4 C.C019 O. )t)12 C.(3027 C.Y O7
A-8 2
-------
PARAMETER: CADMIUM
METP OC: T0MIC ABSORPTION
UNITS: MICROGRAMS/CUBIC METER
YEAR: 1973
NU 1B I
CF
STANDARD
SITE SAMPLES AVEPAGE
MPdMUM MAXIMUM DEVIATION
07000 8C )3
4
C.C)85
0.)062
0.0134
p.0033
070 1280)1
4
0.C01
C.0008
0.0024
0.0008
070360032
4
C.C246
0.3072
0. 354
0.0121
070060 1)01
3
C.C0 S
0.)029
u.0093
0.0032
070070001
4
C.C317
0,)095
0.0516
0.0225
07C1C5 i01
3
C.rfl3
0.301o
0.0067
(.0027
070175123
4
C.C030
0.0015
0.0038
Q. Qfl
070250123
4
C.C023
0.JO1O
0.0032
0.0010
070260001
1
C.C021
0.3021
0. 021
07 o330004
4
C.C031
0.3019
0.0060
0.3)20
07C33OC” 2
4
C.C036
U.”317
u.U047
(.3014
07 330008
3
0.0035
0.0027
0.0050
0.0013
07C33 00’)3
4
.C’44
0.0028
0.005a
0.0015
u7’)330 0)7
4
(.0042
C.J32 i
t. )53
(‘ .j jI
07 33U0il
4
0.C034
0.0024
0.0051
0.3012
070350123
4
...CJ16
3.1012
( t .U021
0.3004
07t420U)3
4
O.C021
0.0)08
0.0041
0.0014
C7L42C i4
4
J.C’)41
0.0013
0.0374
0.0027
3705i0 11
4
C.C’ 28
O.D01
0.0344
0.0012
070540001
4
0.0059
J.. 031
.0095
0.3027
j7(540n)5
C.C044
C.0017
0.0072
0.0025
07 )54 0)3
4
C.CJ2
0.0015
0.0040
0.0012
07C54t’Cj)2
4
.C J4
3.1027
‘..0065
C.J016
)7’54 0r 1o
4
( .C03S
.Y)’o
O.0 70
0.0033
070570003
4
C.C02
C.)o 19
0.’303tj
0.3005
07C570011
4
C .C333
0.3)25
0.0051
0.0012
j7O57’) J4
4
C.C)C’
C.0001
0.0021
0.0008
7.59 )2
4
.C)32
‘:.3324
0.0041
.0007
4
C.C.)3
C.1325
0.3340
0.0036
O7C590 01
4
0.C025
0.3320
J.lV 31
r .3tJt)5
h47e)) 1
4
C • COl 8
0. a0 lo
U .tY)28
0.0008
07C6U J)1
4
C.C02c
0.0023
0.0037
0.0006
07 a fl Z
C.Cij3
).)01
0.u053
0.0016
07 J0 3
C.C 2c
0.1fl16
0.0051
0.3015
O70b 0305
4
0.0025
0.0014
0.3332
0.0008
U7C630 )4
4
C .C135
0. )023
0.3051
0.0012
07t’7 U 03
4
C.C024
0.0006
0.0055
0.0021
:J7C7 )0’L)
4
0.00).)
(a. )U 13
.“325
0.0005
0707(’32
4
C.C017
O.0 14
0.1023
0.’003
070700005
4
0.0033
o.J022
.‘ )41
.0008
(171820011
4
C.CU27
0.1022
0.0030
0.0004
u7 0820 . 15
4
C.C029
0.0021
0.0042
O.000q
071841J1
4
0.C015
(.1009
u.0028
fl.0009
Q7 955 :)3
4
G.C 2
0.0022
r1 . ,Q 3 4
c.0005
0709fl 0002
4
0.0017
0.3301
0.0035
0.3014
071Jth 4
‘.
0.1029
t’.0u82
0.0027
710 ( )1
C.C040
0.0027
0.0063
0.0020
07111
3
)31
3.131k
0.3354
0.102fl
3
(. .0.12
1.0111
0.3)27
(.o3 13
A-83
-------
PARAMETL:P CAUr 1UN
METHOD: ITOMIC AI SURPT!ON
UNITS: MICPC(, P S/CUBIC METE
YEAR: 197
NUM 3E
OF STANDARD
SITE SAMPLES A E AGF MINIMUM MAXIMUM DEVIATION
O71130U’ 3
4
G.CU24
O.JJ15
rj. 03g
0.0011
)7116 C. ’1
4
(.C021
LY)11
0.0037
1. 0011
071240003
1
.C04o
C. () 046
0.(1046
cs71 6O0U1
4
C.C1c9
0. 0 )4
0.0015
‘.. O5
071205C. )1
1.C)C8
U.0001
0.0012
0.3005
A-84
-------
PARAMETER: LEAC
METHOD: tTO IC A8SORPTICN
UNITS: MICRC AM5/CUF3IC METER
YEAR: 1971
SITE
NUM9ER OF
SAMPLES
STANDARD
A ERAG MINIMUM MAXIMuM CEVIATION
070 8CJ2
4
1.76C
0.94
2.63r1
3.696
070060001
4
1.467
0.b30
2.6 ’)
0.880
07C07C 31
4
C.5o0
0.101
1.470
0.617
07o250123
4
1.97C
0.510
4.650
1.856
070260001
3
C.29 i)
..120
0.470
0.175
07J260( 12
1
(.28 1 )
‘.28 ’
0.280
070330002
4
1.65C
0.75)
3.03 1
1.016
07C330 038
4
1.642
C.b13
2.690
‘.963
070330003
4
1.29C
C.770
1.980
0.569
07C33 C. ,7
4
C.a3’ l
0.410
1.260
3.382
7*)3393)1
-
1.125
047 11
2.540
1.044
07O35012:
4
2.J8C
1.1JO
4.310
1.496
37(4200)3
4
1.847
U.55)
3. 5 0
1.407
07 ’42 l4
1.
1.390
1.390
1.350
07C51C ’1
6
:.4 3
C.18’ij
3.7o )
0.211
o7054( J 1)1
4
1.05u
t .370
2.0
1.721
07054000
4
1.877
C.770
3. i1J
1.392
)7C 40c 3
4
1.295
L.49 )
2.17o
0.688
07115400 12
4
1.737
0.970
2.9 90
0.910
0705400c6
4
0.39)
1.440
).535
37L570)3
4
1.622
(.92’
3.021
‘).971
07 0570u 01
4
C.395
0.220
0.590
.192
07C59L(02
4
1.261:
C.48t1
2.410
0.817
07 590t ) ’
(.642
C.2)0
1.660
0.576
u7t590’ 1
4
t.997
0.250
2.350
0.944
J1L47Ri 1
4
C.29 5
0.25’ )
0.580
11.166
070660001
4
1.515
0.630
2.800
0.932
7r68( ,.u2
4
2.142
c.84J
3.88 )
1.329
07 6 0’i3
4
i.o s
C.620
3.350
1.477
07 0b’ 5
4
1.16k
‘ .31)
1.99
C ’7C6R(. ) ,)4
4
1.o 7
r ’.31 ’
1. i 0
1.714
U7C700 0)3
2
1.1 5
C.4 0
1.790
D.940
0 7(. 70: ) 0
1
2 • ‘
2 • 90’)
2 •
•J7)7( ” 1 ’
1
.1o1
3.16’)
3.160
o7 7 ’0 2
1.372
C .44j
2.360
‘ .875
:7 7 Y 15
1
2.61
2.610
2.611
07C820fl31
4
1.102
0.363
2.3C
.835
07(32’ J5
1.332
C.5 )
2.41’)
).812
07 d4 .’1
C.94 0
C.410
1.870
0.639
07C85 (3
4
C.525
1 .29
‘ ,73()
0.228
C7 9) 1 1oI)2
4
C. 5C
0.16.)
2.020
0.808
0710 0U04
4
1.1 )47
0.390
2.290
071 ř )1
4
1.282
C.69
2.7 )
3.953
071U o1)1
4
C.9 5
0.1 0
2.880
1.306
07i110 ,)2
3
1. 43
C.58’.
3.140
07113l 1 3
4
C.d9
3.41’ )
1.7Z
07116001)1
4
1.23
0.430
2.321)
0.846
07124C’)3
A
1.291
C.470
2.31 ’
1. 55
‘1714t . ;1
4
C .750
0.321)
1.150
0.339
A—8S
-------
PARAMETER; LEAC
METhOD: ATUMIC ABSfl PTION
UNITS: NICFCGktfrS/CUBIC MFTFP.
YEAR: 1972
NUMBER
CF
STANDARD
SITE SAMPLES E AGE
MINtMUM MAXIMUM DEVTATION
07C008C )3
4
1.6575
1.22u)
2.32’ )U
r.5 5]
07C0 Cu’)2
2
3.33 (
C.t37 )
5.7900
3 479 )
010060001
4
1.4525
1.1100
1.9200
(.3400
070t)70c.J1
4
C.9925
U.740i
1.30JC
0.2462
070175123
1
1.030)
1.)30
1.03))
07J250123
4
1.55 C
0. 90 )
2.81’30
( ‘• 573
U7C2600 1
2
C.44Y’
C.410’
0.47Y
tT.0424
070260002
2
C.575()
0.52)0
C.630t)
6.0778
07C330002
4
1.8225
1.39)’)
2.6U )
(.5401
)7U33 ( ’ )8
4
1.4151
1.220Lt
1.88 J0
0.3023
07C 30003
4
1.fl25
1.59”
1.-)5’h
C.1664
07(l33 1fl.)7
-
0.9725
C.55 .)J
1.860 ’
0.5993
0703300)1
4
1 . 1 5
1.1700
1. 600
0.3072
C7035 ’ 12i
4
C.805 0
0.62 0C
.•0UI3
0.1561
07C420u ’3
4
1.9725
1.40 0
2.5700
‘.5527
070420004
4
1.4775
(.570
2.18) ’. ,
0.bç 4
u7C 51fl( ’J1
4
1.0oo ,
‘.035b
2.( ’ )0
u.’iii
07 0540u01
4
1.9675
1.0300
2.3200
0.6265
o7C 4C .15
4
1.C9 )
r.54”i
1.180o
C•.815 o
07n54 0t )2
4
1. 25:
C.99Th.
2.1q 0
C’.5354
070540002
+
1.6125
1.42
1.87 jJ
( .196’
)743 )
4
1.3925
C. 960)
2.1 NJ ’)
( 5393
07057000
4
1. d75
1.0300
2.3600
C.5452
07 .57C 0)1
4
0.8175
U.55 00
1.05 (
( ‘.1882
07057N. )4
1
C.470 .
“ .47’ )
,.47
07050(002
4
1.22(
1.54 )(i
C.2645
c7(59u i6
4
‘ .8475
1.%)8 t)
0.2291
07C590001
4
c.c lce
C.8 0N)
1.0203
0.0931
07C’p7b ’i1
4
C. 45’.
.32 u
0.66)’
fl.15 46
07(b60t i
4
1.885”
1. )5.’V’
2.46))
C.6226
ii7C6800J2
4
1.835
1.17 )
2.71’i2
0.6535
7( J ) J3
4
2.18’) j
1.22ft)
3.18J3
e.8139
(7 68 ’LO S
4
1.057
C.640()
1.6600
(.4505
07C68i’t. 4
4
1.” 75
C.77)’
1.34)0
(.2724
)77 ) d)
4
C.
( • b60 ’
1 .fl3
‘ . 1525
07 C70tj0J9
4
1 .C675
1 .‘)C’
I • 1 2’\i
C. 0499
070700’.) l
3
(.98 i
“. 5)0J
1.450’
‘..4751
‘)7C7 0 ” ”2
4
1.6875
1.2100
2.7030
0.6822
o7C1 0 0Y)5
4
1.2775
(.9 ’ )))
1.4800
0.2740
0708 0Y11
4
1 . 15(
i.29 ))
1.75Uu
0.1895
070820005
4
1. 5825
1.15) )
1.92; ”’
0.3195
07C84C0)1
. ;gy’
C.74 ’ ’)
1.25” 1
“.2357
07( ’855j3
4
C.9375
C.65C0
1.1600
0.2367
J 0Z
c.n.: )
0.93) ’
•J.1314
Q7 9* 34
4
1.69 5
1.10
.46 )
(.6712
071080(101
4
2.4425
1.34
3.’Z
.484g
U71A1’. Vi1
4
C.82’ )
C.55
071130 ‘ )3
4
1.1475
(.7500
1.8300
C.4720
711ec’)1
4
1 . 25
1.97 ’ )
0.4115
A-86
-------
PARA 1ETEP: LEAL
? ETHOD: ATOMIC SURPTIQN
UNITS: MICROGRAMS/CUBIC METEP
YEAR: 1972
NUMBER OF STANDAF D
SITE SAMPLES AVERAGE MINIMUM MAXIMUM r EVIATION
071240O 3 4 1.74CC 1.310 ) 2.230 ) 0.4048
071460001 4 C.8350 .2400 1.1l 0.4078
A-87
-------
PARAMETER: LEAD
METIIOD: ATOMIC ABSURPTION
(JN1TS MICROGRAMS/CUBIC METFR
YEAR: 1973
i UM 3F
OF
STANOARO
SITE
SAMPLES
AVERAGE
MINIMUM
MAXIMUM DEVIATION
07U )U80O3
4
1.3350
C.9200
1.6700
C.3157
0700280)1
‘,
C.!425
C.37 C
t..71Y)
0.1417
07C)ÔOL))2
4
1.’275
C.96 0
1.7400
0.j784
0700 60 0J1
3
1.22U )
C.910”
1.45 J0
C.2788
070170(Y)1
4
1.C17
C.68i))
1.- 3)
0.3208
.)1O0E5001
3
C.4500
C.2700
C.5bC)0
0.1609
07’ 175123
4
1.3315
C.58)0
1.35Y
0.3397
O7C25012
4
1.047
C.55 )
1.5700
0.4332
U7C26 0001
1
3.35CC
0.3533
‘).35)
O7C33U J34
4
C.’ 825
0.)9 ”0
.3257
070330002
4
1. 275
C.750 0
1.9700
0.5049
o7c33) n
3
1.32t1
1. 60)
1.7OJ%.)
0.3331
07033 ( 1033
4
1.255
1.1300
1.b700
D.3469
0703300tj7
4
0.640)
.48L)i
0.135)0
‘.1627
07L33CY 1
4
1.C125
C.551 )
1.49 fl
(g 3944
u7035012
4
0.7750
C.3600
C. 00
0.2827
D7C42 V 3
4
1.2375
C.9 0fl 0
1.49)3
C.3 138
O7D42C ”)4
4
1.1425
i .64t’ )
.
1.9600
0.6242
7i 100J1
4
.fl’ ’)
U.290)
1. ’3
0.3769
C7i540 ( )1
4
3.35 )
1.11)
8.15(10
3.250 )
U70540 005
‘
1. 10U
C.5600
1.8900
0.6350
O7 5400’)3
4
1.A275
C.9603
1.75)J
.371l
u7054U0 2
4
1.3975
C.93 0 0
1.17 )
0.3755
U7L 4CO)6
4
1.1075
0.433
2.d3 l
1.1538
7C570’)J3
4
1.21fl0
(.740)
1.b311
r. 4 55 7
070570001
4
C.E3CC
C.6600
C.9400
C.1206
‘)7C57u0 A
4
C.4J75
0.31’)i..’
O.53u )
C .j397
37’•59;)L.. 2
4
1.0325
.o3YI
1.i3Y
0.3217
)7( 90(’ )
4
.t925
.41X
0.9200
11.2665
J7C50 .!001
4
.b575
U.3b0 )
1.28 o
-.4917
U1C4713(’ 01
4
C. 10u
C.32tJ 1J
0.7300
0.1 3
Q7Cb60iL 1
‘
l.A35
C.04 (’
1.b6 )
r.3352
07 bth)D 2
4
1. 85C
.8d’L2
2.41”O
).6285
OTu i0O3
4
1.750
(.990)
2.22 I0
r)7 . l l5
4
1.C725
0.734)
1.681)3
0.4265
u106 O004
4
1.1525
0.7300
1.6100
0.4127
J7 1 7 I(J0)
4
C. 325
tJ.38 ’
1.550’)
0.5385
)7r7 o 3 )c
4
C.9425
C.51 )
1.27)0
0.3831
O7 7i 002
4
1 .6J5’
1.893 .
2.1320)
(.8990
07L70 335
4
1.075.
3.720
1.553)
C.3742
070820031
4
1. 275
C.9300
2.1300
0.5658
07C82’ i 35
4
1.3225
O.31ic
1.1000
0.3788
07 840031
4
1.CRt}’)
(.71) )
1.4 )1
0.3032
010355003
4
C.8025
).b 1 fla)
0.9600
‘.1721
u7 9 :o(’3 2
4
c. s’ i
2.37YJ
0.88j3
r .a1 8 o
071 3 0004
4
1.1925
0. 340U
2.170 ,
(.6398
07]. b(0 0 1
3
1. 6933
(.970)
2.15 Y
0.6336
‘1711 1C 3)1
3
.45 ’V1
0.77))
C.16 09
071110005
3
C. 533
‘ .14’ .:
1.2130
.5712
A-88
-------
PARAMETER: LEAD
METHOD: ?TOMIC ABSORPTION
UNITS: MICROGRAMS/CUBIC METER
YEAR: 1973
NUMBER
OF
STANDARD
SITE
SAMPLES
A EPAGE
MINIMUM
MAXIMUM
DEVIATION
071130003
4
C.7150
0.2300
C.9700
0.3467
071160001
4
1.0650
0.8200
1.2000
0.1725
071240003
1
1.6300
1.6300
1.6300
071460001
4
0.7350
0.4400
0.9800
0.2277
011205001
4
0.1650
0.0001
0.3200
0.1310
A-89
-------
PAPAMETE CHRCMIUM
METF DD: AT1 1jC A SO TIUN
u UTS: ICP(JGNA ’S/CUF IC M TLi
YEAR: 1q71
NUM R OF STA 1DA C)
SITF S4’IPLES AVERAGE MIr\IMLJM MAXIr iUM DEVIATION
07C008003 4 0.0092 0.0030 0.0200 0.0075
070J60031 4 0.0077 0.0040 0.0160 0,0056
070J70” O1 4 0 ,C067 0.0030 0.0100 0.0033
070250123 4 C.C072 0. 040 0.0100 0.0025
070260001 3 0.C113 0.0040 0.0210 0.0087
070260002 1 0.C190 0.0190 0.0190
07033(002 4 C.C135 0.0340 0.0280 0.0110
070330008 4 0.CI15 0.0060 0.0240 0.0085
07u330 3 4 0.0067 0.0030 0.0110 0.0035
070330007 4 G.C095 0.0010 0.0220 0.0093
070330001 4 0.C06 0.0001 0.0110 0.0051
070350123 4 0.0222 0.0050 0.0350 0.0147
070420003 4 0.0135 0.0080 0.0240 0.0071
070420004 1 C.0200 0.0200 0.0200
070510001 6 0.C127 0.0050 0.0360 0.0147
070540001 4 0.0102 0.0010 0.0290 0.0127
070540005 4 C.C222 0.0040 0.0580 0.0248
07054000 4 0.C17C 0.0040 0.0450 0.0194
070540032 4 0.0165 0.0050 0.0450 0.0191
070540306 4 C.C2CC 0.0040 0.0470 0,0194
070570003 4 0.C112 0.0030 0.0340 0.0152
070570001 4 0.0068 0.0001 0.0220 0.0103
070590002 4 0.C070 0.0030 0.0170 0.0067
070590006 4 0.0090 0.0030 0.0270 0.0120
070590001 4 C.C078 0.0001 0.0220 0.0098
070478001 4 0.0072 0.0010 0.0210 0.0093
070660001 4 0.0127 0.0040 0.0390 0.0175
07068000Z 4 0.C127 0.0040 0.0320 0.0129
07C680003 6 0.0090 0.0010 0.0250 0.0110
070680305 4 0.C067 0.0010 0.0170 0.0071
070680004 4 0.C365 0.0030 0.0170 0.0070
070700003 2 0.0035 0.0010 0.0060 0.0035
07C700009 1 0.0010 0.0010 0.0010
07C700001 1. 0.C040 0.0040 0.0040
070700002 4 C.C107 0.0040 0.0280 0.0113
070700005 1 0.0040 0.0040 0.0040
070820001 4 O.C060 0.0010 0.0150 0.0062
070820035 4 0.0110 0.0010 0.0350 0.0161
07C840001 4 0.0107 0.0040 0.0240 0.0090
070855003 4 0.C072 0.0030 0.0150 o.oosj
07C900002 4 0.0125 0.0050 0.0210 0.0070
071080004 6 C.C095 0.0030 0.0260 0.0110
071080001 4 0.C073 0.0001 0.0210 0.009a
071110001 4 0.0077 0.0030 0.0150 0.0055
371110002 3 C.C143 0.0070 0.0270 0,011,0
071130003 4 o.oo s 0.0001 0.0290 0.0136
uii lo0 0 0 l 4 0.C097 0.0040 0.0220 0.0083
071240003 4 0.0195 0.0070 0.0340 0.0113
071460001 4 0.0105 0.0010 0.0320 0.0145
A—9O
-------
PARAMETF : CPWCJMIIJM
METHOD: nuMIr S’ PTIOF
UNITS: MICr CL R MS/CUB1C M TE .
YE : 1972
SITr
NU 4rs OF
SAMPLES
ST .NDAR0
VER c- MiNIMUM MAXIMUM DEVIATION
07CY)n
4
C.C145
().37’
070(160002
2
C.CO9C
0.J0 )1
t). 18J
‘J7CJ 11
4
‘ .C)73
O.O O1
‘ . 33
O. 127
“. 1054
3707’ r’)1
4
C.C055
0.0043
0.0U 0
07(175123
1
.L)th
i. )
37C250123
4
C.C05’
(.OuL
0. ) 7
070 .60 o01
2
C.C03 0
O. Uuo l
:.o mn
07 ( ,2 6312
2
) ‘il
C.005 0
07c 33 )2
4
C.Cfl8
C.0 05 ,
0.0150
0. 1.1046
07 1 33Oc J8
4
C.C077
(.i06
0.3110
..3024
37C33C3 )3
4
C.C077
0.’ )04i.
0.i)fl
( . j )35
070330007
4
0.C052
C.’)04 0
0.0070
17c 330U3l
4
C.C357
U.1 40
0.0370
r)7035( 23
4
C.C040
Ł.0 0 01
0.0110
“.1052
. .i7O42J ii3
4
3 .C( 75
o. O loJ
37( ,2(Y 4
4
C.C15’
0. i ’].
0.012)
•
070510001
4
0.C380
0.0001
0.0203
0. )051
07c54oQ 1
4
C.C043
C.)001
3. ’070
07054 j 5
4
C.C04u
0.1)001
0.0070
r 7(54fl ;3
4
C.C043
“.)OO l
C. 73
07C5403)2
4
C.C045
(.)0
0.oue O
071č54000o
4
0.C I IC
0.0040
0.0270
07 57(T13
4
C.C082
C.fl7)
0.0103
0. 0013
,)70570 ’. 11
4
te.C117
0.0100
0.0150
0.0022
r 7C570004
1
C.0 1
0 . 0u1
(.00(11
070590 1.02
4
C.C0 63
C. 00L
0.0110
fl.004 6
370590006
4
0.C040
0.0001
0.0070
0.(1’)29
07C590301
4
C.CtJl1
(.)001
0.0340
0.002)
07047 i CJl
4
O.C 56
Ce0 0 0]
0.3820
0.1910
J7Có L(J1
4
C
o..) l i0
0.013 ’)
.)036
7s ÔSr°J)2
4
.C372
. 1O6C
‘. 008 .)
“.3)1
Q706 1 0O0,
4
C.CU5 ,
0.) 043
C.0 )?J
( ‘7Co80005
4
.C J33
C.33r)1
0.0060
07r6803!)4
4
C.C085
0.00 0
0.0130
0.0033
07c,70(Vj3
4
.C045
0.3301
0.0360
)7 ’D70fl0)
4
C.C1 (’.
0.)001
0.0273
U.J11e
07C700001
3
C.C)7C
0.004 ’)
)100
07C7)0002
4
C.C395
0.3353
0.0143
.0352
370700C 05
4
0.C080
0.0050
0.0110
0.0026
o7C820001
4
C.C 0
0.3060
0. ].1O
07)820 V 5
4
C.0387
0.1070
0.0110
).)017
070840001
4
C.C05 0
C.0001
0.0030
0.3035
17C855003
4
0.C055
0.0301
0.012’)
0.0050
07091 )0302
4
0.0033
0.0001
0.0070
071080 0fl4
4
C.C170
0..’0’1
0.0150
0.0037
071080001
4
C.C115
C. ) 360
0.0173
0.3062
07111( 1031
4
C.CO3R
0.0001
0.0060
0.3049
071130903
4
C.0038
.3031
0.OulO
07116 C ’ )1
4
0.0070
0.0030
(.jfl2Q
A—91
-------
PAR4METEP CHRO 1IUM
r4ETHar: ATOMIC AbSORPTION
UNITS: MIC GG AMS/CUBIC METER
YEAR: 1972
r UMB R STANI)AP1
SiTE SAMPLES t vERAGE MINIMUM MAXIMUM flFVj TIf)r j
07].2400.’3 4 O.C115 0.0050 O.C210
)7146’ )1 4 C.C)3 C.0001 0.OObO 0.0026
A-92
-------
PARAMETER: CHROMIUM
METHOD: T0MIC ABSORPTION
UNITS: MICROGRAMS CUBIC METER
YEAR: 1973
NUMBER
CF
STANDARD
SITE
SAMPLES
AVERAGE
MINIMUM
MAXIP UM DEVIATION
07C)u8fl03
4
C.0065
0.)04()
0.0080
0.0017
070028001
3
0.0070
0.0040
0.0130
C.0052
070060002
4
G.C095
0.0050
0.0150
0.0042
070050001
3
0.0393
0.0080
0.0110
0.0015
070070001
4
0.C093
0.00’)L
.0230
0.0097
370085011
3
C.COlt)
0.0040
0.009)
( .3026
070175123
4
0.C072
0.1043
0.0140
0.0046
370250123
4
C.C05
0.00)1
0.0110
0.1045
070260001
1
0.0030
0.3030
0.0030
o7C3300 34
C.033B
0.’ 0J1
0.012 ’)
0.1056
070330032
4
C.C052
0.) ’ 40
3.008)
0.0019
01033VF)€
3
0.0061
0.0340
(‘.fl08 )
(.0021
07C3300fl2
4
C.C’iSC)
0.0040
0.0060
0.3012
070330007
4
C .C038
C.0001
0.0070
0.0033
‘j1033CC01
4
C.C065
0.0040
0.01 0
0.0031
37 5012
4
C.C)70
C.)04’3
‘ .01Z’)
0.3036
07042 )3
4
0.C’35u
0.J( 3’J
(‘.0070
v.’1018
37 0420(3t
4
C. O3
0.3011
i.0 i90
0.0037
070310031
4
0.C025
0.0001
0.0040
(‘.0017
07 540C; 1
4
0.0065
0.3040
3.0130
0.0044
‘ 705400.J5
4
C.C065
0.304’)
0.009’)
( .fl021
070540CYJ3
4
3.0345
Q .fl33’
).0070
0.0017
u7L540’ 12
4
0.C04.)
C.)030
0.1t)50
0.0008
U7C 340fl0
4
0.C1 15
0.0001
.026O
0.0108
07(5700)3
4
0.0023
0.3301
0.0040
u.0017
070573011
4
C.C053
C.0031
0.3101
0.0042
07057C& 44
4
0.C045
0.3(301
“. “llO
0.0046
C7c 59(. ’002
4
C.C028
C.03 1
o.3 Th
0.0025
07 .5’ 0006
4
0.C015
0.0001
0.0030
0.0017
07C59( ’0)1
4
C.C02’s
0.1031
rj.3070
C ’. 032
37047P0 )1
4
0.0025
u.0001
3.0050
0.3020
07066011
4
u.C36 ’J
0.3040
i1.008)
r.3023
07 6 ’Y )
4
C.C )45
.00’l
3.0110
0.3046
070S80 )O3
4
0 .003
0.0001
0.0060
0.0025
4
C.C 28
0.00)1
‘.JuSl
0.3031
07( 58 0334
4
C.C 4)
0.0030
0.O 50
0.0008
070700303
4
3.0033
0.3001
0.3050
C.0023
07C7(’0 ’J9
4
C.0’)2i
0.00)1
3.3030
0.3015
070700002
4
U.C073
0.0001
0.0170
( .007L
‘J7C7 &Th3
4
.C053
0.0001
0.3120
0.0051
Q7fl32 0 1
4
C.C’)48
0.0001
0.u080
0.0034
070 20035
4
0.0058
C.0011
0.u12()
0.0049
07084C0o1
‘.
.0057
0.rOZQ
0.011(3
0.004’
070855003
4
0.0043
0.0001
0.0110
0.0047
07C9 03 2
4
C.C065
0.0020
1.3140
v.0053
07l E3r ’ 14
4
.:‘04’3
0 .I 1 23t
o71) f. ’31
3
.. ‘113
. )1W
‘.3051
o711. 1 0i 1
3
.C ’)7
0.3. C,1
. j1S
;. ;J8
071110003
3
0.0044
0.3001
3.0100
o.0051
K-93
-------
PARAMETEk: CHRCMIUM
METHOC: TflMIC ABSORPTION
UNITS: t’ICPOGRAMS/CUBIC METEP
YEAR: 1973
NUMBER
OF
STANDARD
SITL SAMPLES AVERAGE MINIMUM MAXIMUM DEVIATION
071130003
4
C.C043
O.)0O1
).f)14O
L. 0 06 6
071160C 01
4
0.C 0S5
0.0040
U.0240
0.0097
07]. 4O31)3
I
C.C200
0.0200
.02 0
071460001
4
C.CO7G
0.0001
0.0150
O.J064
071205001
4
C.004
0.3001
0.0140
0.3066
A-94
-------
PAP AMETEk EERYLLIUM
METMOU: TflMJC ABSIRPTION
UNITS: MICROGRAMS/COMIC METER
V [ -AP.: 1’ ?1
tNU ER
OF
STANDARI)
SITE
SAMPLES
AERAG
MINIMUM
1 AXIM1JM DEVIATION
07030d003
3
C.0)( 0
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
)7C0 Or D1
3
C.c Ji
.)o3
.t)OOC)
07O(JlOflOl
3
C.C)(
C. )’D”
t .C Y)O
c.000)
07025 0123
3
C. )(
iJ.))3t)
0.0000
0. J0
07C2 ’) )1
2
C.C) ()
C.)3CO
J.JY)’)
.O0 )’)
0702o0 002
1
C.0OCC
O. )000
C.0000
37C33U IZ
3
.C0 ’
) Y D
0 .JO i
C.)3’
)7033D .)P
3
C_c )t .(
. ))( )
07 (3 30003
3
C.Cii C
0.” ) )
0. 000
07C33’ ’7
3
L .C F)
0. ‘)00
3. ’C 0
0. 000 0
070330001
3
C.CJCO
0.0000
0.0000
C.0000
07U35C 123
3
C.C )( O
0.J))O
. 003
O.uY))
J7 42 r ) 3
3
C .C )Ot.
o.1:i ’y
o.io i
07L42OO 4
1
C .2 J
0. I 3 ))
j0I0
0705 1: .11
4
C.’ J2 )
. :
l .r ’)))
070540001
3
C.OOCO
C.0000
0.0000
0.0000
07C54().)5
3
C.C ) ‘)
0J c
J. X’))
( .))C)
07(540003
3
C.c”o::
J.’ J’ i
:. )03u
07C i400J2
3
U.”)u’J
. . )fli()
0.0002
U7( 54C()
C.Oi . 3
.OOC
‘ . J03
0.00 )0
07Lj 70003
3
C.C)Ct)
0.0()0()
0.0000
C.0000
7C 70’.01
3
0.0 0
hO00 )
C.oJO’)
) 7 ) 5 g 3 r % 2
.. .. ) .I
U.00r
u. 10
(.00)0
07C5 )OC’)L
3
C.c)( ,
.)0tl3
( .JO. )
(.JO( ?
.7C59Cc )1
C .C ) J’
•
‘.
t..’ 0)’’
7C)47 0fl1
3
C.0)(’C
0.0000
0.0000
L0000
j7 .jubcJ3) 1
3
C .(.
O.))13
t .0 1J
(. .J0 ’)
07tj ) )2
3
i .C (I
j ’ ’
ii• ’
t:. )0
07 06e00 03
3
( .C J )
Olte$..0S
3
c.C o..,
0.’ . ’)
C.030
10b80 0 U4
3
C.C)00
0.t)030
0.0000
C.0000
07C7 ) 3
2
.c )( 3
).00U
j•4)3t)Q
U7O7 ’tj)0 2
3
C.C )C(
0. iJ0)
e ) .‘‘0
s i)’)
u70820001
3
.G ’ i
u.oooo
).30 0’
‘ .00’0
07 2O00
3
•
7I’sfl ) 1
3
C.C )0C
0.0000
0.u0flJ
6.0000
07t R 3
3
C • C )f •
ii. )oO’
c• •
07’Y )
3
C_Cc J’)
. :e
J710 i0uJ4
3
2.C 1)
t .0U
i.’ )
C. )OC0
071iP’’ J1
3
C.C)’J
u.iOUJ
‘.0 ’)0
C. 0 0 O
1 711 10 ) 1
3
C • oooc
0. u000
0. 0000
C. 0300
0111 1CJ 2
2
0 .C )‘i j
0. ),).)
0. )0O)
i)7 12 ’03
3
C.C)f
(i.00 )
e.ui ’
O711 UU 01
3
( #‘3.) )
u.001
•• • 0
f.,, j3( ’)
07124 :’ )3
3
C.1 Dt.
0.00
07L4 0O01
3
C.C)CJ
o.t)OOCi
C.0000
A-95
-------
PARAMETER: BERYLLIUM
METHOD: ATOMIC ABSORPTION
UNITS: frICRCGR MS/CuBIC METFR
YEAR: 1972
NWIBER CF
STANDAI O
SITE
SAMPLES
AVERAGE
MIF’dMUM
MAXIMUM DEVIATION
0700 j80O3
‘
C.C)(0
0.0000
0.0000
C.oo o
07C)60 Y)2
2
C.0J02
0.0000
0.0004
0.0003
070060001
4
C.C)0J
0.0000
0.0000
O.ooo
070370001
4
C.0)fll
0.0003
. jQ0()
(.Oo o
070175123
1
C.C)0’)
0.0000
0.0000
07u250123
4
C.CY )
0.OOuC
0o
o.3ooo
070260031
2
C.C)03
0.00 O
0.3000
070260002
2
C.CJOo
0.0000
0.0000
0. or c
37C330O 2
4
C.CO(,1
u. )0UO
‘ .OU(’5
Q7 3 rj
4
C.C)01
0.0000
0.0004
0.0002
07C330L3
4
C.030
O.cOuc.
0.r Jio
t .oor
J7C330L07
4
C.fl )00
0.000)
n.Oo’io
070330001
4
C.C)00
0.0000
0.0030
0.033
070350123
4
C.C) C
O.10 1
c.oo
J70420 03
4
C.C)fl
. 000
0.0000
U7C420 )4
4
C .uJ( J
3.000 )
. )o’: o
u7C510Q 1
4
C.C0( 1
0.)0))
O )4
. ‘)3O2
070540001
4
0.0000
0.3000
0.0000
0.QO3 l
O7L540 )5
4
C.C0r s
O.’JO )3
.0 )18
.ijoQg
07C54C 03
4
C.0000
0.0000
0.oooo
0.0000
070540002
4
C.0001
Q )3)A
0.0005
.0003
0735400 0o
4
C.C fl)
0.(h))t)
0.00’)
070570003
4
C.0000
u.000J
J. IUfl
C.J0O’)
07C570U 1
4
C.CC’GO
0.uOJC’
‘J.JOOL
O70573 ?)4
1
C.COCC
0.)000
0.OOuO
Cl OicOrJ2
4
C.0’))
U.iu 0 )
).0O ”)
070590r)6
4
C.C’C
0.’)OOO
0.oOi O
070590 0i)1
4
C .C )00
0. 00
i
07u478u31
4
C.Ci).
C’.U 0i
3, ) Y)
07C66’V 01
4
C.C)C0
0.0000
0.0000
07t.o8 0 0 02
4
C.C(’Cu
0.003C
.0000
n.000
07068V’03
4
C.COr C
0.0 )00
J.00f)0
07C680005
4
0.0001
Q.03) )
3.3304
C.0002
37C6R0004
4
C.C’ fl1
C.’V))O
0.0002
07070 0iu)3
4
C.0)00
C.0000
0.0000
0.0000
07C700 0 o9
4
C.O0 ’1
c.0u. 0
0.0)04
o7n70 .:)1
3
C. )(1
o.000c
u.uooo
070700002
4
C.C000
C.0J;’) j
0.0(70
c.ooo
u7O7Ofl’i
4
0..)0)
U.’jflfl3
C.cooi
070320r1
4
0.C001
0.0000
0.0004
0.0002
07082ofl 05
4
L.’0 0 1
‘- .J’ 0.)
0.0000
0.0000
O7CB4Cfl)1
4
C.CCiC
u.0O0.
0.0011
0700550)3
4
C.C )00
.O00 i
0.C0 O
O7L9 0 00 0
1
C.0) )
O.’)OOO
0.00JU
0..oo o
3713800 4
4
C.COOC
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
071)80’31
4
C.U) )
“.UJ)
0.01 )10
C.ooo
3711 1}iY) 1
4
C .0 r,i
.
.j ;jn.i
r) r 0 2
071130033
4
C.0 JO’)
J•,l
(
71L 1 :c)1
4
.C )C i
. ) J)
).
A-96
-------
PAP 1ETF : P YLLIU
METHOD: ATOIIC AbS’)RPTION
UNITS: MICi OGR S/CUBIC MET iP.
YEAR: 1972
NtJMôEi OF STt ND4RO
sIT: SMIPLES .VERAG E MINIMUM MAXIMU 1 OEVIATIciN
U71240103 4 C.0000 (J.000U G.0000 Q.OO’ )O
7] 4b ; 1 4 C • 0)01
A-97
-------
PARAMETER: t ERYLLIUM
METHOD: tTflMIC AbSORPTION
UNITS: ICe OGRAMS/CtjBIC METES
YEAR: 197
SITE
NUMBER CF
SA 4PLES
STANDARD
A vERAG Mit IMUH MAXIMUM DEVIATION
)7O3(8033
4
C.O)0.)
U. )U00
C.OflO’)
0.0003
37CJ280 1
4
C.fl’XO
0.3001)
0.OflO)
0.0003
070060002
4
C.CJ00
0.0000
0.0002
7G360flO1
3
C.C001
.JO0j
0.0003
070’J7Or 11
4
C.C)Ol)
0.0000
0.0002
0.0oo
07C385001
3
C.0O )
0.U0’30
C.003o
( .i0’ ’)
07 175].2 1
4
C.COOu
•))Clr
0.Ouoo
O.o oo
070250123
4
C.C0J0
0.3000
0 3000
07C260001
1
C.’)012
Q.)0 )2
0.0002
07O33 0)4
4
C.C))].
0.0000
0.0003
0.0001
07C3301 32
4
C.0) fl
0.J3 W
0e 1 0u4
( .D)D
07o330036
3
C.Ci u1
0. )OY)
0.( ’t04
ri . 0 00 2
070330003
4
C.0001
C.0000
0.0005
C. flfl3
7C330007
4
C .C.. 01
C .J J
O.no )3
7333r ,)1
4
C. 0C1
0.0300
0.0003
0.3001
( 7 Q3!0123
4
C.0 )1
3.3113
¶ . 0O5
07C420C0
4
C.CuU.j
C. )(i3ii
‘).()O)r)
07C4200)4
4
C.C101
0.3000
0.0005
0.0003
370510C31
4
C.C331
0.’OC)
0.00 j5
07054 00 )1
4
C.C )( )
0.0000
0.0000
O. 000o
u7( 54th.Y)5
4
C.J)0
c.’e)o
C.0QjQ
0.0000
07C54( 33
4
• 3
C. )0’
C .00’ )
‘3.0000
070540002
4
0.0)03
C.000)
0.0000
C.u300
07 5400D
4
C.03(
c. 0 n
07’.i57)’ 3
4
C.C’)C’D
0.0000
0.0000
C. 0000
u7 57uc ’01
4
u.io :
O.33Y)
c70570r. 34
4
.0 )( 3
0.00th)
000
0. ‘J’10.
070590002
4
C.C)0O
0.0000
0.0003
C7C5900
4
3.C33
0.’)lO
.‘j t )
07fl59 (Y’ )1
4
C.Cfl )
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
37U 78C)1
4
Z.JiiJ
.)00
C. Ufl
07(6 0’: )]
4
i..C1(
0.J3)ti
‘ .ijC))
(• j
07u 80(JJ2
4
C.C003
O. )000
0.0000
0.00c’(j
• 7 .68 )3
4
C .CJ0.)
3. )3
u.c j J
C)7Co3 j)5
4
C.C’)’
0.300u
o.oooo
O7. .o3(L 34
4
C.Gi. 1
1,.0) ))
) )4
L.i)C2
u7 :7’ 1 3oo3
4
L.C00.J
C. )0io
U.•.12
0. 1001
07C700009
4
C.C)00
C.J0JO
C.UOflO
cJ7t. 7’JO002
4
.C O )
s )0 )
L.F’ C
07 )7 )jL)5
4
C.CV1
0.300’)
0.0000
Ł. 0 0 0 0
o7 d2Cro1
4
.U(;3i
o.o n 1 ,
37 33( .’35
4
C.C Ji.
. )0’):
0. ) ii)1
070340001
4
C.C)UO
0.0 )00
0.0002
07t 855I’ 3
4
C • )
3.10 _
•oo o
7 i9oc ,):I 2
4
C • C
0. oouo
o. nono
C. oonn
,‘.713b0(. i4
4
( . J)’
U • 0. ’
• • i : s
,j71380’. 31
3
C.C •
U. Yr
‘. .fl0 i
• . b3 (i
071110001
3
C.C)C
c.loOu
0.0000
1. r,
071i10”,)5
3
f’•
1 .).1I
A-98
-------
PARAMETER: EE YLLIU
METHOD: ATt1MIC ABS)RPTION
UNITS; IC OGRAMS/CUBIC ME TFR
YEAR: 1973
SiTE
NU 1 ER IJF
SAMPLES
ST AN ) A . ti
AVERAGE MIMMUM MAXIMUM DEVIATION
071130003
4
C.0)00
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
07116c’ :)1
4
0.C00i
.J03Q
0.0000
C.O Oflt)
07 12403 )3
1
C.C)0
3. 3000
0.QQQ
0714o0 .)1
4
0.0000
0.0000
C.0000
0.0000
071205 W1
4
C .C)OU
0.0000
0.0000
A—99
-------
TENNESSEE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH
DIVISION OF AIR POLLUTION CONTROL
SAROAD MONTHLY DATA
A— 100
-------
PARAMETER: ARSENIC
METHOD: ATOMIC ABSORPTION
UNITS: PICR0GR*MS CUBIC METER
YEAR: 1972
NUMBER OF STANDARD
SITE SAMPLES AVERAGE MINIMUM MAXIMUM DEVIATION
442220001 1 0.262 0.262 0.262
442520001 1 0.262 0.262 0.262
A—101
-------
PARAMETER: ARSENIC
METHOD: ATOMIC ABSORPTION
UNITS: MICROGRAMS/CUBIC METER
YEAR: 1913
NUMBER OF STANDARD
SITE SAMPLES AVERAGE MINIMUM MAXIMUM DEVIATION
442740001 2 0.262 0.262 0.262 0.000
442220001 2 0.262 0.262 0.262 0.000
441700001 3 C.262 0.262 0.262 0.000
442480002 2 0.262 0.262 0.262 0.000
441700002 2 0.262 0.262 0.262 0.000
442920002 2 0.262 0.262 0.262 0.000
440060001 1 0.262 0.262 0.262
440500002 1 0.262 0.262 0.262
440500001 1 0.262 0.262 0.262
A—i 02
-------
PARAMETER: rERYLLIUM
METHOD: ATOMIC ABSORPTION
UNITS: MICROGRAMS/CUBIC METER
YEAR: 1972
NUMBER OF STANDARD
SITE SAMPLES AVERAGE MINIMUM MAXIMUM DEVIATION
442220001 1 0.004 0.004 0.004
442320001 1 C.004 0.004 0.004
A—103
-------
PARAMETER: 8ERYLLIUM
METHOD: MOMIC ABSORPTION
UNITS: MICROGRAMS/CUBIC METER
YEAR: 1973
NUMBER OF STANDARD
SITE SAMPLES AVERAGE MINIMUM MAXIMUM DEVIATION
442740001 11 0.002 0.002 0.004 0.001
442220001 11 0.002 0.002 0.004 0.001
441730001 12 0.002 0.002 0.004 0.001
442280001 4 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.000
442480001 1 C.002 0.002 0.002
442480002 10 C.002 0.002 0.004 0.001
441700002 14 0.002 0.002 0.004 0.001
443440001 8 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.000
443440002 5 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.000
442920002 11 C.002 0.002 0.004 0.001
440580002 7 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.000
440060001 1 0.004 0.004 0.004
440500002 1 0.004 0.004 0.004
440500001 1 0.004 0.004 0.004
A—104
-------
PARAMETER: BERYLLIUM
METHOD: ATOMIC ABSORPTION
UNITS: MICROGRAMS/CUBIC METER
YEAR: 1974
NUMBER OF STANDARD
SITE SAMPLES AVERAGE MINIMUM MAXIMUM DEVIATION
442740001 7 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.000
442220001 3 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.000
441700001 a 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.000
442480002 7 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.000
441700002 11 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.000
443440001 3 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.000
443440002 3 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.000
442920002 8 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.000
440580002 6 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.000
A-105
-------
PARAMETER: CADMIUM
METHOD: ATOMIC ABSORPTION
UNITS: MICROGRAMS/CUBIC METER
YEAR: 1972
NUMBER OF STANDARD
SITE SAMPLES AVERAGE MINIMUM MAXIMUM DEVIATION
442520001 1 C.033 O.O33 0.033
A—106
-------
PARAMETER: CADMIUM
METHOD: ATOMIC ABSORPTION
UNITS: MICROGRAMSICUBIC METER
YEAR: 1973
NUMBER OF STANDARO
SITE SAMPLES AVERAGE MINIMUM MAXIMUM DEVIATION
442740001 11 0.011 0.002 0.033 0.012
442220001 6 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.000
441700001 12 0.018 0.002 0.033 0.011
442280001 4 0.016 0.016 0.016 0.000
442480001 3. 0.016 0.016 0.016
442480002 10 0.012 0.002 0.033 0.013
441700002 14 o.ooc 0.002 0.033 0.012
443440001 8 0.009 0.002 0.016 0.007
443440002 5 C.008 0.002 0.016 0.008
442920002 11 0.013 0.002 0.051 0.016
440580002 7 0.004 0.002 0.016 0.005
440060001 1 0.033 0.033 0.033
440500002 1 0.033 0.033 0.033
440500001 1. C.033 0.033 0.033
A—i 07
-------
PARAMETER: CADMiUM
METHOD: ATOMIC ABSORPTION
UNITS: MICROGRAMS/CUBIC METER
YEAR: 1974
NUMBER OF STANDARD
SITE SAMPLES MERAGE MINIMUM MAXIMUM DEVIATION
442740001 7 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.000
442220001 3 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.000
441700001 8 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.000
442480002 7 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.000
441700002 11 C.002 0.002 0.002 0.000
443440001 3 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.000
443440002 3 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.000
442920002 8 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.000
440580002 6 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.000
A—108
-------
PARAMETER: CHROMIUM
METHOC: ATOMIC ABSORPTION
UNITS: MICROGRAMS/CUBIC METER
YEAR: 1972
NUMBER OF STANDARD
SITE SAMPLES AVERAGE MINIMUM MAXIMUM DEVIATION
442220001 1 0.013 0.013 0.013
442520001 1 C.013 0.013 0.013
A—109
-------
PARAMETER: CHROMIUM
METHOD: ATOMIC ABSORPTION
UNITS: MICROGRAMS/CUBIC METER
YEAR: 1973
NUMBER OF STANDARD
SITE SAMPLES AVERAGE MINIMUM MAXIMUM DEVIATION
442740001 10 0.010 0.006 0.035 0.009
442220001 11 0.007 0.006 0.013 0.003
441700001 12 0.029 0.006 0.264 0.074
442280001 4 C.006 0.006 0.006 0.000
442480001 1. 0.006 0.006 0.006
442480002 10 C.0I9 0.006 0.097 0.029
441700002 14 0.011 0.006 0.065 0.016
443440001 8 0.006 0.006 0.006 0.000
443440002 5 C.006 0.006 0.006 0.000
442920002 11 0.014 0.006 0.065 0.017
440580002 7 0.011 0.006 0.039 0.012
440060001 1 C.013 0.013 0.013
440500002 1 0.013 0.013 0.013
440500001 1 C.013 0.013 0.013
A—lb
-------
PARAMETER: CHROMIUM
METHOD: ATOMIC ABSORPTION
UNITS: MICROGRAMSICUBIC METER
YEAR: 1974
NUMBER OF STANDARD
SITE SAMPLES AVERAGE MINIMUM MAXIMUM DEVIATION
442740001 7 0.006 0.006 0.006 0.000
442220001 3 0.006 0.006 0.006 0.000
441700001 8 0.006 0.006 0.006 0.000
442480002 7 C.006 0.006 0.006 0.000
441700002 11 0.006 0.006 0.006 0.000
443440001 3 C.006 0.006 0.006 0.000
443440002 3 0.006 0.006 0.006 0.000
442920002 8 0.006 0.006 0.006 0.000
440580002 6 0.006 0.006 0.006 0.000
A—ill
-------
PARAMETER: LEAD
METHOD: ATOMIC ABSORPTION
UNITS: PICROGRAMS/CUBIC METER
YEARS 1972
NUMBER OF STANDARD
SITE SAMPLES AVERAGE MINIMUM MAXIMUM DEVIATION
442220001 1 0.065 0.065 0.065
442520001 1 0.065 0.065 0.065
A—112
-------
PARAMETER: LEAD
METHOD: ATOMIC ABSORPTION
UNITS: MICROGRAMS/CUBIC METER
YEAR: 1973
NUMBER OF STANDARD
SITE SAMPLES AVERAGE MINIMUM MAXIMUM DEVIATION
442740001 11 0.554 0.185 1.240 0.304
442220001 11 0.141 0.032 0.644 0.194
441700001 12 0.859 0.032 2.420 0.895
442280001 4 C.318 0.135 0.565 0.179
442480001 1 0.815 0.815 0.815
442480002 10 C.493 0.032 2.260 0.677
441700002 14 1.089 0.065 2.440 0.684
443440001 8 1.028 0.276 3.880 1.181
443440002 5 0.089 0.032 0.246 0.093
442920002 11 1.179 0.098 3.040 1.038
440580002 7 1.580 0.231 2.980 0.992
440060001 1 0.377 0.377 0.377
440500002 1 0.065 0.065 0.065
440500001 1 C. 185 0.185 0.185
A—U3
-------
PARAMETER: LEAD
METHOD: ATOMIC ABSORPTION
UNITS: MICROGRAMS/CUBIC METER
YEAR: 1974
NUMBER OF STANDARD
SITE SAMPLES AVERAGE MINIMUM MAXIMUM DEVIATION
442740001 7 0.5814 0.3300 1.0000 0.2124
442220001 3 0.2393 0.1370 0.3000 0.0891
441700001 8 0.2732 0.0330 0.4570 0.1551
442480002 7 0.4097 0.0790 0.9520 0.3830
441700002 11 0.7769 0.1570 2.0500 0.6744
443440001 3 0.6693 0.2040 1.3800 0.6252
443440002 3 0.0580 0.0300 0.1110 0.0459
442920002 8 0.3711 0.1500 0.5820 0.1638
440580002 6 0.7473 0.1750 1.0500 0.3786
A—114
-------
NEW YORK STATE DEPAR ENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION
DIVISION OF AIR RESOURCES
SAROAD DAILY DATA
A—uS
-------
PARAMETEP: LEAD
METHOD: tTCMIC ABSORPTION
UNITS: MICPOGRAMS/CUBIC MFTER
VEAP: iç7
NUMBER OF STANDARD
SITE SAMPLES AVFPAGE MINIMUM MAXIMUM DEVIATION
30040004 61 C.59 0.00 2.26 0.49
333320003 61 C.24 0.00 1.35 0.24
330660001 61 C.68 0.00 1.93 0.36
330660005 61 C.6 0.00 2.18 0.51
330660007 61 0.59 0.00 1.53 0.33
335760001 61 C.79 0.00 2.09 0e45
332900005 61 C.cS 0.00 3.69 0.94
334740001 61 C.45 0.00 2.76 0.3$
336880001 60 C.45 0.00 1.28 0.33
336620010 61 C.66 0.00 4.86 0.71
334100002 61 C.87 0.00 2.61 0.6$
334680050 61 C.59 0.00 1.61 0.41
A-116
-------
CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD
SAROAD DAILY DATA
A—117
-------
P R METER: CADMIUM
MET CD: ATOMIC A8S0RPTICPI
UNITS: MICRCGRAMS/CUBTC METER
YEAR: 1972
NUMBER OF STANCARO
SITE SAMPLES AVERAGE MINIMUM MAXIMUM DEVIATICN
C528CC002 31 0.0003 0.0001 0.CO6C 0.0011
05C52CCC3 31 0.0022 C.CC O I C.027C 0.0056
354720001 30 0.0003 0.0001 C.CC7C 0.0013
05852CCC1 31 0.0003 C.00 01 0.0070 0.0012
054580001 12 C.0001 0.0001 C.0001 C.000 0
051111110 8 0.0001 0.0001 C.0001 C.0 0 0 0
051111121 2 C. 0001 0.0001 C.C001 0.0000
056180002 30 C.00C3 C.0 001 0.O O7C 0.CC13
05658CCC3 28 0.0028 0.0001 0. 023C 0.Cc g
OS126CCC1 30 C.0001 C. 0 00i 0.0001 0.0000
058900001 29 0.0006 C.OCO1 C.CO7C 0.0C1
051111124 4 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 C.0000
O S7C4CCC1 28 C.0026 C.CC O 1 0.012C 0.0045
051111125 13 0.0001 C.0001 C.CCC1 C.CCCO
051111126 5 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0000
U51111127 2 0.0001 0.0001 C.COCt C.000 0
051111128 28 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 C. 0 0 0ř
05111112 5 C.0001 0.0001 0.C001 0.0000
05111113C 2 C. 0 00 I 0.0001 0. O OC1 C.CCCO
051111131 4 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 C.C00 0
051111132 1 C.0 0 0C 0.0000 0.0000
05228C001 5 0.0000 C.CCCC C.C00C C. 0000
051111134 5 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 C.CCOO
051111135 6 c.oooo c.acco o.oooo 0.0000
05248C0C1 8 0.0001 C.0001 C.CCC1 C.CCOC
C S64CCCC2 23 0.0031 0.0001 0.0150 0.0044
057200004 30 C.C007 0.0001 C.CL OC 0.0024
058040002 30 0.0001 0.CCCI C. 0001 0.0000
05848CCC2 24 C.0006 0.0001 0,C05C 0.0019
351111111 14 0.0001 C. 0 0 0i 0.00 1 C.C000
051111112 14 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 C.0000
C S72CCOC1 C.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0000
r)511 1lI 23 2 0.000! 0.0001 C.COCI C.CC00
A-118
-------
PARAMETER: CAD 1UP
METI-OD: ATOMIC A8S0PPT1CP
UNITS: M!CRCCRAMS/CUBIC METER
YEAR: 1973
SITE
UPEEP CF
SA P1ES AVERAGE
STANDARD
ii ir tii’ MAXIMUM DEVIATION
05280C002
73
0.0004
C.OCOI
C.CC7C
0.0013
05C5200C3
64
0.0062
0.0001
0.0400
0.0091
D54720001
51
C.000 ’ .
0.0001
C.CO8C
0.0015
058520001
49
0.0001
0.0001
0.0001
C.C0co
05 ’ .S0CCC I
18
0.0001
0.0001
C.0001
0.0000
)511111 10
5
0.0001
0.0001
C.COCI
C.CCCO
CS IOCCCC1
1
0.0001
0.OCO1
0.0001
c56 laCOC2
44
C.0001
C.0001
0.0001
0.0000
)5658C0C3
64
0.0032
C.OCOI
C. 14PC
0.C184
O S126CCC I
52
0.0007
0.0001
C.O3CC
0.0041
C58 0 0CC O I
51
0.0001
C.CCCI
C.0001
0.0000
3 1111124
5
0.0001
0.0001
C.CCCL
C.CCOC
057C4 0C 01
52
0.0022
0.0001
0.0530
0.C076
)51111t27
10
C.C008
C.0001
C.CC7C
0.C022
051111128
10
0.0001
0.0001
C.000I
C.C000
O51t1l12
7
C.0001
0.0001
0.0001
C.0000
)51111134
1
0.COCC
0.0000
0.OCCC
051111135
1
0.0000
0.0000
0.00CC
05248CCC1
SC
C.0001
0.0001
0.C001
0.0000
05640C002
9
0.0001
0.0CC!
C.COCI
C.OCCO
C5120C004
58
0.0023
0.0001
0.0150
0.C040
051111136
12
c.ooto
0.0001
0.0110
0.0031
058040002
50
0.0023
C.OCO1
C.C21C
0.CC58
051111131
20
0.0006
0.0001
C.0100
0.0022
151111138
IC
0.0001
0.0001
0.0001
0.0000
05111113c
11
0.0001
C.CCC1
C.C001
C.OCOO
05111114C
22
C.C052
0.0CC!
C.C22C
0.0073
J51111141
5
0.0001
C.CCCI
C.C0’ )l
0.CCCC
051111143
27
0.0003
0.0001
0.CC6C
0.OC1I
051111144
8
C.0012
0.OOC1
0.0090
0.0031
)56620001
3C
0.0008
C.CCO1
C.CO7C
0.0018
05668C001
26
0.0001
0.0001
C.0001
C.CCOO
O5 IC3CCC I
27
0.0016
0.0001
0.0110
0.0032
05222CC 01
29
0.0001
0.0001
0.0001
0.0000
C568CC004
29
0.0001
0.0001
C.0001.
C.0000
054540001
24
0.0001
C.0001
C.COC1
C.OOCO
05111t147
16
0.0001
0.0001
0.0001
0.0000
j51L1114e
16
0.0001
0.0CC!
0.00’)!
0.0000
051111149
13
C.0001
0.0001
0.0001
0.0000
05824CCC1
1
C.0001
C.CCC I
0.0001
351111150
22
0.0004
C.000I
0.0070
0.0015
051111151
25
0.0001
Oe000I
0.0001
C.OCCO
O S874CCC 1
19
C.0001
0.0001
0.C001
0.0000
357340001
17
0.0017
C.0001
C.C I2C
0.0C36
051111153
8
0.0001
0.0001
C.000I
C.OCOO
051111112
5
0.0001
C.CCCI
0.0001
C.3030
C5720C001
51
0.0004
0.0CC!
C.CC9C
0.CC16
051111160
‘.3
0.0018
0.0001
0.C16C
0.0038
35111116!
1
0.000!
C.OCC1
0.0001
A—li 9
-------
FAEAMETER: CAC IUfr
ETHCD: AT0 IC ABSCPPTICPs
UNITS: MIcRCGRA S/CUPTC METER
YEAR: 1974
SITE
NUMPER CF
S A P F I. ES
ST Ar I ) A RD
AVERAGE PINIPUM MAXIMUM DE IATfDN
)52810102
Sc
0.0003
C.CCCI
C.COSC
0.0012
050520003
59
0.0CR?
0.0001
0.2460
0.0325
0545 CCCI
11
C. OOC I
0.0001
C.C001
0.0000
2565RC)03
70
0.0011
C.OCCI
0.C12C
0.CC3C
051111125
15
0.0001
O.OOC I
0.0001
C.CCO O
051111127
4
C. OOC I
0.0001
0.0001
0.0000
051111129
1
0.0001
C.CCCI
C.COC1
CS72CCCC4
47
0.0014
0.0001
0.009C
0.0028
051111136
15
C.000S
C.CCCI
0.0060
0.0015
051111137
2
0.0001
0.0001
C.CCC I
c.ccco
05111113
4
C. O OCL
C.OC OL
C.0001
0.OCoo
)51 11113c
3
C.’OOCI
C.CCC1
C.CCC I
c. 0 0 0o
051111144
30
0.0001
0.0001
0.0001
c.ccco
OS 662CCC1
3C
C.0004
0.0001
0.CC9C
0.00j
056680001
23
C.000I
0.OCC I
C.CCC1
C.CCcC
CI5 IC3CCC I
30
0.0006
0.0001
C.COcC
0.0C19
0 5222CCC1
26
0.0001
0.0001
0.0001
0.0000
•05680C004
27
0.0001
C.CCC1
C.CCC1
C.CCC0
0 5454C0C1
41
0.0001
0.0001
0.0001
0.0000
0 5111115C
7
(!.0001
C. CCC I
0.0031
C.00 0Q
051111151
29
0.00C4
0.0001
0.CCSC
0.CC17
05e74CC01
14
C.OOC I
0.0001
0.0001
0.0000
057340001
72
0.0031
C.OCC I
0.1030
0.0125
051111153
29
0.0001
0.0001
0.0001
C.CCO O
051111155
24
C.COC I
0.0001
0.CC01
0.0000
051111160
42
C.C011
0.OCCL
C.CI1C
0.CC38
A—i 20
-------
P PAP’ETER: LE*C
NUI BER CF
S A I ’ PIES
METHOD: ATCMTC ABSCRPT1CP
UNITS: MICRCGRAMS/CUB!C METER
YEAR: 1971
0.30
C.42
0.87
0.59
C.65
1.27
C • 94
0.35
0.00
C.11
C.31
C • 22
0.79
0.43
C.16
0.09
0.87
0.36
0.76
C.66
0.45
1 .40
C • 29
0.50
C.77
1 .67
0.93
0.C8
0.57
C.29
0.12
0.82
C.24
1.72
1.14
1 .06
0.37
0 • 58
SITE
5 TA P CAR C
AVERAGE P INIfrUf MA)IIMLM CE 1ATICN
O563CCCC I
48
C.’ .?
0.16
1.36
05588C001
48
0.43
0.10
.34
05116CC01
49
1.3C
0.46
3.84
35624C0D1
50
0.17
v.16
3.13
05C92C001
51
0.84
0.21
3.2!
0528CCC02
32
1.66
0.32
4.49
)505200C3
36
1.57
0.29
.86
O5C58CCC I
3
0.47
0.10
0.80
05851C0 01
3
C.8C
0.80
0.80
)51111121
8
0.33
C.2C
C.47
C51000001
12
0.65
0.27
1.27
051111122
1
C.6C
0.60
0.60
)56180fl02
36
C.45
0.10
1.2
0 5658CCC3
35
0.99
0.20
2.98
O S7C4CC O I
36
C.72
0.20
1.80
05248CC01
2
0.44
0.33
C.56
O S8C4CC O2
3
0.43
0.36
C.53
c23Ccal
6
2.33
1.40
3.90
05362C00 1
5
1.94
1.50
2.SC
05668C001
4
1.85
0.80
2.50
154180001
12
1.75
1.08
3.25
o5C5000C2
6
1.18
0.55
1.74
C5 !9CCCC1
12
2.15
1.13
5.21
051111111
2
0.51
0.31
C.72
051111112
1
0.47
0.47
0.47
05418CCC2
12
1.09
0.53
1.99
C5420C001
12
1.41
C.45
3.11
05538CC02
3
2.93
1.00
3.90
35623C001
4
2.05
0.90
2.80
051111113
4
1.90
1.8C
2.00
051111114
4
1.15
0.40
1.60
155380001
3
2.53
2.20
2.7C
051111115
3
0.83
0.70
C. SC
051111116
4
1.PC
0.70
2.60
05576C002
6
1.11
C.96
1.58
051111118
1
0.70
0.70
c.TC
C568CCCO1
24
2.19
0.61
6.81
051111119
13
2.69
1.43
5.85
‘056c8CO03
49
1.45
0.29
4.62
j5402C0fl2
50
0.55
0.23
1.87
052780001
47
0.73
0.23
3.96
A—121
-------
PARAMETER: LEAD
I ET -CC: ATCr’IC A8SCRPTICN
UMfTS: M1CRCGRAp S/c1BIC METEP
YEAR: 1972
NUfreER CF STANCARD
SITF At PLEs A\IERACF U TfrLP IWLfr CE I T1CN
C563CC001 8 0.7987 0.3900 1. 5 5CC 0.3136
C S 63CCCC2 27 C.433C C.IC OC C.9200 0.1747
C5588C001 37 0.3492 C.ICCC 1.C SCC C.2523
05716CC 01 33 1.3773 0.1600 3.5400 0.9Cq5
J5624C 1 36 0.7964 C.2ICC 2.52CC 0.6037
05C92CC01 31 0.9755 C.160C 3.9300 1.c3 61
C S28CCCC2 61 1.4282 C.1400 4.63CC 0.9381
5C52C0C3 62 1.4281 C.24CC 3.9600 0.8251
054720001 41 0.7761 0.2600 1. 82CC C. ece
C S852CCC1 46 C.79C2 0.15CC 1.67CC 0.3397
5458C0C1 17 0.5682 C.I ICC 1.23CC C.2 812
osiiiiiic 10 0.7690 0.3300 1. 30C 0.4431
O SC58CCC I 4 C.575C C.4CCC 0.8000 0.1708
058510001 4 C.7OCC C.5CCC C.ECCC 0.1414
051111121 6 0.2300 0.OCO1 C.380C 0.1463
351111122 4 C.400C C.3COC C.600C 0.1414
056180002 60 0.509C C.08C0 2.C1OC 0.2873
C S6 SECCC3 59 C.’7852 C.1S00 2.61CC 0.5C49
)5126C )J1 55 0.6335 C.1SCC 1.84)0 0.3412
C5890C001 52 0.4629 C.1000 i. coc 0.2656
051111124 4 C.45CC C.3100 C.590C 0.1146
)57040001 C 0.6868 C.C4CC 2.31CC 0.4856
051111125 21 0.2210 C.0600 C.400C 0.0920
051111126 5 C.208C 0.18CC C.240C 0.0239
051111127 2 0.235C C.C700 C.4CCC 0.2333
051111128 28 0.3104 C.0900 0.5500 0.1173
051111129 5 C.566C 0.32CC 1.30CC 0.4139
05111113C 2 0.1750 C. I7CC C.18CC 0.CC7L
051111131 4 C.C85C 0.0001 C.150C 0.0635
51111 132 1 C. 1300 C.13C0 c.i oo
052280001 5 0.4240 0.220C C.520C 0.1244
051111134 5 C.146C C.C8CC C.2000 C. 0467
J5111113 5 6 C.5367 0.19CC C.83CC 0.2316
05248CC01 48 0.4760 0.1900 1.30Cc 0.2497
C S64CCCC2 22 1.1459 0.3200 2.1800 0.5588
‘ 5720CC02 49 1.0882 C.2500 2.29CC (.4661
C512CCCC4 48 1.0898 C.2500 4.2900 0.7799
C58C4CC02 49 0.1784 0.26CC 2.2000 0.3950
C55000C02 23 0.5191 C.2LCC 1.28CC C.272 0
05698C004 8 1.07CC C.3$OO 2.7200 0.7977
)5848 C01 19 0.5421 C.2 ICC 2.C3OC 0.5035
35668C001 4 1.7500 1.2000 2.1000 0.435g
C5418CC01 12 1.3733 C.9000 2.40CC 0.4660
.5 050C002 12 1.1017 C.66CC 1.59CC 0.2917
C5390C001 12 2.26CC 1.0100 4.56Cc 1.2060
05848CCC2 15 C.35C7 C. I5CC 0.7500 0.1832
051111111 23 C.5448 C.1800 1.62CC 0.3846
051111112 24 0.1879 0.0600 C.6100 0.1594
)5418CC02 12 C.935C 0.56CC 1.62CC 0.3376
A—122
-------
PARAMETER: LEAD
MEDOD: ATOMIC ABSCRPTIC,
UNITS: MICRCGRAMS,CueIc METER
YEAR: 1912
SITE
UMPER CF
SAMPLES
STANDARD
AVERAGE P’T Ip’UM MAXIMUM CE IATI0N
05420C001
12
1.7392
1.21CC
3.t6CC
C.7173
05538CC02
4
2.10CC
1.6C00
2.6000
0.4761
.)56200”)O l
4
1.75CC
1.4CCC
2.30CC
0.3873
051111113
4
1.72 C
0.9000
2.60CC
0.1365
051111114
4
1.5250
1.20C0
1.800C
0.2754
)55380031
4
1.65CC
1.2000
2.€ O OC
O.1 68i
051111115
4
0.4750
0.1000
C.800C
0.3715
csiiiii1
4
1.30CC
C.8000
1.7000
0.4243
)51111117
10
1.172C
C.6SCC
1.55Cc
C.4C 47
051111118
4
0.3000
0.2000
C.400C
o.ceii
C S68CCOC I
34
1.1851
C.4CCC
5.3000
1.3754
056980003
21
1.5376
C.3300
4.36CC
1.C83C
054C2CCC2
13
0.1215
C.23C0
1.4100
0.3745
)54020307
24
C.4646
C.21CC
C.52 0C
0.2199
C52780001
37
0.6713
0.16C0
2.1000
0.4444
C SS8CCCC I
18
0.4094
0.1700
1.120C
0.2151
056860003
21
0.9115
C.1600
1.71CC
0.4562
05740CC01
10
0.6500
0.2300
1.21CC
A—123
-------
PARAt4ETERA LEAC
METHCO: ATOMIC ABSCPPTTC
UNITS: MICROGRAMS/CUBIC METER
NUMBER CF
SAMPLES
YEAR: 1973
0.67
C.S2
C .eg
0 .42
C .33
0.30
0.12
0.46
0.33
C. 14
0.37
C.29
0 • 13
0.23
0 .23
0.11
C.59
0.41
C.7q
C .32
0 .44
C • 06
0.26
0.11
C.C
0.05
0.12
1 .06
0.51
C .94
0.79
0.15
0 .ce
0 .24
1.05
0.81
0.69
C.32
1.15
0.37
1.20
0.45
1.17
1.72
048
0.11
SITE
STANC ARC
AVERAGE MINIMUM MAXIMUM DEVIATION
O S624CCC I
29
0.85
0.08
2.89
052800002
68
1.46
0.01
5.28
05C52CCC3
64
1.49
0.43
5.15
05472CCC1
51
C.?’.
0.21
2.69
058520001
49
0.75
0.21
1.83
0545€CCC I
18
0.71
0.21
1.4C
051030001
1
1.50
1.50
1.50
056 18C002
48
0.39
0.18
C.72
05658C 003
64
C.68
0.16
2.63
)5126C001
52
0.57
0.12
1.7C
051111124
5
0.35
0.17
0.52
O S7C4CCC1
52
0.6C
0.03
1.75
51111127
56
0.46
0.14
I.5
05111112€
10
0.26
0.11
C.4 5
051111129
7
C.59
0.21
C.85
051111135
1
0.56
C.56
C.56
052480001
51
0.46
0.12
1.14
0511111C2
5
0.16
C.C6
0.34
05640CC02
9
0.87
0.23
1.63
C S12CCC O2
51
C.S6
0.14
.O7
05720CC04
5 8
1.01
C.13
3.63
051111136
17
0.61
0.35
1.71
O S8 O4CCC2
‘.9
0.74
0.18
2.74
051111137
20
0.05
0.01
C.22
05111113€
1].
0.48
0.10
C.91
051111139
10
0.31
C.11
C.’.’.
051111140
22
0.LC
0.C1
C.3C
051111141
5
0.23
C.18
C.29
051111142
1
0.C1
C.01
0.01
051111143
27
0.20
0.01
C.51
C564CCC O I
43
2.31
0.74
4q97
355000002
29
C.1C
C.C8
2. OC
056980004
28
1.29
0.33
2.61
O S848CCC1
30
0.74
0.16
4. OC
051111144
8
C.34
0.16
C.55
051111145
30
0.67
0.14
5.58
05662CC01
3C
C.4C
0.14
0.99
05023C001
45
2.12
0.70
s.ic
05362CC01
45
1.91
0.60
4.2C
05668CCC1
26
1.48
0.34
3.38
051030001
28
0.65
0.13
1.46
05418C001
27
1.43
0.33
7.00
050500002
37
0.82
0.23
1.84
053900001
27
2.01
0.52
5.37
05576C001
37
1.13
0.31
2.10
352220001
29
1.89
C.75
5.83
0568C0004
29
1.65
0.21
6.92
C5454CCC1
25
0.38
0.09
0.80
351111147
1
0.32
C.C8
C.54
A—124
-------
P 8RAMETER: LEAD
NUP’P [ R CF
SAPcLES
METI-OD: ATO ’IC ABSCRpTICN
UNITS: MICRCGR$ S/CIJ8IC METER
YEAR: 1973
C.”
0.23
C.40
0.42
c.10
o .13
o .13
S I TE
STANDARD
AVERAGE P1P%I Ufr frAXIMuP’ DEVIATION
051111148
16
0.32
C.C8
C.54
051111149
13
0.53
0.19
0.96
)582400 01
1
0.57
0.57
C.57
05111115C
22
0.60
0.20
1.82
051111151
25
1.OC
0.41
1.87
058740001
iS
0.32
0.16
C.5!
OS134CCCI
17
0.50
0.22
C.69
osiiiiis
8
0.26
0.06
0.47
A—125
-------
PAPA ETER: LEAD
? ET -’C0: ATCM!C BSCRPT!CN
UNITS: M1CPCGRAP S/CLB1C METER
YEAR: 1974
NU FEF CF STANCApO
SITE SAMPLES AVERAGE frI I UW MAXIMUM CEV!ATTCN
05624C001 40 0.57 0.06 4.67
C5283CC02 SC C.84 0.01 ‘. 7 0.57
)50520CC 87 1. 0.23 2.4C C.53
0545 8C0C1 16 0.48 0.15 0.94 C.21
05658CCC3 84 0.59 0.13 1.88 0.36
)511111?4 16 0.23 0.05 C.4C C.13
0 111l125 10 0.13 0.C7 C.24 0.06
C51111127 8 0.C7 C.33
051111129 1 0.05 C.C5 C.c
C 72CCCC4 63 0. 51 0.28 3.09 0.56
051111136 15 0.49 0.17 i.C’
0 1111131 2 0.05 0.01 C.09 0.06
C5111113F 4 0.56 C.17 1.36 C.54
351111139 5 0.46 0.16 C.81 C.27
C5640CC01 88 1.69 C.35 2.05 0.61
05500C002 38 C.5l 0.05 2.05 0.53
05698C004 38 0.66 0.11 2.3c
05848CC 01 41 0.51 0.06 ‘.12 c.se
051111144 44 0.18 0.C1 C.4? c.io
051111145 39 0.31 0.03 1.48 C.2q
0 é62CC01 44 0.36 0.01 C.9 1 0.20
J5O230 01 68 1.51 0.24 3 . C C.77
OE362CCC1 66 1.60 0.30 4.3C C.92
0E668CC01 35 1.20 C.16 2.57 0,49
35103C001 46 0.57 0.15 i. e C.26
05418C 001 41 0.85 0.23 2.26 0.44
350500002 43 0.57 C.06 1.04 0.23
0539CC001 43 1.28 0.42 3.3C 0.68
05576CC01 43 C.64 0.18 1.34 C.29
222CC01 41 1.00 0.39 2.Cc 0.51
35680C004 43 0.87 0.14 _.72 C.78
05454CCC1 41 0.3C 0.05 C.ic 3.14
051111150 42 0.41 0.16 1.4’ C.24
051111151 44 0.61 0.26 1. Sf C.27
05€74CCC1 38 C.26 0.11 C.6 5 0.12
05734C001 88 0.43 C.19 C.82 0.13
051111153 43 0.33 0.08 C.65 0.12
)5 1111154 23 0.31 C.C5 C.5 3 0.14
051111155 39 0.35 0.01 1.04 0.18
051111156 13 1.72 C.75 3.18 0.66
053420001 16 0.51 0.18 i . C.26
051111157 21 0.62 3.11 1.8C C.38
0 5111115E 22 C.98 0.18 2.22 0.61
)51111 159 22 1.57 0.93 2.16 C.5C
05412CCC1 22 1.03 0.33 2.10 c.sq
A—126
-------
T AS STATE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
AIR POLLUTION CONTROL SERVICES
SAROAD DAILY DATA
A—127
-------
PARAMETER: ARSENIC
METHOD: X—RAY FLUCRESCENCE
UNITS: MICROGRAMS/CUBIC METER
YEAR: 1973
NUMBER OF STANDARD
SITE SAMPLES A EPAGE MINITMUM MAXIMUM DEVIATION
450010001 21 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
450660001 42 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0
455560002 20 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
450070002 7 0.C 0.0 0.0 0.0
453340001 17 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
454010001 35 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
450220002 8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
450220004 245 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.1
450220005 31 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
450220006 40 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0
450220007 36 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
45C220008 42 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
450220010 7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
450670001 30 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
454640001 38 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
455210101 7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
455210002 124 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
455370)01 2S 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
455370307 33 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
452320001 44 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
453140001 4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
453390001 37 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
454600101 43 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
450720001 21 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
451150001 16 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
451150003 46 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
451150004 34 0.0 0.0 0.0
451150019 18 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
450440001 43 0.0 0.0 0.0
453620001 19 0.0 0.0 0.0
453910001 41 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
454560001 23 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
450060001 46 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0
450320001 54 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0
450320002 56 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0
450320003 54 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0
450860001 48 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0
450860002 55 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0
450860004 56 0.0 0.0 0.1
450950002 50 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
451935001 10 0.0 0.0 0.1. 0.0
451980001 51 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0
451980047 8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
451990025 10 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 ,0
452330003 49 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0
452330004 53 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0
452330005 52 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0
452330006 52 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0
452560034 30 0.0 0.0 0.]. 0.0
A—128
-------
PARAMETER: tRSENIC
MET1 OC: X—RAY FLUCRESCENCE
UNITS; PICROGRAMSICUBIC METER
YEAR: 1973
NUMBER OF STANDARD
SITE SAMPLES A EPAGE MII LMUM MAXIMUM DEVIATION
453070024 8 0.2 0.0 0.5 0.2
453130002 49 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0
453170001 24 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0
453170026 9 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0
454060006 47 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0
454890001 54 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0
455170003 11 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0
455170004 10 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
455170011 42 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0
455170043 11 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1
455170045 5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
455195001 53 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0
450170001 31 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
450170002 43 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
450170003 19 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0
450170004 29 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
451310045 12 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
451410001 24 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
451880001 44 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
452130001 40 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
452130002 38 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
455420002 12 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
451580003 34 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
450330001 11 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
453830003 12 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
453950002 30 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
454190006 80 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
451700002 37 0.1 0.0 0.5 0.1
451700027 10 0.1 0.0 0.3 0.1
453770001 3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
455160001 41 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
455240002 31 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
A—129
-------
PARAMETER: ARSENIC
METI400: X—RAY FLUORESCENCE
UNITS: frICPOGR*MS/CUBIC METER
YEAR: 1974
NUMBER OF STANDARD
SITE SAMPLES A EPAGE MINIMUM MAXIMUM DEVIATION
450010001 40 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
450660001 38 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
455560002 17 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
450070002 10 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
453340001 14 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
454010001 6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
450220004 154 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0
450220005 53 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
450220006 48 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
450220007 52 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0
450220008 51 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
450220010 18 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0
450670001 53 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
454640001 54 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
455210001 18 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
455210002 123 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
455370001 1 0.0 0.0 0.0
455370007 20 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
452320001 50 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
453140001 5 0.0 0.0 C.0 0.0
453390001 42 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
454600001 43 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
450720001 31 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
451150001 19 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0
451150003 48 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0
451150004 49 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0
451150019 46 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
450440001 40 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
453620001 8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
453910001 24 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0
454560001 28 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
450060001 44 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
450320001 34 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
450320002 35 0.C 0.0 0.0 0.0
450320003 16 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
450860001 20 0.0 0.1) 0.0 0.0
450860002 7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
450860004 2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
450950002 51 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
451935001 2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
451980001 26 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
451980047 2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
451990025 2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
452330003 41 0.0 0.0 0.’) 0.0
452330004 41 0.1) 0.0 0.0 0.0
452330005 45 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
452330006 44 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
452560034 29 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
453130002 42 0.0 0.0 0.1) 0.0
A—130
-------
PARAMETER: ARSENIC
METHOD: p—RAY FLUORESCENCE
UNITS: I’ICROGRAMSfCUBIC METER
YEAR: 1974
NUMBER OF STANDARt
SITE SAMPLES A EPAGE MINIMUM MAXIMUM DEVIATION
453170001 19 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
453170026 2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
454060006 41 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
454890001 31 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
455170003 2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.n
455170004 2 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0
455170011 56 0.0 0.0 1.2 0.2
455170043 2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
455195001 43 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
450170001 10 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
450170002 16 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
450170004 8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
451310045 33 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0
451410001 22 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
451880 )01 49 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0
452130001 57 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
452130002 50 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
455420002 39 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0
451580003 53 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0
450330001 9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
453830003 34 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
453950002 18 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
454190006 27 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
451700002 32 0.1 0.0 0.4 0.1
451700027 51 0.1 0.0 0.5 0.1
453770001 31 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
455160001 52 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0
455240002 52 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0
450220012 19 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
450650002 34 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
450650003 51 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
450750001 3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
452460002 4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
452460003 3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
452460004 3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
455460001 3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
456000004 19 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
456000005 12 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
450440002 8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
450950003 3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
452330024 17 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
455110002 12 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
451744001 8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
452670001 8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
453210001 12 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
454790003 28 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
455070001 2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
451380002 9 0.0. 0.0 0.0 0.0
454570036 27 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
A—131
-------
PARAMETER: tRSENIC
METHOD: a—RAY FLUORESCENCE
UNITS: MICROGRAMS/CUBIC METER
YEAR: 1974
NUMBER OF STANDARD
SITE SAMPLES AVERAGE MINIMUM MAXIMUM DEVIATION
456000001 25 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
456000002 21 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
456000003 20 0.0 0.0 0.0 o.o
456000306 2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
455480001 24 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
450050001 9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
451270001 10 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
451700028 17 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.1
451710004 6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
451710005 19 0.1 0.0 1.1 0.3
451710006 26 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0
452740001 12 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
452740002 6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
A—13 2
-------
PARAMETER: CADMIUM
METIIOC: X—RAY FLUORESCENCE
UNITS: ICROGRAMS/CUBIC METER
YEAR: 1973
NUMBER OF STANDARD
SITE SAMPLES AVERAGE MII IMUM MAXIMUM DEVIATION
450010001 21 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
450660001 42 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
455560002 20 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
450070002 7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
453340001 17 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
454010001 35 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
450220002 8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
450220004 83 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
450220005 31 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
450220006 40 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
450220007 36 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
450220008 42 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
450220010 7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
450670001 30 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0
454640001 38 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
455210001 7 0.C 0.0 0.0 0.0
455210002 8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
455370001 29 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
455370007 33 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
452320001 44 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0
453140001 4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
453390001 37 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
454600001 43 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
450720001 21 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
451150001 16 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
451150003 46 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0
451150004 34 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0
451150019 18 0. ’) 0.0 0.1 0.0
450440001 43 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
453620001 19 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
453910001 41 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
454560001 23 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
450060001 33 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
450320001 39 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
450320002 42 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
450320003 39 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.2
450860001 37 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0
450860002 42 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
450860004 43 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
450950002 37 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
451980001 43 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
452330003 34 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
452330004 38 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
452330005 37 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0
452330006 38 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
452560034 30 0.0 0.0 0.0
453130002 35 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0
453170001 20 0.0 0.0 0.0
454060006 32 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0
A—133
-------
PARAMETEP: CACMIUM
METI40D: X—RAY FLUORESCENCE
UNITS: ICROGR MS/CUBIC METER
YEAR: 1973
NUMBER OF STANDARD
SITE SAMPLES A E AGE MINIMUM MAXIMUM DEVIATION
454890001 39 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
455170011 27 0.0 0.0 0.0
455195001 38 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
450170001 31 0.0 0.0 0.0 o.n
450170002 43 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
450170033 19 0.C 0.0 0.0 0.0
450170004 29 0.0 0.0 0.3
451310045 12 0.0 0.0 0.0
451410001 24 0.0 0.0 0.’)
451880001 44 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
452130301 4t) 0.0 0.0 0.1
452130002 38 0.0 0.0 C.0 3.0
455420002 12 0.0 0.0 0.0
451580303 34 0.3 0.0 0.0
450330001 11 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
453830003 12 0.0 0.0 0.0
453950002 29 0.0 0.0 0.0
454190006 79 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0
451700002 37 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0
451700027 10 0.0 0.0 0.0
453770301 3 0.0 0.0 0.)
455160031 41 0.0 0.0 0.) o.o
455240002 31 3.3 0.0 0.3 0.0
A—134
-------
PARAMETER: CADMIUM
METHOC: X—RAY FLUCRESCENCE
UNITS: ‘ICROGRAM5/cLJeIc METER
YEAR: 1974
NUMBER OF STANOAPP
SITE SAMPLES A vERAGE MII IMUM MAXIMUM DEV!ATIIJN
450010)01 40 0.C 0.0 0.0
450660001 38 0.0 0.0 0.(’ 3.0
45556001)2 17 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.’)
45C370 002 10 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
453340)01 14 0.0 0. ) 0.1
454010001 6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.)
450220004 154 0.0 0.0 0.8 3.1
45( 220005 53 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0
450220006 48 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
450220307 53 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0
45C220008 51 0.C 0.0 0.0 0.’)
450220010 18 0.0 0.0 0.3 3. 1)
450670001 53 0.C 0.0 ( ‘.0 0.0
454640001 54 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0
455210001 18 0.0 0.0 (‘.0 0.0
455210)02 115 0. ) 0.0 0.0 3.0
455370001 1 0.) 0.0 0.0
455370007 20 0.C 0.0 0.0 0.0
452320001 50 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
453140)01 5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
453390001 42 0.0 0.0 3.0 3.0
454600001 43 0.u 0.0 0.1 0.0
450720001 31 0.1) 0.0 0.1 0.0
451150001 19 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
451150003 48 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
451150004 49 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0
451150019 46 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
450440001 40 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
453620001 8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
453910001 24 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
454560001 28 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
450060001 44 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0
450320001 34 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
450320002 35 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0
450320003 16 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
450860001 20 0.1 0.0 1.6 0.4
450860032 7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
450860004 2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
450950002 51 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
451980301 26 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
452330003 41 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
452330004 41 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0
452330005 45 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
452330006 44 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0
452560034 29 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
453130002 42 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
453170001 19 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
454060006 41 0.0 3.0 0.0 0.0
454890001 31 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
A—135
-------
PARAMETER: CADMIUM
METHOD: X—RAY FLUCRESCENCE
UNITS: MICROGR$MS/CUBIC METER
YEAR: 1974
NUMBER OF STANDARD
SITE SAMPLES A EPAGE MINIMUM MAXIMUM DEVIATION
455170011 56 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0
455195001 43 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
450170001 10 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
450170002 16 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
450170004 8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
451310045 33 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
451410001 22 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
451880001 49 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
452130001 57 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
452130002 50 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
455420002 39 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
451580003 53 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
450330001 9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
453830003 34 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
453950002 18 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0
454190006 27 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
451700002 32 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
451700027 51 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
453770001 37 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
455160001 52 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
455240002 52 0.0 0.0 0.0
450220012 19 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
450650002 34 0.0 0.0 0.0
450650003 51 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
450750001 3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
452460002 4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
452460003 3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
452460004 3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
455460301 3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.’)
456000004 19 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0
456000005 12 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
450440002 8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
450950003 3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
452330024 17 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
455170002 12 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0
451744001 8 0.C 0.0 0.0 0.0
452670001 8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
453210001 12 0.C 0.0 0.0 0.0
454790003 28 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
455070001 2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
451380002 9 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0
454570036 27 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
456000001 25 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.’)
456000002 21 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
456000003 20 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
456000006 2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.’)
455480301 24 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
450350001 9 0.0 0.0 0.0
451270001 10 0.0 0.0 0.’) 0.’)
A—136
-------
PARAMETER: CAC IUM
METHOD: a—RAY FLUORESCENCE
UNITS: ICROGR MS/CUBIC ME1ER
YEAR: 1974
NUMBER OF STANDARD
SITE SAMPLES AVERAGE MINIMUM MAXIMUM DEVIATION
451700028 17 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
451710004 6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
451710005 19 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
451710006 26 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
452740001 12 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
452740002 6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
A—137
-------
PARAMETER: CI- k0MIUM
MET 00: X—RAY FLUCRESCENCE
UNITS: MICROGRAMS/CUBIC METER
YEAR: 1973
NUMBER CF STANDARD
SITE SAMPLES A EPAC-E MINIMUM MAXIMUM DFVtATION
45C010001 21 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0
450660001 42 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0
455560002 20 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0
450070002 7 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0
453340001 17 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
454010001 35 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0
450220002 8 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1
450220004 83 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0
450220005 31 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
450220006 40 0_c 0.0 0.1 0.0
450220007 36 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0
450220008 42 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.1
450220010 7 0.C 0.0 0.0 0.0
450670001 30 0.0 0.0 0.1 3.0
454640001 38 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0
455210001 7 0.C 0.0 0.0 0.0
455210002 8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
45537(i O O l 29 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0
455370007 33 0.3 0.0 0.1 0.0
452320001 44 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
453140001 4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
453390001 37 0.0 0.0 0.1 3.0
454600001 43 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0
450720001 21 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0
451150001 16 0.0 0.0 0.0
451150003 46 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
451150004 34 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.3
451150019 18 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0
450440001 43 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
453620001 19 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0
453910001 41 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0
454560001 23 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
450060001 33 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0
45C320001 39 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0
450320002 42 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0
450320003 39 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0
45C860001 37 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
450860002 42 0.C 0.0 0.0 a.o
450860004 43 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
450950002 37 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0
451980001 43 0.0 0.0 C.1 0.0
452330003 34 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0
452330004 38 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
452330005 37 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0
452330036 38 0.0 0.0 0.1 3.0
452560034 30 0.0 0.0 0.1
453130002 35 0.0 0.0 .i 0.0
453170001 20 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
454060006 32 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
A—138
-------
PARAMETER: CHROMIUM
METHOD: )—RAY FLUORESCENCE
UNITS: ICROGRAMS/CUBIC METER
YEAR: 1973
NUMBER OF STANDARD
SITE SAMPLES AVERAGE MIP IMUM MAXIMUM DEVIATION
454890001 39 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0
455170011 27 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
455195001 38 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
450170001 31 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
450170002 43 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0
450170003 19 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
450170004 29 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
451310045 12 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
451410001 24 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
451880001 44 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
452130001 40 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
452130002 38 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0
455420002 12 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
451580003 34 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
450330001 11 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0
453830003 12 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
453950002 29 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0
454190006 79 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0
451700002 37 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
451700027 10 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
453770001 3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
455160001 41 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0
455240002 31 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0
A—139
-------
PARAMETER: CHROMIUM
METHOD: x—RAY FLUCRESCENCE
UNITS: M!CRCGRAMS/CUBIC METER
YEAR: 1974
NUMBER OF STANDARD
SITF SAMPLES AVERAGE MII IMUM MAXIMUM CEVIATION
450010001 40 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
450660001 38 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
455560002 17 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
450070002 10 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
453340001 14 0.C 0.0 0.0 0.0
454010001 6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
450220004 154 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.1
450220005 53 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
450220006 48 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
450220007 52 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
450220008 51 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
450220010 18 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
450670001 53 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
454640001 54 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0
455210001 18 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
455210002 115 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
455370001 1 0.0 0.0 0.0
455370007 20 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0
452320001 50 0.0 0.0 0.1
453140001 5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
453390001 42 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
454600001 43 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
450720001 31 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
451150001 19 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
451150003 48 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
451150004 49 0.1 0.0 1.1 0.2
451150019 46 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0
450440001 40 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
453620001 8 0.0 0.0 0.0 o.o
453910001 24 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
454560001 28 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
450060001 44 0.0 0.1) 0.0 0.0
450320001 34 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
450320002 35 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
450320003 16 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
450860001 20 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0
450860002 7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
450860004 2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
450950002 51 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
451980001 26 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0
45233C003 41 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0
452330004 41 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.’)
452330005 45 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0
452330006 44 0.0 0.0 fl 3
452560034 29 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
453130002 42 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0
453170011 19 0.0 0.0 0.’) 0.0
454060006 41 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
454890001 31 0.0 0.0 0.0
A—140
-------
PARAMETER: CHRCP4IUN
METHOD: —RAV FLUCRESCENCE
UNITS: MICROGRAMS/CUBIC METER
YEAR: 197’.
NUMBER OF STANDARD
SITE SAMPLES AVERAGE MIP .IMUM MAXIMUM DEVIATION
455170011 56 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
455195001 43 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
450170001 10 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
450170002 16 0.1 0.0 1.0 0.2
450110004 8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
451310045 33 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
451410001 22 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
451880001 4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
452130001 57 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0
452130002 50 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0
455420002 39 0.0 0.0 0.0 o.o
451580003 53 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
450330001 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
453830003 34 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
453950002 18 0.0 0.0 0. ’ ) 0.0
454190006 27 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
451700002 32 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
451700027 51 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
453770001 37 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
455160301 52 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0
455240002 52 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
450220312 19 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
450650002 34 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
450650003 51 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
450750001 3 0..) 0.0 0.0 0. ’ )
452460002 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
452460003 0.0 0.0 0.0 3. ’ )
452460004 3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
455460001 0.0 .0 0.0 0.0
456000004 19 ,0 o.O 0.0 0.0
456000005 12 0.0 o. 0.0 0.0
450440302 8 0.0 0.0 ‘).0 0.0
450950303 3 0.0 O . 0.0 0.0
452330024 1? 0.0 o.O 0.0 0.0
455170002 12 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
451744001 8 0.0 o.O 0.0 0.0
452670001 8 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0
453210001 12 .0 o.0 O.o 0.0
454790003 28 0.0 .0 0.0 0.0
455070001 2 0.0 0.0 0.0
451380002 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
454570036 27 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.2
456000001 25 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
456000002 21 .0 o.0 0.0
456000003 20 0.0 o. .o 0.0
456000006 2 .0
455480001 24 .0 .0 0. 0.0
0.0
450050001 .O 0.0
45127C )01 0.0
A—141
-------
PARAMETER: CHRCMZUM
METt-4C0: —RAY FLUCRESCENCE
UNITS: I ICRCGRAMS/CUBIC METER
YEAR: 1974
NUMBER OF STANDARD
SiTE SAMPLES AVERAGE MIP IMUM MAXIMUM DEVIATIfl 1
451700028 17 0.) 0.0 0.0 0.0
451710004 6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
451710005 19 0.0 0.0 0.0
451710006 26 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
452740001 12 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
452740002 6 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0
A—142
-------
PARAMETER: LEAD
METHOD: ATOMIC ABSORPTION
UNITS: ‘ICROGRAM5/CUBIC METER
YEAR: 1973
NUMBER OF STANDARD
SITE SAMPLES A EPAGE MII IMUM MAXIMUM DEVIATION
450220004 170 1.5 0.0 7,3 0.9
455210002 94 0.2 0.0 0.6 0.1
451935001 3 0.8 0.5 0.9 0.2
451990025 3 0.5 0.4 0.7 0.2
453070024 3 0.8 0.6 1.1 0.3
453170026 4 0.8 0.5 1.2 0.3
455170003 4 0.8 0.5 1.1 0.3
455170004 4 0.4 0.4 0.6 0.1
455170011 4 1.1 0.6 1.4 0.4
455170043 4 1.1 0.1 2.1 0.8
455170045 2 0.6 0.4 0.8 0.3
451880006 103 0.8 0.0 2.4 0.4
451880012 98 0.8 0.0 2.9 0.5
451880019 104 0.7 0.1 2.1 0.3
A—143
-------
PARAMETER: LEAD
METHCC: ATOMIC AF SORPTICr\
UNITS: MICRGGR. M5/CUBIC METER
YEAR: 1974
SITE
NUMBER CF
SAMPLES
S TAN OAR P
A ERAGE MINIMUM MAXIMUM DEVIATION
4552100J2
36
0.1
0.0
0.4
0.1
451880006
105
0.7
0.1
3.1
0.4
451880012
98
3.8
0.3
4.2
0.5
451880019
71
0.7
0.2
1.4
0.2
45188001ô
107
1.0
0.1
2.2
0.5
A—144
-------
PARAMETER: LEAC
MET OC: X—RAY FLUCRESCENCE
UNITS: MICROGRAMS/CUBIC METER
YEAR: 1.973
NUMBER OF STANT)AF’r)
SITE SAMPLES AVERAc-E MIt IMUM MAXIMUM DEVIATION
450010001 22 0. 0.0 0.8 0.2
450660001 43 0.7 0.1 1.8 0.4
455560002 22 0.4 0.1 1.2 C.2
450070032 8 0.3 0.2 0.8 0.2
‘.53340001 18 0.2 0.0 0.5 0.1
454010001 36 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0
450220002 1 .0 0.5 0.2 1.1 3.3
45 (220004 63 1.0 0.0 2.8 0.7
45022C005 32 0.4 0.0 2.5 0.5
450220006 41 0.4 0.0 1.8 0.4
450220007 37 0.6 0.0 2.6 0.7
450220008 43 0.3 0.0 0.9 0.2
450220010 7 0.6 0.4 1.4 3.4
450670001 31 0.5 0.1 1.6 0.3
454640001 39 0.2 0.0 1.0 0.2
455210001 8 0.1. 0.0 fl.2 0.1
455210002 27 0.2 0.0 0.4 0.1
455370001 26 0.3 0.0 1.6 0.3
455370007 34 0.3 0.0 0.8 0.2
452320001 45 0.1. 0.0 0.3 0.1
453140001 6 1.3 0.8 3.3
453390001 38 0.3 0.0 3.1 3.5
454600001 44 0.2 0.0 0.8 0.2
450720001 22 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0
451150001 17 0.5 0.1 1.5 0.4
451150003 47 0.6 0.1 1.8 0.4
451150004 35 0.4 0.0 2.3 0.5
451150019 18 0.6 0.1. 1.4 0.4
450440001 44 0.1. 0.0 0.2 0.1
453620001 19 0.1 0.0 0.3 0.1
453910001 42 0.6 0.1 3.1. 0.5
454560001 25 0.2 0.0 0.7 0.2
450060001 46 0.3 0.0 1.0 3.2
450320001 55 0.1 0.0 0.9 0.2
450320002 56 0.3 0.0 1.3 0.3
450320003 54 0.3 0.0 1.2 0.3
450860001 48 0.1 0.0 0.7 0.1
450860002 55 0.1. 0.0 0.6 01
450860004 57 0.2 0.0 2.8 0.4
450950002 50 0.4 0.0 0.9 0.2
451935001 8 0.7 0.2 1.5 0.5
451980001 51 0.4 0.1 1.1 0.2
451980047 8 0.9 0.0 2.8 1.0
451990025 8 0.7 0.2 1.2 0.4
452330003 49 0.4 0.0 3.4 0.5
452330004 53 0.4 0.0 1.5 0.3
452330005 52 0.5 0.0 2.8 0.5
452330006 52 0.3 0.0 1.5 0.3
452560034 30 1.0 0.0 3.3 0.8
A—145
-------
PARAMETER: LE C
? ETI-OC: —RAY FLUCRESCENCE
UNITS: MICROGRAMS/CUBIC METER
YEAR: 1973
NUMBER CF STANDARD
SITE SAMPLES AVERAGE MINIMUM MAXIMUM DEVIATION
453070024 5 0.5 0.0 ( .7
453130002 4 0.2 0.0 1.3 0.3
453170001 24 0.2 0.0 0.5
453170026 7 0.6 0.2 1.1 0.4
454060006 47 0.2 0.0 1.7 C.3
454890001 54 0.8 0.0 2.7 0.6
455170003 8 o.c 0.4 2.5 0.7
455170004 8 0.5 0.3 0.7 0.1
455170011 38 0.6 0.1 1.4 3.4
455170043 8 1.0 0.3 2.9 1.1
45517C045 6 0.2 0.0 0.5 0.2
455195001 53 0.3 0.0 1.1 0.2
450170001 32 0.3 0.0 2.5 0.5
450170002 44 0.7 0.1 1.5 0.3
450170003 20 0.2 0.0 1.0 0.3
450170004 30 0.4 0.0 1.0
451310045 12 0.4 0.1 1.0 0.2
451410001 25 0.5 0.0 1.5 0.4
451880001 45 0.7 0.2 3.4 0.5
452130001 41 0.6 0.1 1.7 0.4
452130002 39 0.5 0.0 1.4 0.4
454790002 1 1.3 1.3 1.3
455420002 12 0.5 0.1 0.8 0.3
451580003 36 0.5 0.1 2.1 0.4
450330001 12 0.5 0.0 1.1 0.3
453830003 12 0.2 0.0 0.4 0.1
453950002 30 0.3 0.0 1.3 0.3
454190006 80 0.4 0.0 3.6
451700002 38 1.0 0.2 3.0 0.8
451700027 10 2.0 0.8 3.6 1.1
453770001 3 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1
455160001 37 0.5 0.0 2.6 0.4
455240002 33 0.4 0.1 2.0 0.4
A—146
-------
PARAMETER LEAD
METHODS X—RAY FLUORESCENCE
UNITS: PICROGRAMS/CUBIC METER
YEAR: 1974
NUMBER OF STANDARD
SITE SAMPLES AVERAGE MINIMUM MAXIMUM DEVIATION
450010001 40 0.2 0.0 0.6 0.1
490660001 38 0.7 0.0 1.3 0.3
455360002 17 0.3 0.0 1.0 0.3
450070002 10 0.2 0.1 0.3 0.1
453340001 14 0.1 0.0 0.6 0.2
454010001 6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
450220004 154 0.7 0.0 2.1 0.4
450220005 53 0.3 0.0 1.1 0.2
450220006 48 0.4 0.0 1.2 0.3
450220007 52 0.4 0.0 1.8 0.4
450220008 51 0.3 0.0 0.9 0.2
450220010 18 0.4 0.1 0.9 0.2
450670001 53 0.4 0.1 0.9 0.2
434640001 54 0.1 0.0 0.8 0.2
455210001 18 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.1
455210002 121 0.1 0.0 0.4 0.1
455370001 1 0.5 0.5 0.5
455370007 20 0.2 0.0 0.8 0.2
452320001 50 0.1 0.0 0.4 0.1
453140001 5 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1
453390001 42 0.3 0.1 0.9 0.2
454600001 43 0.2 0.0 0.5 0.1
450720001 31 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0
451150001 19 0.4 0.1 1.3 0.3
451150003 48 0.6 0.0 2.2 0.4
451150004 4 ’ ; 0.8 0.0 13.5 2.0
451190019 46 0.3 0.0 1.1 3.2
450440001 40 0.1 0.0 0.3 0.1
453620001 8 0.2 0.0 0.5 0.2
453910001 24 0.5 0.0 1.5 0.4
454560001 28 0.2 0.0 0.9 0.2
450060001 44 0.1 0.0 0.5 0.2
450320001 34 0.1 0.0 0.3 0.1
450320002 35 0.2 0.0 0.5 0.1
450320003 16 0.2 0.0 0.4 0.1
450660001 20 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1
430660002 7 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1
450860004 2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0
450950002 51 0.3 0.0 0.9 0.2
451935001 2 0.8 0.7 0.9 0.1
451980001 26 0.2 0.1 0.4 0.1
451980047 2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.0
451990025 2 0.4 0.0 0.9 0.6
452330003 41 0.2 0.0 1.3 0.3
452330004 41 0.2 0.0 0.8 0.2
452330005 45 0.3 0.0 1.2 0.3
452330006 44 0.2 0.0 0.7 0.2
452560034 29 0.7 0.0 3.4 0.8
453130002 42 0.1 0.0 0.4 0.1
A— 147
-------
PARAMETER: LEAD
MET1 0C: X—RAY FLIJCRESCENCE
UNITS: M!CRCGR*MS/CUBIC METER
YEAR: 1974
NUMBER OF STANDARD
SITE SAMPLES AVERAGE MIP IMUM MAXIMUM DEVIATION
453170001 19 0.2 0.0 0.6 0.2
453170026 2 0.2 0.0 0.5 0.4
454060006 41 0.2 0.0 0.7 0.2
454890001 31 0.4 0.1 2.0 0.4
455170003 2 0.7 0.6 0.9 0.2
455170004 2 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.0
455170011 56 0.5 0.0 1.0 0.2
455170043 2 0.5 0.2 0.8 0.4
455195001 43 0.1 0.0 0.4 0.1
450170001 10 0.3 0.1 1.0 0.3
450170002 16 0.6 0.2 1.1 0.3
450170004 8 0.3 0.1 0.6 0.2
451310045 33 0.4 0.1 1.5 0.3
451410001 22 0.3 0.1 1.0 0.3
451880001 49 0.5 0.0 1.4 0.3
452130)01 57 0.3 0.0 1.0 0.2
452130002 50 0.3 0.0 0.9 0.2
455420032 39 0.5 0.1 1.1 0.3
451580003 53 0.5 0.0 1.8 0.4
450330001 9 0.5 0.1 1.4 0.5
453830003 34 0.2 0.0 0.7 0.2
453950002 18 0.2 0.0 0.4 0.1
454190006 27 0.2 0.0 0.5 0.1
451700002 32 C.9 0.1 1.9 0.5
451700027 51 1.3 0.2 2 5 0.5
453770001 37 0.1 0.0 0.5 0.1
455160001 52 0.4 0.0 1.1 0.3
455240002 52 0.4 0.0 1.5 0.3
450220012 19 0.2 0.0 0.5 0.1
450a50002 34 0.2 0.0 0.7 0.2
450650)03 51 0.1 0.0 0.4 0.1
450750001 3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
452460002 4 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.1
45246 0t003 3 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.1
452460004 3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
455460001 3 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1
456000004 19 0.2 0.0 0.7 0.2
456000005 12 0.2 0.0 0.3 0.1
450440002 8 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1
450950003 3 0.1 0.0 0.3 0.2
452330024 17 0.4 0.0 1.1 0.3
455170002 12 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.1
451744001 8 0.4 0.0 1.2 0.4
452670001 8 0.4 0.0 0.8 0.2
653210001 12 0.3 0.0 0.9 0.2
454790003 28 0.5 0.0 1.5 0.3
455070001 2 0.2 0.0 0.5 0.4
451380002 9 0.2 0.0 0.8 0.3
454570036 27 0.4 0.1 1.2 0.3
A-148
-------
PARAMETER: LEAC
METHOD: )—RAY FIUCRESCENCE
UNITS: MICRCGRAMS/CUBIC METER
YEAR: 1974
NUMBER OF STANDARD
SITE SAMPLES AVERAGE MINIMUM MAXIMUM DEVIATION
456000001 25 0.3 0.1 1.1 0.2
456000002 21 0.5 0.1 4.6 1.0
456000003 20 0.2 0.0 1.2 0.4
456000006 2 0.5 0.4 0.6 0.1
455480101 24 0.1 0.0 0.3 0.1
450050001 9 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0
451270001 10 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
451700028 17 0.4 0.0 0.8 0.3
451710004 6 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.1
451710005 19 0.2 0.0 1.1 0.3
451710006 26 0.1 0.0 0.4 0.1
452740001 12 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
452740002 6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
A—149
-------
EL PASO CITY—COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT
SAROAD MONTHLY DATA
A— 150
-------
PARAMETER: ARSENIC
METHOD: ATOMIC ABSORPTION
UNITS: MICROGRAMS/CUBIC METER
YEAR: 1972
1UMBER
OF
STANDARD
SITE
SAMPLES
AVERAGE
MINIMUM
MAXIMUM DEVIATION
000000001
4
C.307
0.210
0.500
0.131
900000331
5
0.299
0.100
0.684
0.228
000000002
4
0.735
0.220
1.210
0.429
900000032
5
0.961
0.190
1.840
0.714
000000003
4
0.112
0.050
0.190
0.068
900000003
5
0.096
0.050
0.163
0.043
000000304
4
0.080
0.050
0.100
0.022
900000004
5
0.077
0.037
0.106
0.026
000000005
4
0.042
0.040
0.050
0.305
900000005
5
0.055
0.023
0.100
0.029
000000306
4
0.027
0.020
0.050
0.015
900000006
5
0.045
0.000
0.093
0.035
000000007
4
0.062
0.030
0.090
0.032
900000007
5
0.081
0.019
0.143
0.051
000000008
4
0.135
0.050
0.290
0.106
900000008
5
0.127
0.066
0.292
0.093
000000009
4
0.125
0.030
0.230
0.083
900000009
5
0.120
0.042
0.180
0.060
000000310
4
0.062
0.040
0.080
0.021
900000310
5
0.129
0.030
0.290
0.101
A—151
-------
PARAMETFR: ARSENIC
METHflD: ATDkIIC ABSORPTION
UNITS: !CR0GRAMS/CUBIC METER
YEAR: 1973
\IUMBER
OF
SITF
SAMPLES
AVERAGE
MINIMUM
MAXIMUM
DEVIATION
000000001
13
0.8058
0.0700
3.3600
0.8898
900000)01
13
0.6338
0.0400
3.1440
0.81 .63
000000002
13
1.2794
0.1800
3.2400
0.9260
900000)02
13
0.9414
0.1340
2.4520
0.7147
000000003
12
0.1672
0.0260
0.5500
0.1385
900000003
12
0.0731
0.0180
0.3190
0.0822
000000004
12
0.1543
0.0300
0.3700
0.1025
900000304
12
0.1032
0.0270
0.2570
0.0738
000300)05
12
0.0640
0.0100
0.1700
0.0494
900000005
12
0.0365
0.0110
0.0910
0.0221
000000006
12
0.0411
0.0100
0.1000
0.0246
900000006
12
0.0231
0.0090
0.0750
0.0181
000000007
12
0.1731
0.0480
0.4200
0.1125
900000307
12
0.0978
0.0200
0.2710
0.0737
000000038
12
0.1964
0.0310
0.6200
0.1703
90000000P
12
0.3185
0.0500
2.2400
0.6235
000000009
11
0.1627
0.0300
0.2960
0.0979
900000009
11
0.1086
0.0130
0.2500
0.0379
000000310
11
0.1029
0.0561
0.1700
0.0415
900000010
11
0.0813
0.0220
0.1750
0.0b45
A—152
-------
PARAMETER: ARSENiC
METHOD: ATOMIC ABSORPTION
UNITS: MICROGRAMS/CUBIC METER
YEAR: 1974
UMBER OF STANDARD
SITE SAMPLES AVERAGE MINIMUM MAXIMUM DEVIATION
000000001 10 0.385 0.080 0.850 0.242
900O0D 31 10 0.238 0.051 0.447 0.172
000000002 10 1.033 0.180 2.040 0.693
900000002 10 0.551 0.113 1.136 0.372
000000003 11 0.107 0.015 0.300 0.090
900000003 11 0.060 0.017 0.119 0.039
000000304 11 0.130 0.015 0.380 0.106
900000004 11 0.070 0.008 0.141 0.050
000000005 11 0.058 0.006 0.110 0.033
900000 )05 11 0.036 0.011 0.058 0.014
000000006 11 0.051 0.006 0.091 0.029
900000006 11 0.030 0.003 0.060 0.018
000000007 11 0.133 0.022 0.300 0.091
900000007 11 0.076 0.019 0.144 0.041
000000008 11 0.134 0.041 0.310 0.076
900000008 11 0.076 0.037 0.164 0.036
oooooooo 11 0.133 0.030 0.360 0.108
900000009 11 0.068 0.008 0.156 0.054
000000010 11 0.129 0.037 0.293 0.084
900000010 11 0.071 0.020 0.195 0.059
A—153
-------
PARAMETER: ARSENIC
Ij TH1)O: ATOMIC AbSORPTION
UNITS: MICROGRAMS/CUBIC METER
YEAR: 1975
NUMBER
OF
SITF
SAMPLES
AVERAGE
MINIMUM
MAXIMUM
DEVIATION
000000301
3
0.360
0.069
0.586
0.265
900003031
5
0.286
0.150
0.435
0.113
000000002
3
0.162
0.105
0.214
0.055
900000302
5
0.362
0.070
0.835
0.357
000000303
3
0.104
0.084
0.115
0.017
900300303
5
0.074
0.044
0.099
0.024
000000304
3
0.114
0.090
0.139
0.025
900000004
5
0.053
0.008
0.072
0.028
000000005
3
0.258
0.027
0.706
0.388
900000305
5
0.030
0.017
0.045
0.010
000000006
3
0.046
0.029
0.076
0.026
900000006
5
0.033
0.015
0.059
0.017
000000007
3
0.158
0.071
0.211
0.076
900003007
5
0.104
0.051
0.169
0.052
000000308
3
0.161
0.149
0.177
0.015
900030008
5
0.077
0.011
0.156
0.053
000000009
3
0.059
0.019
0.087
0.036
900003009
5
0.037
0.014
0.087
0.030
000000010
900000310
3
5
0.018
0.033
0.004
0.005
0.207
0.095
0.112
0.036
A—154
-------
PARAMETER: CADMIUM
METHOD: ATOMIC ABSORPTION
UNITS: MICROGRAMS/CUBIC METER
YEAR: 1972
‘ LJMBER OF STANDARD
SITE SAMPLES AVERAGE MINIMUM MAXIMUM DEVIATION
oo0000 JO1 6 0.332 0.1.60 0.810 0.243
900000 01 7 0.302 0.147 0.816 0.234
000000302 6 0.544 0.150 0.974 0.301
900000002 6 0.522 0.160 0.932 0.293
000000303 7 0.024 0.000 0.050 0.017
900000003 6 0.045 0.008 0.079 0.027
000000004 7 0.024 0.006 0.070 0.023
900000004 6 0.032 0.014 0.050 0.017
000000335 7 0.006 0.000 0.030 0.011
900000005 6 0.035 0.017 0.060 0.014
000000006 6 0.003 0.000 0.010 0.005
900000006 6 0.022 0.011 0.040 0.012
000000007 7 0.016 0.000 0.050 0.018
900000307 6 0.036 0.012 0.070 0.024
000000008 7 0.031 0.000 0.070 0.024
900000008 6 0.051 0.009 0.081 0.028
000000009 7 0.031 0.300 0.110 0.037
900000009 6 0.053 0.020 0.1.20 0.036
oooooo:no 7 0.012 0.000 0.020 0.010
900000010 6 0.030 0.005 0.049 0.016
900300311 1 0.875 0.875 0.875
900000312 1 1.254 1.254 1.254
900000013 1 1.129 1.129 1.129
A—155
-------
PAPAMETER CADMiUM
lFTHOD: ATOMIC ABSORPTION
UNITS: MICROGRAMS/CUBIC METER
YEAR: 1973
NUMBER OF STAND kD
SITE SAMPLES AVERAGE MINIMUM MAXIMUM DEVIATION
000000301 13 0.367 0.030 1.355 0.345
900000001 13 0.397 0.047 1.636 0.420
000000002 13 0.453 0.080 1.030 0.295
900000002 13 0.440 0.105 0.833 0.27o
000000)03 12 0.034 0.009 0.110 0.328
900000003 12 0.060 0.045 0.113 0.019
003000004 12 0.036 0.017 0.086 0.021
900000304 12 0.059 0.032 0.101 0.020
000000005 12 0.017 0.307 0.040 0.010
900000)05 12 0.044 0.026 0.064 0.010
000000006 12 0.011 0.000 0.030 0.010
900000006 12 0.035 0.021 0.053 0.011
000000007 12 0.045 0.015 0.100 0.029
900000007 12 0.064 0.042 0.124 0.026
000000008 12 0.048 0.016 0.110 0.030
900000008 12 0.072 0.048 0.127 0.024
000000009 10 0.045 0.010 0.070 0.025
900000009 11 0.067 0.000 0.161 0.041
000000010 10 0.023 0.010 0.040 0.011
900000)13 11 0.049 0.033 0.069 0.010
A—i 56
-------
PARAMETER: CADMIUM
METHOD: ATOMIC ABSORPTION
UNITS: MICROGRAMS/CUBIC METER
YEAR: 1974
MUMBER OF
SAMPLES
SITE
ST ANDARD
AVERAGE MINIMUM MAXIMUM DEVIATION
000000001
10
0.242
0.030
0.469
0.158
900300J01
10
0.226
0.073
0.430
0.131
000000002
10
0.516
0.100
1.860
0.516
900000002
10
0.416
0.104
0.880
0.283
000000003
ii
0.033
0.006
0.100
0.030
900000003
1].
0.058
0.009
0.140
0.043
000000004
11
0.035
0.008
0.080
0.024
900000004
11
0.066
0.006
0.181
0.056
000000005
11
0.022
0.006
0.040
0.010
900000005
U
0.041
0.008
0.077
0.027
000000006
11
0.014
0.010
0.030
0.006
900000006
11
0.034
0.008
0.063
0.019
000000007
11
0.039
0.002
0.070
0.026
900000007
11
0.067
0.012
0.124
0.047
000000008
11
0.044
0.014
0.090
0.027
900000008
11.
0.062
0.012
0.114
0.039
oooooooo
11
0.034
0.010
0.080
0.026
900000009
11
0.056
0.014
0.133
0.040
000000)10
11
0.026
0.010
0.061
0.017
900000010
11
0.048
0.014
0.130
0.033
A—157
-------
PARAMETER: CADMIUM
METHOD: ATOMIC ABSORPTION
UNITS: MICROGRAMS/CUBIC METER
YEAR: 1975
1UMBER
OF
SITE
SAMPLES
AVERAGE
MINIMUM
MAXIMUM
DEVIATION
000000001
3
0.208
0.023
0.435
0.209
900003001
5
0.248
0.028
0.530
0.192
000000002
3
0.097
0.051
0.146
0.048
900000002
5
0.320
0.059
0.989
0.388
000000003
3
0.046
0.029
0.072
0.023
900000)03
5
0.046
0.023
0.078
0.025
000000 )04
3
0.045
0.030
0.053
0.013
900000004
5
0.041
0.034
0.059
0.010
000000005
3
0.017
0.014
0.020
0.003
900000005
5
0.022
0.008
0.041
0.015
000000)06
3
0.015
0.012
0.017
0.003
900000)36
5
0.023
0.012
0.036
0.011
000000007
3
0.060
0.017
0.087
0.037
900000007
5
0.063
0.025
0.097
0.027
000000008
3
0.079
0.031
0.131
0.050
900000008
5
0.060
0.005
0.123
0.044
000000009
3
0.030
0.007
0.069
0.034
900000009
5
0.030
0.006
0.065
0.024
000000)10
3
0.014
0.005
0.026
0.011
900000010
5
0.022
0.008
0.033
0.011
A—158
-------
PARAMETER: LEAD
METHOD: ATOMIC ABSORPTION
UNITS: MICROGRAMS/CUBIC 4ETFR
YEAR: 1972
!IUMBER OF STANDARD
SITE SAMPLES AVERAGE MINIMUM MAXIMUM DEVIAT!JN
000000001 6 10.278 4.680 18.360 5.853
900000301 7 11.113 4.160 22.990 8.234
000000002 6 9.175 3.350 14.150 4.545
900000002 6 10.398 2.860 16.620 5.385
000000303 7 1.921 0.770 3.800 1.047
900000003 6 2.043 0.946 3.788 1.050
000000004 7 2.043 0.950 3.240 0.820
900000004 6 2.208 1.402 3.452 0.767
000000005 7 0.910 0.390 1.690 0.514
900000005 6 0.994 0.629 1.540 0.393
000000006 6 0.695 0.290 1.200 0.340
900000006 6 0.761 0.449 1.200 0.300
000000007 7 1.233 0.610 2.310 0.782
900000007 6 1.341 0.776 2.359 0.672
000000008 7 1.916 0.670 4.180 1.157
900000008 6 2.021 0.900 3.970 1.092
000000009 7 1.647 0.640 3.550 1.081
900000009 6 1.680 0.789 3.180 1.006
000000010 7 0.901 0.360 1.800 0.547
900000010 6 1.068 0.600 2.029 0.558
900000011 1 7.149 7.149 7.149
900000012 1 2.188 2.188 2.188
900000013 1 19.330 19.330 19.330
A—i 59
-------
PARAMETER: LEAD
METHOD: ATOMIC ABSORPTION
UN4ITS: MICROGRAMS/CUBIC METER
YEAR: 1913
UMf3ER
OF
SITE
SAMPLES
AVERAGE
MINIMUM
MAXIMUM
DEVIATION
000000001
13
14.225
1.440
59.280
15.968
900000001
13
14.313
1.631
61.000
16.156
000000002
13
8.263
2.390
18.870
5.546
900000002
13
8.238
2.188
17.740
5.428
000000303
12
1.887
0.704
3.720
0.964
900000003
12
1.846
0.734
3.972
0.890
000000004
12
2.149
0.900
3.140
0.722
900000004
12
2.125
1.297
3.177
0.699
000000005
12
1.045
0.350
2.420
0.639
900000005
12
1.107
0.536
2.015
0.514
000000006
12
0.822
0.270
1.770
0.452
900000006
12
0.904
0.370
1.800
0.432
000000007
12
1.695
0.764
2.700
0.645
900000007
12
1.650
0.758
2.513
0.587
000000008
12
2.136
0.967
4.360
0.969
900000008
12
2.120
0.870
4.301
0.981
000000009
10
1.907
0.660
3.150
0.643
900000009
11
1.673
0.663
3.087
0.645
000000010
10
1.167
0.450
2.470
0.565
900000010
11
1.194
0.520
2.821
0.603
A—160
-------
PARAMETER: LEAD
METHOD: ATOMIC ABSORPTION
UNITS: MICROGRAMS/CUBIC METER
YEAR: 1974
NUMBER OF STANDARD
SITE SAMPLES AVERAGE MINIMUM MAXIMUM DEVIATION
000000001 10 7.973 1.210 19.650 5.942
900000331 10 7.398 1.418 16.810 5.358
000000002 10 6.452 1.560 12.200 3.936
900000002 10 7.159 1.680 15.840 4.430
000000003 11 1.608 0.590 3.310 0.919
900000003 11 1.445 0.669 2.977 0.783
00000000 , 11 2.121 0.760 3.550 1.011
900000004 11 1.996 0.881 3.419 0.972
000000305 11 0.957 0.360 2.060 0.496
900000005 11 0.872 0.372 1.636 0.406
000000006 11 0.745 0.340 1.530 0.363
900000006 11 0.678 0.338 1.345 0.311
000000007 11 1.595 0.680 2.380 0.597
900000007 11 1.500 0.734 2.261 0.605
000000308 11 1.696 0.900 2.970 0.718
900000008 11 1.541 0.725 2.633 0.646
000000009 11 1.372 0.610 2.630 0.640
900000009 11 1.309 0.595 2.874 0.704
000000010 11 0.831 0.110 1.280 0.368
900000310 11 0.784 0.459 1.173 0.250
A—161
-------
PARAMETER: LEAD
METHOD: ATOMIC ABSURPTION
UNITS: MICROGRAMS/CUBIC METER
‘(EAR: 1975
1UMBER
OF
SITE
SAMPLES
AVERAGE
MINIMUM
MAXIMUM
DEVIATION
000000001
3
3.863
1.110
5.720
2.432
3.448
900000301
5
4.959
1.030
2.430
0.378
000000002
3
2.083
1.680
9.877
3.490
900000002
5
3.875
1.564
o.3 9
000000003
3
1.823
1.370
0.366
900000333
5
1.403
1.042
1.193
2.440
0.298
000000004
3
2.110
1.860
0.291
900000004
5
1.710
1.346
2.020
0.171
000000305
3
1.010
0.850
1.030
0.198
900000305
5
0.798
0.511
0.166
000000006
3
0.987
0.810
0.947
0.193
900000336
5
0.704
0.515
0.581
000000007
3
1.753
1.090
2.433
0.s62
900000007
5
1.668
1.011
0.530
000000008
3
2.250
1.630
2.780
0.394
900000008
5
1.632
1.309
2.215
0.120
000000009
3
1.000
0.880
1.120
0.076
900000009
5
0.974
0.856
000000010
3
0.593
0.560
0.640
0.730
0.093
900000010
5
0.584
0.492
A—162
-------
PARAMETER: ZINC
METHOD: ATOMIC ABSORPTION
UNITS: MICROGRAMS/CUBIC METER
YEAR: 1972
SITE
NUMBER
OF
STANDARD
SAMPLES
AVERAGE
MINIMUM
MAXIMUM
DEVIATION
000000001
6
5.232
2.480
10.350
3.071
900000301
7
4.687
2.580
9.237
2.652
000000002
6
7.848
3.180
13.600
3.854
900000002
6
8.656
2.570
15.280
4.879
000000003
7
0.791
0.250
1.710
0.545
900000003
6
0.692
0.163
1.654
0.598
000000004
7
0.632
0.260
1.270
0.379
900000304
6
0.539
0.308
0.922
0.251
000000305
7
0.360
0.190
0.800
0.210
900000005
6
0.331
0.186
0.570
0.153
000000006
6
0.153
0.030
0.370
0.127
900000336
0.195
0.091
0.420
0.126
000000007
7
0.566
0.180
1.510
0.485
900000007
6
0.974
0.222
2.770
0.951
000000008
7
0.970
0.290
2.480
0.768
900300008
6
0.885
0.229
2.171
0.705
000000009
7
0.854
0.210
2.280
0.712
900000009
6
0.982
0.310
2.660
0.856
000000010
7
0.539
0.130
0.930
0.297
900000010
6
0.561
0.302
0.870
0.198
900300311
1
5.310
5.310
5.310
900000012
1
81.390
81.390
81.390
900000013
1
7.390
7.390
7.390
A—163
-------
PARAMETER: ZrNC
METHOO: ATOMIC ABSORPTION
UNITS: MICROGRAMS/CUBIC METER
YEAR: 1973
1iJMBER
OF
SITE
SAMPLES
AVERAGE
MINIMUM
MAXIMUM
DEVIATIUN
000000001
13
6.224
0.620
23.340
6.049
6.54.8
900000331
13
6.188
0.482
25.380
4.040
000000002
13
6.617
1.790
12.450
4.554
900000002
13
6.608
1.633
000000303
12
0.770
0.080
2.090
0.430
900000033
12
0.708
0.212
0.321
000000304
12
0.671
0.239
1.130
900000304
12
0.727
0.308
1.099
000000005
12
0.378
0.040
0.800
0.2.86
900000005
12
0.379
0.080
1.022
0.360
0.258
0.103
000000006
12
0.196
0.030
0.103
900000006
12
0.238
0.070
0.497
000000007
12
0.868
0.222
0.464
900000007
12
0.890
0.283
0.555
000000008
12
0.964
0.182
1.980
900000308
12
0.997
0.266
2.113
0.602
000000309
10
0.765
0.180
1.160
0.342
0.369
900000009
11
0.698
0.052
000000010
10
0.505
0.340
0.731
900300310
11
0.506
0.314
A—164
-------
PARAMETER: ZINC
METHOD: ATOMIC ABSORPTION
UNITS: MICROGRAMS/CUBIC METER
YEAR: 1974
‘ UMBER
OF
STANDARD
SITE
SAMPLES
AVERAGE
MINIMUM
MAXIMUM
DEVIATION
000000001
1.0
3.382
0.500
7.110
2.220
900000001
10
3.094
0.683
5.590
1.964
000000002
10
4.905
0.730
9.630
2.894
900000 32
10
5.016
0.841
13.170
3.886
000000003
11
0.599
0.120
1.450
0.506
900000003
11.
0.535
0.122
1.461
0.421
000000004
11
0.630
0.090
1.190
0.377
900000004
11
0.680
0.088
1.548
0.473
000000005
11
0.310
0.090
0.680
0.101
900000005
11
0.305
0.104
0.540
0.139
000000006
11
0.250
0.060
0.570
0.135
900000006
11
0.237
0.096
0.461.
0.117
000000007
1].
0.703
0.140
1.390
0.436
900000007
11
0.734
0.183
1.380
0.456
000000008
11
0.700
0.270
1.450
0.433
900000008
11
0.635
0.225
1.114
0.354
000000009
11
0.641
0.120
1.840
0.535
900000009
11
0.608
0.115
1.806
0.547
000000010
11
0.476
0.160
1.080
0.299
900000010
11
0.410
0.150
0.878
0.242
A—165
-------
PARAMETER: ZINC
METHOI): ATDPIIC ABSORPTION
UNITS: MICROGRAMS/CUBIC METER
YEAR: 1975
LJMBER
flF
SITE
SAMPLES
AVERAGE
MINIMUM
MAXIMUM
DEVIATION
000000301
3
2.760
0.510
4.570
2.0o5
900000001
5
2.919
0.442
5.216
1.832
000000002
3
1.387
0.710
2.180
0.742
900000002
5
3.381
1.136
9.014
3.331
000000003
3
0.907
0.510
1.290
0.390
900000033
5
0.153
0.441
1.091
0.296
000000004
3
1.023
0.500
1.870
0.740
900000004
5
0.731
0.390
1.384
0.399
000000005
3
0.247
0.240
0.260
0.012
900000005
5
0.228
0.088
0.357
0.098
000000006
3
C.350
0.090
0.630
0.271
900000006
5
0.215
0.103
0.418
0.128
000000007
3
1.207
0.390
2.110
0.863
900000007
5
0.918
0.319
1.552
0.502
000000008
3
1.097
0.720
1.690
0.520
900000008
5
0.798
0.160
1.450
0.470
000000009
3
0.203
0.170
0.260
0.049
900000009
5
0.347
0.153
0.572
0.170
000000010
3
0.143
0.090
0.190
0.050
A—16 6
-------
EL PASO CITY-COUNTY HEALTH DEPARThENT
SOIL AND DUST DATA
A—167
-------
pA METF.R: 5 ENIC
MET,-i]’): ATflM1C APSflRPTI11 J
uNITS: PARTS PE MILLITh
YEAR: ]. 72
U i [ EP OF STt N)A L
SITE SAMPLES AVERAGE MINIMUM MAXIMUM D V1AT1flN
1AL M0 2 10 10 10 0
1APY 2 15 10 20 7
1BO 4IE 3 47 10 123
ICOR ON4 00 2 10 10 10 c
1CkIST RFY 5 379 20 768 320
1ELPASDHIG 3 18 5 40
UIART 2 10 10 10 0
IHULYF&M IL 4 53 10 90 41
1JESUS&MAR 4 47 5 18
] .LAMAP 3 63 10 140 68
1 LINCOL 2 33 25 40 11
] .MESITâ 4 93 10 300 139
1M OREHEA [ ) 2 25 10 40 2].
IPUTNAM 2 10 1.0 10 0
IROBERTS 2 25 10 40 21.
1R00SF ELT 3 57 30 100 38
1SACPE OHEA 3 36 33 47 10
lSA t ’IJACINT 3 33 10 80 40
1STCLE AENT 4 45 1.0 120 52
1STlGN 1iJ 4 23 10 40
lSTMTC 1AEL 3 25 10 40 1.5
1STPAflTC1< 4 58 15 162 70
1UTEP 4 45 10 120 52
1VILAS 4 100 10 300 137
lwESrERN 1! 3 35 10 80 39
1WHITE 2 13 10 10 0
1I IOOMADEL 3 38 10 80
1113RIT3PE 3 183 64 300 118
1 I19ACARLD 2 145 70 220 1.06
1 I2cThILLIE 1 60 60 60
11218 Dfl 4 41 10 120 53
11409MU 4DY 4 85 45 120 37
1148C0URH 2 40 40 40 0
11730WP& IS 2 75 10 140 92
11838W 6JS 3 25 10 40 15
I1B44WPA IS 2 53 25 80 39
12O4W ILLIE 2 152 64 240 124
1216ACA LD 1. 80 80 80
12473VF 5 141 40 300 97
12510STV .4 2 26 10 42 23
12ult PAIS. 5 152 4 320 98
13210P 1E)M 2 0 20 40 1.4
A—168
-------
PARAMETER: ARSENIC
METHOD: ATOMIC ABSORPTION
UNITS: PARTS PER MILLION
YEAR: 1973
‘JUM 3ER OF STANOAPO
SITE SAMPLES AVERAGE MINIMUM MAXIMUM DEVIATION
1ALAMO 12 7 3 20 5
140Y 12 7 2 20 5
1BflWIE 12 7 2 30 8
1CURONADD 12 6 2 10 3
1CRISTJ EY 12 316 130 630 146
1EIPASJ-IIG 12 18 3 40 12
1HA T 12 9 2 25 7
1HOLYFAMIL 12 10 3 25 8
1JESUS MAR 12 28 3 55 to
1KERNF1RFS 1 3 35 35
1LAMAR 12 7 3 15 4
1LINC0L 1 12 6 2 10 3
LMESITA 12 7 3 10 3
IMOREHEAD 12 6 2 10 3
1PUTNAM 12 6 2 10 3
1RDBERTS 12 6 2 10 3
1RD JSEVELT 12 11 3 25 7
1SACREDHEA 12 33 3 230 63
1SANJA INT 12 9 2 26 7
1STCLE 1ENT 12 30 3 87
ISTIGNATIO 12 17 2 45 16
ISTMICHAEL 12 5 2 10 3
1STPATRICK 12 26 3 85 25
LUTEP 12 14 2 28 9
IVILAS 11 9 3 20 5
1WESTE NHI 11 6 3 10 2
1WHITE 11 7 3 15 4
, I1100MADEL 2 8 5 10 4
11218 &NDO 12 14 3 45 is
t1409MU DY 12 16 2 50 18
I148C OURCH 12 7 3 13 3
L I73 OWPAIS 12 5 2 10 2
11838WP4 1S 12 7 2 20 5
11844WP IS 12 10 2 35 10
12473VF 4 12 125 5 400 105
L251 OSTVRA 12 10 3 30
12616P&ISA 12 140 30 280 63
I3O1ROBINS 9 16 3 35 10
I32 I OPIEDM 12 7 3 17 4
A—169
-------
PARAMCETER: ARSENIC
METHOD: ATOMIC A So pTIr)N
UNITS: PARTS PEP MILLION
YLAR: 1974
‘4UMBE OF STAN)A o
SITE SAMPLES AVERAGE MINIMUM MAXIMUM DEVIATIP\J
IALAMO 12 8 2 14 3
LADY 12 11 5 18
1B WIE 12 9 5 16 3
IBUENAIIST 12 83 4 70 ico
1CO O’ DJ 12 4 1 7 2
1CI IST ) FY 12 192 6 420 142
1ELPASJHIG 12 27 13 44 10
1HA T 12 9 3 20
1HOLYF M1L 12 26 12 44 1].
1JESUS&IA 12 38 11 78 20
1LAM R 12 7 4 11 3
1LINCOL’J 12 3 1 5 1
1MFSITA 12 21 9 10 31
1MUREHEAr 12 4 1 8 2
IPUTNAM 12 4 1 7 2
1RIThEPTS 12 6 1 31 8
1ROJSEVELT 12 12 4 13 5
1SACPED-IEA 12 21 12 30 6
1SANJACINT 12 14 5 21 5
1SFCLEME NT 12 13 5 27
1STIGN T1 8 22 18 30 4
1STMIC- 4EL 7 3 1 5 1
1STPATUCK 12 26 12 40
1UTEP 12 27 16 39 9
1VILAS 12 16 8 29 6
1WESTERNHI 12 6 1 25
IWHITF 12 12 5 20 4
11218R NrJ 12 29 7 54 15
114O9MLJNDY 12 26 12 44 11
1 I73UWPAIS 12 2J 11 85 21
I183BWPAIS 12 24 6 85 22
11844 P4IS 12 31 17 100 23
12473VFw 11 229 24 702 202
1251 OSTVRA 12 18 4 55 13
12o16PAISA 12 199 24 380 124
13O IRO3INS 12 42 17 165 40
A—i 70
-------
PARAMETER: ARSENIC
METHOD: ATOMIC ABSORPTION
UNITS: PARTS PER MILLION
YEAR: 1975
1UMBER OF STANDARD
SITE SAMPLES AVERAGE MINIMUM MAXIMUM DEVIATION
1ALAMO 3 12 10 15 3
1AOY 3 13 8 18 5
1BOWIE 3 12 8 19 6
1BUENAVIST 3 22 10 45 20
lcoRoNAr)O 3 5 15 6
1CRISTD EY 3 553 357 651 169
IELPASOHIG 3 64 36 120 48
1HART 3 7 5 9 2
1HDLYF&MIL 3 31 25 35 6
1JESUS MAR 3 37 11 51 22
1LAMAR 3 46 11 110 55
1LINCOL 3 8 5 13 5
IMESITA 3 1? 13 20 4
1MOREHE D 3 5 5 6 1
1PUTNAM 3 17 5 40 20
1ROBERTS 3 5 4 5 1
1ROOSEVELT 2 9 5 13 6
1SACREDHEA 3 29 21 35 7
1SAMJA INT 3 18 17 18 1
1STCLEMENT 3 13 12 14 1
1STPAT ICK 3 26 18 33 8
1UTEP 3 23 4 32 16
1VILAS 3 25 12 46 19
1WESTE NHI 3 34 5 92 50
1WHITE 3 14 8 18 6
11218R4N0 0 2 47 39 54 11
11409MU’IDY 3 29 19 44 13
1173 OWPAIS 3 14 7 18 6
11838w AIS 3 14 5 19 8
I1844WPAIS 3 21 15 26 6
l2473VF d 3 434 286 651 192
12510S1 RA 3 20 18 23 3
12b16PAISA 3 336 200 455 128
13O1ROBINS 3 13 9 18 5
A—ill
-------
PARAMETER: APSE: IC
METHOP: AT1 I( ABS JRPTJ0N
UNITS: PARTS PER MILLION
YEAR: 1972
NUM8EP OF STANDA 1
SITE SAUPLES AVERAGE MINIMUM MAXIMUM UFVIATIfl J
1329VISTAH 3 31 17 50 17
I34O7ZAPAL 2 13 10 1J 0
17O1TURN [ Y 3 27 10 60
1706S 1ILLS 3 37 10 80 38
17 I OMC(FLL 1 35 35 35
171 07T-ISTR 4 49 10 132
1805S( SA 1 10 10 10
1B25MUNDy 2 45 10 80 4q
2ALAMJ 3 14 12 15 2
2401 3 18 14 21 4
2BO UE 3 14 11 18 4
2CORO NA: 3 6 4 8 2
2CkISr)4EY 3 495 306 700 197
2ELPASJ -U , 3 13 9 18 5
2HART 3 16 14 18 2
2HOLYFAMJL 3 38 27 51 12
2JFSUSCMAR 3 63 52 78 14
21AIAR 3 7 5 8 2
2LINC0L 3 6 6 6 0
2MES ITA 3 14 12 16 2
2MORFHEAD 3 4 3 6 2
2PUTNAM 3 6 5 7 1
2FOBERrS 3 5 4 5 1
2R0)SFVELT 3 26 26 27 1
2SA EDHE4 3 36 34 38 2
2SANJACINT 3 16 13 18 3
2ST LE1E’JT 3 59 45 67 12
2STIGN4TJ O 3 43 38 50 6
2STMIIAEL 3 5 4 7 2
2STDAT ICK 3 62 54 70 8
2(JTEP 3 27 26 29 2
2V!L AS 3 26 22 29 4
2WESTFRNHI 3 4 3 6 2
2r HITE 3 22 20 26 3
2 I1 0 0MAJEL 3 23 15 36 12
2 I13PITJrF 1 232 232 232
2119 AC4RLfl 1 92 92 92
2120 ILLIF 1 82 82 32
2 l2 l8PtNCu 3 41 37 46
21409MU N Y 3 66 58 75 9
2143C’)JRCH 3 22 21 22 1
21730wP4!S 3 20 17 22 3
21d38 D4IS 3 22 18 24 3
A—172
-------
PARAMETER: ARSENIC
METHOD: ATOMIC ABSORPTION.
UNITS: PARTS PER MILLION
YEAR: 1973
NUMBER OF STA ID RD
S1T SAMPLES AVERAGE MINIMUM MAXIMUM DEVIATION
1329VISTAI-I 12 6 2 17 4
l34O7ZAPA 12 5 2 10 2
1701TU 4Ey 1 5 5 5
1706S-IILLS 11 7 3 13 3
170BMC ELL 9 5 2 10 2
17107T-ISTP. 12 5 2 lo 3
1825MU’1)Y 12 7 3 10 3
2AL AMO 12 16 2 34 9
2AOY 12 21 13 35 8
2BO IE 12 23 5 80 22
2CORONAD0 12 6 2 10 2
2CRISTD Ey 11 370 162 670 162
2ELPASDHIG 12 28 5 15
2HART 12 17 1 34 10
2HDLYFAMIL 12 41 22 60 10
2JESUS MAR 12 58 37 100 18
2KERNFIRES 1 73 73 73
2LAMAR 12 14 7 29 7
2LINCOL’1 12 6 3 11 2
2MESITA 12 18 10 55 12
2MOREHEAD 12 5 1 10 2
2PUTNAM 12 9 2 53 14
2ROBERTS 12 5 1 12 3
2RO OSEVEIT 12 32 14 88 19
2SACREDHEA 12 59 26 336 87
2SANJACINT 11 22 10 36 a
2STCLEMENT 12 45 18 114 28
•2STIGNATI O 12 48 28 72 13
2STlIC lAEt. 12 17 0 79
2STPATRICK 12 49 15 74 16
2UTEP 12 38 14 82 18
2VILAS 11 34 25 47 9
2WESTERNHI 11 6 3 9 2
2WHITE 11 16 8 23 5
21100MADEI. 2 14 13 14 1
21218R NDO 12 31 5 55 17
214O9MUNDY 12 88 34 384 94
2L4 BCOJRH 12 25 18 37 6
2173OWPATS 12 23 15 38 7
21838WPA 1S 12 26 13 37 6
A—173
-------
PAPANETE .: ARSENIC
METHOD: ATOMIC ABSORPTION
UNITS: PARTS PER. MILLION
YEAR: 1974
\JU BER OF STANDARD
SITE SAMPLES AVE-PAGE MINIMUM MAXIMUM OEVIAT!O’J
1329VJSTAH 11 19 6 65 is
13407Z&P4L 11 10 4 j0 b
17OBMCKELL 12 25 1 85 10
171O7TISTR 12 7 3 14 4
1825MU\I)Y 10 12 1 21 7
2ALAMO 12 12 8 20 3
2AOY 12 17 6 27 6
2BOWIE 12 14 9 27 5
2B(JENAVIST 12 77 8 640 176
2CU ONA)LJ 12 4 2 7 1
2CRIST] EY 12 339 1 845 236
2ELPASDHIG 12 39 29 52 8
2HMT 12 14 5 24 7
2HULYFAMIL 12 43 23 76 14
2JESUS&MAR 12 50 2 77 19
2LAMA 12 9 6 13 2
2LINCOL 12 3 2 5
2MFS!T 12 16 11 22 4
2MOkEHEAI) 12 4 2 7 2
2PUTNAM 12 5 3 9 2
2ROBERTS 12 3 2 5 1
2 OUSEVELT 12 18 11 23 5
2SACRFJHEA 12 31 22 38 5
2SANJAC INT 12 23 17 29 4
2ST LElEMT 12 18 7 36 10
2STIGNATIO 5 40 29 4o 6
2STMIC-4AEL 7 4 2 6 1
2ST AT ICK 12 39 22 54 11
2UTEP 12 45 25 83 16
2VILAS 12 23 13 43 9
2w srEsNHr 12 5 2 1 2
2WHITE 12 17 12 22 3
212laR \lDU 12 39 1 81 24
214O9MU DY 12 40 24 68 15
21730WP8IS 12 17 12 22 4
21838 .4DAIS 12 36 14 218 57
A—174
-------
PARAMETER: ARSENIC
METHOD: ATOMIC ABSORPTION
UNITS: PARTS PER MILLION
YEAR: 1975
NUM8ER OF STANDARD
SITE SAMPLES AVERAGE MINIMUM MAXIMUM DEVIATION
132 V1STAH 1 10 10 10
17ORMC ’(ELL 3 16 10 20 6
17LO7THSTP 3 10 5 18 7
IB25MUNDY 1 23 23 23
2ALAMD 3 14 4 19 8
2AOY 3 16 11 22 6
2BOWIE 3 12 6 21 8
2BUENAVIST 3 29 6 68 36
2CORDMA)fl 2 7 6 7 1
2CRIST)REY 3 910 695 1250 298
2ELPASOHIG 3 66 33 120 47
21 -IART 3 6 4 10 3
2HOLYFAMIL 3 37 31 45 7
2JESUS MAR 3 39 9 54 26
2LAMA 3 9 2 14 6
2LINCOLN 2 3 2 4 1
2MFSITA 3 14 12 17 3
2MOREHEAD 2 5 4 5 1
2PUTNAM 2 4 3 5 1
2ROBERTS 2 4 3 5 1
2RODSEVELT 1 20 20 20.
2SAREDFIEA 3 29 20 34 8
2SANJACIMT 3 23 22 24 1
2STCLEIENT 3 11 6 14 4
2STPATUCK 3 25 12 32 11
2UTEP 2 41 35 46 8
2VILAS 3 35 12 76 36
2WESIERNHI 2 5 4 6 1.
2WHITE 3 17 15 20 3
2121 8R&NDO 2 67 63 70 5
2L4 O9MUNDY 3 36 24 54 16
21730WPA 1S 3 14 2 24 11
21838 PAIS 3 15 4 24 10
A—li 5
-------
p i::T. ): PSENIC.
M : THJ : t.T 1 i C S1P PT I IN
uNITS: P PTS 1’ ULtTfl
YEAR: 1972
jj - ’: Jt-
SI T S4 PL:.S V’ .AC 1 INI 1u XI ‘401 r V I TI i l
3 32
2241 vF . 143 29 350 1 u
25i0ST A 21 5 27 5
22& 1b AISi’ 1 .I ?.0 210 57
2321UPI r 23 19 26 5
2 29VIsrt 3 22 IR 2 4
23407LAP L 3 11 10 12 1
4 701Tu ji Y 19 11 26 9
27 OSSHELIS 3 20 1’? 21 1
271) K’ [ L 1 44 44 44
27107T-4ST 3 9 5 11
2RU5SK’sN 1 49
2 2 uJ ’ jPV 3 25 21 .0 5
3 (4 j 3 394 RU 73 0t.
3APY 2 3 25 0 13
3 U ! 2 139 133
3C [ rNarn 2 231 220 2 ’ 1 15
3CI I TJ Ey 5 319 50 572 215
3ELP SflH1(; 4 203 2 ’ ) 360 146
3r T 2 5 6’t 125
3 l3LY1 1IL 1 153 150 153
3JES’JS M 18 125 220
3LA . ‘ 3i 7 25 575 4 4
31IN:rJL J 1 1 5 125 125
3 1ESITA 5 334 125 565 195
1 5 3 So
3P(JT A’ 4 2 133 125 140 11
2 1 TS 1 50 50 50
3fl< [ .T EV LT 4 115 c5 173
3S CrFD1Fr 129 25 2 50
3S , J INT 1 125 125 125
3STCL NT 102 6
3ST’ IIC-44FL 1 25 25
3STP T ICK 4 171 ‘.0 15
3tJT 4 153 120 230
3VJL S ill 40
3W5ST kNHI I 36•
3 .hITE .. 123 120 1:5 4
A—i 76
-------
PARAMETER: ARSENIC
MFTHOD: ATOMIC A8SORPTION
UNITS: PARTS PER MILLION
YEAR: 1973
NUMBER OF
SITE SAMPLES AVERAGE MINIMUM MAXIMU 1 DEVIATION
21844WP4 1S 12 35 19 57 9
22473VF , 11 266 46 990 247
225LOSTVRA 12 23 12 31 8
22Ô16PA ISA 11 243 25 578 152
2301RO INS 9 57 40 100 19
232 IOPIEDM 12 17 6 28 9
2329VISTAH 12 21 7 33 7
23407Z PAL 12 15 6 36 9
27O1TU 1EY 1 20 20 20
27 O6SHILLS 11 20 11 39 7
270 MC(ELL 9 21 10 34 7
27107T 14STR 12 13 6 32 7
2825MU 1)Y 12 21 2 48 15
3ALAM O 12 46 10 150 41
340Y 11 65 10 306 88
3BOWIE 12 36 10 75 19
3C0R( NADfl 11 33 14 75 18
3CRISTJ Ev 11 851 25 1680 572
3ELPASDHIG 12 89 25 300 91
3HART 12 31 10 75 18
3t10LYFA ljL 12 56 10 140 42
3JESUS&MAR 12 102 25 275 99
3KEPNFIRES 1 50 50 50
3L ’IAR 12 54 15 140 42
3LINCOL 12 34 10 112 27
3MESIT 12 99 25 360 100
3MOREHEAr 12 26 10 50 12
3PUTNA’1 12 26 10 50 12
3ROBERTS 12 24 10 50 10
3RO OSEVELT 12 55 10 180 53
3SACRE)NEA 12 88 10 301 88
3SANJACINT 11 91 10 224 81
3STLEMENT 10 51 10 138 46
3STIGN ATIQ 12 44 10 127 36
3STMIC 1AEL 12 98 13 275 89
3STPAfl!CK 11 99 10 200 74
3UTEP 12 123 10 338 106
3VILAS 10 119 10 308 108
3WESTER IHI 10 35 10 130 34
3WHITE 11 49 10 114 40
A-li 7
-------
P . AMETER: ARSENIC
METHOD: ATOMIC ABSORPTION
UNITS: PARTS PER MILLION
YEA : 1974
JMBE OF STANJARO
SITE SAMPLES AVERAGE MINIMUM MAXIMUM 05V1811U\J
21844 PAIS 12 34 22 106 23
22473VFW 11 254 1 750 228
225 losrvRA 12 28 7 55 14
22b16PAIS 12 214 1 396 127
2 01PJ 3T’ S 12 18 59 12
2329V!STAH 11 28 9 53 14
23407L P8L 11 12 7 24 4
2708 C<.E1L 12 26 20 36 6
271o7T iS1R 12 10 3 16 4
2825MU JDY 10 18 3 47 13
3AIAMO 12 46 20 90 20
340Y 12 85 30 145 39
3BOWIE 12 58 25 130 23
3BUENAVIST 12 5 20 113 29
3CORON AJO 12 39 12 80 21
3CPISTOREY 11 1407 280 2970 1011
3ELPASJHIG 12 139 87 200 35
3HA T 11 59 25 125 28
3HOLYFAMIL 11. 9 25 177 47
3JESUS&MAR 11. 158 80 284 65
3LAMAR 12 96 40 150 37
31INC0L 12 36 5 104 35
3MESITA 1 108 40 175 41
3Mf1p EI-4EAO 12 16 5 25 6
3PUT’JAM 12 20 10 30 7
3ROBERTS 12 15 5 25 7
3RUJSEVELT 11 94 42 170 44
3SACPEDrIFA 12 139 80 226 50
3SANJACINT 9 77 15 163 47
3ST LEMENT 12 116 13 272 73
3STLGN4T IO 7 47 30 65 15
3STMIC-$AFL 6 58 25 84 24
3STP&TUCK 12 155 65 240
3UTEP 10 142 90 210 42
3VILAS 12 148 65 232 55
3w srERNHI 11 27 10 92 23
3WHITE 11 82 25 327 84
A—178
-------
PARAMETER: ARSENIC
METHOD: ATOMIC ABSORPTION
UNITS: PARTS PER MILLION
YEAR: 1975
NUMBER OF STANDARD
SITE SAMPLES AVERAGE MINIMUM MAXIMUM DEVIATION
21844WP4 1S 3 25 22 31 5
22473VFw 3 485 275 695 210
2251OSTVPA 3 16 11 19 5
22616P4 1S4 3 385 264 500 118
2301RcBINS 3 16 10 22 6
2329VISTAH 1 7 7 7
27O8MCKELL 3 15 8 26 10
271O7THSTR 3 8 1 12 6
2825MU DY 1 28 28 28
3ALAMO 3 52 15 90 38
3AOY 3 82 30 150 62
3BOWIE 3 68 15 98 46
3BUENAVIST 3 57 50 60 6
3CURO ADO 3 50 7 120 61
3CRISTHEY 3 1716 819 2758 978
3ELPASOHIG 3 288 49 470 216
3HART 3 103 15 260 136
3 4DLYFAMIL 3 77 15 150 68
3JESUS MAR 3 320 23 562 274
3LAMAR 3 85 6 235 130
3IINCOLN 3 28 5 63 3].
3MESITA 3 138 90 198 55
3MDREHEAD 3 15 5 25 10
3PUTNAM 3 12 5 25 12
3R DBERTS 3 15 5 25 10
3ROOSEVELT 2 164 83 245 115
3SARED-$EA 3 218 23 330 169
3SANJACINT 2 62 15 108 66
3STLEMEMT 3 129 23 258 119
3STPATUCK 3 248 18 427 209
3UTEP 3 322 46 695 335
3VILAS 3 276 55 549 251
3 ESTERNHI 3 25 5 50 23
3WHITE 3 59 39 70 18
A— 179
-------
ARS:- IC
METH L) T0’1IC . S PPTION
J ITS: PTS E ’ ILLiJ0
YE .k: 972
SITU SAMPLES Avr AGF MI IMU M X!MLl 1 nrvJAfl
31100 1&UEL 2 226 204 243 31
3113P110PC 1851 1650 193’ 177
3119AC RL1 3 11 +2 97 1220 154
3l J 4I LLIF 3 122 200 1046 93
31216k ’JL’3 5 20. 50 560 204
314 09IU \JPY 2 52 50 53 2
314dC2LJR .H 3 87 50 160
1733. PAIS 3 15 141 196 32
3183RWPATS 4 180 39 368 137
31844 PA!S 2 126 102 143 33
3204 ILLIE 2 624 548 700 107
3216A04R10 2 473 120 823
32473 F 5 1211 293 1750 723
2510ST P 183 25
32616P ISA 5 444 193 11
332 V!STAH 3 50 .33 17
334077 PAL 1 146 142 146
351 OSTRAI 1 88 88 58
37 O1TURNLY 1 161 161 161
37OSS8 ILLS 2 58 53 65 11
371 OMCKELL 3 411 275 600
3T1 O7THSTR 4 69 20 150 55
38 OSSKANSA 1 83 00 30
3825MUN 3Y 206 110 275 105
4ALAM O 3 93 88 110
4 fl 3 92 56 120 33
4BC I 3 111 70 150 40
4COR(HAUO 3 172 140 225 46
tCR1ST0 FY 3 407 100 580 266
4ELPASJ-U3 3 240 160 320 80
4H PT 3 59 32 88 23
4H1LYF M1L 3 130 4 190 77
4JESUSC AP 3 254 240 262 12
4L, MAR 1 142 72 263 105
4LINC0L’ 3 34 26 40 7
4 ESIT 3 256 59 380 173
0PEHEA0. 3 27 12 50 20
4PUTNAM 3 40 20 63 20
4 CBE TS 3 55 20 100 41
A—180
-------
PARAMETER: ARSENIC
METHOD: ATOMIC ABSORPTION
UNITS: PARTS PER MILLION
YEAR: 1973
NUMBER OF STAND4Rt
SITE SAMPLES AVERAGE MINIMUM MAXIMUM DEVIATION
311 00M&DEL 2 138 123 152 21
31218R& 4D3 10 104 14 175 62
31409MU 1DY 12 37 10 93 23
3148COJRCH 12 28 3 50 15
31730WP4 1S 11 69 10 230 72
31838WPA 1S 12 74 13 210 71
31844WP4 1S 13. 34 17 60 14
32473VFW 12 1425 10 2750 779
325L OSTVRA 1 .]. 147 25 425 128
32616P4 1SA 12 226 25 550 3.73
33O IROBINS 8 122 25 374 114
33210P 1E 0M 6 100 46 300 100
3329V 1STA$ 11 35 10 86 22
33407Z#PAL 12 64 13 174 54
37O6SHILLS 11 37 10 99 27
3708M(ELL 9 63 12 150 52
371O7THSTR 11 91 14 248 90
3825MU DY 11 115 25 341 104
4ALAMD 12 83 32 172 48
4AOY 12 136 49 220 48
4BCWIE 12 3.07 52 207 46
4COR ONADO 12 121 20 360 90
4CR! ST3REY 11 2357 260 4350 982
4ELPAS OHIG 12 223 40 290 65
4HART 12 73 36 102 22
4HOLYF&MIL 12 173 80 366 89
4JESUS MAR 12 305 112 530 122
4KERNFIRES 1 212 212 212
4LA’4AR 12 132 24 190 52
4LINCOL ’ 12 56 10 374 101
4MESITA 12 245 32 436 3.00
4MOREHEAD 11 43 8 268 75
4PUTNAM 12 36 10 145 37
4ROBERTS 11 16 4 52 16
-------
P ’ 4: 1ET k: AR FNIC
T flfl: /.\T11IA IC k S1 PT 1 r
U 4ITS: PAPTS PEP A1LtIl
YEAR: 1q74
NUM3E fl-
SITE sA’ PL:s V RAGE INIMU ‘AXT U V ‘ !
3121P NDC1 7 73 20 1u 21
3140q u’,l)Y 12 64 15 157 42
31730 PAIS 8 64 25 120
31b39 P81S 11 J0() 4L
31b44 PAIS 9 64 24 131
32473VF 12 1348 214 3553
3251DSTV t 10 169 RU 57
32b16PAIS 12 591 145 1639
3301Rfl31 4S 9 142 70 i1 41
3329V1S1AH 10 50 19 128 37
33407 1APAL 7 38 15
37 08MC
-------
PARAMETER: ARSENIC
METHOD; ATOMIC AbSORPTION
UNITS: PARTS PER MILLION
YEAR: 1975
4UM ER OF STANOART)
SITE SAMPLES AVERAGE MINIMUM LXI U9 PEV ATIfl 4
31218RAN0U 1 151 1 1 151
31409MU’JDY 3 7]. 58 85 14
31730WPA 1S 2 49 28 69 2Q
31838 P IS 2 70 66 73 5
31844 P&IS 2 61 25 97 51
32473VF 3 1469 o33 2730 1111
3251OSTVRA 3 113 16 175 85
32616PA 1S4 3 716 556 991 239
33O1k [ J3I S 2 163 130 195 46
3329VISTA -1 1 20 20 20
37OSMZKELL 3 82 18 120 56
37 IO7TNSTR 2 95 15 175 113
3825MUNDY 1 49 49
4ALAMO 3 41 8 74
4AOY 3 89 10 200 99
48 0W 1E 2 107 75 133 45
4BUENAVIST 3 40 27 50 12
4CORONAOO 2 55 8 101 66
4CRIST3 EY 3 1930 1150 3140 1062
4FLPASOHIG 3 263 8 420 223
4HART 2 145 8 :82 194
4HOLYFAMIL 2 106 54 158 74
4JESUSCMAR 3 263 8 480 238
4LAMAR 3 116 8 194 97
4LINCDL 1 20 20 20
4MESITA 3 137 130 146 8
4MOREHEAD 1 16 16 16
4PUTNA’1 3 30 28 32 2
4ROBERTS 1 8 8 8
A .-].83
-------
PARAMETER: APSENIC
METHOD: ATOMIC A9SORPTION
UNITS: PARTS PER MILLION
YEAR: 1972
‘JU’ BER OF STANDAkI
SITE SAMPLES AVERAGE MINIMUM MAXIMUM D. VIATIJN
4Rfl S [ VELT 3 239 130 346 1 iR
4SACRED 1rA 3 350 180 620 236
4SANJ4CI 4T 2 104 63 144 57
4STCLEMEN’r 3 150 124 176 26
4STfl NAT1fl 3 44 32 55 12
4STMIC-IAEL 2 445 440 450 7
4STPATRICK 3 279 160 440 145
4UTEP 3 243 220 270 25
VILAS 3 183 130 2’sO 55
4WESTERNHJ 3 110 50 160 56
4WHITE 3 82 75 90 8
4L1 00MADEL 3 256 200 360 90
4113R 1T)DE 1 260 260 260
4119ACARL O 1 70 70 70
412OWILLIE 1 970 970 970
41218RA\ D0 3 103 68 120
41409Mu NDy 3 109 56 150 48
4148C3J . :H 3 41 40 44 2
41730wP4 1S 3 101 88 114 13
41838WP IS 3 165 120 200 41
41844wPA 1S 3 106 52 142 47
42473VFw 3 2367 2160 2570 205
42510SrRA 3 1140 300 2680 1336
42616P4 154 3 402 65 660 305
432I OPIEDM 1 120 120 120
4329V1STAH 3 38 28 50 1].
434 O7ZAPAL 2 58 55 60 4
4701T1J ’4Ey 1 140 140 140
4? O6SHILIS 3 810 65 2200 1205
4710MC(ELL 1 1680 1680 1680
471O7T 1STR 3 147 96 180 45
4805SK4NS4 1 50 50 50
4825MLP lDY 2 266 230 302 51
A—184
-------
pAp E1 .: SFN1C
4 ThUD ATUIIC A S pTIrm
UNITS: PARTS PE MI1L1CTh
YEAR: 3.973
iMBER ;: STI N )A.k
SITE SAf4PLES AvERA;r MINIMUM MAX IM’i’ rtVI T FTh
4 C SEVFLT 12 17 116 240
4sLc EDHr4 12 207 112 343
4SANJACINT 12 107 12 131 53
4S1 LEMEMT 10 18Y 38 43 160
4STIbNA1I 12 82 26 134 37
4STMIf 1AF1 12 218 64 430 139
4STPAT ICY’ 12 224 105 420
4UTE 12 245 6 360
4VTLAS 10 255 143 36 74
4 STrRTh1 11 47 12 lot) 41
4WH ITE 11 226 43 1360 373
41 IOOMADEL 2 173 85 263 124
4 121j 0O 10 271 l O t ) 544 12L
4 j40 U 4flY 12 110 36 165 35
414 CUJRCH 12 52 3.1 96
4173OWPAIS 12 133 64 6( 71
4 1838 Pt IS 3.2 146 33 306 73
41.844WPA15 12 3.04 0 226 54
42473VF ,d ii 2616 1295 4500 1052
42510 TVRA 12 291 160 450 98
42616PA1SL 12 655 253 3.450 349
4301PU HS B 3t 122 6 3 3.92
43210P 1EDM 7 7 51 104 16
4329VIST H 12 70 6 168 50
434071AP4L 1]. 32 0 80 23
47O6SHILLS 11 63 16 L0 25
47 08MC(F -LL 9 296 1.86 545 150
47l07T 4STR 12 161 96 225 41
4825MU 1)Y 11 233 13.4 332 74
A —lBS
-------
A 2R: S IL
A;THn1: AT IC A 5flf 1TJflfl
‘JilTs: P PTS PER ILL1flN
‘ AR: 1f
(if- T Nflt-j
S IT’ LEs AVE Jt I AIJ ( M X1 ’j L ’ Vl TF’4
4 C1JSEV LT 11 137 25 223 70
4S C [ D-iF 12 24 88 370
4St NJAcINT 11 117 44 240
‘tSTCLEMENT 1 174 8) 230
4sTlc; aTln 7 91 5 213 51
4STMICr4AFL 127 lt)4 157 21
4STP T ICK 12 262 1 0
4 JT - 13 1 8 114
4ViL 12 273 12 473 1 ifl
4ST -.8 \JHI 11 16 64 15
4 HITE 11 103 22 213
4121 B Nr fl 7 116 72 1’ 2 40
41 ’ MJ v 12 113 0 231 51
L 73j p j5 94 1 3 40
4]83 P J 11 163 52 2 74
41E 4 P IS 9 127 67 373 c4
42473VF 12 2305 1320 -475
42510ST/P. 12 253 93 384 95
42 1LP Ic 12 940 337 2250 5 s’.
4201 33l S 10 201 120 342
.329V1STAH 52 10 131
43407L PAL 7 ii 101
7U 1C
-------
P4RA 4ETER: ARSENIC
METHOD: ATOMIC ABSORPT!ON
UNITS: PARTS PER MIILJQFI
YEAR: 1975
N4U BER OF STAN)ARD
SIT SAMPLES AVERAGE MINIMtJM MAXIMUM C VIATIr)M
4PO )5EvELT 1 254 254 254
4SAC EHEA 3 211 12 360 179
4SA J INT 2 154 108 200 65
4ST LEMENT 3 111 24 200 68
4STPAT IC 3 243 8 202
4UTEP 2 122 26 217 135
4VILAS 3 55 50 45 32
4WESTER HI 1 36 36 36
sWHITF 3 66 46 80 18
4121 Do 1. 85 85 85
s14 O9MJNP Y 3 64 44 76 17
41730w 4j5 1. 12 12 12
2 91 47 135 62
2 163 125 200 53
92473VF. 3 1511 773 27oo 1:)40
‘.251 OSTVRA 3 131 8 196 107
42616P4 1SA 3 906 5 Q 1188 339
4.3O1POBI NS 3 145 100 2O
4 329V 1ST6H 1 9
47 O8MCKELL 3 124 12 250 120
47107T4Sr 2 45 30 63 21
A—187
-------
P4PAMETER: CA M1UM
METHOD: ATOMIC ABSORPTION
UNITS: PARTS PER MILLION
YEAR: 1975
‘ U4BER F ST Nc) D
SITE SAMPLES AVERAGE MINIMUM MAXI I M D VI T! J
1 LAMO 3 6 3 10 4
IAJY 3 5 3 10 4
13CWI 3 7 3 10 4
18UENt I /IST 3 3 3 3 0
1COKONA OU 3 7 3 15 7
1CP!STD Ey 3 305 195 410 108
IELPASJHIG 3 22 10 45 20
1 ’- QT 3 6 3 10 4
1iIOLYFAMIL 3 12 10 15 3
1JFSUSCM AR 3 18 15 20
lLAMAS 3 27 3 75 42
1LINCOL ’ 3 7 3 15 7
1 SLT4 3 4 3 5 1
1MiSLIIEAD 3 3 3 3 0
1PUTNAM 3 82 3 240 37
1 CBER1S 3 3 3 3 0
1ROJSEVELT 2 3 3 3 0
ISACQEDI-IEA 3 14 3 20 9
ISANJA INT 3 3 3 10 4
1STCLEMENT 3 5 3
1STPAT ICK 3 9 5 12 4
1UTEP 3 1J 3 15 6
1VILAS 3 13 3 30 15
1wESTERNHI 3 33 3 92 51
1WHITE 3 4 3 5 1
11218P A D0 2 33 25 40 11
L14O9MLNDY 3 11 10 12 1.
11730W AIS 3 6 3 10 4
1Lb38WPAIS 3 5 3 8 3
11844wPIS 3 9 3 15 6
12473VFW 3 207 135 280 73
I251OSTVRA 3 5 10 3
12t1oPAISA 3 203 178 240 33
13u1 rBI S 3 3 10 4
A—188
-------
P ’AM ETE .: C# [ 1IuM
METhJ1: 3M Ir, ESf11 PT In
U JIT$: P4 TS PER MIL11fl
YFAP,: 1974
U1t W ST ND4RO
SITF SAMPLES AVE AG MI JIMtW ML XIMtjM OEVZ&TIQM
1AL M3 12 4 2 10 2
lACY 12 6 11 2
1 f WI 12 7 11 3
1 (JFN !ST 12 23 2 235 67
1CCJ fl Arl i2 4 z 7 2
1 r IS T Y 12 158 10 385
1&L SJHi 12 17 5 40
1H T 12 5 2 10
]H JLYFAMIL 12 13 6 1’) 4
isus i 12 19 10 40 7
12 6 3 1 3
1LINCOL 12 4 2 10 2
1V SITA lz 7 3 16
1M:1 EHrAp 12 5 3 15
lPUTN. ’1 12 5 2 15
1 ObtRTS 1’ 4 2 10 2
12 6 3 15 4
1SAC LJHF4 12 1 7 30 6
lsANJA2I’ i 12 6 3 12 3
1STCL MFNT 12 6 3 11
1ST!GN T1fl B 1? 14 25 4
1STM!C 4AEL 7 3 2 5 1
1STP4T ICK 12 9 3 16
1UTIP 12 14 10 21 4
1V1LA 12 8 2 20 6
1WESTE NHI 12 4 2 12
1WHITF 12 5 2 10 2
11Z18P NN 12 27 4 64
1l409 lJ JDY 12 15 5 35 7
1173OnPAIS 12 6 2 4
11838 PAIS i . 15 2 31
11 44 AIS 12 13 2 4
12473V 11 127 235 15
12510STV 12 10 3 20 5
I2b16PAISA 12 15 30 300 77
13O1 13I S 12 11 15 4
A—la 9
-------
PARA9FTER: CADMIUM
Mt TH0r): T01IC A3SJRPTIrJ 1
J4ITS: PARTS PFR MILLIDN
‘EAR: 1973
\ JMBE F
SIlL SAMPLES VER GE ILNIMUM t XI•1 J’1 FVI T! i’
1ALA J 12 9 2 10 3
1ACJY 12 11 5 20 4
IBOWIF 12 10 20 4
1CL 11Nr.JL 1: 9 2 10 3
1C’ ISTJ uY 12 213 106 5 5 10
1FLPAS Ic, 1 13 4 20
1HAPT 12 10 5 15 2
1H1 LYF ’1IL 11 1 10 25 4
1JFSU CM .s- 12 1 10 25
1KLk !RI 1 1 i S 15
1L, 1 1) 3 15 3
1LI )L’J 1 1 13 3
IMESITA 12 4 10 2
1MC 1 f .FHrA!o 12 0 2 15 4
1PUT 14M 12 0 2 1 )
1PflRFPTS 12 11 1 0 1)
1 1!USEVELT 12 10 7 15 2
1SA ED:1LA 12 34 20 1 0 40
1S Jt CI T 12 10 5 20 4
1STLE ENT 12 23 10 100
1STTGN Tji 12 23 15 30
1STMIC 1A L 12 9 2 10
1SlPAT 1CK 12 15 9 35
1UTEP 12 16 10 20 4
IVILAS 12 11 1 20
1WESlE fl-U 12 9 1 10 3
1WHITE 12 10 2 15 4
I 1 100MADEL 2 10 13 10 C)
11218 A 4Uo 12 12 2 25 7
11409 1)MDY 12 19 10 25 5
114dC3J H 12 13 5 25 5
11730WP 1S 12 12 3 20 4
11 d P I 12 13 7 20 4
11 44 ALc 12 17
12’ 73vFW 12 105 5 1(5
12510STV 4 12 14 13 20 6
12 1bPAIS / 12 181 25 315 71
i 0i fl I S 9 16 10 20 4
1 13PI f i 12 13 5 30
A—190
-------
PARAMETER: CADMIUM
METHOD: ATOMIC M3SORPTION
UNITS: PARTS PER MILLION
YEAR: 1972
NUMBER OF STA\IDARO
SITE SAMPLES AVERAGE MINIMUM MAXIMUM DEVIATION
1ALAMO 2 10 10 10 0
1AOY 3 10 10 10 0
1BOWIE 3 8 5 10 3
1CUPfl 44)O 4 21 5 60 26
1CRISTJ EY 7 139 40 320 110
1FLPASDHIG 4 12 7 20 6
1HART 3 8 5 10 3
1HOLYFAMIL 4 20 10 30 8
1JFSUS MAP 4 18 10 20 5
1LAMAR 3 122 5 350 198
1LINCOL4 2 10 10 10 0
1MFSITA 4 16 5 40 16
IMOREHEAD 2 10 10 10 0
1PUTNAM 2 10 10 10 0
1ROBERTS 2 10 10 10 0
IROOSEVELT 2 10 10 10 0
1SA REEHEA 5 26 20 40 8
1SANJACI T 4 11 5 20 6
1STCLEMENT 4 21 10 40 13
LSTIGNATI0 5 23 15 40 10
ISTMICHAEL 2 10 10 10 0
1STPAT ICK 3 12 10 15 3
1UTEP 3 11. 7 15 4
IVILAS 3 217 10 630 358
1WESTE HI 2 10 10 10 0
1WHITE 2 10 10 10 0
1 1 1OWILLIE 2 80 60 100 28
1 1 100MADEL 5 13 10 20 4
I I13RITODE 5 110 100 120 10
1119ACARL3 5 49 30 65 17
1. I2OWILLIE 5 60 40 80 16
11218R&NDO 7 29 15 60 16
11409MU DY 5 16 10 20 4
1148COUR N 5 17 5 40 14
11730W’AIS 4 11 5 20 6
11838WP41S 4 11 5 20 6
11844WP IS 7 21 10 40 13
12 00CARLDS 1 40 40 60
12O4WILLIE 4 75 50 100 21
1216ACA L3 4 50 30 80 22
12473VFW 7 67 10 150 48
1251OSTVRA 3 12 10 15 3
1261ÔPAISA 7 150 100 260 59
L321OPIEDM 3 12 20 8
A-191
-------
PARAMETER: CADMIUM
METHOD: I TOMIC A 3 ORPTION
U4ITS: PARTS PEP MILLION
YEAR: 1972
SIT S4MPLES AVERAGE MINIMuM MAXIMU4 LEVIATI0 ”
l32YvIsrAH 5 17 5 40 14
134)7L AL 4 23 10 60 25
1425MU fflY 2 15 10 20 7
1701TU ’IEY 3 10 5 15 5
17U SH!LLS 3 30 10 40 17
)..71(YICISFLL 5 2a 5 30 31
171O7THSTP 2 25 10 40 21
1805S(A’4S 1 10 10 13
1825MUN Y 4 13 10 40 15
2ALAM O 7 6 2 13 4
240Y 7 8 5 12 3
2BrwIE 7 8 6 10 1
2CORLJNAD3 7 2 1 6 2
2CRIST)RFY 7 171 51 4ô0 157
2ELP Si- I( 7 7 3 12 3
2F 4 iKL N 4 4 3 5 1
2HART 7 5 2 11 3
2HDLYFAMIL 6 13 13 26 5
2JESUS&’IAk 6 14 11 17 2
2LAMA 7 4 1 11 3
2LINCOL 6 1 1 3 1
2MESITA 7 7 4 11. 3
2M1]REHEAD 7 2 1 5 1
2PUTNAM 7 3 1 7 2
2RObEPTS 7 2 1 4 1
2ROJSEVELT 7 7 5 9 2
2SAC EDHFA 6 22 19 26 3
2SANJA INT 7 6 3 11 3
2STCLEMENT 6 16 12 19 2
2STIGNATIfl 6 18 12 24 5
2STMIHAEL 6 2 1 3 1
2STPAT.ICK 6 10 5 15 4
2UTEP 6 11 6 14 3
ZVILAS 7 9 4 16 4
2WESTERNHI 7 3 1. 5 2
2WHITE 6 4 2 6 2
2100MAD L I 1 12 12 12
211 OWILLIE 2 83 58 118 42
211)0Ľ1 ) L 6 10 6 16 4
2113P!TOIIE 5 136 114 146 14
21194C RL] 5 39 3 74 26
2120WILLIE 5 58 36 100 26
21218 &’1Dfl 7 22 17 27 3
21409MU4DY 7 15 14 18 2
2148CIJJRCH 7 7 4 12 3
2173 OWPAIS 7 6 1 9 3
21R33 PAIS 7 10 5 26 7
‘t—192
-------
PARAMETER: CADMIUM
METHOU: ATOMIC ABSORPTION
UNITS: PARTS PER MILLION
YEAR: 1973
NWIBER OF ST JPARD
SITE SAMPLES AVFRAGE MINIMUM MAXIMUM DEVIATION
1329VISTAH 12 11 7 15 2
134Q7ZAPAL 12 9 4 10 2
1701TU EY 1 10 10 10
17O6SHILLS 11 10 5 15 2
17O8M KELL 9 10 5 15 3
171O7T 1STP 12 10 5 15 2
L825MUNDY 12 10 2 25 6
2AL AMC3 12 6 3 9 2
2AOY 11 8 4 22 5
2BOWIE 12 7 1 11 3
2CO ONA)O 12 4 1 6 2
2CRISTD EY 12 179 90 284 59
2ELPASJ 1IG 12 10 4 16 4
2H RT 12 5 2 9 2
2HC)LYFAMIL 12 14 7 20 4
2JESUSCMAR 12 15 8 20 4
2KERNFIRES 1 11 11 11
2LAM R 12 7 3 13 3
21INC0L 1 12 2 1 4 1
2MESITA 12 4 1 9 2
2MO EHE4D 12 2 1 5 1
2PUTNAM 12 4 1 7 2
2RQBERTS 12 2 1. 4 1
2ROOSEVELT 12 8 3 15 4
2SACREDHEA 12 33 9 173 44
12 6 1 10 3
2STCL MENT 12 12 3 17 5
2STIGNATIO 12 21 11 32 6
2S’TMICH&EL 12 2 1 4 1
2STPAT ICK 12 12 3 19 4
2UTEP 12 13. 3 20 5
2VILAS 12 8 3 14 3
2WESTER 1HI 12 3 1 7 2
2WHITE 12 5 1 9 2
2 I100MADEL 2 9 7 11. 3
21218R4’ 1OD 12 9 1 21 7
214O9MUMDY 12 13 6 20 4
2148COtJRPI 12 7 3 1]. 3
Z173 OWPAIS 12 6 3 10 2
21838WPA 1S 12 8 2 18 4
A—193
-------
PA \ ETEQ: C 1IU 1
!IFTHI1D: ATUIIC AbSJRPTION
UIITS: MTCPOG A IS/CU 1C ? thTE
Y AP: 1 73
‘flJ12 P. ‘iF STANUA’ D
SIT SAMPLES AVERAGE MINIMUM MAXIMUM L)FVIATIflN
1HPLYFAMIL 1 25 25 25
A—194
-------
P4. AMET C : CADMIUM
METHOD: ATOMIC ABSORPTION
UNITS: PARTS PER MILLION
YEAR: 1974
JUMRER OF STAND4 D
SITE SAMPLES AVER4GE MINIMUM MAXIMUM DEVIATIrN
1329VISTAH 11 22 3 170 49
I34O7LAPAL 11 4 2 6 1
17O8MCKELL 12 13 8 20 4
L71O7THSTR 12 5 2 10 2
1825MUNDY 10 6 2 10 3
2ALAMO 12 6 2 9 2
2ACY 12 6 1 10 3
2BGW! 12 7 4 12 2
2BUENAVIcT 12 24 2 252 72
2CORUNADU 12 4 1 8 2
2CRISTJREY 12 208 4 792 209
2ELPASDHI( 12 13 1 27 7
2HART 11 6 3 10 2
2HOLYFAMIL 12 15 1 38 9
2JESUSCMAR 12 16 7 25 6
2LAMAR 12 5 1 9 2
2LINCOL1 12 3 1 6 2
2MESITA 12 5 1 8 3
2MOREHEAD 11 3 1 10 3
2PUTNAM 12 5 1 14 3
2ROBFRTS 12 3 1 7 2
2ROCJSEVELT 12 5 1 11 3
2SACREDHEA 12 18 10 28 5
2SANJ4CI!s T 12 7 3 10 2
2STCLEMENT 12 5 1 12 4
2STIGN4TIO 8 18 13 24 4
2STMIC 1AEL 7 2 1 3 1
2STPATRICK 12 10 1 17 4
2UTEP 12 15 7 22 5
2VILAS 12 7 1 12 4
2WESTERNI -1I 12 4 1 8 2
2WHITE 12 4 1 10 3
21218RA4 00 12 24 1 62 22
21409M1J’IDY 1 .2 14 7 22 4
21730 i )AIS 12 5 1 9 2
21838WP4 1S 12 16 1 129 36
A—195
-------
PA i T 1 P: CA’)MIUM
METHflO: ATT IC t tJSJPPTI JN
UNITS: PARTS PEP ILLIflN
YE : 1)75
NU 13E’ OF ST’\J )’ 1)
siT:- SA 1PLE . VFPAGE MINIMUM MAX1 U 1 DEV1 TI11N
1329VISF H 3 3
170 E1L 6 3 10 4
171U7T STR 3 6 3 10 4
1B25MU’flY 1 10 10 10
2ALA O 6 3 1 i 4
2AGY 3 7 4 13 5
2BO !E 3 6 4 10 3
2BUEN IST 3 2 1 5 2
2Coso ): 3 7 1 12 6
2 .RISTJ EY 3 291 226 354 04
2ELPASJHIG 3 22 6 47 22
2HA T 3 5 1 12 6
2HOLYFt 1!L 3 14 9 17 4
2JF USY A 3 19 16 23 4
2Lt R 3 6 3 11 4
2LINCOL \J 3 4 1 6
2MESIT 3 6 1 9 4
2M(JRFHEAfl 3 4 1 6 3
2PUTNA 3 7 1 11 5
2ROBERTS 3 5 1 8 4
2PP1SEVFLT 2 3 1 5 3
2S CPE)HE 3 12 2 20 9
2SANJt.CINT 3 5 13 4
2STLF NT 3 3 2 4 1
2STPAT ICK 3 8 5 12 4
2UTP 3 11 1 19 9
2VILAS 3 11 4 23 8
2WESTE NHT 3 4 1 7 3
2 HITE 3 7 5 11 3
21 1h4 ’JP1) 2 31 20 42 lb
2 14O ’1U 4DY 3 11 7 16 5
21733 PAIS 3 5 2 8 3
21838 PAIS 3 4 1 4
A—196
-------
PARAMETER: CADMIUM
METHOD: ATOMIC ABSORPTION
UNITS: PARTS PER MILLION
YEAR: 1972
U’1BER OF STANDARD
SITE SAMPLES AVERAGE MINIMUM MAXIMUM OEVIATI )N
21 .844WPAIS 7 13 10 16 2
2200CARIOS 1 40 40 40
22O4WILLIE 4 81 72 92 8
2216ACARLC) 4 51 26 66 17
22473VFW 7 71 18 172 50
2251OSTVRA 6 5 2 13 4
22616PA 1SA 7 165 114 264 64
2305S(ANSA 1 13 13 . 13
23210P 1EDM 6 5 2 8 2
2329V1STAH 7 8 6 13 1
23407ZAP4L 7 4 1 7 2
2425MU1)Y 2 8 8 8 0
2510ST RAI 1 2 2 2
2701TUP . EY 3 1 9 3
2706SH 1L1S 7 5 2 9 2
271OMCKELL 6 7 4 10 2
27107TfSTR 7 4 1 6 2
2805SK49SA 4 9 6 10 2
28Z5MU’ DY 5 23 10 68 25
3ALAMD 5 155 37 559 226
3AOY 7 76 50 156 38
380 IE 7 54 15 100 27
3CORONADO 6 108 79 140 21
3CRIST) EY 7 291 160 550 129
3ELPAS)HIG 7 71 50 100 16
3FRANKLIN 3 327 202 400 109
3HA T 5 45 25 60 13
3HOLYFAMIL 5 75 50 100 24
3JESUS AR 6 100 30 140 41
3LAMA 6 48 10 120 40
31INCOL ’ 5 246 10 980 413
3MESITA 7 202 84 380 117
3MOR HEAD 3 53 50 60 6
3PUTNAM 4 33 10 50 21
3RDBERTS 5 43 10 83 29
3ROOSEVEIT 7 144 71 225 51.
3SAC REDIEA 6 110 69 150 29
3SANJACINT 6 97 20 300 105
3STCLF ENT 6 59 20 100 31
3STIGNATID 3 90 30 133 54
3STM!CHAEL 4 90 60 138 37
3STP ATRTCK 6 90 50 150 36
3UTEP 6 74 30 . 125 35
3VILAS 7 257 80 1000 329
3WESTE 4HI 7 103 30 179 64
3WHITE 6 88 60 134 26
A-197
-------
PA 4MFTER: CAD! IU
M THJD: I TPMIC BS0RPTION
UNITS: PARTS PEs •MILLIUN
YEAR: 1973
\1ti 1BFR flF ST.tNiAPfl
SITF- SL MPLES AV’ RA E MINIMUM MAXIMUM DUvIATI:M
21B 4R2&IS 12 12 6 20 4
22473VF 12 133 35 425 101
22510STVP1, 12 9 4 17 4
22636PAt A 12 199 26 340 77
23OiPO8INS 9 12 3 23 6
2j2 I OPIE [ M j2 11 5 36 10
2329VISrAH 12 9 3 13 3
23407 14PAL 12 5 2 15 3
27 O1TUP \IFY 1 6 6 6
27ObSHILLS 11 6 3 11 2
27O8MKELL 9 5 1 9 3
27107T -ISTD 12 6 2 9 2
2825MU \1)Y 12 1 16 5
3ALAMfl 12 63 50 100 21
JADY 12 101 31 306 73
380 IE 12 68 50 112 24
3CIJrU)’ ADJ 11 85 50 173 35
3CRIST1R EY 11 1256 888 1639 248
3ELPPsS) 1IG 12 123 50 234 45
3HA T 12 56 40 100 16
3Hc LYF MIL 12 114 50 346 85
3JESUS&M R 12 129 50 222 45
3KE NFIRES 1 100 100 100
31A4tR 12 78 50 115 24
3L!NCOL 12 80 10 336 85
3MESITA 12 154 71 250
3M0 EHIEAD 12 50 20 75 12
3PUTN AM 12 48 25 75 13
3ROBFRTS 12 47 10 75 16
3RDJSEVELT 12 119 50 358 86
3SAC EUHFA 12 118 75 216 45
3SANJAINT 11 139 50 373 124
3ST LEMENT 10 233 50 1158 345
3STIGNATIO 12 63 25 128 29
3STMICrIAFL 12 106 50 277 61
3STPAT ICK 11 129 75 225 50
3UT P 12 130 59 287 57
3VILAS 11 310 138 1100 274
3WESTERNHI 11 100 50 140 29
3WHITF 12 120 50 240 62
A—198
-------
PARAMETER: CADMIUM
METHOD: ATOMIC ABSORPTION
UNITS: PARTS PER MILLION
YEAR: 1974
‘JUMBER OF ST. N ’ARD
SITE SAMPLES AVERAGE MINIMUM MAXIMUM DEVIATION
21844WP&I5 12 11 2 lb 4
22473 F 4 11 134 12 290 90
2251.OSTVRA 12 9 2 17 4
2616PAISA 12 187 32 550 132
23O1ROBINS 12 22 4 151 41
2329V 15TAH 11 9 5 14 2
23407Z4PA1 11 4 1 8 2
2?O8MCKELI 12 1]. 5 18
271U7Tr STR 12 5 1 9 2
2825IUN)y 10 6 1 9 3
3ALAMO 12 35 20 65 14
3AOY 12 96 13 255 64
3BOWIE 12 56 25 181 44
3BUErSIAVIST 12 31 23 50 9
3CORONADD 12 63 25 148 34
3CRISTJREY 11 11.23 280 1694 447
3ELPAS)HIG 12 103 36 265 60
3HART 11 40 15 75 20
HflLYF4MIL 11 57 25 100 25
3JESUS MAR 11. 153 80 284 67
3IAMAR 12 77 25 300 75
3LINCOLS4 12 52 15 164 44
3MESITA 12 87 25 200 50
3MOf EHEAD 12 10 45 9
3PUTNAM 12 25 10 50 14
3ROBFRTS 12 20 10 25 6
3R 0)SEVELT 11 66 35 96 20
3SACREDHEA 12 121 40 235 70
3SANJACINT 9 78 44 163 41.
3ST LEMEMT 12 65 25 225 54
3STIGNATIO 7 40 25 104 29
3ST 1ICHAEL. 6 74 25 186 59
3STPATR ICK 12 89 25 150 33
3UTEP 10 112 82 175 27
3VILAS 12 185 83 392 90
3wE5rERNHI 11 62 10 141 45
3WHITE 11 119 25 504 136
A-199
-------
p4 AMETER: CADMIUM
TH1)D ATOMIC 4BSflt PTION
UNITS: PARTS PFR MILLION
YEAR: 1975
\ UNl Ek flF sTA r) Rr,
SITF SA PLES AVERAGE MINIMUM MAXIM1J 1 DFVIATIflN
21844WP4 1S 3 S 5 12 4
22473VF4 3 214 119 300 91
2251 OSTVRA 3 6 4 10 3
226 I6PATSA 3 214 165 254 45
23011 O8INS 3 7 4 12 4
23?9VISTA -l 1 1 1 1
27O8MCKELL 3 5 1 9 4
27107T STR 3 7 2 12
2825MU 4)Y 1 7 7 7
3ALAMO 3 77 15 140 63
3AOY 3 58 15 110 48
3BOWIE 3 48 15 72 30
3BUENAV IST 3 36 25 58 19
3CDRONA fl 3 45 3 106 54
3CPIST1 EY 3 959 496 1655 614
3ELPASJHIG 3 lii 17 175 83
3HART 3 74 15 182 94
3HOLYFAMIL 3 30 15 50 18
3JESUSC AS 3 135 15 201 104
3LAM 3 37 5 90 46
3LINC0L 3 40 3 101 53
3MESITA 3 99 50 153 52
3MOREHEAD 3 18 15 25 6
3PUTNAM 3 12 5 15 6
3ROBERTS 3 15 15 15 0
3P(J)SEVELT 2 104 83 125 30
3SA EDHEA 3 133 15 225 108
3SANJAINT 2 38 15 60 32
3STLEMENT 3 55 15 100 43
3STPATPICK 3 66 15 100 45
3UTEP 3 84 46 131 43
3VILAS 3 206 15 377 182
3wESTFRNHI 3 18 3 25 13
3WHITE 3 51 42 57 8
A—200
-------
pAR METFR: CADMIUM
METHOD: ATOMIC AbSORPTION
u iITS: PARTS PER MILLION
YEAR: 1972
NU iBE OF STANDARD
SITE SAMPLES AVERAGE MINIMUM MAXIMUM DEVIATIO 4
3 I1UWILLIF 1. 510 510 510
31100MAD’ L 4 150 62 249 91
3 113RTTOOE 5 1517 944 1771 337
31i9ACAi LU 6 1625 1160 2213 416
312OWILLIE 5 980 160 1619 566
312 ] ,8R NDO 7 103 40 160 45
31409MU\IDY 6 42 25 56 13
3 I48COURCH 6 90 20 360 133
31733WP4IS 6 97 28 145 5].
31838 PAIS 7 99 41 161 53
31844 P IS 5 79 60 109 19
3200CA L)S 1 330 330 330
32O4WILLIE 4 710 640 800 68
32 1ÔACARLO 4 530 220 685 218
32473VF#d 7 1100 440 1925 529
325 1 OSTVRA 6 122 50 200 73
321.6P IS 7 583 438 760 118
3321OPIEDM 3 79 47 120 37
3329V1S1AH 5 36 20 50 15
334 O7ZAPAL 5 236 40 968 410
3425 4UNDY 2 45 40 50 7
3510STV A1 1 80 80 80
37O1TURMEY 4 106 30 145 52
3706SIILLS 5 38 20 50 16
371 OMCi(ELL 5 23]. 188 350 67
37107THST 7 307 60 860 307
3805S(A 4SA 3 27 20 40 12
3825MU JDY 5 80 40 120 34
44L4M 0 7 61 35 80 15
4A OY 7 68 25 122 35
48GWIE 7 45 1 .6 76 26
4CUR OM4 0 0 7 107 70 149 32
4CRISTOREY 7 362 35 675 207
4ELPASD 1IG 7 77 9 110 32
4FPANKLIN 3 398 243 520 1.41
4HART 7 38 15 70 20
4H OLYFAMIL 6 77 35 126 34
4JESUSCMAR 6 151 65 260 66
4LAMAR 7 38 3 58 20
4LINCOL 7 28 5 110 39
4MESITA 7 167 1.9 360 128
4M0 EHEAD 7 43 5 250 92
4PUTNAM 7 28 5 110 39
23
A—20].
-------
PARfl .lET R: C OMIUM
M ETHU [ ): Tfl 1IC ABS JRPTION
UNITS: PARTS ER MILLION
YE R: 1973
‘lJ4 ‘iF ST N)APO
SITE S. ’1PLES AVERAGE MINIMUM MAXIMUM DEVI4TL N
3 I10 0MAJEL 2 157 123 190 47
31213 NDj 10 123 50 227 51
3 l4O9MuNr,y 12 52 30 93 14
314SCOJROH 12 46 3 75 17
31730 P !S 11 68 25 175
31 38 2AIS 12 104 50 210 47
31b44 PAIS 11 83 41 171 47
32’t73VFn 12 1296 550 2100 557
325 I OSTVFA 11 137 100 200 29
32t16P ISA 12 409 179 725 164
33O lkfl3INS B 153 50 400 149
33210PjE [ 1 60 17 100 31
3329 VI STAR 1 . 52 17 129 28
33407L4PLL 12 74 34 174 43
37 O6SHILLS 11 124 46 685 191
37oaM:KELL 3 95 50 153 37
37107Tr1ST 11 333 75 2000
3825MU J)Y 11 109 50 341 83
44L4M0 12 28 5 85 25
4 0Y 12 6 15 145 42
4 UwIF 12 47 23 80 22
4C1Th0N )fl 12 82 7 90 R2
4 IS1JRFY 11 1325 146 1b14
4ELPAS3 -1IG 12 93 25 125 33
4H T 12 37 5 125 33
4H0LYFA IIL 12 39 14 70 19
4JESUSCM 12 109 13 175 53
4K [ RNFIRES 1 90 90 90
4LAM P 12 48 14 30 19
4LINCOL’ 12 25 5 134 36
4MESITA 12 139 36 222
M11REHEAD 12 18 7 50 13
4PUTN4 11 17 5 ‘ 5 12
4PPbE ’TS 11. 16 5 3 10
A—202
-------
PARAMETER: CAflMIUM
METHOD: ATOMIC A8SORPTInN
U.\UTS: PARTS PFR MTLLIflN
YEAF: 1974
U BE OF
SITF SAMPLES AVERAGE MINIMtj’4 MAXIUIH fl V1ATIY
31218 A DJ 7 B8 43 124 33
14O9Mu fly 12 40 25 34
31730wPA1S 8 54 25 111 36
1o38WP4IS 11 81 23 150 49
3lE44wD IS 9 78 30 13 54
32473VF 12 994 12 1710 4
32S1OSTvRA 10 118 46 194 40
3.. 616P IS4 12 404 190 832 222
33U1RO3IP S 9 91 50 15) 38
3329V 1S1AH 10 50 6 170
33407Z4’AL 7 45 13 15 . 2 49
370 MCKELL 11 120 53 521 134
7l07T ST 10 109 73 1;2 32
iF2 Mu Dy 10 99 bó 145
4AL A fl 11 32 7 1?
440Y 12 75 1 1 ..5 37
4BCThIE 12 37 8 33 23
4BLENAVISr 12 39 9 80 27
4CCRD LD 12 50 14 7 20
4C IST Fy 12 1254 311 1875 429
4ELPASJHI(j 12 149 5 675 172
4HART 11 29 10 53 13
4HOLYFAMII. 11 45 11 95 23
4JESUS MAR 11 123 32 220
4LAMAR 12 78 27 366 94
4LINC OL4 12 23 1 115 31
4MESIT A 12 79 17 178 47
4MC RE- EAD 11 10 5 18 5
4P(1T AM 11 20 5 52 15
11 8 5 19
A-203
-------
PARAMETER: CADMIUM
METHOD: T MIC ABSORPTION
LP4ITS: PAPTS PEP MILLION
YEAR: 1975
NUMBER OF STANDARD
SITE SAMPLES AVERAGE MINIMUM MAXIMUM DEVIATION
. 1218PAND0 1 38 38 38
3l409MtJ OY 3 22 15 25 6
31730WP4 1S 2 42 15 69 38
31838 P4IS 2 61 56 66 7
31844WP&IS 2 42 25 58 23
32473vF 3 87 93 1890 920
32510ST /RA 3 293 16 750 399
32616P4!SA 3 380 300 482 93
33O1RPBINS 2 70 50 90 2.
3329VISTAM 1 2J 20 20
37OÔMCKELL 3 58 15 103 47
37107HS1P 2 6 15 152
3825MuN0V 1 24 24 24
4ALAMD 3 73 17 147
4AOY 3 65 6 112 54
48flw!E 3 47 11 87 38
48UENAVIST 3 21 5 31 14
4CO ONADG 3 73 12 161 78
4CPIST] EY 3 875 520 1550 585
4EIPAStH IG 3 124 20 180 90
4HA T 3 84 11 19) 94
4HGLYFAMIL 3 40 9 60 27
4JESUSCMAR 3 191 36 326 146
4LAMAR 3 77 6 118 62
41IN:oL 3 20 8 33 11
4MESITA 3 152 81 272 105
4M OREHEAD 3 16 8 23 8
4PUTNAM 3 83 10 223 121
4ROEiERTS 2 28 5 50 32
A-204
-------
PARAMETER: CADMIUM
METHOD: ATOMIC ABSORPTION
UNITS: PARTS PEP MILLION
YEAR: 1972
NUMBER OF STANDARD
SITE Si MPLES AVERAGE MINIMUM MAXIMUM DEVIATIUN
4RO OSFVELT 7 206 133 360 82
4SA EDHEA 6 211 135 338 90
4SANJACINT 6 52 30 110 29
4STLE ’1ENT 6 71 28 139 44
4STIGNATII) 6 30 16 42 11
4STMICHAFL 5 89 57 139 34
4STPATUCK 6 105 42 255 76
4UTEP 6 100 61 185 46
4VILAS 7 240 105 675 194
4WESTERNHI 7 151 39 290 88
4WHITE 6 145 8 390 136
4100MADELI 1 10 10 10
4110 I1LIE 1 610 610 610
41100MA) L 6 50 5 100 41
41 13P 110 0E 5 1465 190 2115 810
4119A AR1O 4 1898 1706 2000 131
412OWILLIE 5 1273 1005 1760 312
41218R4’ DrD 7 86 14 180 62
41409M1J ’ lDY 7 46 10 110 31
414BCOJRCH 7 14 5 27 8
41730WP4 1S 7 47 10 102 35
41838WP4 1S 7 60 2 121 45
41844WP4 1S 7 91 44 180 49
4200CARLOS 1 400 400 400
42 O4WILLIE 4 841 630 1150 221.
4216ACARLO 4 594 475 690 89
42473VFW 7 1425 850 1995 410
4251 OSTVRA 6 199 49 550 187
42Ô I6PAISA 7 1545 390 6700 2283
43 O5SKANSA 1 5 5 5
432L OPIEDM 5 89 30 130 41
4329VISTAH 7 11 5 24 6
43407 14P4L 6 17 5 33 10
4425MU 4DY 2 77 50 103 37
451 OSTVRAI 1. 88 88 88
47 O1TIJRNEY 3 28 10 t5 18
47 O6SHILLS 7 25 5 52 16
471OMCKELL 5 255 180 320 61 .
47107T-4STR 7 229 40 670 212
4805SK4’ISA 4 21 5 52 22
4825MUNDY 4 81 55 110 25
A—205
-------
PARAMETER: CADMIUM
METHOD: ATUMIC ABSORPTION
UNITS: PARTS PER MILLION
YEAR : 1973
NUMBER OF STA’ D4RD
SliP SAMPLES AVERAGE MINIMUM MAXIMUM DEVIATION
4POOSEVELT 12 100 14 210 56
4SAC .EDHEA 12 90 5 135 42
4SANJACINT 12 64 10 150 45
4STCLE IENT 10 173 11 1216 367
4STIGNiATID 12 20 5 50 15
4STMICHAEL 12 66 11 140 40
4STPATUCK 12 121. 10 220 5
4UTEP 12 1OL 41 175 36
4VILAS 11 273 65 950 246
4WESTE;.NHI 12 57 10 180 45
4WHITE 12 94 5 162 39
4 I1DOMADEL 2 176 171 180 6
41218R NDO 10 113 16 200 67
‘t14U9Mti’IDY 12 27 3 65 19
4148COLJRCH 12 16 3 35 9
41730WP IS 12 38 7 70 18
4183B PAIS 12 60 8 117 34
41844wP8!S 12 42 5 125 33
42473VF 12 1280 190 2180 644
425 IOSTVRA 12 164 9 700 180
42616P4 1S4 12 387 30 870 226
43 O1ROBINS 8 83 16 200 59
43210PIE [ j? 7 50 12 110 34
4329V 1S1AH 12 21 5 50 13
43407Z4PAL 11 20 1. 75 21
4706SM 11L 5 11 47 25 90 21
470 3MCKF.LL 9 109 12 235 74
471O7THSTR 12 279 16 2325 645
4825MUN)v 11 63 14 114 36
A—206
-------
PARAMETER: CADMIUM
METHOD: ATf MIC ABSORPTION
UNITS: PARTS PER MILLION
YEAR: 1974
NUMBER OF STA DARr
SITE SAMPLES AVERAGE MiNIMUM MAXIMUM DEV1ATIO
4RUJSEVELT 11 61 16 150 35
4SARE)HE# 12 121 61 270 65
sSANJACINT 11 61 16 1b5 45
4STLEMENT 12 56 27 160 38
4STIGNATID 7 30 11 65 17
4STMICH4EL 6 55 41 72 12
4STPATUCK 12 84 33 140 31
4UTEP 10 93 25 129
4VILAS 12 188 80 411 100
4WEST 4HI 11 52 6 156 47
4WHITF 11 336 14 2500 726
41218fl .1D1 7 94 37 266 79
41409r4U 1fly 12 48 17 15 46
4173O P IS 8 42 20 69 15
41838wP IS 11 96 20 333 90
41844 P IS 9 48 16 131 33
42473VFw 12 1250 457 2100 491.
4251 OSTVRA 11 132 40 233 59
42616P41S4 12 550 168 1683 433
43 O1ROBINS 10 109 64 210 47
4329VISTAH 10 46 6 138 39
43407Z4PAL 7 55 1 210 72
4708MK!LL 12 88 45 145 33
47107THST 10 90 44 154 39
4825MUIDY 10 71 37 115 29
A—207
-------
PARAMETER: CADMIUM
METHOD: ATOMIC ABSORPTION
UNITS: PARTS PER MILLION
YEAR: 1975
‘ U1i3ER OF ST ,Nr A P
ITF SAMPLES AVERAGE MINIMUM MAXIMUM DEVIATION
4ROJSEVELT 2 86 55 116 43
4SACRFDHEA 3 137 8 227 115
4S ANJACINT 3 59 11 86 42
4STCLE’4ENT 3 58 9 109 50
4STPATRICK 3 83 11 130 64
4UTFP 3 63 20 108 44
4VILAS 3 179 12 325 15e
4WES1 . JHI 3 61 29 113 45
4WHITE 3 59 22 80 32
41218R NDD 1 42 42 42
414O9MU’ 1DY 3 31 21 46 13
41730 PAIS 2 3J 25 35 7
41833 P IS 3 53 45 59 7
41 344wPAIS 3 46 13 70 30
42473VF 3 958 243 2050 61
42510ST’ /RA 3 41. 9 76 34
42616P4 1SA 3 483 285 653 186
4301R1I INS 3 97 61 1(0 55
432 VIST H 1 15 15 15
4708M KE1L 3 25 12 38 13
47107T-4STP 2 115 36 193 1 11
4825M 1JNDY 1 20 20 20
A-208
-------
PARAMETER: LEAD
METHOD: ATflMIC ABSORPTION
UNITS: PARTS PER MILLION
YEAS: 1972
41J iI EP. OF
SITF SA 1PLES AVERAGE MINIMUM MAXIMUM DEVI4TIPN
1ALAMH 6 217 100 400 117
IAflY 7 443 300 oQO 98
1bC’ IE 6 425 200 600 133
1CLRO Dfl 3 217 100 350 126
1CFISTJ .FY 7 5079 1700 11450 4336
1FLP’ SOF1IG 7 643 150 1200 390
1FRANKLIN 3 400 400 400 0
lHAr(T 6 233 50 450 loU
1HULYF .MIL 6 583 350 900 221
1JESUS&MAR 6 542 400 800 169
1LAM R 5 193 65 400 130
1LI COL ’4 4 263 100 500 170
1MrsJT& 7 306 50 640 216
1Mfl EHE4D 5 310 100 600 195
1PUTNAM 4 263 100 400 138
1 L3ERTS 4 163 100 250 75
1P 0)SFVELT 6 633 300 1600 509
1SI CKEDHEA 6 890 800 1000 85
1SA JACINT 6 567 100 1000 350
1STCLEMENT 6 1117 900 1300 147
1STIGNATI3 6 967 750 1200 183
1ST IC1AEL 3 250 50 400 180
1STPATRICK 5 540 350 800 171
1UTEP 6 458 350 600 92
1VILAS 6 276 7 450 170
1WESTE kNHI 4 188 100 250 63
1 HET 5 180 50 350 115
1100M4)’ LI 1 600 600 600
1 1 1OWILLIE 2 1100 600 1600 707
111 0M DEL 5 280 100 400 130
1113RIT )DE 5 3660 3100 4200 397
1119ACARL) 5 720 500 1200 295
L12 OWILLIE 5 1040 700 1500 321
11218 ND0 7 664 500 1000 193
114D9 JNDY 7 1043 700 1400 223
1148COURH 7 236 100 400 118
11730#dPAIS 7 271 50 600 182
1 I83RWPAIS 7 329 200 600 138
11844WP4 1S 7 620 500 800 107
1200CARLDS 1 1800 1800 1800
1ZO4WILIIE 4 2000 1800 2400 283
1216ACARL O 4 1675 300 3400 1284
12473VFW 7 3057 600 7200 2195
125 IOSIVRA 4 338 100 450 160
12b 16PA ISA 7 2221 1550 3600 723
1305S( ANSA 1 600 600 600
13210P 1E 0M 3 283 200 450 144
A-209
-------
PAPAMETER: LEAD
METHOD: ATOMIC ABSORPTION
UNITS: PARTS PER MILLION
yEAR: 1973
11JM OF STANDArD
SIT [ SA 1PL’S AVERAGF MINIMUM MAXIM.IM ELVIATI’JN
1ALAMr’ 12 256 100 1140 2 5
lADY 12 335 150 550 127
1 flW1L 12 296 130 400 84
12 73 30 150 37
1CPI TJ 1 Y 12 8195 3400 13860
1EIPAS)riIG 12 820 100 2100 619
1HA T 12 206 100 300 60
1HrLyF- MIL 12 437 280 660 98
1JESOS& 12 467 330 o2 0 70
1KEkN IRFS 1 460 460 460
1LA AR 12 232 73 1900 512
1LINf 1jLN 12 73 25 150 40
1MESITA 12 136 30 230 57
1MIJPEHEAD 12 91 30 130 40
1PUT ’4 12 105 30 200 42
1RPSE TS 12 73 30 153 40
IROOSEVFLT 12 423 260 630 111
1S CPED1FA 12 985 300 3300 752
1SANJ CI’JT 12 297 160 440 77
1STCLE iF T 12 986 460 2100 428
1STIGNATIJ 12 1168 400 2200 448
1ST 1I H4EL 12 98 30 230 57
1STPt T .ICK 12 517 370 730 96
1UTFP 12 603 280 2240 527
1VILAS 12 279 100 570 130
1 ESTE NH1 12 7’. 15 150 41
1WHITE 12 101 30 180 37
11 IOOMAJEL 2 230 200 260 42
112 ISRANDD 12 355 50 700 242
11409MJ DY 12 986 635 1500 288
1 I48COJRH 12 286 150 550 143
11730 PAIS 12 273 125 400 68
11838 4IS 12 666 285 3770 982
I I644wPAIS 12 623 300 1255 233
12473VFW 12 4740 1300 8400 181.1
i2510ST A 12 311 150 470 98
12616P4 15A 12 3345 1000 5850 1298
l301RJBI 1S 9 484 330 700 127
132 IOPIEDM 12 165 40 420 114
A—2 10
-------
PARAMETFR: LEAD
METHOD: ATOMIC ABSIJR,PTI)N
UNITS: PARTS PER MILLION
YEAR: 1974
1UMBE-R OF STAND4R
SITE 4MPLES AVERA3E MINIMUM MAXIMUM )EVIATF)N
IALAMD 12 1 .44 30 270 73
141W 12 4 5 80 2582 718
1BPW!F 12 256 130 380 62
1BUE AVIST 12 879 20 10080 2898
1COR0N 40 12 39 30 5
1cRIsT Rf:v 12 5245 340 11760 3046
1ELPASDIIG 12 1094 390 275J 742
1HA T 12 1.50 10 320 83
IHLJLYF&MIL 12 422 150 670 158
1JESUS&M4F 12 540 330 740 11.6
1I AMAF 12 123 60 520 128
1LINCOL%I 12 23 10 40 11
1MFSITA 12 147 70 255 52
1MOREHFAD 12 66 50 100 16
1PUTNAM 12 82 50 170 31
1ROBEPTS 12 26 10 40 1].
1RDJSEVEL.T 12 341 220 572 104
1SACREDHEA 12 780 400 1120 198
ISANJAINT 12 315 140 460 89
1STCLE IE’fl 12 289 70 1000 253
1STISNATIn 8 1663 620 7480 2359
1STMIC -tAEL 7 31 10 60 18
1STPATRICK 12 404 160 520 99
1UTEP 12 546 330 760 146
1VIL 12 209 60 480 127
1WESTE H1 12 30 10 80 17
1WHITEE 12 95 50 1.90 41
112 I8PANDO 12 658 75 1290 378
11409 LJ\1DY 12 776 520 1290 244
i173Lh PAIS 12 204 120 280 51
11838wP41S 12 489 100 3300 888
11844i PAIS 12 548 380 710 95
12473vF 11 5299 560 12852 3757
12510STV A 12 296 50 620 166
L2o IbPAISA 12 2645 800 5670 1497
1301R 3INS 12 488 60 1650 434
A—2U
-------
PARAMETER: LEAD
METHflD: ATO’ 1C A8Sl1 PTI1N
UNITS: PARTS PER MILLION
YEAR: 1975
‘ UM8ER OF STAN )APD
SITE SAMPLES AVERA ,E MINIMUM MAXIMUM D VIATIH
IALAMO 3 408 260 530 137
lADY 3 320 140 520 191
1B0 IE 3 287 270 310 21
1BUENAVIST 3 73 50 90 21
ICCk0 4)1J 3 140 50 300 139
1CEIST) .EY 3 10937 9290 12800 1765
IELPASJ-UG 3 2000 1650 2630 547
1HA T 3 127 40 200 61
1HOLYFAMIL 3 457 330 620 148
1JFSUS M6R 3 917 0 1320 354
1IAMAP 3 777 150 1950 1017
1LINCOL 3 53 20 100 42
1MESIT 3 147 90 180 49
P1ORLHEAL 3 87 80 90 6
1PUTNA 1 3 427 80 1100 583
1RO3ERTS 3 38 30 45 8
1ROJSEVELT 2 190 80 300 156
1SACPED - EA 3 705 305 953 349
ISANJACINT 3 323 240 410 85
1ST LE 1ENT 3 163 140 190 25
1STPAT ICK 3 653 290 1740 513
1UT P 3 40J 180 620 220
IVILAS 3 533 180 1200 578
1wEsrFsNf- I 3 119 20 306 163
IWH ITE 3 126 80 163 41
11218R4\IDI 2 1120 1040 1200 113
11409MU’1)Y 3 609 550 630 66
1173D &IS 3 223 100 290 107
11838wPAJS 3 270 100 360 147
11844W’ AIS 3 500 380 570 104
12473VF 4 3 9080 4b20 12390 4 0U
125 I OSTVRA 3 363 220 598 205
12616D IS& 3 4067 2970 4o20 950
13 O1RDBINS 3 253 120 440 167
A-212
-------
PA1CT! R: L A1)
MtTHiJ): ATrMIC ABS’)FPTJON
iNITS: PARTS P Ek 1ILL I )N
f : 1972
ST JJ4 II
sirr S 1PLES AVEPA 1 MINIMuM MtXIMJM DEVIATI:\u
l ivIsr i 1 229 100 450 141
13 U7L PAL 7 164 50 350 107
1-,2 )\j2Y 300 200 400 141
17u1TuJ rv - 19B 50 400
1705S-ULLS 7 283 200 400 96
1710MC ELL 5 226 100 330 92
171J7T- ST’ 6 242 100 400 111
1 U5S NS. 4 475 200 600 lag
182 MU’J)Y 5 330 200 500 130
2 LA 7 124 34 230
2.AI1Y 7 448 340 570 co
28 0W 1F 7 330 288 380 33
2CU u\J D: 7 33 10 60 17
2C IST0 Fy 7 4963 1560 12056 4439
2rLpAs) x(; 7 645 70 1820 622
2FkA LI.j 4 196 13o 250 53
2H u T 7 134 37 220
2HULYFAMIL 6 578 470 890 157
2JFS JS MAk 550 492 600 46
LAM4 7 82 50 112 21
2LINCCL 7 24 8 43 13
2MiSIT 7 227 120 348 10?
2MCh EHEAD 7 136 24 680 241
2PuTr i 7 64 41 95 20
2REjtFu IS 7 31 13 50 14
2kr’JsFv Lr 7 350 276 420 59
2SACPEr)HEA 6 962 800 1054 90
2SA’ J I JT 7 403 124 856 253
TCLt FNy 6 1217 1040 1384 143
2STII,N4TI) 6 1042 880 1200 120
2ST ’IICHAEL 6 31 4 52 19
2STPAT ICK 6 529 400 780 132
2LJTEP 6 433 328 492 65
2VIL S 7 255 130 370 73
2WFS1E NhI 7 21 4 50 16
2WHITE 6 44 4 85
.1U0fr t.) [ j 1 364 364 364
211r)WTLLIE 2 1052 720 1384 470
21L00M - [ 6 318 234 425 70
2113R!TflDE 3 3568 2760 4000 500
5 719 428 1300 344
21i0 i1L1 5 1164 760 1800 457
21218 \JD 7 742 615 888 102
21409MUN1’Y 7 1081 810 1280 158
2148C3IJ H 7 224 150 340 68
21730 PAIS 7 257 190 340 52
2l 39 1PAiS 7 331 168 450 84
A—213
-------
P AMETEt ; LEAD
METHflU: TflMIC M3SORPTI’)N
uNITS: PARTS PER MILLII)N
YEAR: 1973
‘ U’iEE1 iF ST NDA F
SITF SAMOLES AVERAGE MINIMUM rAAXI iUM DEVIATL N
1329V 1ST.AH 12 266 225 330 37
13407LAPAt 12 189 90 330 7c
1701TU FY 1 150 150 150
17OoSHILLS 11 295 130 430 33
17O8MZKELL 9 193 80 330 87
17107T-lST 12 241 200 300 34
1825MU’1 )V 12 233 40 600 187
24L8 fl 12 198 68 670 159
2AOY 12 311 28 530 160
28flWTE 12 393 120 1550 371
2C0 JJ’JADU 12 36 10 60 19
2CRISTJ’ FY 12 6021 3000 12200 2867
2ELP SJ-IIG 12 784 45 1560 4o7
2HART 12 190 130 280 46
2HflLYFAMIL 12 439 150 690 129
2JESUS&M 12 504 400 660 74
2KERNFIRFS 1 570 570 570
2LAMAP 12 206 40 1400 377
2LINC0L 12 27 10 50 16
2MESTT4 12 123 40 200 57
2M0 EHEAD 12 64 18 115 28
2PU1Nt i 12 67 13 115 32
2PPBFRTS 12 41 10 99 26
2Rfl0SE E1T 12 389 37 630 1o9
2SACPEDHLA 12 958 75 2700 612
2SA JACI’ T 12 305 220 460 79
2STCLEMENT 12 857 330 1600 342
2STIGN4TI 12 1044 500 1300 213
2ST !C I4EL 12 72 10 186 55
2STPATUCK 12 523 310 730 136
2UTEP 12 433 254 660 106
2VIL S 12 269 110 540 120
2WESTE 1H1 12 35 13 65 15
2WHITE 12 88 42 130 29
2 I100MA)EL 2 290 270 310 28
21 218R4N0C) 12 368 58 830 293
214 O9MUNJY 12 101]. 480 1600 347
2148COJRCH 12 269 110 980 232
21730 PAIS 12 238 22 370 93
21838W AIS 12 369 32 610 149
A—214
-------
LEAD
4FTH JD: ATflMIC A S )RPTIflN
UNITS: PARTS P R MILLION
YEAR: 1974
4UMBE OF 51 N AP
SIT SAMPLES AV&RAGF MINIMUM MAXIMUM OEVIAIICN
1329V 1 51AH 11 331 140 1.485 336
1340714DA1 11 103 60 170 34
17o8MCK LL 12 351 243 500
17107TriST 12 207 70 293
1325MU 4)Y 10 182 10 360 119
2&LAMfl 12 196 75 515
2A OY 1.2 720 118 3680
2B0 I 12 300 30 495 110
2 3UE? AVIST 1 2 893 20 10100 2900
2CCR N&fl 1 12 40 10 100 28
2CRIST3R Y 12 5399 248 11400 2892
2 LPASD 4IG 12 1170 340 641
2HART 12 214 24 655 151
2N0LYF MIL 12 530 21.6 1350 299
2JESUS M4 12 562 336 785 144
21. .AMAP 1.2 129 46 545 335
2LIN:oL 4 12 24 10 73 18
2MESZTA 1.2 153 35 220 53
2MC’ F 1FAD 1.2 62 16 1.46 37
2PUTNMM 12 79 29 151 35
2R(1a PTS 1.2 27 1.0 63. IR
2R0DSE VELT 12 390 264 633 108
2SACRE OHEA 12 9Q5 500 1170 186
2SA JA 1MT 12 36 218 460 72
2STL MEN1 12 33.6 27 890 234
2STIGNATI3 8 .151? 669 5700 1659
25TM1 1 EL 7 24 1.1 44 13
2STPATUCI( 12 462 253 610 109
2UTEP 12 638 310 860 161
2VILAS 32 21.4 60 390 88
2WFSTER 4lI 1.2 51 11 272 72
2W 4ITE 12 100 27 239
21216R&NDf) 12 643 22 1330 456
2140 MU’1DY 12 R82 465 1990 410
2l730 P IS 12 224 1.18 340 69
21.836WP IS 12 557 1.91 3560 947
A-215
-------
PAR ETER: LFAD
MTHIh): ATOMIC AESORPT ION
UNITS: P \RTS PEk MILLION
YEAR: 1975
llMBEP .2F STANDARD
SITE SAMPLES AVFRAG MINIMUM MAXIMUM 1)EVIATICJN
1329V 151AH 1 90 90 93
L7O8MCKELL 3 217 160 2 0 60
171O7TISTP 3 603 240 1320 621
1825MLJ’IDY 1 310 310 310
2ALAM ) 3 333 174 482 154
2AflY 3 393 204 505 1 2
28flWIE 3 367 332 336 30
28UEr iAVIST 3 57 23 88 33
2CORONADO 3 77 20 163 79
2CPISTD(EY 3 10667 9600 11600 1307
2ELPASJIIG 3 1837 1650 1940 162
2HART 3 151 48 302 134
2HOLYF& IIL 3 525 334 752 211
2JESUSCMAP 3 978 660 1370 361
2LA 1Ai 3 157 20 23S 119
2LI C0L 3 57 14 120 56
2MESITA 3 167 34 264 119
2MCRE -IEA D 3 104 32 148 63
2PUTNA’ 3 87 20 165 73
2ROBERTS 3 57 20 116 52
2ROJSEVELT 2 241 57 425 260
2SACPEDHEA 3 750 336 985 360
2SANJ4CINT 3 447 345 550 103
2STCLFMENT 3 179 165 186 12
2STPAT ICK 3 687 445 1160 410
2UTEP 3 519 234 778 273
2VILAS 3 634 220 1440 698
2P ESTEF 1HI 3 53 13 120 59
2 dHITE 3 151 23 286 132
21218Rt NDfl 2 1135 1060 1210 106
21409MU 1)Y 3 673 510 775 143
21730WPAIS 3 189 66 262 107
21838 ’ IS 3 266 85 362 157
A—216
-------
PARAMETER: LEAD
METiIUD: ATOMIC ABSORPTION
UNITS: PARTS PER MILLION
YEAR: 1972
4LJM8ER OF STANDARD
SITE SAMPLES AVERAGE MINIMUM MAXIMUM DEVIATION
21844wP4 1S 7 659 552 750 70
22 0 0CARL)S 1 1569 1568 1568
2204W 1LL1E 4 1910 1640 2120 200
2216ACARLCj 4 1098 440 1480 456
22473VFw 7 3050 644 7254 2200
2251 OSTVPA 6 180 29 500 179
22616P&ISA 7 2404 1670 3888 910
2305SK NSA 1. 752 752 752
2321OPIEDM 6 150 82 290 91
2329VIST H 7 257 200 342 54
2340714PA1 1 103 65 128 23
2425MU4)Y 2 296 252 ?4 0 62
2510ST AI 1 36 36 36
2701TJRNEY 7 98 29 214 79
27O6SHILLS 7 314 264 439 59
2710MC(ELL 6 241 164 350 70
271 O7TISTR 7 201 95 268 60
2805SKA’4SA 4 454 340 630 129
2825MU\ DY 5 359 240 470 98
3ALAM3 7 2869 648 11174 3690
3AOY 7 1918 1200 2500 381
3Bfl TE 7 2151 1000 3000 691
3CORO 4&D3 7 5797 962 29387 12709
3CSISTD EY 7 6126 3500 9000 1988
3ELPAS34IG 7 2907 2250 3500 4 8
3FRANKLIN 3 3429 2887 4400 843
3HART 7 1382 557 2800 788
H0LYFAMIL 6 222 ) 1426 35iJ3 843
J1SUS MA1 6 3540 1777 5000 1244
3LA AR 7 2657 600 9830 3281
3LINC0L 4 450 100 1000 404
3MESITA 7 4611 2600 7824 1929
3MO EHFAD 7 357 200 1000 305
3PUINAM 7 493 200 1250 366
3ROBE TS 7 698 200 1200 412
3P0 [ JSEvELT 7 3936 2432 5215 1009
3SA:RFr HEA 6 3702 2355 4250 714
3SANJACINT 7 1812 1000 2883 682
3STCLEMENT 6 2183 1200 4158 1113
3STIGNAT IU 6 1793 997 3315 845
3STMICHAEL 5 5140 1825 15000 5584
3STPATRICK 6 2967 2000 3500 582
3(JTEP 6 3283 2000 4500 953
.3VILAS 7 3777 2750 4950 792
3WESTEU JH! 7 972 600 1602 33
3WMITF 6 10905 2250 22700 9235
A—217
-------
P KA ETER: LFIJ)
METH(J0: t T )MIC P BSPRPTIflN
UNITS: PAPTS PEP 1ILLIQN
YE . : 1973
‘ UIFE OF ST4NDA P
SIfl SAMPLES AVFRA E MINIMUM MAXIMU 4 PEVLATION
21844wP8 1 5 12 1009 57 5050 1320
22473 FW 12 4816 1300 14300 3276
22510STV A 12 341 180 520 117
22616PAIS 13 3369 1000 F600 2012
2301R BI’ S 482 320 750 153
23210PtEflM 12 113 17 300 78
2329 ISTAH 12 2S 2? 3 0
23407Z4Pt L 12 150 53 278 75
2701TU NEY 1 200 230 200
27U6S 1ILLS 11 308 10 405 57
2708 1CKELL 9 252 60 840 234
27107T-IST 12 229 140 300 48
2825MU ’flY 12 232 10 600 1 9
34LAMO 12 1215 100 2500 752
3ACiY 12 1829 813 3058 712
3BOWIE 12 1853 879 2650 569
3CUPO 4D ) 11 1464 800 2538 495
3CR1STJ .EY 11 51622 33580 80758 15827
3ELPAS OHIG 12 3419 2459 4672 682
3h4ART 12 1015 100 1600 404
3HC LYFAMIL 12 2412 1150 3968 944
3JFSUS&’lAk 12 57S3 1000 13806 3412
3KERNFIRES 1 3600 3600 3600
3LAMAR 12 1884 1350 2500 413
3L INCOL’4 12 767 150 2242 587
3MFSIT& 12 34C8 1467 5000 1107
3MOREHEAP 12 502 225 800 163
3PUTNAI 12 598 500 800 133
3SOBERTS 12 485 50 1000 236
3ROJSEVFLT 12 2607 1584 4480 931
3SACREDHFA 12 3326 1900 5178 887
3sANJA:rNr 11 2300 746 4348 1047
3STLEMENT 13 2342 1750 2750 348
3STIGNATIJ 12 1308 100 2250 557
3STMIC-IAEL 12 2647 571 4244 1004
3STPAT ICK 11 2681 1986 3250 393
3UTEP 12 4785 1652 7500 1577
3VTL4S 11 3396 2500 4400 781
3WESTE NHI 11 797 500 1295 291
3W1-4ITE 12 1988 450 3653
A—218
-------
PARAMETER: LEAD
METHOD: ATOMIC ABSORPTION
UNITS: PARTS PER MILLION
YEAR; 1974
NUMBER OF ST. ’V)APD
SITE SAMPLES AVERAGE MINIMUM MAX IMUM 0EV TAT I(JN
21844WP4 1S 12 518 12 800 207
22473vF 11 5427 655 14200 4092
2251OSTVPA 12 312 80 50 1 1
2261 PAISA 12 2832 1040 6300 1477
23O1ROBINS 12 605 71 2000 5 2
2329V 1ST4H 11 272 165 360 61
2340 7L APAL 11 121 55 220 44
27OBMCKELL. 12 385 282 520 73
2T1 O7TISTR 12 239 115 322 57
2825M1J’IDY 10 219 10 43, 158
3ALAMO 12 860 300 2350 612
3AOY 12 1835 1022 3350 720
3BO iIE 12 1171 725 2113 392
3BUENAVIST 1.2 515 350 896 148
3CO ONADD 12 1194 400 2324 556
3CRI5TJ EY 11 37077 64 69250 18981
3ELPASD-IIG 12 3579 2038 5561 946
3HART 11 1045 600 2450 514
3HOLYF AMIL 11 1624 1100 2800 584
3JESJS( P4AR 11 5520 932 11160 3639
3LAMAR 12 1422 100 2400 629
3LINCOL J 12 321 75 807 255
3MESITA 12 2191 816 4650 1064
3M0 E1EAD 12 168 100 325 77
3PUTNAM 12 425 250 705 135
3RCBERTS 12 118 50 300 64
3R0)SEVELT 11 1893 484 2650 564
3SACREDHEA 12 3488 1850 5500 1232
3SANJACI 1T 9 1265 550 1629 426
3STCLEMENT 1.2 1814 1588 2050 155
3STIGNATIO 7 992 229 1840 530
3STMICHAEL 6 1432 1200 1650 207
3STPAT ICK 12 2446 155 3500 988
3UTEP 10 2477 1327 950 931
3VILAS 12 3845 1492 6564 1671
3WESTERNHI 11 454 245 899 202
IWHITE 11. 3882 1225 12595 3780
A—219
-------
PA METER: LEAD
1I THOD: ATOMIC A8SrPPTIUN
UNITS: PARTS PER 4ILL!0N
YFEAP: 1975
‘4LJ 13ER OF ,TANc RL’
SITE SA PLFS AVFPAGE INI8UM M XIMU 1 DEVIATI 1N
21844 PAIS 3 54 475 600
22473 ’F 3 9267 5000 12700 3917
225 I OSTVfrA 3 537 264 1040
2261oPAISA 3 4177 2660 5720 1530
23O1POBINS 3 369 132 815 38o
2329VISTAh 1 81 91 81
2708MC(ELL 3 235 164 280 62
271O7THSTP 3 653 194 1340 606
2825 iU )Y 1 475 475 475
3AL i) 3 767 100 1600 764
3AOY 3 1625 350 3000 1328
3bfl IE 3 1619 250 2506 1203
3BUFNAVIST 3 448 195 800 314
3CURONA)0 3 713 40 1.99 873
3FRISTBR Y 3 33196 21593 48345 1372’+
3ELPAS)-UG 3 3615 745 5350 2504
3HART 3 1761 50 4784 2625
3HOLYFAMIL 3 1017 150 1800 828
3JF SUS MAR 3 4538 2200 6024 2049
3LAMAR 3 717 200 1700 852
3LINCOL ’ 3 131 40 252 109
3MFSITA 3 2357 1550 2850 704
3MOREHE&1 3 183 150 250 58
3PUT? A 3 277 90 550 242
3POBERTS 3 67 50 100 29
3RCJSEVELT 1814 278 3350 2172
3SAC EDHEA 3 4130 700 5850 2970
3SANJACINT 2 1250 300 2200 1344
3STCL ENT 3 1495 400 2396 100
3STPATRICK 3 2473 400 3520 1796
3UTEP 3 1933 153 3146 1575
3VILAS 3 4407 1500 7371 2936
3WESTE NHI 3 407 20 650 339
3 H1TE 3 1353 570 1947 708
A—220
-------
PARAMETER: LEAD
METHOD: ATOMIC ABSORPI ION
UNITS: PARTS PER MILLION
YEAR: 1972
4IJMBER
flF
STANDAPt)
SITE
SAMPLES
AVERAGE
MINIMUM
MAXIMUM DEVIATiON
310 0MAOELI
1.
2713
2713
2713
31].3WILLIE
1
12400
12400
12400
3 I I OOMADEL
6
3521
858
6220
2131
3113R1T)DE
5
40562
29000
49849
7662
31LgAC#RLO
6
27480
17400
38498
7008
312 OWILLIE
5
36180
2800
64484
25065
31218R491)O
7
4667
2000
8800
2264
31409MU\IDY
7
1486
600
2200
525
3148CJUR H
7
716
200
1750
53
31730 PAIS
7
2425
1290
3523
824
31838 PAIS
7
3468
1094
760’)
2526
31844WP6IS
6
2337
1632
3145
.84
3200CA LJS
1
14520
14520
14520
3204 dILLIE
4
21940
10800
36800
11551
3216ACARLO
4
15818
7400
22860
6609
32473VF
7
58202
32400
103700
25332
32510ST A
6
2711
1760
5104
1220
32b I6PAISA
7
10170
7437
15000
3007
33O5S (A ’ S4
1
400
400
400
3321OPIEDM
5
18342
1059
84000
36710
3329VZS1At4
7
675
200
1250
379
334071APAL
6
1074
400
1953
520
3425MU OY
2
2555
2150
2960
573
3510STV 4I
1
1200
1200
1200
37011 WNEY
4
12 1
560
2482
841
37O6SHILLS
7
1407
600
2500
631
3710M
-------
D R METF : LFA)
IETHOD: ATOMIC A8SD PTI0N
UNITS: p :TS PEP MILLION
YEAP: H73
‘J J lRER OF STANDARD
SITE SAMPLES AVERAGE MINIMUM MAXIMUM OEV!ATIJN
31130 ’1A) L 2 2971 2450 3491 736
31218P( ”IDP 10 4875 1900 7623 2066
31409MU’JiJY 12 1299 750 300 424
3148COJRCH 12 647 100 1150 337
31730wPAIS 11 1403 100 3550 1028
31838 ’AIS 12 2354 1078 4192 359
31844wPAIS 11 7059 1000 51825 15026
32473VFW 12 76071 36300 131200 31339
32510ST 11 3603 284 6350 178
32Ô I6PAISA 12 7951 3042 24150 5429
3301 O3INs 3 3886 1400 48000 15912
33210P1 5EM 6 1655 500 5300 1825
3329V 1STAH 1]. 802 250 2000 521
3340714PA 1. 12 898 100 1901 606
37 06S-4!LLS 11 1140 500 1980 379
37O8MCKELL 9 2349 1279 5650 1487
37107T-ISTF< 11 2249 826 3100 618
3825MW40Y 11 2494 1366 5461 1162
4AL4MI) 12 1142 400 2500 735
440Y 12 1912 950 2750 576
4B [ j IF 12 1912 750 2800 643
4CURUN4)3 12 1708 410 3600 cog
4CPISTJ EY 11 38300 4943 70555 18841
4ELPASOI-1IG 12 3394 18 O 4450 749
4HART 12 890 400 1650 362
4H0LyF MIL 12 1955 315 4050 1097
4JESUSaMAP 12 5010 850 9250 2219
4KFRNF IRE S 1 2750 2750 2750
4LAMAR 12 1793 1050 2650 460
4LINOL\J 12 283 50 1000 290
4MFSIT 12 3501 1875 5300 1173
4MDREHE4 O 11 196 50 325 91
4PUTNAM 12 385 90 1100 274
4R OBFRTS 12 148 50 470 151
A— 222
-------
P.\RAMETER: LEO
1ETH1J ): ATtJMIC ABSORPTION
UNITS: PASTS PER MILLION
YEAR: 1974
‘4UM Ek JF ST NDA D
SITE SAMPLES AVERAGE MIN1MU? AXIMU i 1: V1ATIZ1N
31218RA’4Dfl 7 1733 585 6O3 774
314 O9MUNflY 12 1116 450 2973 675
31730WPA 1S a 741 200 1312 356
31638 PAIS 11 2706 1032 5173 1239
31844 PAIS 9 26048 823 225100 74645
32473VFW 12 51087 17 27 93400 2632
32510ST IPF \ 10 3309 2053 5500 1030
326L6P ISA 12 8780 3777 17026 4511
3301P03P4S 9 2666 1350 3532 649
3329VISTAH 10 389 124 750 209
334O7ZAPAL 7 274 135 650 177
370 MCKELL 11 1997 1126 3300 570
37107T-iST1 10 1954 1000 2569 531
3825MU 4)Y 10 2085 1445 3000 510
4ALAMJ 12 989 400 2600 660
4AOY 12 2111 934 4190 937
4BOi IE 12 1744 890 3300 881.
4BUENAVIST 12 1198 2 7 7600 2040
4CURONADfl 12 1527 635 2940 740
4CR! STJREY 12 47015 7777 72000 17168
4ELPASJHI(, 12 ‘ .332 2925 6759 1188
4HART 11 1160 88 3600 898
4H OLYFAMIL 11 1879 30 750 1012
4JESUS& IA 11. 6240 500 15000 4636
4LAMAK 12 1766 1000 2530 535
4LINC0L 12 465 27 2520 701
4MESITA 12 2382 930 5100 1179
4MOREfIEAD 12 208 35 700 183
4PUTN4# 12 548 170 975 219
4ROBERTS 11 143 5 725 200
A-2 23
-------
pASA ETFR: LEAD
METHIh): ATOMIC ABSORPTION
UNITS; PARTS PER MILLION
YEAR: 1975
NU4BER UF STANDAkO
SITF SAMPLES AVERAGE MINIMUM MAXIMUM DtVIATION
3121RR D ] 1 1765 1765 17 5
31409MUNL Y 3 1617 950 2650 07
31730WP4 1S 2 315 230 400 l 0
31838 AIS 2 1863 1746 1977 162
31844 PAIS 2 1039 330 1747 i 302
32473VFi4 3 36082 5246 75553 35938
32510STVk4 3 1261 313 2000 863
32616P 41SA 3 6875 6050 7574 770
3301P )BI’JS 2 5325 2600 8050 3854
3329V 1S1AH 1 196 196 196
37 O3MCKELL 3 1197 250 1943 863
37107THST 2 2248 1300 3196 1341
3825MU’4DY 1 410 410 410
44L4M 0 3 835 260 1820 657
4AOY 3 1748 455 3050 1298
4BOWIE 3 1661 215 2413 1253
‘.BUENAVIST 3 546 403 813 229
4CO 3N4DO 3 845 300 1906 919
4C ISTD EY 3 34467 24200 49200 13085
4EIPASOHIG 3 4218 705 6 300 3060
4HART 3 2063 50 5470 2967
4H OLYFArIIL 3 1073 190 1950 880
4JESUS& AP 3 5255 2275 7640 2732
4LAMAP 3 1605 115 2475 1296
4LINC OLN 3 117 30 166 44
4MES 114 3 2478 1470 3025 574
4M0 EHE4D 3 162 135 175 23
4PUTNA’4 3 782 350 1373 528
4R OBERTS 3 110 50 210 87
A—2 24
-------
PARAMETER; L J
1ETHOD: ATOMIC. AbS iRPTIflN
UNITS: PARTS PER MILLIUN
YEAR: 1972
NU lBER
OF
STANOAPt)
SITE
SAMPLES
AVEP.AGI
MINIMUM
M8XIM JM
DEVIAT12N
4ROJSEVEIT
7
4047
3100
5233
753
4SACREDh4EA
6
5620
3900
10300
2338
4SANJACP4T
6
2085
1000
3340
827
4STCLEME T
6
2024
860
2941
847
;STIGrS4AT IO
6
1251
873
1500
240
4STMICIAEL
5
14007
1770
60000
2571
4STPAT ICK
6
2977
1750
3950
77
4IJTEO
6
3492.
220G
4920
101.
4VILAS
7
4031
2770
5153
824
4WESTER 4HI
7
1133
30
2628
773
4WHITF
6
13118
1010
36500
14128
4100MAD 1T
1.
3333
3333
3333
41 IOWILLIE
1
10900
10900
10900
411O0M DEL
6
2592
1640
3750
686
4113 IT0DE
39392
27500
45750
7372
4119 CARLU
4
24160
21250
25757
1992
4123 ILL!E
5
33480
17900
64000
17868
41218RANPr}
7
2759
325
6000
2044
41409M NDV
7
2859
310
12200
4216
4148C0JR H
7
371
150
480
118
41730WP( IS
7
1323
230
2070
690
41838 P6jS
7
2411
280
3571
1080
41844 PAIS
7
2101
215
4000
1100
4200C& L3S
1.
14800
14800
14800
42 O4WILLIE
4
16800
10900
23200
5252
6216ACARLO
4
15125
14000
16200
1135
42473VF
7
55846
35000
92420
21856
42510S1 IR&
‘
2433
1200
4700
1369
42616PA1S4
7
8104
760
12100
3798
43O5SKANSA
1.
1950
1950
1950
4321 OP1EDM
5
7280
880
28300
11784
4329V1 5TAH
7
368
70
1060
327
43407Z4 AL
ó
830
85
2670
955
4425MU’1)Y
2
2000
1950
2050
71
‘t51 OSTVRAI
1
2330
2330
2330
4701TU 1EY
3
1192
475
2080
816
4706SH 1L1S
7
1829
425
8000
2137
471O 1C cFLL
5
5730
3800
10300
2693
47107T $ST k
7
4Q57
1300
7700
21.33
48Q5SKANSA
4
1056
650
1500
431
4825MU’ )Y
4
1850
200
2750
1132
1—225
-------
Pr i 1ER: LEAr)
METHrD: t T0MIC AB5r] PT10N
UNITS: PAP.TS PEk MILLION
YEAR: 1973
NU iBER 1W STANUAkr
SITE SAMPLES AVFRAGE MINIMUM MAXIMUM DEVTATIOr’J
4RO7SEVELT 12 2699 1385 4300 982
4S CIEUHEA 12 3066 1500 4643 84
4SANJ4CI’ T 12 1676 950 2500 457
4STCLE 1ENT 10 2203 900 2800 653
4STIC N&TIO 12 1190 80 2000 519
4ST IC-IAiL 12 2646 1294 4300 951
4STPATRICK 12 2752 1923 3450 470
4UT P 12 3978 1750 9200 2062
4VILAS 11 3340 2325 4550
4WESTERNF-II 12 1224 150 5300 1516
4WHITF 12 1899 550 3100 o49
41100MA) L 2 3850 2600 5100 1768
41218R4N 0r) 10 4026 545 7000 2137
41409MU’ DY 12 1213 130 2846 26
4148CJUR -1 12 426 27 900 273
4173Q d?4IS 12 1134 182 2885 820
41838 PAIS 12 2791 212 7050 1720
41844WP 1S 12 4092 222 33630 9320
42473VFW 12 61959 8900 102000 28219
4251OSTVRA 12 2780 300 7100 2107
4261GPC.ISA 12 7227 472 15400 3667
43 O IR OBINS 8 3171 550 5555 1917
43210P 1E)M 7 637 182 1660 484
432 VIST4H 12 491 50 1000 300
43407 1AP4L 10 281 50 700 250
47OÔSHILLS 11 1012 600 1866 392
47 O8MCKFLL 9 2447 310 5950 1613
47107T 1STP 12 2390 1500 2850 4t
825MU PY 11 1967 295 2450 611
A—2 26
-------
PARA 1ETER: LEAD
METHUD: ATOMIC ABSOP.PTION
UNITS: PARTS PER MILLIUN
YEAR: 1974
\IUMB R ! F $TANDA 1)
SITE SAMPLES AVERAGE MINIMUM MAXIMUM DFVIATIO 4
4RUOSEVF.LT 11 1960 166 3050 835
4SACREDHEA 12 3984 2025 6800 1452
4SANJA1NT 11 1616 233 4400 1215
4STCLEIENT 12 2227 1037 40 0 726
4STIGNATIU 7 1901 880 5000 1512
4STMIC 14EL 6 1856 1500 2143 210
4STPAT ICK 12 3207 766 4400 968
4UTEP 10 2947 1183 4250 1075
4VILAS 12 A163 1820 8235 1927
4WESTESNHI 11 701 280 2000 537
4WHITE 11 5362 1428 15086 4348
41218R4NE P 7 1833 820 3220 854
41409MU’fl)Y 12 1455 695 4000 894
41730WP IS 8 830 466 1320 274
41838WP41 5 11 3239 1861 6000 1345
41344WP&IS 9 1541 850 3750 904
42473VFW 12 58513 19100 95000 27790
4251 OSTVRA 12 3481 90 5 55 1823
42616P4 1SA 12 5643 4906 17664 4696
43O1ROBINS 10 3424 2666 4550 574
4329V 1S1AH 10 492 118 875 244
43407ZAP4L 7 328 14 800 259
47O8MKELL 12 2184 1150 3250 533
47107T 1STR 10 2280 150 5333 1368
48Z5MU’IDY 10 2359 1766 2825 384
k—227
-------
PARAM TFR: LEAr)
NIETHr)1): T01IC AbSORPTION
UNITS: PARTS P R 4ILLI0N
YEAR: 1 )75
‘ UMBER OF ST. ND R’J
SITF SAMPLES AVERAGE MINIMUM MAXIMUM PEVIATION
40 0)SEVELT 2 1988 500 3475 2104
4SACP.EL)HE A 3 4313 690 6150 3138
4SANJ4I’ T 3 997 30 360 1215
4STCLEIENT 3 1520 490 2320 936
4STPAT ICK 3 2590 565 62U 1754
4UTEP 3 2198 203 3325 1735
4VIL S 3 4357 1460 7050 2801
4WESTF NHI 3 486 333 775 250
4WHITE 3 1455 660 2400 880
4 I2 18RAN)fl 1 2075 2075 2075
41409MU 4DY 3 1713 1000 3025 1137
41730 PAIS 2 355 250 460 148
41838W AIS 3 4333 2141 8560 3657
41844 PAIS 3 1472 440 2250 931
42473VFr4 3 37405 10465 74000 32849
4251OSTV A 3 1451 525 2030 811
42616PA1SA 3 8595 6200 10085 2095
4301RJ3P4S 3 5200 2875 9800 3934
4329VISTAH 1. 285 285 285
47O8MKELL 3 1233 285 1875 838
47107THST 2 2695 2525 2865 240
4825MW40Y 1 430 430 430
A—22 8
-------
PARAMETER: ZINC
METHOD: ATOMiC ABSORPTION
UNITS; PARTS PER MILLION
YEAR: 1972
UMBER OF STANDARD
SiTE SAMPLES AVERAGE MINIMUM MAXIMUM DEVIATION
IALAMO 7 119 20 240 71
1AQY 7 377 240 540 106
1BOWIE 7 469 395 525 52
1COPOP4ADO 5 48 35 60 1.2
ICRISTOREY 7 3196 1040 7325 2633
1ELP&S)HIG 7 26. 85 440 133
1FRANKLIN 4 160 100 200 43
LHART 7 201 110 260 52
1HOLYFAMIL 6 408 340 535 71
1JESUS MAR 6 365 300 420 42
1LAMt R ‘7 69 10 110 31
1LINCOL 5 60 25 160 56
1MESITA 7 324 200 460 83
IMOREHEAL 7 63 20 120 31
LPUTNAM 6 56 40 65 12
1ROBERTS 5 56 35 120 36
1R OOSEVELT 7 384 265 480 82
ISAREDHEA 6 1020 900 1115 72
1SANJACINT 7 404 60 760 275
1STCLEMENT 6 668 570 795 84
LSTIGNATI O 6 1013 860 1160 101
1ST 4IC. 4EL 6 56 15 230 71
1STP4T ICK 6 400 340 480 53
1UTEP 6 269 180 360 64
1VILAS 7 514 10 805 264
1WESTF.’IH I 7 57 20 160 47
IWHITE 4 70 60 80 9
l100MAD 1 1 320 320 320
11l)WILLIE 2 1120 720 1520 566
111O0M DEL 6 240 135 310 59
L I13RIT)DE 5 3582 2580 4190 718
1119ACARLO 5 lOll 540 1915 564
112 OWILLIE 5 1130 660 1750 465
11218RAND D 7 469 315 600 105
11409MLJ’ DY 7 641 420 760 111
114BCJJRCH 7 200 120 263 55
I173 OWPAIS 7 264 120 420 115
I1E3SWPAIS 7 193 120 250 53
11844WP4 1S 7 444 395 480 36
120 0CARL OS 1 960 960 960
I2O4wILLIE 4 1750 1400 2040 268
1216AC4R10 4 990 440 1200 367
1i473VFW 7 1636 460 3755 1084
125lOST IRA 5 187 20 450 194
12616P ISA 7 2339 1320 3760 1039
13O5SKAMSA 1 600 600 600
13210P 1E0M 5 188 60 400 135
k—229
-------
PARAMETER: ZINC
METI-400: ATOMIC ABSORPTION
UNITS: PARTS PER MILLION
YEAR: 1973
UMt3E OF STANOAPO
SITE SAMPLES AVERAGE MINIMUM MAXIMUM DEVTATI3N
1ALAMQ 12 138 55 190 42
lADY 12 340 160 535 146
lBO IE 12 446 325 890 151
1CO ONA)D 12 35 15 50 12
1CRLSTJ EY 12 5422 2600 8613 2011
1ELPASIJHIG 12 343 90 540 154
LHART 12 253 170 355 63
1HDLYF AMIL 12 358 270 540 73
IJESUS&M&R 12 348 280 530 63
1KERNFIRES 1 35J 350 35)
ILAMAR 12 83 65 120 19
1LINCOL’ 12 39 15 70 14
1MES1T 12 207 60 420 116
1MOREHbAr 12 103 50 160 33
1PUTNAM 12 67 40 93 14
IROBE8TS 12 33 15 50 11
IRUOSEVELT 12 394 105 560 124
1SA2RE)HEA 12 114 410 3285 703
1SANJACINT 12 369 250 770 136
1STLEMENT 12 556 335 870 204
1STIGNATID 1’ 1094 405 1423 270
1STMIC- AEL 12 45 15 105 27
1STDATUCK 12 407 315 505 67
1UTEP 12 477 285 6o5 130
1VILAS 12 425 100 980 218
1WESTF NHI 12 83 35 385 96
1WHITE 12 70 60 85 8
1113OMA ) L 2 265 200 333 92
11218R4N00 12 247 75 540 171
114O9MUNDY 12 614 390 825 147
I14BC OURCH 12 275 180 750 155
1L73OWPAIS 12 296 160 4 0 31
11838 Pt IS 12 276 200 503 91
11844WPA 1S 12 504 210 1445 312
12473VFW 12 2592 770 399.) 941
1251 0S1IRA 12 228 110 370 79
I26 I6PA ISA 12 3076 1085 5775 1171
1301 O8.INS 9 292 210 385 57
1321OPIEDM 12 128 40 370 94
A—230
-------
PAM T k: LINC
‘ 1ETH0 : T1I iIC SJ ’PT ION
UNITS: PA?TS PER MILLION
y4P: 19Th
NU 13F flf- ST ”Dt )
SIT S MPL1 S AVE AGE INTMIJM AXTi1LJM fl v!ATION
1414M1 1 188 60 340 101
1AOY 12 2 9 112 460 91
IBOWIF 12 435 245 770 148
1BUEN8V!ST 12 794 25 850 2537
1CO )NA [ )U 1 27 10 42 8
1CPISTJ EY 12 3976 190 7980 2442
1fLP SrHIG 12 585 280 144’ 345
1rIART 12 171 20 320 92
1H OLYFAM!L 12 333 140 595 132
1JESUS AR 12 405 270 510 69
1LA A 12 69 55 155 28
1LINCflL 12 35 10 58 13
IMESITP 12 213 65 570 145
1MOR HEA0 12 476 65 3870 1075
1PUT’ M 12 66 45 120 20
1RfJ8F TS 12 46 20 75 16
1ROUSEVELT 12 37 230 649 126
1SACREDHF4 12 877 550 1155 175
1SANJ INT 1 350 205 455 83
1ST LE 1ENT 12 196 40 593 155
1STIGN&TIO 8 973 770 1380 200
1STM1 -1AEL 7 39 10 100 30
1STPAT IC 12 395 230 480 67
1UTFP 12 473 250 680 124
1VILAS 12 286 105 675 160
1WEST R’JHJ 12 50 22 90 18
IWHITE 12 72 45 115 21
11218RA ’1DO 12 473 60 805 243
11439M1J iDY 12 451 275 803 151
11730wP41S 12 237 140 321 59
11838 P&I 5 12 385 80 2530 678
11844MP IS 12 40 341 530 49
12473vFW 1]. 2710 345 6225 1q58
I251OSTVRA 12 234 25 480 129
12&L6PAISL 12 2721 600 6050 1520
I3O1RPBINS 12 487 115 1980 529
A—231
-------
PARAMETER: ZINC
MFTHOO: ATflMIC ABSOJ PT1ON
UNITS: PARTS PER MILLION
YEAR: 1975
Ur.1BER OF STANflAkO
SITE SAMPLES 4VERAGE MINIMUM MAXIMUM oevIATIJN
IALAMO 3 328 315 338 12
lADY 3 323 150 462 159
1B WIE 3 488 390 660 149
1bUENAVIST 3 117 78 188 62
1CO ONADO 3 338 30 950 530
1CRISTJ EY 3 8453 7517 9240 871
1ELP S)HIG 3 623 392 64 236
IHART 3 151 45 2 8 107
1HDLYFAMIL 3 367 242 480 120
1JFSUS MAR 3 1402 495 3080 1455
ILA 3 6 0 80 1775 950
1LINC0L 3 123 32 275 132
1MESITA 3 162 80 210 71
1M0 EHE4D 3 245 142 332 96
1PUTNAM 3 732 0 2075 1163
1RDBEPTS 3 55 49 65 9
1ROOSEVELT 2 175 70 280 148
ISACREDHEA 3 1088 960 1317 199
1S NJAI’ T 3 335 265 440 93
ISTCLEMENT 3 104 90 122 16
1STPAT ICK 3 355 260 ‘ 05 82
1UTEP 3 282 60 500 220
IVILAS 3 436 248 780 298
1 ESTE HI 3 174 30 462 249
LWHITE 3 95 80 105 13
11218RA .IDfl 2 810 740 880 99
114 09MJ’WY 3 368 320 435 60
l1730 PAIS 3 222 125 272 84
11838 &IS 3 189 108 235 7].
].1844WP41S 3 415 375 460 43
12473VFW 3 3971 2087 5262 1669
125 10St lRA 3 551 205 l229 587
126 1EPAISA 3 3744 2805 4227 813
1301R331NS 3 203 120 295 88
A—23 2
-------
PARAMETER: ZINC
METHOD: ATIDMIC A8SORPTION
UNITS: PARTS PER MILLION
YEAR: 1972
1UMBER OF STANDARD
SITE SAMPLES AVERAGE MIN M JM MAXIMUM 0 VIATI2N
1 29VISTAt-4 7 389 190 1175 351
134O7ZAPAL 7 196 120 260 57
1425MUIOY 2 230 160 300 99
1701TUr ’4FY 6 94 40 175 56
1706S1-IILLS 7 357 25 530 158
1710MC .LL 6 195 120 2 O 49
17107H31R 7 156 105 200 33
18O5SKAMSA 4 625 460 1000 252
1825M’rflY 5 289 200 360 59
2ALAMu 7 124 70 185 53
2A’]Y 7 5O 362 620 97
2Bfl IF 7 518 50 706 213
2CORONA)fl 7 37 26 52 9
2CRIST EY 7 3576 1136 3779 3022
2ELPASHIG 7 301 89 500 151
2FPAF4KLIN 4 173 144 200 26
2HART 7 224 154 290 49
2HOLYF4MIL 6 468 376 649 97
2JESUS MA 6 335 40 438 148
2LAMAP 7 79 4 102 14
2LINCflL 7 42 12
2MESITI, 7 3 9 54) 117
2MEH 7 IC)3 74
2PL TJA’ F 49
2ROb RTS 7 4
2ROJSEVELT 7 376 1 1
2S C E1)HEA 6 1O 94k) 1292 121
2SAMJ INT 7 45 7 .) 90 291
ZSTCLEMENT 6 787 610 949 115
2STIGNATID 6 1119 1000 1192 79
2STMICHA [ L 6 39 27 48 9
2STPATRTCsc 6 472 340 606 94
2UTEP 6 3Q 224 412 65
2VILAS 7 719 400 1009 189
2WESTEk’IH I 7 59 28 110 31
2WHITE 6 67 45 89 18
2100MADELI 1 340 340 340
Z I1OWILLIE 2 1120 720 1 2Q 566
211U0 DEL 6 269 153 330 66
2113RIT) E 5 3502 2680 4300 584
2119ACA L3 5 996 430 1940 01
2120wILLfl 5 1123 600 1650 444
21218 ND3 7 571 424 700 111
2t409MLS SDY 7 746 450 909 151
2168CDLJRC 4 7 256 159 360 83
2173OW AIS 7 332 176 529 114
21838WP4 1S 7 290 134 420 100
A—233
-------
PARAMETER: ZINC
jETr4CD: ATOMIC ABSORPTION
UNITS: PARTS PER M!LLIU4
yEAR: 1973
\JUIBER OF STANDARD
SITF SAMPLES AVERAGE MINIMUM MAXIMUM DEVIATION
1329VISTAH 12 78 350 1860
134O7ZAPAL 12 187 120 270 5 3
1701TU NFY 1 155 155 155
17O6SHILLS 11 399 290 625 95
17 O8MKELL 9 168 100 295 59
171 O7TMSTR 12 228 150 300 49
1825MUN)Y 12 233 30 665 193
2ALAMO 12 144 48 200 45
2AWY 12 382 168 730 178
2Bfl.4 1E 12 517 347 980 188
2CORDNADIJ 12 33 10 55 13
2CRISTJ FY 12 5136 2282 9993 2517
2ELPASJHIG 12 367 52 50 172
2HA T 12 267 166 379 62
2HOLYFAMIL 12 380 272 625 92
2JESIJS&’1AP 12 353 38 530 122
2KERNFISES 1 380 380 380
2LAMAR 12 77 22 112 24
2LIN’0L’4 12 44 17 77 19
2MESITA 12 207 5 565 153
2MORErIEAD 12 106 45 166 35
2PUTNAM 12 71 39 95 16
2RObERTS 12 43 7 BC) 2].
2RLDSEVELT 12 478 244 685 125
2S ACREDHEA 12 1090 89 2950 661
2SANJACINT 12 407 250 865 174
2STCLFMENT 12 557 352 935 201
2STIGNATII) 12 1124 367 1400 277
2STMIC-$&EL 12 47 15 92 23
2STPATUCK 12 448 312 630
2UTEP 12 485 260 665 110
2VILAS 12 375 87 639 184
2WFSTER’IHE 12 43 19 69 17
2WHITE 12 85 41 107 17
21100VA) EL 2 220 210 229 13
212 I8RANDO 12 290 52 o20 210
214 O9MUNDY 12 658 360 Y29 189
2148COtJRCH 12 247 157 380
21730WP1 IS 12 317 216 570 89
218i W 4IS 12 289 210 450 79
A—234
-------
p q4M TEk: ZINC
I THOD: ‘ TflMIC M3SORPTII)N
uNITS: PARTS PFR MILL ION
YEAR: 3.974
U’t3F OF ST NPA D
SITE S. MPLES AV AGE MINiMUM MAXIMUM DFVIATIJM
132’ VIST H 11 2008 2 7480 15i33
13407L PAL 11 167 42 . 495 120
1708MCE ELL 12 26’ 190 440 35
17107T-ISTR 12 191 40 300
1825MU \DY 10 187 30 320 107
2ALAMC 12 219 58 415 134
2ACY 12 275 108 478 110
2BOWIE 12 498 344 765 127
2BU!?”AVISI 12 860 56 9490 2718
2C [ PUNA)e 12 33 15 63 12
2CRISTD Ey 12 4341 159 9585 2479
2ELPASOHI 12 647 244 1438 367
2H.ART 12 205 22 395 111
2HOLYFAMIL 12 440 138 1130 265
2JESUS&MAR 12 453 244 685 109
2LAMAR 12 77 49 194 42
2LINCOL 12 41 15 71 18
2MESTT& 12 224 76 632 154
2MOREHEAP 12 679 42 5990 1679
2PUTNAM 12 64 28 105 24
2PU8EPTS 12 49 15 81 22
21 O0SEVELT 12 413 248 715 144
2SA.CRU HEA 12 1010 635 1395 215
2SANJACINT 12 410 300 535 77
2ST LE 4ENT 12 219 13 643 166
2STIGNATI1 8 1006 799 1250 1 7
ZSTM!CHAEL 7 35 15 68 18
2STPt&TPICK 12 470 290 665 116
2UTEP 12 559 225 750 156
2VILAS 12 281 72 488 113
2WES1F . ’9H1 12 58 26 94 21
2WHITE 12 86 50 150 35
2121RRANDD 12 521 80 945 297
2L4O9MJNDY 12 501 328 1000 187
21.73OWPAIS 12 262 140 427 95
21838WP3.IS 12 431 123 2730 728
A—235
-------
PA AMETER: ZINC
ETH 1 JD: ATOMIC ABSURPTION
UNITS: PAPTS PER 1ILLI11N
YEAR: 1975
4UMBER OF cTANr)ARD
SITE SAMPLES AVERAGE MINIMtDI MAXIMUM DEVIATION
1329V 1S11H 1 98 98 98
17U8MC ELL 3 170 130 200 3o
171 O7THSTR 3 302 180 520 189
1825MU flY 1 253 250 25)
2AL AMU 3 352 289 394 56
2A.OY 3 456 294 625 166
28 0W 1E 3 735 482 1178 385
2BUFNAVIST 3 135 78 211 68
2CUFH1NADD 3 49 34 63 15
2CRISTJ EY 3 8161 7340 8905 785
2ELPASJ-$IG 3 731 463 1100 326
2HA T 3 157 54 237 94
2HOLYFAMIL 3 632 290 995 353
2JFSUSF M4P. 3 1576 583 3410 1590
2LAMAP 3 341 129 685 300
2LINCOL 4 3 59 38 69 18
2MESIT4 3 110 22 229 107
2MURE-4EAD 3 159 51 274 112
2PUTNAM 3 76 56 106 26
2RflBEF.TS 3 68 56 75 10
2ROJSEV LT 2 263 96 430 236
2S CREEiHFA 3 1201 1048 1410 187
2sftNJA: I T 3 504 440 560
2ST LEMENT 3 115 113 116 2
2STPATRICK 3 453 427 478 26
2UTEP 3 405 67 645 301
2VILAS 3 541 305 945 351
2WESTEF @- I 3 39 36 43 4
2WHITF 3 121 70 158 45
2].2L8PANDO 2 913 81.5 1010 138
?1409M1J\IDY 3 428 366 470 55
21730WP4 1S 3 251 151 334 95
21838WP41S 3 217 122 270 82
A—23 6
-------
PARA’IFTER: ZINC
METhOD: ATOMIC ABSORPTION
u’flTs: PARTS PER MILLION
YEAR; 1972
1U 1BER OF STANDARP
SITE SAMPLES AVERAGE MINIMUM MAXIMtJM DEVIATION
21844WP4 1S 7 511 428 592 54
22 00CARLOS 1 880 880 830
2204W 1LLI1 4 1954 1576 2320 306
22 I6ACARLJ 4 1097 420 1440 461
22473VFW 7 1792 334 4259 1272
2Z51 OSrVRA 235 44 690 269
22616P4 1SA 7 2718 1520 4800 1366
2305S<&’ ISA 1 660 660 660
2321OPIEDM 6 132 60 236 72
2329V 1S1AH 7 430 210 1176 337
23407 1AP4L 7 264 72 495 135
2425 M1r4DY 2 226 200 252 37
251QST RAI 1 29 2 29
27 O ITURNEY 7 97 53 198 65
2706S-4ILLS 7 353 46 504 161
2713P KELL 6 226 143 290 55
27107T $ST 7 178 130 232 37
2805SKA 4SA 4 528 384 600 1 0
2 B25MLJMDY 5 379 312 442 54
3ALAMO 7 1295 838 1800 361
3AOY 7 2013 1425 2350 405
3BOWIE 7 1616 1020 2000 373
3CORO”IAOO 7 2313 1924 3300 484
3CPIST3 FY 7 4688 2800 6550 1338
ELPASJ1IG 7 1684 1400 2100 240
3FR ANKLI’J 3 4741 2974 7290 2262
3HART 7 1270 840 2200 509
3HULYFAMIL 6 2482 1275 37Th 922
3JESUS MAR 6 4037 2893 6260 1448
31AMA 7 1511 540 3300 876
3LINCOL4 7 1888 240 6250 2229
3MFSITA 7 3673 1920 6250 1645
3MUREhE&D 7 246 110 440 105
3PUT NAM 7 406 200 1350 418
3ROBERTS 7 32! 200 450 85
3ROOSE ELT 7 3626 3QQ 4400 495
3SACPEUHF 6 3766 2355 4525 733
3SA JACINT 7 3344 1117 11621 3721
3STCLEMENT 6 9563 3700 20950 6316
3STIGNATIr 6 1660 1242 1989 246
3STMICHAEL 5 2146 1663 2650 408
3STPATRICK 6 2499 1480 3900 361
3UTEP 6 3179 2140 5200 1097
3VILAS 7 3186 2291 4140 584
3WESTER 1MI 7 4977 1629 18020 6098
3WHITF 6 63170 46200 83675 12585
A—237
-------
P AMET R: ZiNC
M TIffJD: AT JMIC LBSC1 PTION
U i!TS: PARTS PE MILLTflN
YE : 1973
222
2623
90
1926
83
72
622
44
52
69
2.39
639
I
? .1
307
504
6438
1531
574
844
388
64
4007
1895
296
101
203
739
1572
913
2104
286
462
5052
977
9q0
524
29152
4U 19
iF
ST NL)A E)
SITE SA: PLES
AV5RAGE
(MINIMUM ?IAXIMUM DEV!ATISN
21844 iPAIS
12
541
192
1132
22473VF 4
12
297
710
10800
2251QSTV A
12
272
125
450
22b16P4IS
12
3159
1170
7060
230121J3 1NS
9
311
218
495
23213P1E M
12
103
26
220
2329VISTAH
12
943
415
2510
23407ZAP4L
12
189
118
254
2701TU NFY
1
183
183
183
27 OÔSHILLS
11
444
320
585
27O8MCKELL
9
178
106
256
27107T1ST
12
225
49
324
2825MU’JJY
12
279
24
820
3ALAM O
12
1215
600
2425
340Y
12
1847
936
2575
38D IE
12
1643
1150
2075
3CI RON4Dfl
11
1355
450
2400
3CR1STJ FY
11
29644
22125
42939
3ELP4SflHIG
12
2934
1750
7425
3HA T
12
1173
600
225)
3HOLYFAMIL
12
2886
1675
4325
JESUS& 44F
12
247 1.
800
44 W)
3KERNFI .ES
1
2500
2500
2500
3LAMAR
12
1980
1204
3253
3LlNC0L
12
3229
300
12500
3MES1T
12
4074
1964
8250
3MOREHEAfl
12
468
175
1050
3PUTNA’I
12
329
150
550
3ROBE TS
12
252
25
700
3RO3SEVELT
i2
2669
1600
3825
3S4 REDHFA
12
4128
2400
8250
3SANJACINT
11
2629
1643
4320
3STCLEME’IT
10
6068
2975
10157
3STIGNATIO
12
1417
875
1766
3STMIC1A L
12
2174
1200
2575
3STP4T ICK
11
4703
2450
19758
3UTEP
12
4157
3025
6200
3VIL S
11
34 7
2400
5350
3WESTEP NH1
11
1669
1020
2720
3WHITE
12
21826
1950
84044
A—238
-------
PA 4 TE : ZINC
METH’ i: AT Th1IC ABSOPPTION
UNITS: PARTS PFR MILLION
‘(FAR: 1974
NUMBER JF STANDAR I
SITE- SAMPLES AVFPAGE MINIMUM MAXIMUM DEVIATIJN
21 644wP1IS 12 443 294 517 68
22473VFW 11 3013 360 71d8 222b
22510ST RA 1Z 249 53 553 147
22 16P ISA 12 3236 705 7238 1 1
23O 1PJEINS 12 514 107 2285 594
232 VISrA 11 2884 408 109d5 2d86
23407Z4P4L 11 176 39 506 122
2l08 C ELL 12 278 233 405 49
271 O7TrISTR 12 221 143 295 48
2825MUNDY 10 221 19 424 146
3ALAMO 12 1016 450 2050 545
3AOY 12 2094 650 3200 757
3BOWIE 12 1404 490 2893 655
3BUENAVIST 12 744 300 1480 367
3COR ONA)0 12 1207 440 2122 527
3CRIST EY 11 24569 14599 41423 8477
3ELPASD 1IG 12 2531 1240 4104 708
3HART 11 1134 325 2125 479
3HOLYFAMIL 11 1788 950 3440 833
3JESUS&MAR 11 3233 1724 6250 1521
3IAMAP 12 1472 500 3001 660
3L!NCOL’J 12 832 210 2320 5 8
3MFSITA 12 2420 1045 3600 o23
3M( REHFAD 12 303 90 850 218
3PUTN M 12 477 250 1455 323
3ROBERTS 12 169 25 400 106
3R OJSEVELT 11 2211 1381 3226 643
3SACREDME(. 12 3825 1350 6300 1656
3SANJACINT 9 211.7 900 4664 1084
3STLE iENT 12 4730 3300 9400 184o
3STIGN TID 7 1527 950 2500 530
3STMICIAEL 6 1854 1200 2700 508
3STPAflICK 12 2546 1175 4450 895
3UTEP 10 3617 2300 6250 1236
3VILAS 12 2977 1526 4885 1047
3WESTERNHI 11 3521 350 18883 5429
3WHITE 11 13954 7374 23338 5762
A-239
-------
f TErc LINC
METHUD: TT4IC BS3RPTI0N
YIITS: P RTS p MILLION
YF R: 1975
\ U’lBE cJF
S!TF S MPLF.S AVERAGE NIINIMIJM 1AXIMUM L’EVI4TIJ J
218 44 PAXS 3 50 440 61, 94
22473vF 3 4381 2010 5238 2160
22513STv 3 39 216 742 31)0
22 16PAtSA 3 3984 2425 14O 1402
23O IROB INS 3 497 101) 1150 573
2329VISTAH 1 102 102 102
2108MC KFL1 3 197 151 225 33
271371-ISIr 3 3 7 210 635 233
2825MU DY 1 422 422 422
34LA 0 3 847 90 1600 755
3AUY 3 1583 425 2650 1115
3Bfl IE 3 1330 240 2050
3BLJENAVIST 3 729 400 1300 49
3CrJkuNADJ 3 920 20 208 1061
3CRIST1 FY 3 25924 18764 39819 12335
3FLP4SJIIG 3 2864 802 4450 1870
3HA T 3 1604 50 4212 2272
3H OLYFAMIL 3 1125 175 2075 950
3JFSUS& &I 3 5292 3760 6827 1534
3L MA 3 1057 100 2500 1272
31INCUL 3 315 40 630 297
3MESITA 3 2649 2325 2875 288
3MU8EHEAD 3 467 300 575 146
3PUTNA’vl 3 208 75 400 170
3RCBERTS 3 67 25 125 52
3ROOSEVELT 2 1645 139 3150 2129
3SACPFDHEA 3 3973 350 5870 3139
3SANJACINT 2 2040 140 3940 2687
3STCLE ENT 3 9522 140 21715 11059
3STPAT jCK 3 1713 350 4340 2276
3U15P 3 1020 77 2525 1317
3VILAS 3 3393 610 6079 2736
3WESTE NHI 3 1302 30 2625 1298
3WHITE 3 6933 1767 11267 4804
A—240
-------
PARAMETER: ZINC
METHOD: ATOMIC ABSORPTION
UNITS: PARTS PER MILLION
YEAR: 1972
NUMBER OF STANDARO
SITE SAMPLES AVERAGE MINIMUM MAXIMUM DEVIATION
3100MAY LI 1 6510 6510 6510
3 I1OWILL IE 1 11000 11000 11000
311 00MADEL 6 11155 2487 31880 1o o
3113P11)DE 5 25650 17580 31812 5158
3l19ACA LO 6 1835U 900 27616 9910
312OWILLIF 5 25828 2080 64428 23595
31218PANDfl 7 1914 1172 2920 681
31409MLJ’ DY 7 1084 560 1664 436
314aC iURCH 7 622 320 920 226
31733 PAIS 7 7631 1199 38064 13457
3183SwPAIS 7 1975 1315 277 676
31844 PAIS 6 6519 2480 13058 4102
320OCA LLiS 1 10120 10120 10120
3204 ILLIE 4 24865 14340 46200 14548
3216ACARLD 4 10642 6960 12567 2506
32473VFW 7 25639 15400 37650 9625
3 510ST RA 5 46691 8750 148700 53182
326 I6PAISA 7 13985 9R0 20850 3875
3305SK NSA 1 520 520 520
33210P I DM 5 8348 1160 20920 8T25
3329VISTAr$ 7 369 200 720 179
33437LAPAL 6 1034 220 1743 526
3425MU N0Y 2 3445 1450 5440 2821
3510STV AI 1 131200 131200 131230
37 O1TURNEY 4 1487 740 2730 694
37O6SHILLS 7 1363 920 2025
3710MC(ELL 5 3790 2o63 6000 1304
37 I O7THSTR 7 8941 4250 25772 7762
3805SK& NS A 4 1465 673 2930 986
3825MUN0Y 6 4034 2788 7920 1920
4ALAM O 7 2325 15 5 3040 499
440Y 7 2609 1600 3500 727
48OWIE 7 1726 9)0 2550 569
4CU D NA)D 7 2746 2200 3730 485
4CPIST1 EY 7 6152 38s 0 9300 2202
4ELPASD 41G 7 4211 1900 2550 214
4FRAN(LIN 3 3942 327 4400 591
4HART 7 1947 1015 3( O0 947
4HDLYFAMIL 6 2480 1535 4543 1057
4JESUS MAR 6 4422 3260 5750 821
4LA AR 7 1565 1073 1970 344
4LINC0L 4 7 2292 160 6865 2875
4MESITA 7 4447 2550 6615 1579
4M0SEH 0 7 410 240 775 Hi
4PUTNAM 7 1139 4450 1520
4POBERTS 7 11 6 280 3503 1141
A—241
-------
DA T : LI J
MF TH )D AT1i 1I(. ARc’JkPT I,j J
uNITS: PAPTS P [ ’ IILLIUN
y : 1973
‘J(JM6 - iF ST N ARi’
SITE SAMPLES VE AG6 MI \iIMUM XI( J D VIATIjr!
31 133’ AiEL 2 7853 7166 E539 71
31 1k NLC 1) 27’ 3 1625 6363 137
314OCMUNIV 12 1114 675 1821
3148CJU H 12 flo 1425 350
3173fl P !S 11 2166 453 773 3912
3183 P IS 12 2003 6i2 295 72
314 A1S 11 1965 530 3076 785
32473VF 12 22003 16975 4 43’3 10359
32510ST F 11 ‘t953 1917 19558 4954
2616PAISt 12 10797 7699 15225 2465
33 01Rfl INS 3 3363 74 14200 4419
3321oP!Er’ 6 3353 750 13572 5072
3325VTS 0 11 735 250 2200 562
334 )7ZAPAL 12 504 26 1326 377
3706S ILLS 11 1671 1051 2226 35b
37U8M ELL 9 2367 1250 6450 1649
37107T-1ST 11 6322 4700 3200 1177
3S25 1LJ\1DY 11 ‘ 654 2025 12550 3231
4ALAM O 12 1432 600 273) 75b
460Y 12 2259 1720 825 461
4Br IE 1 2010 12o0 2610 424
4C0 flNA0J 12 1947 710 5300 1205
4CFiSTJ EY 11 24283 4286 32400 7238
4ELPA SIjHIG 12 3344 1975 7700 1535
4HA T 12 1473 500 2550 730
4H LYFAMIL 12 3192 430 5200 1376
4JESUS&’14R 12 2958 101)0 4810 1310
4KFRNFTRFS 1 2253 2250 2250
4LL M P 12 22)o 1700 3530 572
4LHCDL’1 12 2029 62 8650 2500
4MESIT4 12 4365 2660 7455 1510
4M0 FHEAD 12 782 25 4253 1170
4PUTNA 12 328 60 733 19b
4R O8ERTS 12 270 27 95 258
A—242
-------
DPA ET P: ZINC
MFTHflD: ATflMIC 3SuRPT ION
UNITS: P ,’TS P I MILLION
YEAR: 1974
‘ UMF Ft F ST ! N0A D
SITE SAMPLES AVERAGE 1INIMUM MAXIMUM D VIATI;JN
312 I8RANDU 7 2354 585 846 2920
314J9 LJ’4Dy 12 967 400. 2276 516
3 I73 OWPAIS 8 1426 60 5000 1564
3183R P4Is 11 2334 48 22 2 715
3l844 AIS 9 1313 773 2626 546
32473vFw 12 24240 10175 42230 10394
32510STvR4 10 2877 1923 4762 891
32616PA 1 54 12 10820 4725 20216 6041
33 O1P031N 5 9 ],80 1375 2425 305
3 329VIST H 10 49 186 806 218
3 3407 1AP4L 518 250 879 200
3 7O3MCKELL 11 1739 1032 2753 501
37107TiSTp 10 5974 3724 9256 1504
3825M0’JDy 10 5009 2816 7925 1875
4ALAMO 12 1212 465 2300 51?
440Y 12 2515 1290 4225
4Bfl 1E 12 1580 118 2507 699
4BUENAVIST 12 900 290 1810 403
4CCiRONA OD 12 1451 535 2517 625
4CRISTJ EY 12 27322 9111 50000 9721
4ELPASJIIIG 12 3060 1900 4430 703
4 ART 11 1280 585 2850 609
4HOLYFAMIL 11 2124 297 4450 1250
4JFSJSCM 11 4060 2140 9000 1959
4LAM 12 1795 660 42 0 999
4LINC0L 1 12 1260 443 2453 381
4MESIT 12 2920 1440 5512 1172
4MORE EAD 12 369 147 880 208
4PUTNA i 12 571 313 1530 319
4ROBEPTS 12 207 42 550 155
A—243
-------
PAR4’ TER ZINC
METHOU: T) 1IC A SflPPTI1JN
0 ITS: P PTS PER NIILLIflN
YEA ; 197
“ U iF STAN 4PD
SITF S MPLFS AV AGE MINI iU 1 MAXIMUM DEVIATION
31218 A’ Di 1 1324 1324 1324
31409MUN1Y 3 10 2 00 1300 201
3173D PAYS 2 270 115 425 219
3183S P IS 2 l9 1 1720 2241 368
3l844 PAIS 2 1006 28c 1’ J2 114].
32473VFW 3 18021 3148 36125 1 724
325IUSTVFA 1209 130 1800 936
32o16P ’ISA 3 9O0 ’ 6440 11704 26 2
3331P0L INS 2 1545 1540 1550 7
3329VISTAH 1 196 196 196
3703 KELL 3 1172 225 1940 371
371O7THSTR 2 3622 775 o468 4026
3825MU\IDY 1 410 410 410
4ALA 0 3 967 260 16 O 110
440Y 3 1793 555 2850 1158
460A!E 3 1442 10 2288 1091
48UEN4VI T 3 885 580 1410 456
4c 080Na)r 3 1529 60 2733 1076
4CRIST) EY 3 27750 19000 41000 11670
4ELPAS(JHIG 3 3073 94 4525 1883
4HA T 3 19°9 45 5146 2752
4HOLYFAMIL 3 1302 255 2710 1238
4JESUS&’1AR 3 6375 4925 8900 2195
4LA A 3 1788 165 3053 1476
4LI\4CflL 3 627 350 ô6 313
4MESITA 3 3023 2350 3310 247
4MCREHE D 3 522 410 600 148
4PUTNAM 3 1063 240 2400 1168
4 DBE TS 3 113 75 185 62
A—244
-------
PAi t TEk: ZINC.
‘1ETH ]D: ATPIIC ABSJRPTION
UNITS: P PTS PEP MILLIUN
YEAR: 1972
U iBE OF STtNUA O
SITE SA PLES AvERA1; 4INIMUM MAXIMU 1 DfTVIATIIJN
4PDJSEVFLT 7 4513 3921 5333 507
4SACREDHEt 5450 4300 6 00 331
4SA’4J INT 6 2289 1630 3310 611
4STCLEMENT 5 8996 3040 20500 6765
4STIGN TI1 6 1800 1450 264 ) 4 6
4STMICr 4FL 5 2920 2250 3903 655
4STPAT ICK 6 2473 1500 3005 543
4UTEP 6 3881 2250 4903 1091
4VILAS 7 4339 2900 6240 1256
4WESTERNH I 7 5666 1830 17400 5s19
4 *ITE 6 79908 53000 102900 17513
4L O OMADELI 1 6060 6060 6060
4110W11L 1E 1 13200 13200 13200
4 I1 0 0M4OEL 6 8062 4250 13600 3356
4113P1T)flE 5 25925 19300 33400 5246
4119ACA LQ 4 t1523 20500 181100 79725
4 I2 OWILLIE 5 41590 17200 77503 30593
41218Rt ND0 7 2405 1600 3650 338
41409 4UNDY 7 1805 322 4400 1472
414BCOURCH 7 936 500 1400 303
41730WP IS 7 3989 1503 11544 3436
41838 PAIS 7 2561 1590 4057 920
41844WP41S 7 10101 2350 27143 874!
4200CARLJS 1 9250 9250 9250
4204W 11L1E 4 22050 11500 31500 9940
4216ACA L1J 4 24050 10200 61500 25026
‘t2473VFW 7 29538 19200 39000 8270
425LOSTVRA 6 54030 7850 153000 52847
42616P IS4 7 14736 7500 32250 8744
43O5SKANSA 1 1230 1230 1230
432 IOPIEDM 5 5810 1450 19100 7546
4329VIST H 7 552 430 650 80
43407LAP L 6 1650 772 4700 1504
4425MU 1)V 2 4775 4650 4900 177
451 OSTVRAI 1 93300 93300 93300
4701TU ’1FY 3 3160 800 7180 3499
4 .7 O6SHILLS 7 1839 1230 2725 634
4710MC LL 5 4780 3300 7000 1851
47107T-$STR 7 7200 4650 9500 1750
4805S NS 4 1101 830 1375 226
4825MU DY 4 5188 4100 7500 1561
A—245
-------
PARA M ETrI : ZiNC
METHT)D: ATIJr4IC ARS JRPTI1N
UNITS: PA TS ER ILLt3N
YEAR: 1973
‘JUMBE OF STA J’)A ’1
SITE SAMPLES AVERAGE MINIMUM MAXI tJ DEVI.ATIJ’
4P [ US VF LT 12 3117 2027 4450 815
4SAZ.PE O-IE A 12 3705 1950 4825 935
4S NJ.ACINT 12 2969 2003 4633 854
4STCLEMENT 10 6736 3350 10269 2307
4STIG JATIJ 12 1736 1050 2438 440
4ST’IIC-IAE-L 12 2765 98E 5120 977
4STPAT ICK 12 4342 2750 11307 2314
4UTEP 12 4426 2920 6650 1082
4VIL S 11 3914 2475 5856 1144
4wFSTE ’.JH! 12 2168 330 6700 1605
4WHITE 12 25728 1000 102200 34o22
411 00MADLL 2 9207 3714 9700 697
41218 ’4DJ 10 2622 266 4530 1237
414O9MU JDY 12 1289 86 2450 647
4 IA8CI1LJRCH 12 1003 350 2100 572
41730 PAIS 12 2111 125 b828 1863
4183RWPAIS 12 2095 106 3575 1145
41844 ’AIS 12 1981 208 4200 982
4247 VF 4 12 28965 3936 43800 12595
4251OSTVF.A 12 3585 1831 6500 1371
42616PA 1SA 12 11490 960 25500 5548
4301P0RI JS 8 2411 1356 3533 762
4321OPIEDM 7 1101 200 1 40 454
4329V1 5tAH 12 853 256 1950 530
434071APAL 11 604 117 1425 451
47 O6SHILLS 11 2036 1550 2800 394
47OSMCKFLL 9 2756 216 7200 1969
471O7TMSfl 12 6632 2193 9200 1864
4825MU DY 11 3791 1216 9000 2235
A—24 6
-------
P A 1ETER: LINC
MET lOD: LTOMIC 4BSC)RPT ION
UNITS: PARTS PEP MILLION
YEAR: 1974
NU 4 3E OF ST4N [ ’ 0
SITE SAMPLES AVERAGE MINIMUM MAXIMUrI PEVIATION
4 L1JSEVFLT 11 2514 1520 3475 726
4SACRFi 1EA 12 4688 2725 7500 1748
4SANJ4:I T 11 2952 1060 6400 1453
4STCLEMENT 12 6000 3570 10562 2185
4STIC,NATIO 7 1767 1040 3575 883
4STMICi -4AEL 6 1702 184 2392 791
4STPAT !CK 12 3055 2110 4325 608
4UTEP 10 4776 2860 10750 2237
4VILAS 12 3456 2045 6353 1 .415
4WE-STER\IjII 11 4127 560 21223 6207
4WHITE 11 17681 6835 33466 8467
41218R NDo 7 2229 980 6399 1903
414i9MUNDy 1.2 U69 2675 596
41730wP6IS 8 1719 650 5190 1502
4183a 41S 11 2591 1440 3575 663
4 1844WPA 1s 9 1860 844 4250 1059
42473 VFW 12 28002 10000 51176 13450
42510ST’ A 12 3260 1516 5350 1035
42 61bPAISA 12 11943 2875 24727 7480
4301PJ INS 10 2081 207 3567 846
432gvIsrAH 10 601 250 953 241
43437Z&PAL 7 654 345 1135 256
4708M KE1L 12 218 817 4375 953
47107flISTR 10 6182 3884 8751 1355
4B25MUNDY 10 5 ’05 1994 10298 2677
A—247
-------
PARAMETER: ZINC
METHOD: ATOMIC AbSORPTION
UNITS: PARTS PER MILLION
YEAR: 1975
4UI8E OF STANOAPD
SITF SAMPLES AVERAGE MINIMUM MAXIMUM DEVIATIT
4RCfl VELT 2 2025 500 3550 217
41: 35
4SANjA jN 3 89•id iTO 22750 d
4STCLE’1E ’JT 3 9370 210 20650 1J3 4
4STPAT I K 3 3238 415 5050 2478
4UTEP 3 2790 20 5026 2545
4VILAS 3 3705 840 6400 2784
4WLSTE (NH1 3 1718 533 3225 1375
4WHITE 3 7402 2350 12750 5206
41218R JD 1 1 1863 1863 1863
41409MJ DY 3 1453 1010 2000 503
4173UWP IS 2 330 275 385 78
41838 P4IS 3 1664 360 2775 1219
41844 P4IS 3 1970 260 4250 2055
42473VFW 3 20000 5999 40000 17777
2510ST / A 3 1408 230 2044 1021
4i 1 PAISA 3 11617 6600 14502 436 ].
4301RLi P S 3 2133 1740 2700 503
4329V 1S1AH 1 270 270 270
47O8MKELL 3 1186 225 2262 1023
471 O7THSTP 2 4U 8 1195 7000 4105
4P25MU’1DY 1 540 540 540
A—248
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read IMs, tructions on the reverse before completing)
1. REPORT NO. 2.
EPA 560/7—75—001—4 I
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Compilation of State Data for Eight Selected Toxic
Substances
3. RECIPIENT’S ACCESSIOfNO.
REPC)RT DATE
September, 1975
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHOR(S)
E. Roberts, R. Spewak, S. Stryker, S. Tracey
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
75—52 Volume IV
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
The MITRE Corporation
Westgate Research Park
McLean, Virginia 22101
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
2LA328
11,CONTRACTIGRANTNO.
68—01—2933
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS 13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Office of Toxic Substances Final
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
Washington, D.C. 20460
1UPPLEMENTARY NOTES
fUABSTRACT
In June 1974, the Office of Toxic Substances, EPA, contracted with MITRE to
collect and analyze toxic substances data in the U.S. In the next 14 months MITRE
contacted agencies in 20 key states and collected and analyzed their monitoring
data. This appendix contains all the summaries and analyses of state agency
data that were presented in the four quarterly reports during the course of the
project.
17. KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
a. DESCRIPTORS
h. IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
C. COSATI Field/Group
Arsenic Lead
Beryllium Mercury
Cadmium PLB’s
Chromium Toxic Substances — Data
Cyanide Collection
I8.tJISTRTBUTION STATEMENT
Release Unlimited
.
19. SECURITY CLASS fThisReporr)
Unclassified
21. NO. OF PAGES
663
20. SECURITY CLASS (This page)
Unclassified
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
------- |