Puget Sound Estu
EVERETT HARBOR ACTION PROGRAM:
Evaluation of Potential
Contaminant Sources
TC-3338-26
FINAL REPORT
September 1988
Prepared by
Tetra Tech, Inc.
Prepared for
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region X — Office of Puget Sound
Seattle, Washington
-------
TC 3338-26
Final Report
EVERETT HARBOR ACTION PROGRAM:
EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL CONTAMINANT SOURCES
by
Tetra Tech, Inc.
for
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region X - Office of Puget Sound
Seattle, Washington
September 1988
Tetra Tech, Inc.
11820 Northup Way, Suite 100
Bellevue, Washington 98005
-------
PREFACE
This document was prepared by Tetra Tech, Inc. for the U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency (EPA) Region X, Office of Puget Sound, under the
Everett Harbor Action Program work assignment of U.S. EPA Contract
No. 68-02-4341. The primary objective of the Everett Harbor Action Program
is to identify toxic contamination and appropriate corrective actions in
Port Gardner and the lower Snohomish River. Corrective actions include
source controls and sediment remedial actions. An Interagency Work Group
(IAWG), comprising representatives from the U.S. EPA, Washington Department
of Ecology (Ecology), and other resource management agencies, provides
technical oversight for all work conducted under this work assignment.
In this report, potential contaminant sources in the Everett Harbor
study area are evaluated. A revised action plan [PTI Environmental Services
(PTI) 1988] was developed based on the findings of this study and on the
recently completed analysis of toxic problem areas in the receiving
environment (PTI and Tetra Tech 1988b).
The following reports are in preparation or have been drafted under the
Everett Harbor Action Program:
¦ Analysis of toxic problem areas (PTI and Tetra Tech 1988b)
¦ Evaluation of potential contaminant sources (this report)
¦ Development of a revised action plan (PTI 1988).
ii
-------
CONTENTS
Pafle
PREFACE ii
LIST OF FIGURES vi
LIST OF TABLES viii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS xi
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY xiii
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 OBJECTIVES 1
1.2 DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT AREA 2
1.2.1 Drainage Patterns 4
1.2.2 Study Areas 5
1.3 OVERVIEW OF REPORT 6
2.0 OVERVIEW OF POTENTIAL SOURCES 8
2.1 INDUSTRIAL FACILITIES 11
2.1.1 East Waterway 17
2.1.2 Offshore Port Gardner 28
2.1.3 Nearshore Port Gardner 29
2.1.4 Snohomish River 34
2.1.5 Ebey Slough 47
2.2 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANTS 48
2.2.1 Mukilteo WWTP 48
2.2.2 Marysville WWTP 50
2.2.3 Everett WWTP 53
2.3 COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOWS 56
2.4 LANDFILLS 72
2.4.1 Everett Landfill 72
2.4.2 Tulalip Landfill 75
iii
-------
2.5 SURFACE RUNOFF PATHWAYS 79
2.5.1 Rivers and Creeks 79
2.5.2 Storm Drains 81
2.6 GROUNDWATER 87
2.7 ATMOSPHERIC DEPOSITION 90
2.8 SPILLS 93
3.0 METHODS 94
3.1 SOURCE EVALUATION APPROACH 94
3.2 SOURCE SAMPLING APPROACH 104
3.2.1 Station Locations 104
3.2.2 Sample Collection 104
3.2.3 Chemical Analyses 113
3.2.4 Quality Assurance/Quality Control 114
4.0 CHARACTERIZATION OF ONSHORE SAMPLES 119
4.1 DRAIN SEDIMENTS 119
4.1.1 Conventional Sediment Characteristics 119
4.1.2 Problem Chemicals in Drain Sediments 120
4.2 GROUNDWATER SAMPLES 123
5.0 SOURCE EVALUATIONS 127
5.1 PROBLEM AREAS 129
5.1.1 East Waterway Problem Area 129
5.1.2 Nearshore Port Gardner Problem Area 150
5.2 PROBLEM STATIONS OUTSIDE PROBLEM AREAS 152
5.2.1 Problem Station 0G-01 152
5.2.2 Problem Station SD-03 154
5.2.3 Problem Station SR-05 154
5.2.4 Problem Station ES-03 155
5.2.5 Problem Station SR-07 156
5.2.6 Problem Station SD-01 156
6.0 SUMMARY 158
REFERENCES 160
iv
-------
APPENDIX A - PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL DATA FOR THE DRAINS AND GROUND-
WATER SAMPLES COLLECTED DURING THE EVERETT HARBOR
ACTION PROGRAM SOURCE EVALUATION A-l
APPENDIX B - POTENTIAL CONTAMINANT SOURCES IDENTIFIED IN THE
EVERETT HARBOR PROJECT AREA B-l
APPENDIX C - NPDES-PERMITTED DISCHARGERS AND CITY OF EVERETT
INDUSTRIAL PRETREATMENT PERMITTED FACILITIES C-l
APPENDIX D - GRAIN SIZE CHARACTERISTICS OF THE SEDIMENTS IN THE
DRAINS AND OFFSHORE RECEIVING ENVIRONMENT IN THE
EAST WATERWAY STUDY AREA D-l
APPENDIX E - ELEVATION ABOVE REFERENCE VALUES FOR CHEMICALS OBSERVED
IN DRAIN SEDIMENTS E-l
APPENDIX F - DREDGING HISTORY IN THE EVERETT HARBOR PROJECT AREA F-l
APPENDIX G - PUGET SOUND AIR POLLUTION REGISTRATION FILES IN THE
EVERETT HARBOR PROJECT AREA G-l
v
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Page
xiv
3
9
10
13
18
30
42
60
66
85
86
128
130
FIGURES
Project location and study areas within Everett Harbor and
the Lower Snohomish River
Project location and study areas within Everett Harbor and
the Lower Snohomish River
Locations of potential sources of contamination in the
Everett Harbor project area
City of Everett CS0 diagram with locations of drain sediment
and stormwater sampling stations
Locations of drain sampling stations, industrial discharge
outfalls, CSOs, and storm drains in East Waterway study area
Schematic diagram of water flow through Scott Paper Company's
East Waterway facility
Locations of sampling stations, industrial and natural
drainage outfalls, and other potential sources of contamina-
tion in the nearshore Port Gardner study area
Sampling locations in the vicinity of the Everett Harbor
Marina
City of Everett North End Sewer System (NESS) schematic
diagram (1987 conditions)
Individual drainage subbasin boundaries for City of Everett
North End CSOs
Locations of offshore, drain, and groundwater sampling
stations in the Everett Harbor project area
Locations of offshore and drain sampling stations in the
East Waterway study area
Problem areas and problem stations in the Everett Harbor
project area
Locations of offshore and drain sampling stations, CSOs, and
storm drains in the East Waterway study area
vi
-------
14 Comparison of relative distribution of PAH compounds in
sediment from Station EW-01 and sediment from the Norton
Terminal Storm Drain 133
15 Comparison of relative percent distribution of pulp industry
compounds in sediment from Station EW-01 and sediment from
the Norton Terminal Storm Drain 134
16 Comparison of relative percent distribution of metals in
sediment from Station EW-01 and sediment from the Norton
Terminal Storm Drain 138
17 Comparison of relative percent distribution of pulp industry
compounds in sediment from Station EW-04 and sediment from
two locations along CSO E011 141
18 Comparison of relative percent distribution of PAH compounds
in sediment from Station EW-04 and sediment from two
locations along CSO E011 142
19 Comparison of relative percent distribution of metals in
sediment from Station EW-04 and sediment from two locations
along CSO E011 143
20 Comparison of relative percent distribution of PAH compounds
in sediment from Station EW-12 and sediment from CSO E007 145
21 Comparison of relative percent distribution of metals in
sediment from Station EW-12 and sediment from CSO E007 147
D-l Grain size characteristics of offshore and drain sediment
samples collected from the East Waterway study area D-l
F-l Locations of dredging sites within the Lower Snohomish River
basin F-l
vii
-------
TABLES
Number
Permitted industrial dischargers
Page
14
2 Discharges to Everett WWTP Everett NPDES - permit facilities
- pretreatment program participants 15
3 List of industries - CERCLIS site location Superfund database -
18 February 1988 16
4 Scott Mill effluent discharge monitoring reports (1985 - April
1988) Outfall SW001 20
5 Scott Mill effluent discharge monitoring reports (1985 - April
1988) Outfall S003 22
6 Scott Mill effluent discharge monitoring reports (1985 - April
1988) Outfall S008 24
7 Organic chemicals and metals found in Scott Pulp and Paper
Mill outfalls 27
8 Paine Field sediment chemical data 33
9 John Fluke Mfg. Co., Inc. - Evergreen Way plant results
from chemical analysis of process wastewater 35
10 Weyerhaeuser Kraft Mill effluent discharge monitoring reports
(1985 - April 1986) 37
11 Weyerhaeuser Kraft Mill pollutant data 40
12 Historical stations in the Everett Marina where pollutant
concentrations are above acceptable criteria 43
13 Metals concentrations in soil samples from Fisherman's Boat
Shop, Everett, Marina 45
14 Canyon Lumber and Buse Timber wood treatment chemicals
examination 46
15 Mukilteo WWTP discharge monitoring reports (February 1987 -
Apri 1 1988) 49
16 Marysville WWTP discharge monitoring reports (1986 - March
1988)
51
viii
-------
17 Everett WWTP discharge monitoring reports (May 1987 - April
1988) for effluent variables
18 Everett WWTP discharge monitoring reports (April 1987 - April
1988) for heavy metals
19 Calculated up-flow and predicted theoretical down-flow
concentrations of metals in the effluent downstream from the
Everett WWTP dilution zone compared to other studies and
U.S. EPA criteria
20 Concentrations of metals in sediment at the Everett WWTP
compared to two other sites in the Snohomish River and to
AET values
21 Outfalls and their associated groups in the Everett Harbor
project area
22 Summary of land-use characteristics in the service area for
NESS
23 Outfall group overflow summary
24 Approximate drainage areas for the seven subbasins shown in
Figure 9
25 Summary of stormwater samp?es collected (1987-1988) by the
City of Everett
26 Summary of Everett CSO stormwater contaminant data
27 Outfall specific pollutant concentrations for NESS
28 Estimated pollutant loadings for NESS
29 Summary of Everett tire fire data
30 Summary of bacteriological data for Tulalip landfill
31 Summary of available leachate data from Tulalip landfill
32 Water quality data collected at USGS Station 12150800 on the
Snohomish River near Monroe, Washington
33 Drainage basin areas and flow estimates for surface runoff
discharges in South Port Gardner
34 Loading estimates for conventional pollutants and selected
metals from surface runoff discharges based on a 1-yr storm
54
55
57
58
61
63
65
67
68
69
70
71
73
76
78
80
82
83
ix
-------
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
89
91
92
96
99
106
107
110
122
124
125
136
137
Summary of data from monitoring wells at the Mukilteo Defense
Fuel Supply Depot
Summary of source emissions in the Everett Harbor project area
Commonly found toxic air contaminant emissions in the
Everett Harbor project area
Puget Sound AET values
Summary of U.S. EPA water quality criteria
Everett Harbor combined sewer overflow and storm drain
sampling locations and sample descriptions
Monitoring wells sampled at the Mukilteo Defense Fuel
Supply Depot
List of contaminants and conventional variables measured
during the Everett Harbor study
Problem chemicals identified in Everett Harbor project area
drain sediments
Chemicals undetected in the Everett Harbor project area drain
sediments with detection limits > HAET concentrations
Summary of results from analysis of groundwater at Mukilteo
Defense Fuel Supply Depot October 1986
Relative percent distribution of PAH compounds in sediments
from drains discharging into the East Waterway
Relative percent distribution of metals in sediments from
drains discharging into the East Waterway
x
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This document was prepared by Tetra Tech, Inc., under the direction of
Dr. Jean M. Jacoby, for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in partial
fulfillment of Contract No. 68-02-4341.
This project was funded through the National Estuary Program under the
authorities of the Clean Water Act as amended. Funding was approved by the
U.S. EPA Office of Marine and Estuarine Protection. Ms. Clare Ryan and
Dr. Lawrence McCrone served as technical monitors for U.S. EPA Region X
throughout various phases of the project. Dr. Don Wilson served as the
Tetra Tech Program Manager.
The primary authors of this report are Mr. Raymond Luce II, Mr. Robert
Storer, Ms. Sharon Steele, and Ms. Lynne Ki1patrick-Howard of Tetra Tech.
Dr. Jean Jacoby of Tetra Tech provided technical review of this document.
Ms. Sue Trevathan of Tetra Tech performed technical editing and supervised
report production. Collection of source samples was performed by Ms. Beth
Schmoyer of Ecology, formerly of Tetra Tech; Mr. Pieter Booth of PTI,
formerly of Tetra Tech; and Ms. Karen Keeley of Tetra Tech. Ms. Stacey
Vineberg of Tetra Tech provided data management support. Assessment of
chemical data quality was performed by Ms. Lynne Kilpatrick-Howard of Tetra
Tech.
Technical guidance information was provided by representatives of many
agencies and organizations including Mr. Dan Mathias, Mr. Carl Baird,
Mr. Ron Thomas, and Mr. Jeff Kerwin of the City of Everett; Mr. David Wright
and Mr. Dave Murdock, both of Ecology; Mr. Dennis Gregoire of the Port of
Everett; Mr. Tim Bechtel of Scott Paper; and Mr. David Peterson, Snohomish
County Health Department, Sanitation Division.
xi
-------
The Everett Harbor Action Program has benefited from the participation
of IAWG and a Citizen's Advisory Committee (CAC). Duties of the IAWG and
CAC members included 1) reviewing program documents, agency policies, and
proposed actions; 2) providing data reports and other technical information
to U.S. EPA; and 3) disseminating action program information to respective
interest groups of constituencies. We thank the IAWG and CAC members for
their past and continuing efforts. We are especially grateful to Ms. Joan
Thomas and Mr. Dave Murdock for chairing the IAWG, and to Mr. Gary Wold for
chairing the CAC.
The Tetra Tech production staff are also acknowledged for their
efforts: Ms. Pamela Charlesworth (graphics), Ms. Betty Dowd (graphics),
Ms. Lisa Fosse (word processing), Ms. Joanne Graden (word processing),
Ms. Rosemarie Jackson (report reproduction), Ms. Kim Reading (graphics),
Ms. Debra Shlosser (word processing), Ms. Gail Singer (word processing), and
Ms. Gestin Suttle (word processing).
xi i
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
INTRODUCTION
In 1985, the Everett Harbor Action Program was initiated by the
U.S. EPA, Ecology, and other resource management agencies to identify and
control toxic contamination in Port Gardner and the lower Snohomish River.
The Everett Harbor project area includes the Snohomish River estuary east to
Interstate 5 (1-5), the nearshore areas of Port Gardner, the Snohomish River
delta, and the lower Snohomish River estuary (Figure ES-1).
During October of 1986, sampling was conducted in the nearshore
receiving environment and in several combined sewer overflows (CSOs) and
storm drains discharging into the project area. The source sampling
approach was based on a technique originally developed by the Municipality
of Metropolitan Seattle (Metro), in which contaminants are traced to their
ultimate sources through the collection and chemical analysis of in-line
sediment samples from individual drains (Metro 1985; Sample 1987; Hubbard and
Sample 1988). Groundwater samples were also collected from existing
monitoring wells at the Mulkilteo Defense Fuel Supply Depot. Results of the
receiving environment sampling effort are presented in PTI and Tetra Tech
(1988b). The results of the source sampling effort are the subject of this
document.
The evaluation of potential contaminant sources in Port Gardner and the
lower Snohomish River provided in this document has two major components:
¦ Identification of problem chemicals in the source samples
¦ Identification of relationships between potential sources of
contaminants and the high-priority problem areas identified
in the receiving environment (PTI and Tetra Tech 1988b).
xi i i
-------
MisS'On
B®acn
Pnest
Pomi
Smith
island
Preston
Point
island
5
PSOOA Uncorrtlnt*
Op*n-wator 0«potaJ SM
South
TtrmnaJ
US Nj*y PropoMd
D«*p CAD Sit*
t EAST WATERWAY
2. NEARSHORE PORT GARDNER
3. OFFSHORE PORT GARDNER
SNOHOMISH RIVER DELTA
SNOHOMISH RIVER
MUKILTEO
Elliott Point
FORMER PORT GARDNER DREDGED
MATERIAL DISPOSAL SITE
EBEY SLOUGH
STEAMBOAT SLOUGH
WASHINGTON
9. UNION SLOUGH
CONFINED AQUATIC DISPOSAL
PSDOA PUGET SOUND DREDGED DISPOSAL
ANALYSIS
Figure ES-t. Project location and study areas within Everett Harbor
and the lower Snohomish River
-------
The source sampling program was designed as ein initial screening
survey to identify the problem chemicals in a limited number of drains
discharging into Port Gardner and in groundwater samples from three
monitoring wells at the Mukilteo Defense Fuel Supply Depot. More extensive
sampling is needed before potential sources can be properly ranked for
further investigation and/or control.
The source evaluation section of this report focuses on the high-
priority problem areas in the receiving environment that were identified in
PTI and Tetra Tech (1988b). Relationships between the high-priority problem
areas and potential sources of contamination were identified using available
chemical data from the source sampling activities, sediment chemistry data
from the receiving environment sampling effort, and ancillary information on
industrial activities and historical sources of contamination.
OVERVIEW OF POTENTIAL SOURCES
Potential contaminant sources in th'e Everett Harbor study area can be
divided into eight major point and nonpoint categories: industrial dis-
charges, wastewater treatment plants, CSOs, landfills, surface runoff,
groundwater, atmospheric deposition, and accidental spills. Industrial
discharges are the permitted and nonpermitted discharges of process
wastewater and stormwater runoff from commercial sites. There are four
wastewater treatment plants that discharge treated wastewater into the
study area. CSOs in the study area are part of the City of Everett's
combined sewer system. Within Everett's North End Sewer System (NESS) there
are 16 CSO outfalls (2 of which are deactivated). Eight of these outfalls
discharge into Port Gardner and six discharge into the Snohomish River.
There are two landfills located within the study area. Contaminants
from these landfills can be transported to waterways by direct overland
flow, leaching, or by atmospheric deposition. Surface runoff is primarily
considered a nonpoint source and occurs when excess precipitation washes off
the land surface and discharges to the waterways through natural drainages
xv
-------
(i.e., streams, creeks) and direct overland flow. Groundwater sources
include any subsurface transport of contaminants into the study area.
Groundwater contamination may occur as a result of improper waste disposal
practices or accidental spills. Atmospheric deposition is the process by
which airborne pollutants are deposited directly on the water surface.
Airborne material that is initially deposited on the land surface and then
transported to the waterways by stormwater runoff is a component of surface
runoff.
METHODS
Source Evaluation Approach
Problem chemicals in each drain were identified using the following
criteria:
¦ Exceedance of the highest Apparent Effects Threshold (AET)
value for a chemical, if AETs for that chemical have been
derived
¦ Exceedance of an Elevation Above Reference (EAR) value of
1,000 for chemicals that have no established AET values.
These criteria are consistent with those used in PTI and Tetra Tech (1988b)
to identify problem chemicals in the receiving environment, which facilitates
comparison of the contamination found in drains and in offshore sediments.
The concentrations of chemicals measured in the groundwater samples
were compared to U.S. EPA freshwater quality criteria to provide a general,
qualitative description of the quality of the groundwater collected.
The approach used to link potential contaminant sources to the
contamination found in the receiving environment sediments from the highest
priority problem areas and problem stations was based on the following
information:
xvi
-------
¦ Proximity of sources to the problem area in the receiving
environment
¦ Comparison of the available source sediment chemistry data
from this study and stormwater data from the City of
Everett's CSO investigations (Mathias, D., 23 May 1988,
personal communication) with available offshore sediment
chemistry data
¦ Spatial distribution of contaminants in the offshore sediments
¦ Past or ongoing practices that may have contributed to the
contamination observed in the receiving environment.
Source Sampling Approach
Sediment samples were collected between 15 and 29 October 1986 from two
CSOs, one storm drain, and three groundwater monitoring wells in the study
area. The sediment samples were collected from deposits in the manhole near
the mouth of each drain. One drain was sampled at two different manholes.
Sediment samples were analyzed for U.S. EPA priority pollutants that
may be currently or have been discharged into the study area, as well as
other chemicals expected to be present, such as resin acids and guaiacols.
The target chemicals measured during the source sampling effort are virtually
identical to those contaminants analyzed for in the offshore sediments (PTI
and Tetra Tech 1988b), which facilitated comparisons between variables
measured in the two sampling environments.
Procedures specified in the Puget Sound Estuary Program (PSEP)
protocols (Tetra Tech 1986e) were used to analyze chemical constituents in
the drain sediments and to assess the quality of the data obtained from
different laboratories. Based on the quality assurance/quality control
(QA/QC) review of the chemical data, a small portion of the data set was
xv i i
-------
qualified for a variety of minor reasons. A complete discussion of these
qualifications is presented in Section 3.0.
CHARACTERIZATION OF ONSHORE SAMPLES
Drain Sediments
The largest number of problem chemicals (8) were found in the sample
from CSO E011-2, which is located on Scott Paper Company property. All
four of the drain sediment samples contained at least two problem chemicals.
Chromium was a problem chemical in all four sediment samples, and nickel was
a problem chemical in three of the sediment samples. Other problem
chemicals identified in at least one of the drains included cadmium, zinc,
DDT, acenapthene, 4-methylphenol, benzoic acid, dibenzofuran, naphthalene,
acenaphthylene, dimethyl phthalate, and total low molecular weight poly-
nuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (-LPAH).
Groundwater Samples
The concentrations of chemicals found in the groundwater samples were
compared to U.S. EPA water quality criteria for freshwater to provide a
general, qualitative description of the quality of the groundwater collected.
Concentrations of copper, lead, mercury, and silver each exceeded the
chronic criteria in at least one of the groundwater samples.
SOURCE EVALUATIONS
In many cases, no specific sources of the problem chemicals found in
offshore sediments could be identified because of a lack of chemical data
pertaining to nearby potential sources. To more thoroughly identify
specific sources of contamination, further investigation in the study area
is needed. A summary of the source evaluations for each high-priority
problem area and problem station is presented below.
xviii
-------
East Waterway Problem Area
Many compounds historically related to the pulp industry (e.g., resin
acids, chlorinated phenols, and chlorinated guaiacols) were found at
elevated concentrations in the sediments of the East Waterway. Possible
sources of these contaminants are the historical and current discharges from
pulp and paper mills. Scott Paper Company and an inactive Weyerhaeuser
thermomechanical plant are located near the East Waterway problem area and
have historically discharged effluent in or near the problem area through
nine identified outfalls. Scott Paper Company has operated a plant at its
East Waterway location since 1930, and currently discharges effluent
through its deepwater diffuser (SW001), nearshore diffuser (S003), and the
secondary treatment plant outfall (S008). Weyerhaeuser operated a sulfite-
based paper and pulp mill from 1936 until 1975. Before 1951, discharges
included untreated wastewater from washing, bleaching, and drying processes
(Outfalls WT002 and WT003); stormwater runoff and wastewater from limestone
cleaning operations (Outfall WT004); and stormwater runoff from other areas
of the plant (Outfall WT006). After 1951, most sulfite waste liquor was
discharged through the plant's deepwater diffuser (Outfall SW001). In 1975,
the plant was converted to the thermomechanical process, and Outfalls WT001
and WT003 were sealed and abandoned. After 1975, Outfalls WT004 and WT006
were used only for stormwater discharge. Weyerhaeuser discontinued
operations at its East Waterway plant in 1980.
Six CSOs and ten storm drains discharge to the East Waterway problem
area. Only the Norton Terminal storm drain (SD) and CSOs E011 and E007 were
sampled during the 1986 source investigation. Analytical results indicated
a lack of similarity in problem chemicals (presence of chemicals and their
relative distributions) between the Norton Terminal SD and offshore
sediments, which suggests that the storm drain may not have been a signifi-
cant contributor to the organic chemical contamination in East Waterway.
However, the storm drain may have contributed to metals contamination
offshore that had not reached problem levels at the time of sampling.
xix
-------
Based on the large number of problem chemicals common to both CSO E011
and stations in East Waterway (and the relative" distributions of the
chemicals), it is likely that CSO E011 contributed to chemical contamin-
ation of sediments in East Waterway, especially 4-methylphenol and PAH
contamination. However, there were probably other significant sources of
contamination in the vicinity of CSO E011, especially for compounds related
to the pulp industry.
The results from the chemical analysis of the sediment sampled from CSO
E007 suggest that the CSO may have been a source of the total high molecular
weight polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (HPAH) and metals found in the East
Waterway. The sediment sample from CSO E007 was not analyzed for pulp mill
compounds.
Nearshore Port Gardner Problem Area
Polar organic compounds (e.g., 4-methylphenol, benzoic acid, and
phenol) were the major contaminants in the sediments of the nearshore
Port Gardner problem area. Also, some stations demonstrated relatively high
concentrations of PAH and PCBs. Potential sources of contamination in the
vicinity of this problem area include the Mukilteo Defense Fuel Supply
Depot, the Mukilteo Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP), and three surface
water discharge points (Japanese Gulch, Edgewater Creek, and Powder Mill
Gulch). Although groundwater samples taken from monitoring wells at the
Mukilteo Defense Fuel Supply Depot in 1986 were visibly contaminated with
oily substances, chemical analyses detected only a few of the target
compounds (a few metals and PAH compounds) at relatively low concentrations.
Based on the dissimilarity of contaminants in the sediments from the problem
area and groundwater from the fuel depot, a link between contaminated
groundwater from the Mukilteo Defense Fuel Supply Depot and the problem
chemicals identified in offshore sediments could not be demonstrated.
No data were available for characterizing surface waters discharging to
the offshore Port Gardner problem area. A number of potential sources of
contamination were present in the drainages of the three creeks mentioned
xx
-------
above (e.g., abandoned landfills and dumps, and training areas for fire-
fighting exercises in the Snohomish County Airport/Paine Field area). An
Ecology field investigation of the Paine Field area was underway at the time
of this writing.
Problem Station 06-01
Station 0G-01 was located near the Scott Paper Company diffuser
(Outfall SW001). This area was characterized by contamination from
4-methylphenol, PAH, and resin acids. These contaminants have varying
degrees of association with the pulp industry. Outfall SW001 is currently
used to discharge effluent from the Scott Paper Company primary clarifiers.
Prior to 1980, the outfall was also used by Weyerhaeuser for the discharge
of a variety of effluents, including untreated sulfite waste liquor. These
discharges may have been the source of resin acids in the vicinity of
Station 06-01. Sources of the 4-methyl phenol and PAH have not been
identified.
Problem Station SD-03
Station SD-03 was located in the Snohomish River delta offshore from a
historical Western Gear outfall (WG002). Western Gear specialized in the
manufacture of heavy equipment and machinery for the oil drilling industry,
and discharged noncontact cooling water through Outfall WG002 prior to 1988.
Sediment samples from Station SD-03 were contaminated with benzoic acid,
benzyl alcohol, DDT, and 4-methylphenol. No potential sources for any of
the problem chemicals have been identified. The presence of DDT in
sediments from this area may be due to its historical agricultural use in
the Snohomish River drainage basin.
Problem Station SR-05
Station SR-05 was located in the Snohomish River offshore of the Weyer-
haeuser Kraft Mill. Sediment samples from this area were contaminated with
benzoic acid, 4-methylphenol, and resin acids. Discharges from one or
xx i
-------
more Weyerhaeuser outfalls are possible sources of the resin acids and
4-methylphenol found in the area. Historical Outfall WP001 was upstream of
Station SR-05 and discharged filtration backwash; Outfall WK002 is slightly
downstream of Station SR-05 and discharges noncontact cooling water; Outfall
WK005 is slightly downstream and across the river from Station SR-05 and
discharges surface runoff from Smith Island; and Outfall WK001 is on the
northwestern side of Smith Island and discharges effluent from aerated
treatment lagoons. Outfall WK001 was probably not a source of contaminants
in the area because of its distance from Station SR-05. Potential sources
of benzoic acid in the area have not been identified.
Problem Station ES-03
Station ES-03 was located in Ebey Slough southeast of the mouth of
Quilceda Creek. Sediments from this area were contaminated with benzoic
acid, 4-methylphenol, and phenol. A potential source of the benzoic acid
and phenol contamination is leachate from the Tulalip landfill, which is
known to have contained these contaminants. Wood waste and treating
facilities are present at various locations throughout the lower Snohomish
River and its sloughs, and were possible contributors to the 4-methylphenol
contamination observed at this station.
Problem Station SR-07
Station SR-07 was located near the Everett Marina in the Snohomish River
and was designated a problem station because of benthic effects. Sediments
from Station SR-07 contained 96 percent fine-grained material, and elevated
concentrations of tributyltin (TBT) and sulfides. Concentrations of other
chemicals were not substantially elevated. TBT is used in marine paints as
a biocide, and may have originated from boat painting and refinishing
activities in the marina area. Potential sources of sulfides in this area
have not been identified.
xx i i
-------
Problem Station SD-Q1
Station SD-01 was located in the Snohomish River delta and was
designated as a problem station because of benthic effects. Sediments from
the area contained 12 percent gravel, less than 5 percent fine-grained
material, and low concentrations of organic carbon and sulfide. No
substantially elevated concentrations of chemicals were observed in the
sediments from this station. Benthic effects observed in this area may have
been the result of natural physical stresses, such as those caused by the
swift currents observed in the area rather than chemical contamination (PTI
and Tetra Tech 1988b).
xxiii
-------
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 OBJECTIVES
The Everett Harbor Action Program was initiated, in cooperation with
U.S. EPA, Ecology, and other resource management agencies, to identify and
control toxic contamination in Port Gardner and the lower Snohomish River.
A preliminary assessment of toxic problem areas, potential contaminant
sources (Tetra Tech 1985b), and a review of existing plans for corrective
actions (Tetra ' Tech 1986c) provided the framework for an analysis of
potential sources of toxic contaminants in these problem areas. Results
from the analyses of additional samples collected from the nearshore
receiving environment are presented in PTI and Tetra Tech (1988b).
The objectives of the source evaluation are to:
¦ Evaluate potential sources based on contaminant concentrations
measured in sediments collected from two CSOs, a storm drain,
and in groundwater samples collected from three wells in
October 1986
¦ Link potential contaminant sources to the problem areas
observed in the offshore receiving environment.
The source sampling program was designed as an initial screening
measure to identify the problem chemicals in a limited number of drains
discharging into Port Gardner and in groundwater samples from three
monitoring wells at the Mukilteo Defense Fuel Supply Depot. A more
comprehensive source sampling effort will be required to adequately
characterize the contributions of contaminant sources to the project area.
Ranking and prioritization of sources were not performed because of the
limited number of sources sampled during this investigation.
1
-------
The source evaluation section of this report focuses on the high-
priority problem areas in the receiving environment that were identified in
PTI and Tetra Tech (1988b). Relationships between high-priority problem
areas and potential sources are identified using available chemical data on
stormwater runoff, groundwater, and receiving environment and drain sediment.
Ancillary information on drainage basin characteristics, industrial
activities, and historical sources was also reviewed as part of the
assessment.
1.2 DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT AREA
Everett Harbor is located adjacent to the eastern shore of Possession
Sound near the City of Everett, WA (Figure 1). The project area is defined
as the area east of a line joining Elliott Point in Mukilteo with the western
point of Mission Beach at the entrance of Tu1al1p Bay. The Everett Harbor
project area includes the Snohomish River estuary east to 1-5. This area is
about 7 mi wide at the mouth and 3 mi wide from the inner harbor to the
outer boundary. The project area also includes nearshore areas of Port
Gardner, the Snohomish River delta, and the lower Snohomish River estuary.
The East Waterway and the entire portion of the Snohomish River within
the project area have been significantly altered from their natural states.
In the early 1900s, a dike was built to divert Snohomish River flow southward
along the Everett shoreline and to convert Port Gardner into a freshwater
port. The original dike extended from the south end of Smith Island and
paralleled the Everett shoreline. However, heavy sedimentation occurred in
the area upstream of Preston Point. As a remedy, a large gap was cut in the
dike near the old river mouth at Preston Point to allow part of the river
flows to travel out across the delta. The main portion of the river flow
still travels along the Everett waterfront and enters Port Gardner near the
East Waterway. Currently, the Snohomish River is used as a navigational
channel from the East Waterway up to River Mile 6.0. This channel is
maintained by U.S. Army Corps of Engineers dredging projects every 2-3 yr.
Expansive intertidal sand flats and seagrass beds exist west and north of
the river entrance to Port Gardner.
2
-------
Mission ¦
Beach
I
U S Ntvy PropoMd -
Deep CAD Sit*
PS 00* UnconffTMti
Open-water Dttpoil! Site
\
I
/
V
o
MUKILTEO
Elliott Point
WASHINGTON
CAD
Priest
island
Preston
Point
Island
- South
Terminal
1 EAST WATERWAY
2. NEARSHORE PORT GARDNER
3. OFFSHORE PORT QARDNER
4 SNOHOMISH RIVER OELTA
5. SNOHOMISH RIVER
6. FORMER PORT GARDNER DREDQED
MATERIAL DISPOSAL SITE
EBEY SLOUQH
STEAMBOAT SLOUQH
UNION SLOUQH
CONFINED AQUATIC DISPOSAL
PSOOA PUGET SOUND DREDQED DISPOSAL
ANALYSIS
Figure 1. Project location and study areas within Everett Harbor
and the lower Snohomish River.
3
-------
1.2.1 Drainage Patterns
The project area watershed encompasses about 170 mi^ of primarily
forest and agricultural lands within the Snohomish River basin. The
boundaries of the project watershed are roughly defined by Highway 9 to the
east and Casino Road to the south, and extend as far north as the Arlington
airport (PTI and Tetra Tech 1988b).
The cities of Everett, Marysville, and Mukilteo are the major urban
centers within the project area (see Figure 1). Surface-water runoff from
Everett is collected by a combined sanitary and storm sewer system, treated
at the Everett WWTP, and discharged into the Snohomish River about 0.8 mi
downstream of the 1-5 bridge. Before I960, raw sewage was discharged into
Port Gardner and the Snohomish River via 14 outfalls. Marysville and
Mukilteo each have storm drain systems that are separated from their sewage
collection systems. Storm drains within the Marysville area discharge into
Quilceda Creek, Allen Creek (which discharges into Ebey Slough approximately
0.5 mi southeast of Marysville), and Ebey Slough. Aside from two storm
drains within the City of Mukilteo, most of the runoff from Mukilteo and
southwest Everett is discharged to southern Port Gardner via numerous small
streams. The northern portion of the project watershed includes largely
forested and agricultural lands that drain to Quilceda and Allen Creeks (PTI
and Tetra Tech 1988b).
The Snohomish River is the largest source of fresh water to Port Gardner
and the second largest freshwater inflow to Puget Sound. The Snohomish
River basin covers about 1,700 mi^, extending to the crest of the Cascade
Mountains. The average annual flow measured near Monroe by the U.S.
Geological Survey from 1963 to 1979 was about 6,400 MGD (Williams et al.
1985).
The Snohomish River estuary within the project area includes four main
branches: Ebey Slough, Steamboat Slough, Union Slough, and the lower
Snohomish River channel. The latter carries the major portion of the total
river flow. During the dry season, tidal saltwater intrusions have been
4
-------
observed as far upstream as 0.62 mi from Preston Point (PTI and Tetra Tech
1988b).
1.2.2 Study Areas
A major objective of this report is to evaluate potential sources of
toxic contaminants contributing to the contamination observed in the
nearshore region of Everett Harbor and the lower Snohomish River. To
facilitate spatial analysis of chemical and biological data, the nearshore
region (i.e., less than approximately 164-ft water depth) was divided into
nine smaller areas (see Figure 1) based on geographic features and locations
of potential sources of contaminants. Area boundaries and major features
are as follows:
1. East Waterway (EW)--All of the East Waterway north and east
of a line from the Snohomish River mouth to the southernmost
boundary of the historical Weyerhaeuser Pulp Mill dock (South
Terminal).
2. South (Nearshore) Port Gardner (NG)--Shoreline areas (less
than or equal to a 33-ft depth) from Elliott Point (Mukilteo)
to the southernmost boundary of the South Terminal including
the area near the Mukilteo Defense Fuel Supply Depot.
3. Offshore Port Gardner (OG)— All deep-water (>33 ft) areas of
Port Gardner exclusive of other defined areas.
4. Snohomish River Delta (SD) —The area west of a line drawn
between the downstream shoreline of Ebey (approximately
0.6 mi to the east of the Everett WWTP) and Smith Islands out
to the 33-ft depth contour.
5. Snohomish River (SR)--The main navigable river channel
downstream from the 1-5 bridge to the mouth of the river.
5
-------
6. Port Gardner Disposal Site--The area that was formerly
designated a disposal site for dredged materials.
7. Ebey Slough (ES)--The channel adjacent to the northern
boundary of Ebey Island west of 1-5 to a line downstream
between Priest Point and the western tip of Ebey Island.
8. Steamboat Slough (SS)--The channel between Ebey and Smith
Islands west of 1-5 to a line between the western tip of Ebey
Island and the northwestern tip of Smith Island.
9. Union Slough--The portion of the slough west and north of 1-5.
1.3 OVERVIEW OF REPORT
Section 2.0 presents an overview of potential sources of toxic
contaminants in the Everett Harbor project area. The approach used to
evaluate sources of toxic contaminants and a summary of source sampling
methods is presented in Section 3.0. A discussion of drain sediment and
groundwater chemical data is provided in Section 4.0. In Section 5.0, the
distributions of chemicals in onshore samples are compared with distributions
in the offshore receiving environment to link potential contaminant sources
to problem areas offshore. In Sections 4.0 and 5.0, file information (e.g.,
permits, inspection reports, monitoring programs, accidental spills, citizen
complaints, additional ongoing studies) provided by the agencies involved in
the Everett Harbor Action Program is used to identify additional potential
sources (e.g., nonpoint sources, direct discharges to the harbor, spills)
contributing to the contamination in the problem areas.
The following seven appendices are provided in this document:
¦ Appendix A - Physical and chemical data for the drain and
groundwater samples
¦ Appendix B - Potential contaminant sources in the Everett
Harbor project area
6
-------
¦ Appendix C - NPDES and City of Everett industrial pretreat-
ment permits
¦ Appendix D - Grain size characteristics in the sediments from
the drains and offshore receiving environment
¦ Appendix E - Elevation of drain sediment contaminant
concentrations above reference values
¦ Appendix F - Dredging history in the project area
¦ Appendix G - Puget Sound air pollution registration file
listings in the project area.
7
-------
2.0 OVERVIEW OF POTENTIAL SOURCES
Potential contaminant sources in the Everett Harbor project area can
be divided into eight major point and nonpoint categories: industrial
discharges, wastewater treatment plants, CSOs, landfills, surface runoff,
groundwater, atmospheric deposition, and accidental spills.
Industrial discharges are the permitted and nonpermitted discharges of
process wastewater and stormwater runoff from commercial sites. Industrial
discharges may be routed to the waterways through city or private drains.
These discharges are permitted by Ecology under the National Pollutant Dis-
charge Elimination System (NPDES) program. In addition, industrial facili-
ties may also discharge process wastewater to the city's combined sewer
system. These discharges are permitted through the City of Everett's indus-
trial pretreatment program (see Appendix C for a list of major dischargers).
There are four wastewater treatment plants in the project area. These
plants are located in Everett, Mukilteo, Marysville, and on the southwestern
edge of the Tulalip Indian Reservation (Figure 2). The individual discharge
volumes from these plants and their exact outfall locations are presented in
Section 2.2.
CSOs in the project area are part of the City of Everett's combined
sewer system. Within Everett's NESS there are 16 outfalls (2 of which are
deactivated). Eight of these outfalls discharge into Port Gardner and six
discharge into the Snohomish River (Figure 3). Discussions of individual
outfalls are presented in Section 2.3.
Everett and Tulalip landfills are located within the project area
(Figure 2). Contaminants from these landfills can be transported to
waterways by direct surface runoff, leachate, or by atmospheric deposition
(e.g., Everett tire fire). A characterization of contaminants migrating
from these two landfills is presented in Section 2.4.
8
-------
TTJLAIIP
kVWTP
MARYSVIU.E
WWTP
MJLALlP landfill
WK001
SMITH ISLAND
o
4-
¦
~
A
•
IE)
(WK)
fWP)
(AG)
(SW)
|M)
LEGENO
SURFACE RUNOFF (DISCHARGE LOCATIONS
cso
INDUSTRIAL DISCHARGE • EXISTING
INDUSTRIAL DISCMARGE HISTORICAL
TI06QATE
MUNICIPAL ttWTP
EVERETT
WEYERHAEUSER • KRAFT
WEYEMAEUSEn • WOOO PRODUCTS
ASSOCIATED SAND t GRAVEL
SCOTT/WEYERHAEUSER
MUKLTEO DEFENSE FUEL SUPPLY DEPOT
BUflLNQTON NORTHERN RAILROAD
IOCADON Of POTENTIAL CONTAMINANT
SOURCE (INDUSTRIAL)
1 9USE MLL
2 0USE LOG DUMP
3* CENTRECCN
4* UARPAC
« AMERICAN 0OLER WORKS
« FISHERMAN* BOAT SHOP
7* STEUART SEAFOOD
• CANYON LUfcBER
• mjCKCARE
10* CUSTOM PLATING AND PACIFC PLATING
1 1 * KOHKOKU USA
12* JOHN FLUKE ISEAWAY BLVD.)
11* JOHN FLUKE (EVERGREEN WAY)
• DISCHARGES TO EVERETT WWTP
{SIGNIFICANT INDUSTRIAL USER
SUBJECT TO 0ISCHARGE PERMIT)
SEE EAST
WATERWAY MAP
WK005
Snohom/sA .
WEYERHAEUSER
KRAFT MILL
WP002
WP001
E0171
EOlfifl
s
*
.
newnr ave.
11"
13*
RgKOWAY-SNOMOMlSM
LANDFLL
Figure 2. Locations of potential sources ol contamination
in the Everett Harbor project area.
I
-------
_ TflLfK
lateral
PRESSURE LINE
manhol£
UFT STATION
PONT OF R.OW TO NESS PROM SESS
— OUTTAU.S
PLANNNG AREA BOUNDARY (NFSS1
RAILROAD
SOUTHWEST INTERCEPTOR
REGULATOR
^ ClTVOP EVERETT CSO (STORMWATER)
o SAMPLING LOCATIONS
+ TETRA TECH ORANSAMPLNGff
stations rrws stkoy)
NORT
DRAIN)
PAPER)
P805
(UFT STATION NO 3)
;Mjr~
v li-~ ! ! !!_ _
PS06
>U . yl" ! .
HEWITT AND BONO)
EOOT
(PACIFIC AMO CHESTNUT)
IS
STREET)
[24 S BOND ST
'if --J fS
CVWC-MOA and OTTWaiar GntMV*
Figure 3. CitV.of Ev®r®tt CSO diagram with locations of drain
sediment and stormwater sampling stations
-------
Surface runoff is primarily considered a nonpoint source and occurs
when excess precipitation washes off the land surface and discharges to the
waterways through natural drainages (i.e., streams, creeks) and direct
surface runoff. Surface runoff can also occur as a point source from
industrial areas that maintain storm drains. Surface runoff sources are
discussed in Section 2.5.
Groundwater sources include any subsurface transport of contaminants
into the project area. Groundwater contamination may occur as a result of
improper waste disposal practices or accidental spills. The Tulalip
landfill, Everett landfill, Mukilteo Defense Fuel Supply Depot, and the
Boeing Test Facility (see Figure 2) have the potential for groundwater
contamination in the project area and are described in Section 2.6.
Atmospheric deposition is-the process by which airborne pollutants are
deposited directly on the water surface. Airborne material that is initially
deposited on the land surface and then transported to the waterways by
stormwater runoff is classified as surface runoff. Airborne emissions from
13 industries are currently being monitored in the project area and are
discussed in Section 2.7 and Appendix G. Accidental spills of contaminants,
recorded in the project area since 1972, are discussed in Section 2.8.
The following sections provide background on the major potential
contaminant sources present in the project area and summarize available
information on discharge locations, drainage basin areas, flow rates,
permitted facilities, contaminant loading, and historical problem sites.
This information supplements information on contaminant sources previously
compiled and summarized in Tetra Tech (1985b).
2.1 INDUSTRIAL FACILITIES .
The industrial facilities that might contribute contaminants to the
problem areas identified in the Everett Harbor project area defined by PTI
and Tetra Tech (1988b) are those industries with direct or indirect
discharges of wastewater or waste material into the area waterways.
11
-------
Locations of industrial sites in the project area are shown in Figures 2 (see
Section 2.0) and 4. The area adjacent to the East Waterway supports one of
the most highly industrialized sites in the project area (Figure 4). The
industries near the East Waterway, the offshore Port Gardner area, the
nearshore Port Gardner area, the Snohomish River, and Ebey Slough are
discussed in the following sections.
Contaminants from industrial facilities can enter area waterways
through permitted (or unpermitted) direct discharges or through an overflow
event at a combined sewer overflow (CSO) (see Section 2.3). The direct
dischargers deposit treated process wastewater, untreated noncontact cooling
water, and stormwater directly into the area waterways. A summary of the
current direct industrial dischargers is provided in Table 1.
Indirect industrial dischargers are connected to the municipal treatment
plants via the sewer system. These industries participate in the City of
Everett Industrial Pretreatment Program and are regulated through the NPDES
program. A summary of these indirect industrial dischargers is presented in
Table 2.
Other sources of contaminated material to the project area include
leachates and spills that are carried through a storm drain or the sanitary
sewer system to the waterways. These sources, along with the unpermitted
discharges, are more difficult to detect or monitor. Table 3 is a list of
industries noted by the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation
and Liability Information System (CERCLIS) as potential sources of industrial
contamination. Most of these facilities are discussed later in this report.
The major sources of information on the origins of industrial chemicals
in the project area are Ecology's NPDES permit and industrial information
files, Tetra Tech (1985b), the Snohomish County Environmental Health
District files, and personal communications.
12
-------
LEGEND
O
*
¦
~
-------
TABLE 1. PERMITTED INDUSTRIAL DISCHARGERS
Study
Area
Name
Permit No.
Exp. Date
Average
Flow
(MGD)
Average
Load
(lb/day)
Description
and Notes
NG
OG-Ol
EW
SR-05
SS
Defense Fuel
Support Point -
Mukilteo - Port
Gardner Bay
Mukilteo, WA
Associated Sand
and Gravel
6300 Glenwood Ave.
Everett, WA
Scott Paper Co.
26th Street and
Federal Avenue
Everett, WA
Scott Paper Co.
26th Street and
Federal Avenue
Everett, WA
Western Gear
2100 Norton Avenue
Everett, WA
(closed 1988)
Weyerhaeuser Co.
Everett Kraft Mill
Alverson Boulevard
Everett, WA
WA-002523-2
2.2x10
-4
4x10
-7
WA-000112-1 (I)
Exp. 9/4/90
WA-000062-1
WA-000062-1
1.3X10'
7.9
6.0
-4
14.1
WA-000341-7
Exp. 3/14/88
2.5x10
WA-000300-0
Exp. 5/25/90
Weyerhaeuser Co.
Everett Kraft Mill
Alverson Boulevard
Everett, WA
WA-000300-0
Exp. 5/25/90
4.5x10
0.4C
llc
0.3°
19.4C
20.5b
Oi1 and grease
0.1a
Oil and grease
0.1*
TSS 25d
Total oil
115 ppm
BOD 4,661
TSS 4727b
BOD 3,159^
TSS 2,364
BOD 2,812^
TSS 6,747
-2a
-2a
BOD 8c>d
TSS 67c'
BOD 230°'d
TSS 1,150°
BOD 7.5c,d
TSS 168c*
BOD 4,300c
TSS 4,600°
BOD 4,488^
TSS 4,585
Outfalls M001-M005
Fuel condensate (water)
and storm water
Outfall M006
Fuels lab operation
Pigeon Creek #2 via Seahurst
Storm Sewer
Deep water di ffuser SW001
Pulp and paper mill effluent-
primary treatment
Nearshore diffuser S003
Paper mill effluent-
primary treatment
Secondary treatment plant
Outfall S008
Pulp mill effluent
Outfall WG003
noncontact cooling water
(East Waterway)
Outfall WG002
noncontact cooling water
(Snohomish River)
Outfalls WK002
Plant site stormwater
runoff and condensate
Outfal1 WK004
River water bypass filter
bed backwash
Outfall WK005
Surface water runoff
Outfall WK001
Aerated stabilization basin-
wood pulping, bleaching, drying,
chemical recovery, and gas
scrubbing (Steamboat Slough)
BOD - Outfall WK001 only
Total TSS - Outfalls WK001
and WK004
a Permit requirement.
** Three and one-third-yr averages.
c Permit application.
Daily maximum allowed by permit.
14
-------
TABLE 2. DISCHARGES TO EVERETT WWTP
EVERETT NPDES-PERMIT FACILITIES - PRETREATMENT PROGRAM PARTICIPANTS
Faci1i ty Name
Permit
Number
NPDES
Expiration
Date
Type of
Industry
Discharge Type Flow Rate
and Permit Limits (6PD)
Boeing Commercial Airplane Co. NA NA
3003 W. Casino Rd., Everett
Centrecon 5142 8/30/90
1130 W. Marine View Dr., Everett
Custom Pacific Plating NA NA
2421 Hewitt Ave., Everett
John Fluke Mfg. Co. #1 5183 6/8/86
6920 Seaway Blvd., Everett
John Fluke Mfg. Co. #2 5147(1) 12/17/89
9028 Evergreen Way, Everett
Kohkoku (USA), Inc. 5175 5/31/89
1407-80th St. SW, Everett
Pacific Plating NA NA
2421 Hewitt Ave., Everett
Cathcart Landfill NA NA
109th St. SE and 39th Ave. E.
Steuart Seafood 5153(1) 12/23/91
1520 W. Marine View Or.
Tri-Coat1ngs, Inc. (Marpac) NA NA
1104 10th, Everett
Ai rcraft
manufacturi ng
Concrete pole
manufacturing
Electroplating,
anodizing, and
painting
Electronic manu-
facturing
Electronic manu-
facturing
NA
TSS 205 mg/L
NA
Total metals
1 mg/L
NA
10,000
NA
44,000
Total cooling
waters
8,900
Polyvinyl
chloride plastic
films and
sheeting
Electroplatlng,
anodizing, and
painting
Landf111
F1sh processing
(salmon ft bottom
fish)
NA
011 & grease 216,800
50 mg/L
Total metals
6.8 mg/L
Total toxic organics
4.57 mg/L
BOD 7 lb/day 500,000
TSS 17 lb/day
011s 100 mg/L
NA NA
NA NA
BOD 200 mg/L
(97 lb/day)
TSS 250 mg/L
(120 lb/day)
011 & grease 58,000
50 mg/L
NA NA
NA * Information unavailable for this report. New permits will be Issued in October 1988 (Kerwin, J., 7 Sep-
tember 1988, personal comnunlcation).
15
-------
TABLE 3. LIST OF INDUSTRIES - CERCLIS SITE LOCATION
SUPERFUND DATABASE - 18 FEBRUARY 1988
CERCLIS
U.S. EPA ID
Boeing Commercial Airplane Co.
3303 Casino Road S., Everett
Everett landfill
2902 36th Street S.E., Everett
Pal 1ister Paint
1037 Center Road, Everett
Scott Paper Co.
2600 Federal Avenue, Everett
Simpson Lee Co.-Pulp/Deinking (Closed)
N.E. of South 3rd Avenue
at 48th Street S.E., Everett
Snohomish Co.-Reckoway landfill
Weyerhaeuser Sulfite-Pulp Mill (Closed)
101 Marine View Drive, Everett
Lake Stevens landfill
131st Avenue N.E., Lake Stevens
Biringer Berry Farm
6219 88th Street N.E., Marysville
Boeing Company Tulalip Test Site
Tulalip Indian Tribe-Marine Disposal Site
Tulalip landfill
USAF Defense Fuel Support Point
Front Street and Loveland Avenue, Mukilteo
WAD041585464
WAD980639405
WAD980979769
WAD009250820
WAD980977383
WAD980638936
WAD009273129
WAD980511612
WAD076635358
WAD980185789
WAD980639256
WA2971590003
16
-------
2.1.1 East Waterway
The East Waterway problem area is located west of downtown Everett and
east of the mouth of the Snohomish River channel (see Figures 2 and 4).
This area, particularly along the eastern shoreline, is the most highly
contaminated in the entire Everett Harbor project area. The maximum
concentration of nearly every chemical measured during the receiving
environment survey was found in the East Waterway (PTI and Tetra Tech
1988b). The toxic chemicals observed in East Waterway sediments included
phenolic compounds, resin acids, PAHs, PCBs, and various metals. Many of
the compounds observed are related to pulp industry discharges (PTI and
Tetra Tech 1988b). The possible contributions from CSOs and private storm
drains are discussed in Sections 2.3, 2.5, and 5.1.1 of this report.
Scott Paper Company—
The Scott Paper Company has been operating on this site on East Waterway
since 1930 (see Figure 4). The company's operation extends the length of
the eastern shore of East Waterway from 22nd Street south to Everett Avenue.
The Scott Paper Company pulp and paper mills produce ammonia-based sulfite
pulp, and towel and tissue paper. There are two auxiliary plants on the
site: a steam plant and a WWTP. Figure 5 is a diagram of the water flow
through the plant.
Scott is a permitted discharger of primary and secondary treatment
effluent wastewater to the East Waterway, and primary treatment effluent to
offshore Port Gardner. The permit information is summarized in Table 1 (see
Section 2.1) (Scott Paper Company 1979). The nearshore diffuser (S003) and
the secondary treatment plant outfall (S008) discharge into the mouth and
head, respectively, of the East Waterway. The deepwater diffuser (SW001)
discharges primary treatment effluent through an outfall 2,000 ft offshore.
This outfall is discussed later in this section. Scott's NPDES permit, WA
000062-1, specifies monitoring and reporting of biochemical oxygen demand
(BOD), total suspended solids (TSS), total flow (Q), and total production of
air-dried bleached pulp product on a daily basis (Scott Paper Company 1979).
Priority-pollutant data available from the permit application and the
17
-------
MUNICIPAL
WATER
SUPPLY
31 MOD
3
FRESHWATER
FILTERS
5
*
u
~
EVAPORATION
0.3 MGD
/V
HOT WATER .
PAPER MILL
PAPER MACHINES
BROKE BLEACHING
RESIN MAKING
SECONDARY FIBER
GROUNDWOOD MAKNG
PAPER FINISHING
— 5.0 MGD'
RAW MATERIAL --T—
—oTmBB1 28 *f°°
EVAPORATION
0.4 MGD
t
HOT WATER
PULP WILL
DIGESTERS
PULP WASHING
PULP SCREENING
PULP BLEACHING
PULP DRYNG
/ V
S.S.L
i
SPENT SULFITE
LIQUOR SYSTEM
COLLECTION
EVAPORATION
BURNING (#10 BOILER)
ACID MAKING
Tt
STEAM PLANT
>
1 MOO
r~*
L 10 MGD*
— 1 MOD-
BACK
WASH
0.3 MG0
PRIMARY
CLARIFIERS
> 11 MGD •
• 2JS MGD-
RAINWATER
OUTFALL 001 ^
SM3D
asimja^
WASTEWATER
TREATMENT
PLANT
OUTFALL 004
(HISTORICAL)
RAINWATER
MUNICIPAL WASTE
MUNICIPAL
SANITARY FACILITIES
TREATMENT PLANT
WATER SUPPLY *
0.1 MOD W
Reference: Adapted Irem Soott Paper Company 1981 NPDES ptrmK application.
Figure 5. Schematic diagram of water flow through Scott Paper
Company's East Waterway facility.
18
-------
U.S. EPA's STORET database are presented in Tetra Tech (1985b). Discharge
monitoring report worksheets provide a breakdown of* total flow, BOD, and
TSS by individual outfall. The worksheet information for 1985 through
April 1988 is summarized in Tables 4, 5, and 6.
The wastewater flow to each outfall is determined by individual plant
processes and is shown Figure 5 (Scott Paper Company 1979). Effluent from
the two primary clarifiers is combined and discharged from Outfalls SW001
and S003 without further treatment. This discharge is separated at a weir
under the pulp mill. Ideally, the flow to Outfall SW001 is maximized and
Outfall S003 is used primarily as an overflow outfall. In practice, the
flows to each outfall are separated such that the pH at Outfall S003 is
maintained at permitted levels. Approximately one-half of the effluent is
directed to each outfall. The clarifiers process water from the hog fuel
boiler in the steam plant, water from three sumps used for fiber collection
in the pulp mill, a continuous flow of machine sewer water, an intermittent
flow of water from the color-change line in the paper mill, and backwash
from the fresh water filters. This backwash is comprised of grit and other
material that has been filtered from incoming unprocessed city water
(Bechtel, T., 1 July 1988, personal communication).
The remainder of the wastewater from all of the processes is routed to
the Scott industrial WWTP. Effluent from the treatment plant is discharged
at Outfall S008. The Scott WWTP is designed to collect waste from streams
with a high BOD content. The treatment plant processes wastewater from the
spent sulfite liquor system, the acidified water used to regenerate the
resins in the water deionizing columns, wastewater (brown "white water")
from the pulp mill, sludge dewatering filtrate, bleach plant waste, and
wastewater from the paper mill "bayline" floor trenches. Water from the
floor trenches was formerly discharged at Outfall S004. Prior to construc-
tion of the WWTP in 1980, untreated pulp bleaching wastewater effluent was
discharged through Outfall S002, south of Outfall S003 (see Figure 4). The
Scott pulp mill currently unloads liquid chlorine (pressurized chlorine gas)
for its pulp bleaching process near the historic Outfall S002 (Bechtel, T.,
1 July 1988, personal communication). The SW001 Outfall discharges into the
offshore Port Gardner area and is discussed below.
19
-------
TABLE 4. SCOTT MILL EFFLUENT DISCHARGE
MONITORING REPORTS (1985-APRIL 1988)
OUTFALL SWOOl
Q
BOD
BOD
TSS
TSS
(MGD)
(mg/L)
(lb/day)
(mg/L)
(lb/day)
1985
J
7.3
77
4,668
51
3,114
F
8.0
62
4,088
56
3,764
M
7.9
65
4,235
48
3,146
A
6.9
54
3,136
58
3,356
M
8.1
57
3,824
58
3,878
J
9.4
54
4,243
67
5,205
J
9.5
64
4,712
63
4,668
A
10.4
97
8,607
76
6,483
S
10.9
98
9,192
105
9,790
0
8.5
64
4,495
66
4,668
N
8.8
94
6,870
92
6,697
D
8.8
96
7,064
97
7,148
Total
3,155 MG
987
ton
942 ton
1986
J
8.8
78
5,698
80
5,876
F
8.4
84
5,838
99
6,897
M
8.1
92
6,135
104
6,793
A
7.7
81
5,230
84
5,390
M
7.8
96
6,276
75
4,877
J
8.3
77
5,288
74
5,123
J
8.1
75
5,088
85
5,774
A
7.7
69
4,374
62
3,913
S
7.8
65
4,217
73
4,745
0
7.5
67
4,193
76
4,734
N
6.5
85
4,673
104
5,667
D
6.9
70
3,956
78
4,511
Total
2,789 MG
908
ton
954 ton
20
-------
TABLE 4. (Continued)
Q
(MGD)
BOD
(mg/L)
BOD
(lb/day)
TSS
(mg/L)
TSS
(lb/day)
1987
J
8.2
62
4,257
70
4,816
F
8.0
79
5,293
89
5,991
M
7.9
76
5,016
77
5,093
A
8.0
63
4,199
70
4,662
M
7.7
59
3,777
65
4,128
J
7.7
49
3,182
52
3,333
J
6.9
46
2,660
51
2,911
A
6.3
45
2,361
49
2,580
S
6.4
50
2,698
53
2,821
0
8.1
57
3,828
63
4,225
N
7.7
61
3,901
58
3,732
D
8.2
65
4,492
65
4,505
Total
2,727 MG
684
ton
730 ton
1988
J
8.0
69
4,631
70
4,723
F
5.8
65
3,142
54
2,583
M
5.7
70
3,379
57
2,660
A
6.5
65
3,527
69
3,707
Total
752
212
198
3-1/3 Vr Average
7.9
70
4,661
71
4,717
+1.1*
±15
+1,460
±16
±1,500
a Average = x ± SD (SD = standard deviation).
Reference: Scott Paper Company (1988).
21
-------
TABLE 5. SCOTT MILL EFFLLUENT DISCHARGE
MONITORING REPORTS (1985-APRIL 1988)
OUTFALL S003
Q BOD BOD TSS TSS
(MGD) (mg/L) (lb/day) (mg/L) (lb/day)
1985
J
7.6
69
4,460
48
3,001
F
4.5
55
2,075
44
1,667
M
3.9
54
1,744
44
1,425
A
4.2
45
1,581
49
1,770
M
6.0
46
2,224
45
2,218
J
7.5
35
2,298
49
3,170
J
8.6
30
1,988
34
2,221
A
5.9
44
2,167
43
2,166
S
3.8
71
2,194
67
1,994
0
5.1
41
1,864
47
2,185
N
6.7
72
3,922
65
3,525
D
4.7
76
2,974
58
2,310
Total
2,057 MG
448 ton
421
1986
J
5.4
50
2,364
60
2,978
F
3.5
67
1,872
65
1,800
M
5.0
102
3,898
74
3,419
A
4.2
91
3,154
43
1,552
M
4.1
116
3,875
48
1,615
J
5.5
67
2,926
34
1,485
J
7.1
44
2,515
30
1,672
A
8.6
30
2,157
18
1,330
S
6.9
23
1,329
20
1,134
0
9.2
39
2,949
35
2,727
N
7.5
95
5,614
76
5,118
D
5.8
99
4,686
50
2,454
Total
2,204 MG
567 ton
414
22
-------
TABLE 5. (Continued)
Q BOD BOD TSS TSS
(MGD) (mg/L) (lb/day) (mg/L) (lb/day)
1987
J
5.0
84
3,416
52
2,214
F
7.6
71
4,596
61
4,040
M
5.0
78
3,070
55
2,358
A
7.0
56
3,214
43
2,584
M
7.2
48
2,931
33
2,004
J
7.1
44
2,602
34
2,004
J
6.1
69
3,328
49
2,343
A
6.7
41
2,285
27
1,489
S
7.8
42
2,816
41
2,787
0
8.0
57
3,719
46
3,105
N
4.7
63
2,366
39
1,611
D
5.1
77
3,158
47
2,040
Total
2,330 MG
566
ton
430
1988
J
6.8
88
5,414
61
3,630
F
4.4
89
3,271
46
1,688
M
7.0
132
6,970
53
3,165
A
5.0
162
6,382
60
2,563
Total
706 MG
335
ton
168
3-1/3 yr Average
6.0
67
3,159
47
2,364
+1.5®
+29
+1,296
±13
+832
a Average = x + SD (SD = standard deviation).
Reference: Scott Paper Company (1988).
23
-------
TABLE 6. SCOTT MILL EFFLUENT DISCHARGE
MONITORING REPORTS (1985-APRIL 1988)
OUTFALL S008
Q
(MGD)
BOD
(mg/L)
BOD
(lb/day)
TSS
(mg/L)
TSS
(lb/day)
1985
J
10.8
22
1,972
67
6,057
F
11.1
29
2,623
61
5,550
M
11.5
35
3,356
76
7,238
A
12.9
25
2,670
61
6,640
M
13.5
20
2,274
53
5,919
J
15.1
22
2,767
68
8,489
J
15.3
24
2,769
49
5,857
A
16.4
28
3,794
62
8,569
S
12.7
22
2,291
52
5,437
0
13.4
24
2,699
61
6,819
N
11.9
39
3,922
89
8,923
D
10.2
24
2,065
56
4,911
Total
4,654 MG
501
ton
1,218 ton
1986
J
12.3
24
2,449
60
6,116
F
11.4
26
2,528
52
5,047
M
10.3
41
3,486
93
8,118
A
10.9
27
2,417
64
5,810
M
11.0
24
2,192
51
4,763
J
11.8
34
3,324
76
7,468
J
12.6
33
3,501
97
10,269
A
17.2
26
3,631
58
8,126
S
16.3
21
2,837
44
6,066
0
15.3
24
3,059
58
7,328
N
12.8
23
2,661
66
7,566
D
15.8
26
3,487
69
8,962
Total
4,776 MG
546
ton
1,289 ton
24
-------
TABLE 6. (Continued)
Q
(MGD)
BOD
(mg/L)
BOO
(lb/day)
TSS
(mg/L)
TSS
(lb/day)
1987
J
14.4
18
2,174
54
6,433
F
13.1
15
1,665
38
4,186
M
15.3
14
1,775
44
5,698
A
14.2
18
2,169
42
4,906
M
13.9
16
1,846
37
4,387
J
14.2
21
2,389.
51
5,939
J
15.6
23
2,526
50
5,793
A
19.1
28
4,387
53
8,297
s
15.8
32
4,430
58
7,748
0
15.9
28
3,794
63
8,354
N
17.1
23
3,264
57
8,103
D
16.5
19
2,608
39
5,419
Total
5,610 MG
501
ton
1,141 ton
1988
J
15.2
21
2,675
55
6,582
F
19.6
16
2,708
48
7,905
M
13.9
22
2,791
63
7,826
A
17.9
17
2,524
43
6,248
Total
1,985 MG
162
ton
432 ton
3-1/3 yr Average
14.1
24
2,812
58
6,747
±2.4a
+6
±686
+14
±1,447
a Average = x ± SD (SD * standard deviation).
Reference: Scott Paper Company (1988).
25
-------
There is little additional information available on the Scott outfall
discharges. The NPDES permit does not require additional monitoring of
priority pollutants. Table 7 contains historical data on priority pollutant
metals, organic compounds, and resin acids in samples taken from the Scott
outfalls in 1982, 1983, 1985, and 1986. This information is in addition to
that presented in Tetra Tech (1985b). There are no recent data available on
priority pollutants from the Scott outfall discharges. Formaldehyde, used
in the papermaking process to improve paper strength, was replaced with a
polyamide-polyamine wet strength resin in August 1985, thereby removing
formaldehyde as a possible ongoing contaminant (Bailey, A., 7 November 1985,
personal communication).
Port of Everett and Other Smaller Industries--
In addition to the Scott Paper Company, the East Waterway area contains
the central terminals for the Port of Everett and several smaller industries.
The Port of Everett consists of Hewitt Terminal, Pacific Terminal, and the
South Terminal (formerly the Weyerhaeuser Sulfite/Thermomechanical Plant
docks) (see Figure 4). Hewitt Terminal (Piers 1 and 3) at the mouth of the
waterway has four deepwater berths for ships carrying heavy cargos such as
logs, lumber, pulp, steel, alumina ore, ingots, autos, and agricultural
products. The Pacific Terminal is located to the north, across the East
Waterway from the Scott Paper Company. Piers B, D, and E at the Pacific
Terminal are made from plank and piling and have both road and barge access.
The Weyerhaeuser Sulfite/Thermomechanical Plant closed in 1980 and was
located south of Pier 1 (Tetra Tech 1985b). The old Weyerhaeuser plant area
is now called South Terminal and contains two berths (Gregoire, D., 1 June
1988, personal communication).
There are several other smaller industries surrounding the East Waterway
(see Figure 4) that occupy space in the Port of Everett. Anaconda Aluminum,
Everett Cold Storage (American Ice & Cold Storage), and Johnston Petroleum
Products (Mobil Oil Co.) are located near the Hewitt Terminal. Foss Tug,
Dunlap Towing, and other tug and tow boat businesses are located at Pacific
Terminal. Because the U.S. Navy plans to establish its new homeport on the
26
-------
TABLE 7. ORGANIC CHEMICALS AND METALS FOUND
IN SCOTT PULP AND PAPER MILL OUTFALLS (mg/L)
Contaminant
Date of Outfall Outfall
Sample SW001 S003
Outfall S008
Influent Effluent
Metals
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Nickel
Si Tver
Zinc
Volatile Organics
Acetone
Chloroform
Ethyl benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Semivolatile Organics
Benzoic acid
Resin Acids
Isopimaric®
Isopimaric'
Dehydroabietic®
Dehydroabietic*
Abietice
Retene*
6/5/85®
10/1/86"
6/5/85®
10/1/86b
6/5/85®
10/l/86b
6/5/85®
10/l/86b
6/5/85®
10/1/86"
6/5/85®.
10/1/86b
10/1/86"
7/9/85"
11/24/82*
9/22/82?
10/1/86"
11/24/82*
9/22/82"
NA
3/2/83
NA
3/2/83
NA
3/2/83
0.0010
0.0010
NA
0.0020
0.0016
0.0007
NA
0.0017°
0.0050
0.0050
NA
0.0100
ND
ND
NA
ND
0.0040
ND
NA
0.0020
ND
ND
NA
ND
ND
ND
NA
0.0070
0.005
0.008
NA
ND
ND
ND
NA
0.0018
ND
ND
NA
ND
0.0450
0.0170
NA
0.440
0.082
0.033
NA
0.073°
0.200
0.130
NA
0.015
i NA
NA
NA
0.049
1 0.107
NA
NA
NA
0.373
NA
1.130
, 0.079
0.035
NA
0.066
1 0.021
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.010
0.057
ND
NA
ND
NA
NA
0.140
ND
NA
NA
0.285
ND
NA
0.035
0.852
0.002
NA
NA
1.463
0.018
NA
0.004
0.010
ND
NA
NA
0.0009
0.045
a Bechtel, T. (19 July 1985, personal communication).
b Kjosness, D. (1 August 1988, personal communication).
c This value is the average result from two duplicate analyses.
d Bailey, A. (7 November 1985, personal communication).
® Archer, S. (9 September 1983, personal communication),
f Johnson, B. (9 August 1983, personal communication).
ND ¦ Not detected.
NA = Information not available.
27
-------
East Waterway, some companies have moved in order to provide room for this
new facility. Viking Wire Rope Company, formerly at this location, has
moved to Marysville. Until recently, the Western Gear Company was located
along the north end of Pacific Terminal, south of the Norton Terminal. This
company, a former permitted discharger of noncontact cooling water through
historical Outfalls WG002 and WG003, has been permanently closed at this
location. There are no chemical data on these smaller companies.
2.1.2 Offshore Port Gardner
The only identified industrial source that might impact this problem
station is the Scott-Weyerhaeuser deepwater diffuser.
Scott-Weyerhaeuser Deepwater Diffuser--
The Scott-Weyerhaeuser deepwater diffuser (SW001) is located southeast
of the East Waterway, approximately 2,000 to 3,000 ft offshore of Port
Gardner at a depth of approximately 300 ft, near offshore Station 0G-01 (see
Figure 4). This outfall, constructed in 1951, shared discharges with the
Weyerhaeuser Sulfite/Thermomechanical plant until that plant closed in 1980.
Prior to 1975, effluent discharged from the Weyerhaeuser plant at Outfall SW001
consisted of untreated sulfite waste liquor. When the plant was converted to
the thermomechanical process in 1975, a secondary treatment plant was construc-
ted, and all process wastewaters were treated prior to discharge. Information
on the other outfalls from this plant is presented in Tetra Tech (1985b).
Outfall SW001 also discharges a portion of the effluent from the two
primary sedimentation clarifiers at the Scott Paper Company. These clari-
fiers collect wastewater from the steam plant, fresh water filter backwash,
the paper mill processes, and the pulp mill processes. The operations that
supply influent to the clarifiers are described in more detail later in this
section and are summarized in Table 3 (see Section 2.1.1.). The monthly
average BOD, TSS, and flow for Outfall SW001 are provided in Table 4 (see
Section 2.1.1). Additional chemical data are presented in Table 7 (see
Section 2.1.1) and indicate that the concentration of copper (0.0040 mg/L)
in effluent from Outfall SW001 exceeded both U.S. EPA acute and chronic
28
-------
criteria for marine water (0.0029 mg/L) in June 1985. Other metals did not
exceed the criteria, but the nickel concentration (0.0070 mg/L) was close to
the chronic effects limit of 0.0083 mg/L. These criteria provide a general,
qualitative description of water quality and may differ from the criteria
specified in the discharge permit.
2.1.3 Nearshore Port Gardner
The Nearshore Port Gardner problem area includes nearly all of the
NG stations and is located in the southwest corner of the project area
(Figure 6). Potential industrial sources of contamination in this area are
the Mukilteo Defense Fuel Supply Depot and the various industries in the
Boeing/Paine Field area (Figure 6). Wastes from this area collect in the
streams and gullies that flow into Port Gardner. Other potential contaminant
sources, including the Mukilteo WWTP and general surface runoff, are
described in Sections 2.2 and 2.5.
Mukilteo Defense Fuel Supply Depot--
The Mukilteo Defense Fuel Supply Depot receives, stores, and transfers
aviation gasoline and aviation turbine fuel (JP-4) (Tetra Tech 1985b). The
facility consists of a transfer pier, a railroad tank car loading area, a
fuel laboratory, and ten bulk fuel storage tanks. There are six outfalls
from the fuel storage tank area that discharge directly into Port Gardner.
Outfalls M001 through M005 are for storm water and fuel condensate, and
Outfall M006 discharges storm water and wastewater from the fuels laboratory.
These discharges are permitted under Ecology NPDES Permit No. WA 002523-2,
and are monitored for oil and grease on a monthly basis (see Table 1).
Outfall M006 is also monitored for flow. Discharge monitoring report data
for this facility were not available for this report.
There have been two major leakages at the fuel storage facility; the
first leakage occurred in 1982 and the second in 1986. In 1982, Tank 10 was
found to have structural and seepage problems. In 1982 and 1983, groundwater
studies were conducted at the Tank 10 site by the U.S. Army Environmental
Hygiene Agency (AEHA) to determine if contamination had resulted from
suspected storage tank leakage. Results of these studies are described in
29
-------
LEGEND
o
SURFACE RUNOFF
E
STORAGE TANK
M
m
CSO
INDUSTRIAL DISCHARGE - EXISTING
*
TETRA TECH GROUNDWATER
SAMPLING STATIONS (THIS STUDY)
•
MUNICIPAL WWTP
(NG)
NEARSHORE PORT GARDNER
i >»
BURLNGTON NORTHERN RAILROAD
(OG)
OFFSHORE PORT GARDNER
NG-01
SW001
OG-OI • ®
NQ-02 •
NG-13 <
NG-12 •
NG-11
•
MUMLTEO
WV/TP
NG-10
NG-03 •
NG-14 9
MUK 8
NG-15
NG-05
NG-04
NG-06
NG-07
MUK 12
NG-08 •
NG-09
E002 .
BLVD.
O
' ©
5-
MUKILTEO -
DEFENSE FUEL SJPPLY DEPOT \S
\o
I®
\g>
\c.
o
PAINE FIELD
I
BOEING
I
%
\\
I
i O
\ 3
I ^
*
, <
Figure 6. Locations of sampling stations, industrial and natural drainage outfalls,
and other potential sources of contamination in the nearshore Port
Gardner study area.
-------
Tetra Tech (1985b). Tank 10 was drained prior to the AEHA study and is no
longer in use. Samples taken in 1983 from monitoring wells near Tanks 9 and
10 contained JP-4 fuel in excess of 1,000 ppm and all other wells in the
vicinity contained less than 10 ppb of benzene, ethylbenzene, toluene, or
chloroform (Spencer and Rodgers 1987). A memo from the Snohomish County
Environmental Health Office's files, dated 29 June 1987, contains data on
the detection of HPAH (e.g., benzopyrenes, benzoanthracene, benzofluor-
anthene, chrysene) at the facility.
In 1986, leakage problems were discovered at Tank 9. A hydrogeologic
survey was conducted to determine the effects on the groundwater of fuel
leakage in the piping to Tank 9 and to propose remediation plans. The
conclusions of this survey state that a substantial amount of JP-4 fuel is
on the groundwater surface near Tank 9, but the more volatile additives to
JP-4 fuel (benzene, toluene, and xylene) are not retained in the groundwater
for any significant amount of time. The survey also concludes that leaching
of residual concentrations of hydrocarbons into Puget Sound is the only path
of environmental exposure (Spencer and Rodgers 1987).
Boeing/Paine Field and Related Industries—
The area south of the nearshore Port Gardner problem area and Mukilteo
(see Figure 2) contains the Snohomish County Airport (Paine Field), several
large industries, an automobile racing track, and unpermitted landfills.
These sources may contribute to the contamination of surface water,
groundwater, and the sewer system. Such contaminants could be transported
to Port Gardner through Japanese Gulch and Powder Mill Gulch.
Information in the files at the Snohomish County Environmental Health
Department describe several contamination problems in the Paine Field area.
There is a long history of nonpermitted landfill sites at the western and
southern ends of the airport, including an old Air Force dump. Poor
hazardous waste storage practices at numerous places in and around the
airport area were also documented in county inspection reports (Winters, T.,
16 January 1987, personal communication). There is concern that leachate
from the landfills, dumping, and hazardous waste spills may enter the
31
-------
groundwater and surface water systems and, ultimately discharging near the
nearshore Port Gardner area, through Japanese Gulch and Powder Mill Gulch.
A Paine Field survey designed to analyze the toxic chemicals in sediment,
groundwater, and surface water at Big Gulch, Japanese Gulch, Powder Mill
Gulch, Stickney Lake, and Swamp Creek is currently being conducted and
should be completed in October 1988 (Johnson, A., 16 August 1988, personal
communication). A summary of available organic chemical data from Ecology
studies related to Paine Field is provided in Table 8. Volatile organic
chemicals, chlorohydrocarbons, and Aroclor (PCB) 1254 were detected in ponds
and drains around the area, particularly those that drain into the creeks
mentioned above.
The event log of a Paine Field site inspection conducted by the
Snohomish County Safety and Industrial Insurance Office on 16 January, 1987
(Winters, T., 16 January 1987, personal communication) lists several
problems in the area. Examples of the problems listed in the log include
the presence of hazardous waste containers (labeled "poison" and "cor-
rosive"), an overturned rail car tanker, contaminated soil from the landfill
and sumps, and asphalt and tar waste. Nine samples taken from material
found in barrels, mud, and soil were analyzed in order to establish a waste
profile. A variety of heavy metals (e.g., chromium, lead, copper, nickel,
zinc, cadmium, barium), phenols, and xylene were detected (Laucks Testing
Laboratories 1987).
The Paine Field Clean-up Committee, comprised mainly of various state
and county government agency personnel and airport management, was formed to
assess the airport waste problems and oversee their solutions. A survey was
performed of all the approximately 120 underground storage tanks in the area
and their contents. These tanks contained aviation fuel, kerosene, diesel
fuel, used oil, heating oil, #5 black oil, and gasoline. Efforts are being
made to clean up the site. For example, the old Air Force dump was capped
and hydroseeded in April 1987 (Paine Field Clean-up Committee 1987-1988).
Boeing Commercial Aircraft is a participant in the City of Everett's
pretreatment program. Although the company is listed in Table 2 as
participating in the industrial pretreatment program, a description of the
32
-------
TABLE 8. PAINE FIELD SEDIMENT CHEMICAL DATA
Sample
Location
Units
Acetone
1.1-Di-
chloroethane
Trans-1,2-
chloroethane
Chi orof orm
1.1.1-Tri-
chloroethane
Trichloroethene
PCB 1254
Suspended sediment
Boeing pond*
09/02/87
mg/L
0.0015
PoMder Mill Gulch .
Retention (Boeing) pond"
08/11/87
mg/kg
20.5
Suspended sediment
Drain at 100th Street SW*
09/03/87
ng/L
0.036
0.0056
0.0011
0.0031
0.056
0.028
Drain at lOOst Street SW^
08/10/87
Japanese pond1*
08/11/87
mg/kg
mg/kg
0.084
0.28
Powder Mill Gulch mouth'*
8/10/87
mg/kg
0.044
a Analytical Resources Inc. (1987).
k Carrel1, B. (24 March 1987. personal comnunicatian).
-------
discharges and permit requirements were not available for this report. A new
City of Everett permit will be issued in October 1988 (Kerwin, J., 7 Sep-
tember 1988, personal communication). It is suspected that Boeing could be
contributing to contamination in Japanese Gulch, but further studies are
necessary to confirm this (Paine Field Clean-up Committee 1987-1988).
There are three other large industries in the Paine Field area (see
Figure 2) that discharge to the Everett WWTP and participate in the pretreat-
ment program (see Table 2). John Fluke Mfg. Co., an electronics firm, has
two manufacturing plants in the area. Process wastewater from the plant at
Evergreen Way is monitored once per quarter for total oil and grease, and
four times per year for total metals (i.e., the sum of copper, nickel,
chromium, and zinc), individual metals (i.e., total metals plus lead and
cadmium), cyanide, and the total toxic organics specified in 40 CFR 413.02
(John Fluke Mfg. Co. 1985). The Ecology permit monitoring report for metals
at the Evergreen Way plant for February 1988 is summarized in Table 9.
Copper and lead exceeded the permit limits (Dawson, L., 15 March 1988,
personal communication). Discharge from the plant at Seaway Boulevard is
monitored monthly for nickel, total chromium, and total metals (John Fluke
Mfg. Co. 1981). No monitoring data were available from this location.
Kohkoku (USA), Inc. produces polyvinyl chloride plastic films and
sheeting. This company is a participant in the Everett pretreatment program
and is required to monitor BOD, chemical oxygen demand (COD), and TSS on a
monthly basis. Total oils are monitored twice per month [Kohkoku (USA)
1984]. Monitoring data from the plant were not available.
2.1.4 Snohomish River
There are three problem locations in the Snohomish River estuary. The
first location consists of Stations SR-04 and SR-05 (see Figure 2) and is
located near the Weyerhaeuser Kraft Mill, downstream from the Everett WWTP.
Chemicals found at Station SR-05 included benzoic acid, 4-methylphenol, and
various resin acids. The second area is at Station SR-07, located in the
Everett Marina, north of the Norton Terminal (see Figure 2). Benthic
34
-------
TABLE 9. JOHN FLUKE MFG. CO., INC. - EVERGREEN WAY PLANT
RESULTS FROM CHEMICAL ANALYSIS OF PROCESS WASTEWATER
Concentrations in mg/L
Date of SamDle
Dai ly
Limit
Monthly
Monthly
Average
Limit
Metal
2/2/88
2/10/88
2/18/88
2/26/88
Average
Copper
0.0034
0.0037
0.0016
0.0013
0.00338
0.0025
+0.0012
0.00207
Nickel
0.00032
0.00039
0.00048
0.00023
0.00398
0.00036
+0.00011
0.00238
Chromium
<0.00005
<0.00005
<0.00005
<0.00005
0.00277
<0.00005
0.00171
Zinc
0.00004
0.00004
0.00007
0.00009
0.00261
0.00006
+0.00002
0.00148
Lead
0.00077
0.00077
0.00022
0.00017
0.00069
0.00048
±0.00033
0.00043
Cadmi um
<0.00001
<0.00001
<0.00001
<0.00001
0.00069
<0.00001
0.00026
Total metals
0.0038
0.0042
0.0022
0.0017
0.0105
NA
NA
NA = Information not available.
Reference: Dawson, L. (15 March 1988, personal communication).
35
-------
effects, elevated tributyl tin (TBT), arid high sulfide concentrations are
of concern at this station (PTI and Tetra Tech 1988b).
There are other industries near the Snohomish River, particularly those
that use paints, solvents, and wood treatment chemicals, that may contribute
contaminants to the area. These industries include marinas, piers, boat
building and repair companies, and lumber companies. Electroplating
companies are a possible source of heavy metals.
Weyerhaeuser Kraft Mi 11--
Of the two original Weyerhaeuser plants on the Snohomish River (the
Kraft pulp mill and the wood products plant), only the Weyerhaeuser Kraft
Mill is still in operation. The wood products plant was closed in 1984; a
short description of its operation is provided in Tetra Tech (1985b). The
Kraft Mill produces market-bleached pulp. Wastewater from the plant is
treated in an aerated lagoon on Smith Island north of the Snohomish River
(see Figure 2). The effluent from this lagoon, consisting of waste from
wood pulping, bleaching, drying, chemical recovery, and gas scrubbing, is
discharged into Steamboat Slough at Outfall WK001. Additionally, there are
three other discharges into the Snohomish River. The largest discharge is at
Outfall WK004 and consists of backwash from the plant's water-filtration
system. Outfall WK002 discharges noncontact cooling water and stormwater
runoff. Outfall WK005 discharges surface runoff from Smith Island (Tetra
Tech 1985b; Weyerhaeuser 1988).
The Weyerhaeuser Kraft Mill is a permitted discharger. The NPDES Waste
Discharge Permit No. WA-000300-0, which will expire 25 June 1990, requires
monitoring of the three outfalls mentioned above (Table 1). BOD and TSS
are sampled daily with flow, temperature, and pH monitored on a continuous
basis (Weyerhaeuser 1985). Monthly summaries from January 1985 through
April 1988 are given in Table 10. BOD is measured only at Outfall WK001;
TSS is measured prior to discharge Outfalls WK001 and WK004 (Weyerhaeuser
1988). Typically, one-fourth to one-third of the reported TSS is diverted
to Outfall WK004 and the remainder is discharged from Outfall WK001
(Ruppert, H., 3 June 1988, personal communication).
36
-------
TABLE 10. WEYERHAEUSER KRAFT MILL EFFLUENT DISCHARGE
MONITORING REPORTS (1985-APRIL 1988)a
Outfal1
WK001
OutfalIs
WK001 & WK004
Q
BOD
BOD
TSS
TSS
(MGD)
(mg/L)
(lb/day)
(mg/L)
(lb/day)
1985
J
21.8
29.0
5,300
30
5,500
F
18.2
44.8
6,900
30
4,700
M
16.3
21.3
2,900
18.3
2,600
A
16.7
21.9
3,100
24.9
2,900
M
20.0
21.8
3,600
17.8
4,000
J
19.4
25.3
4,100
28.2
4,900
J
24.8
13.1
2,700
16.5
3,500
A
24.0
17.4
3,500
21.1
4,300
S
23.7
26.7
5,300
25.7
5,100
0
20.0
18.3
3,100
26.2
4,500
N
18.6
27.4
4,100
23.7
3,900
D
19.3
31.6
4,900
25.5
4,200
Total
7,394 MG
749 ton
761 ton
1986
J
20.9
25
4,300
31.9
5,600
F
19.1
40.0
6,400
38.7
6,400
M
19.2
29.3
4,700
27.6
4,600
A
21.6
18.2
3,300
15.9
2,900
M
25.5
22.0
4,100
21.7
4,100
J
20.8
23.6
4,100
30.4
5,300
J
20.8
29.6
5,300
41.3
7,700
A
37.2
32.4
5,500
39.7
7,000
S
12.9
18.0
2,300
22.5
3,100
0
19.7
22.6
3,800
24.9
4,200
N
18.6
22.0
3,400
27.9
4,800
D
18.9
21.8
3,400
27.1
2,800
Total
8,548 MG
768 ton
889 ton
37
-------
TABLE 10. (Continued)
Outfal1
WK001
OutfalIs
WK001 & WK004
Q
BOD
BOD
TSS
TSS
(MGD)
(mg/L)
(lb/day)
(mg/L)
(lb/day)
1987
J
20.7
37.2
5,800
37.8
6,500
F
20.7
34.9
6,100
33.4
5,800
M
20.1
29.6
4,900
32.1
—
A
19.6
25.8
4,100
29.5
4,900
M
20.2
30.4
5,200
31.9
5,500
J
21.4
28.6
5,100
27.0
4,900
J
20.3
24.8
4,200
21.8
3,800
A
20.4
21.4
3,600
25.3
4,400
S
19.6
26.4
4,300
26.8
3,900
0
19.9
25.2
4,100
27.2
4,600
N
18.5
26.3
4,000
23.2
3,700
D
20.5
34.5
5,900
27.4
4,800
Total
7,358 MG
871 ton
801 ton
1988
J
19.3
36.3
5,800
34.0
5,300
F
19.9
33.0
5,500
18.9
3,900
M
19.9
31.8
5,300
23.6
4,000
A
19.4
33.7
5,500
24.8
4,200
Total
2,354 MG
332 ton
262 ton
3 1/3-yr
20.5
27.1
4,488
27.1
4,585
Average
+3.5
+6.7
+1,097
±6.1
+1,134
a Flow and BOD reported for Outfall WK001. TSS reported for Outfalls WK001
and WK004 combined.
Reference: Weyerhaeuser (1988)
38
-------
There are very few additional data available from contaminant studies
conducted at the Weyerhaeuser Kraft Mill. The NPDES permit application and
data from three effluent samples provided by the Weyerhaeuser Company provide
limited information on pollutant concentrations (Table 11). These data
represent isolated examples from the plant effluent and are not adequate to
provide a comprehensive analysis. The NPDES permit application reported
values for some metals, none of which exceeded the U.S. EPA water quality
criteria. Chlorobenzene was the only organic compound found in concentra-
tions greater than the analytical detection limit (Weyerhaeuser 1983). In
another sample, collected 1 April 1986, only chloroform was detected
(Ruppert, H., 20 May 1988, personal communication). Acetone and chloroform
were the only volatile organic compounds detected in an effluent sample from
Outfall WK001 collected in October 1986 (Kjosness, D., 1 August 1988,
personal communication). Data for metals found in effluent from Outfall
WK001 are also presented in Table 11.
Evaluation of these data suggests that the plant is occasionally
discharging elevated concentrations of certain organic compounds and metals
(e.g., chlorobenzene, chloroform, magnesium, chromium, copper) (Weyerhaeuser
1983; Ruppert, H., 20 May 1988, personal communication). At various times,
concentrations of chromium, copper, lead, mercury, and nickel in the
effluent from Outfall WK001 have exceeded U.S. EPA saltwater criteria for
chronic or acute toxicity (Table 11 and also see Table 39 in Section 3.0).
These criteria provide a general, qualitative description of water quality
and may differ from the limits specified in the discharge permit. Vanillin
black liquor (VBL) used by the Weyerhaeuser Kraft Mill in its processes
could be a source of copper. The amount of copper in the mill's effluent
due to VBL is reported to be much smaller now than in the past (Ruppert, H.,
12 May 1988, personal communication), and the concentrations of copper
listed in Table 11 for effluent from Outfall WK001 decrease with time.
The majority of the Weyerhaeuser Kraft Mill wastewater is routed to a
lagoon treatment system on Smith Island. Effluent from this system is
discharged at Outfall WK001 into Steamboat Slough. This effluent is sampled
for organic compounds and metals more frequently than effluent from the
other outfalls. There are very few data available on the effluent discharged
at Outfalls WK002, WK004, and WK005.
39
-------
TABLE 11. WEYERHAEUSER KRAFT MILL POLLUTANT DATA
Permit Application®
Monitoring Reports'*
Ecology Sample'
05/12/83
01/31/86
08/11/87
10/09/86
Outfalls
Outfalls
Outfal1
WK001
WKQ02
WK004
WK005
WK001
WK001
WK001
(mg/L)
(mg/L)
(mg/L)
(mg/L)
(mg/L)
(mg/L)
(mg/L)
Total organic carbon
204
5
<10
144
NA
NA
NA
Anmonia-Ni trogen
0.04
0.029
0.037
2.4
NA
NA
NA
Fecal coliforms
(No./lOO mL)
<1
--
--
60
NA
NA
NA
Oil and grease
2.0
2
--
3
NA
NA
NA
Phosphorus
0.27
--
--
--
NA
NA
NA
Sulfates SO^
185
—
<5
--
NA
NA
NA
Sulfites So|~
<2
<2
--
NA
NA
NA
Fluorine
0.051
0.032
0.028
--
NA
NA
NA
Aluminum
0.31
--
0.33
1.0
0.52
0.26
NA
Barium
0.073
--
0.009
--
0.07
0.07
NA
Boron
0.24
—
0.018
--
NA
0.06
NA
Cobalt
<0.001
<0.001
--
<0.005
<0.01
NA
Iron
0.46
—
0.046
20
0.56
0.80
NA
Magnesium
97
1.38
116
34
3.8
NA
Molybdenum
<0.01
--
<0.01
--
<0.01
<0.01
NA
Manganese
0.2
—
0.016
--
0.24
0.18
NA
Tin
<0.01
„
<0.01
--
0.05
<0.05
NA
Ti tanium
<0.5
--
<0.5
--
NA
NA
NA
Beryl 1 lum
ND
—
--
--
<0.005
<0.005
<0.0001
Cadmi um
ND
—
--
--
<0.005
<0.005
<0.0001
Chromium
ND
--
--
--
0.17
0.11
0.024®]
Copper
ND
--
--
--
0.22
0.02
0.023"
Lead
ND
—
-- *
--
<0.05
<0.05
0.013d.
Mercury
ND
--
--
--
<0.0002
NA
o.ooooad
Ni ckel
NO
—
--
--
<0.03
0.02
0.018 ,
Si Iver
ND
—
--
--
<0.005
<0.01
0.00015
Zi nc
ND
„
--
--
0.03
0.04
0,026
Chiorobenzene
0.001
--
--
--
NA
NA
<0.025
Asbestos
e
e
e
e
NA
NA
NA
Cresols (methylphenols)
e
e
e
e
NA
NA
<0.027
4 Maximum daily value.
b Ruppert, H. (20 May 1988, personal conmunication). Data represent the average of two replicate samples for
each date.
c Kjosness, D. (1 August 1988, personal conmunication).
^ This value is the average result from two duplicate analyses.
e Expected to be present - no measurements taken.
40
-------
Everett Marina and Related Industries--
The Everett Marina is located north of the East Waterway and the Norton
Terminal, across the Snohomish River channel from Jetty Island (see
Figure 2). It is the second largest marina on the West Coast and contains
more than 2,000 boat slips. There are facilities for both pleasure craft and
commercial fishing vessels. The activities in the marina area, such as boat
sandblasting and painting, are potential sources of contamination. Other
possible sources of contamination in the marina, such as surface runoff and
CSOs, are discussed in other sections of this report.
The location of the boat basin off the Snohomish River places the marina
in a position to accumulate contaminated materials. A study conducted for
the Port of Everett (Spadaro, P., 6 May 1986, personal communication) found
high molecular weight polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (HPAH) and heavy
metals in the sediments along the. north end of the marina boat basin (Fig-
ure 7). A sample taken upstream of the marina in the Snohomish River near
Jetty Island at historical Station SSB1 (Spadaro, P., 6 May 1986, personal
communication) showed acceptable levels of chemicals similar to those found
at acceptable levels in the marina. The criteria used to determine accept-
ability were the Interim Decision Criteria for Disposal of Dredged Material
at the Port Gardner Open Water Disposal Site (Spadaro, P., 6 May 1986,
personal communication). A summary of the relevant data from this study
(Spadaro, P., 6 May 1986, personal communication) is provided in Table 12.
HPAH concentrations were above the acceptable IDC limits at historical
Stations SSB2 and SSB6. Elevated concentrations mercury were found in
sediments from historical Stations SSB3 and SSB6. Elevated concentrations
of arsenic, copper, lead, and zinc were found at Station SSB6. Mercury also
exceeded the low AET criteria (Tetra Tech 1986g) at Station SSB6.
Nearby industries that could be sources of chemical contaminants in the
Everett Marina area include boat building and repair facilities, the Marina
Village, Steuart Seafoods, and other nonharbor-related businesses such as
American Boiler Works, Tri-Coatings (Marpac), and Centrecon. Steuart
Seafoods, Tri-Coatings, and Centrecon participate in the Everett pretreatment
41
-------
• 2
SSB-1
•4
JETTY
ISLAND
•11
•3
•S
EVERETT
rv>
q>
c
§
6
I
-c
e
o
-c
o
3
c
©
>
<
o
e
o
Z
LEGEND
• HISTORICAL STATIONS
O STATION SR-07
• LOCATIONS OF POTENTIAL
CONTAMINANT SOURCES
1 YACHT CLUB
2 PERFORMANCE MARINE
3 CENTRECON
4 TRI-COATNGS (MARPAC)
5 AMERICAN BOILER WORKS
6 BAYSIDE MARINE
7 FISHERMAN'S BOAT SHOP
B HARBOR MARNE
9 STEUARTS SEAFOODS
I 0 MARINA VILLAGE
II AMERICAN CONSTRUCTION CO.
1 2 EVERETT ENGINEERING
meters
Reference: Adapted from Malta, M. (1966)
and City of Everett (1982).
Figure 7. Sampling locations in the vicinity of the Everett Harbor Marina.
-------
TABLE 12. HISTORICAL STATIONS IN THE EVERETT MARINA WHERE POLLUTANT
CONCENTRATIONS ARE ABOVE ACCEPTABLE CRITERIA
Contaminant
SSB2
(mg/kg)
Stations
SSB3
(mg/kg)
SSB6
(mg/kg)
IDCa
(mg/kg)
Puget Sound**
Low AET
(mg/kg)
Arsenic
CO
11
29
12.5
85
Copper
47
59
110
68.0
310
Mercury
0.1
0.2
0.6
0.15
0.41
Lead
<10
11
45
33
300
Zinc
61
85
160
105
260
HPAHC
2.720
4.811
4.740
2.690
12.000
a Interim Decision Criteria for Disposal of Dredged Material at the Port
Gardner Open Water Disposal Site, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
12 February 1986.
b Tetra Tech (1986).
c Summation of benzo(a)pyrene, benzo(b)fluoranthene, benzo(k)fluoranthene,
chrysene, fluoranthene, pyrene, and benzo(a)anthracene.
Reference: Adapted from Spadaro, P. (6 May 1986, personal communication).
43
-------
program. The permit requirements for these three industries are listed in
Table 2. Information in Ecology files on the above mentioned industries
states that Tri-Coatings (Marpac) was inspected for dangerous waste
activities in March 1986 and 31 January 1987. Chromic acid, chlorides, and
sulfates were used at Marpac but no analytical data were available on these
potential problem chemicals during Ecology's inspection.
Boat repair businesses and individual boat owners are reported to
engage in sandblasting activities (Gregoire, D., 20 June 1988, personal
communication). The Fisherman's Boat Shop, located on the water at the
northeast corner of the marina, has been investigated recently by Ecology
for possible hazardous waste activities. In a memo to the files at Ecology,
the Fisherman's Boat Shop property is described as containing accumulated
sandblast wastes consisting of copper smelter slag that is heavily con-
taminated with marine paint and antifouling marine biocides. Storm water
forces the sandblast waste into the harbor through storm drains and sheet
runoff (Murdock, D., 19 June 1987, personal communication).
Soil samples taken at Fisherman's Boat Shop were analyzed for specific
metals (i.e., from sandblasting activities) and the results of these
analyses are presented in Table 13. Although the samples were obtained
from soil not marine sediment, the AET values for marine sediment are noted
for reference. The soil samples contained a variety of metals with copper,
lead, and zinc the most abundant metals in the samples.
Wood Treatment Facilities--
In 1986, the U.S. EPA sponsored studies to determine whether wood
treatment chemicals were entering the soil and water surrounding certain
lumber mills in Washington (Matta 1986). Buse Timber, located on Smith
Island between the Snohomish River and Union Slough, and Canyon Lumber,
located across the Snohomish River south of the Everett WWTP (see Figure 2),
were chosen as likely places in Everett where wood treatment chemicals might
be found. Sediment and water samples were collected at these lumber
companies, and the results of the analyses are provided in Table 14.
Elevated levels of pentachlorophenol and tetrachlorophenol were found in all
44
-------
TABLE 13. METALS CONCENTRATIONS IN SOIL SAMPLES
FROM FISHERMAN'S BOAT SHOP, EVERETT MARINA
AETa
Soil Sample (ma/ka) Low/High
Contaminant
1
2
3
4
(mg/kg)
Arsenic
480
590
720
1,370
85/700
Barium
315
435
666
142
Cadmium
42
6
40
56
5.8/9.6
Chromium
130
71
131
114
27/59
Copper
4,950
4,380
4,610
4,540
310/800
Lead
2,520
1,190
2,330
2,660
300/700
Nickel
53
22
48
29
28/49
Silver
13
23
13
38
5.2/5.2
Zinc
8,880
7,140
9,550
28,600
260/1600
Selenium
0.8
0.1U
0.1
0.3
Mercury
2.0
0.83
0.96
0.02
0.41/2.1
a Tetra Tech (1986g).
Reference: U.S. EPA Region X Lab Management System (1987).
45
-------
TABLE 14. CANYON LUMBER AND BUSE TIMBER
WOOD TREATMENT CHEMICALS EXAMINATION
Tetrachlorophenol
Pentachlorophenol
(TCP)
(PCP)
(mg/kg)
(mg/kg)
Canyon Lumber
Near Hegeberg Boat Shop
Near railroad crossing
Near railroad crossing (water)
Buse Timber
Storm drain near dip tank
Near slough
0.290
10.600
0.0068
47.500
0.890
0.390
27.900
0.041
240.000
1.970
Reference: Adapted from Matta (1986)
46
-------
of the samples. These data suggest that the areas in and around wood
treatment facilities are potential sources of chlorinated phenolic compounds
in the Everett Harbor area.
Electroplating Industries—
Pacific Plating and Custom Pacific Plating are located at the same
address on Hewitt Avenue in Everett. Both companies participate in the
Everett pretreatment program dischargers and are listed in Table 2 (see
Section 2.1.1). Information in Ecology files pertaining to inspections of
Pacific Plating and Custom Pacific Plating indicate that the potential
exists for spills of toxic chemicals into the sanitary sewer system. Toxic
chemicals at Pacific Plating that may be involved in such spills, include
waste chromic acid, trichloroethylene, cadmium cyanide, zinc cyanide, copper
cyanide, zinc oxide, nitric acid, and hydrochloric acid. Custom Pacific
Plating generates cyanide, chromium, and nickel sludge. Further information
is not available about suspected problems at these electroplating industries.
?4«5 Ebev Slouoh
The main industrial facility in this area is the Boeing Test Facility.
Its proximity to Quilceda Creek, which drains into Ebey Slough, and its
current listing in CERCLIS (see Table 3) makes this facility a possible
source of leachate contamination. Little additional information is available
concerning possible industrial sources of contaminants in the Marysville
area that could impact Ebey Slough.
The Boeing Test Facility--
The Boeing Test Facility is located on a 360-ac section of land at the
eastern end of the Tulalip Indian Reservation. Boeing has operated the site
since the 1950s as a fuel storage and testing area. The fuels stored here
are reported to include hydrazine, peroxide, fluoride, JP-4 fuel, and PCB's
(Tetra Tech 1985b). The Esperance sand aquifer beneath the site, where the
watertable is at 4-5 ft,, might receive leaks and spills from the test
facility and provide a link to the drainage system, thereby contributing to
47
-------
possible contamination in Ebey Slough,
concerning this CERCLIS site.
2.2 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANTS
There are no new data available
Within or near the Everett Harbor project area there are five municipal
WWTPs: Mukilteo, Marysville, Everett, Lake Stevens, and Tulalip. Contamina-
tion from three of these plants (Mukilteo, Marysville, and Everett) may
impact the stations and problem areas discussed in this report. The
Mukilteo plant, located at the southwest corner of the project area (see
Figure 2), discharges into the nearshore Port Gardner problem area. Located
in the northeast corner of the project area (see Figure 2), the Marysville
plant discharges into Ebey Slough. The Everett plant, situated on the east
bank of the Snohomish River between Stations SR-01 and SR-02 (see Figure 2),
has a history of hydraulic overloads (Tetra Tech 1985b). This plant is not
located near any problem area or station, but its location on the Snohomish
River estuary may allow for effluent movement into some problem locations.
The Lake Stevens plant discharges effluent into Ebey Slough near the
northeast corner of Ebey Island. Although the Lake Stevens plant has had
problems meeting its permit requirements in the past, it is well removed
from the project area. The Tulalip plant is also located far from a problem
area or station. Both the Lake Stevens and Tulalip WWTPs are not discussed
here.
2.2.1 Mukilteo WWTP
The Mukilteo WWTP is located at the intersection of Mukilteo Boulevard
and Loveland Avenue and has been in operation since 1962. Primary treated
effluent from this plant is discharged into the Port Gardner area through an
18-1 n concrete pipeline that extends approximately 125 ft offshore to a
depth of 16 ft (Tetra Tech 1985b). This discharge is permitted under NPDES
Permit No. WA 002329-9, which expired on 7 July 1988. Permit requirements
include weekly monitoring of BOD, TSS, and fecal coliform bacteria in the
plant effluent. Monitoring data from February 1987 through April 1988 are
provided in Table 15 (City of Mukilteo 1988).
48
-------
TABLE 15. MUKILTEO WWTP DISCHARGE
MONITORING REPORTS (FEBRUARY 1987-APRIL 1988)
Q
BOD
BOD
TSS
TSS
Fecal®
(MGD)
(mg/L)
(lb/day)
(mg/L)
(lb/day) (#/100 mL)
Permit
Requi rements
165
300
150
280
700
1987
J
b
b
b
b
b
b
F
1.8
191
293
87
144
333
M
1.7
203
294
131
192
186
A
1.4
241
261
77
83
146
M
1.4
289
322
77
84
150
J
1.2
257
282
228
270
417
J
b
b
b
b
b
b
A
1.2
354
333
100
96
467
S
1.7
335
292
117
101
1,669
0
1.1
315
276
55
51
957
N
1.2
355
316
83
71
113
D
1.6
254
308
109
144
363
Total
430 MG
45 ton
19 ton
1988
J
1.4
342
456
140
159
214
F
1.3
380
402
140
146
246
M
1.4
356
382
151
162
838
A
1.5
377
449
123
150
487
Total
170 MG
25 ton
9 ton
Average
1.4+0.2C
304+64
333+64
116+43
132+57
470+427
a Fecal = Fecal coliform bacteria,
b Information not submitted for this report.
c Average = x + SD (SD = standard deviation).
-------
Although the plant has had a history of operational problems and plant
overloads that resulted in the discharge of untreated wastewater to Port
Gardner, the overflow problems have been corrected (Tetra Tech 1985b).
However, enforcement actions by Ecology continue because the plant is often
out of compliance with elevated BOD concentrations in the effluent discharge
(Wright, D., 1 June 1988, personal communication). The City of Mukilteo's
request for a Section 301(h) variance from secondary treatment requirements
was denied by the U.S. EPA (Wright, D., 1 June 1988, personal communication).
The plant is currently in the process of upgrading its treatment system. A
new pump station and pressure line is being constructed that will connect to
the Olympus Terrace treatment plant in south Mukilteo, west of Paine Field
as soon as expansion of the Olympus Terrace plant is finished. Completion
is scheduled for late Fall, 1989 (Adams, J., 23 May 1988, personal communi-
cation).
2.2.2 Marysville WWTP
The Marysville WWTP, located at Columbia Street and Ebey Slough, was
built in 1959 and provides service to the City of Marysville and surrounding
unincorporated areas. Effluent from the plant is discharged to Ebey Slough
through a 150-ft long outfall (Tetra Tech 1985b). Precipitation results in
occasional discharges from other outfalls, such as sanitary sewer overflows
and sewage pumping station bypasses. These alternative outfalls are for
emergency use only and therefore are not routinely sampled for contaminants.
There are five of these emergency outfalls: two discharge into Ebey Slough,
two into Quilceda Creek, and one into Allen Creek (City of Marysville 1988).
Any of these discharges may possibly contribute to contamination in Ebey
Slough or area creeks.
Monthly discharge data from the Marysville WWTP for January 1986 through
March 1988 are provided in Table 16. The overload is evident when the
monthly averages of the variables are compared to the permit limits. The
NPDES Permit No. WA-002249-7, which expired 1 July 1988, requires weekly
monitoring of BOD, TSS, and fecal coliform bacteria in the effluent
discharge. Flow and BOD averages have exceeded permit limits since 1986
(City of Marysville 1988). The city is currently adding eight influent
50
-------
TABLE 16. MARYSVILLE WWTP DISCHARGE
MONITORING REPORTS (1986-MARCH 1988)
Permit
Requirements
1986
J
F
M
A
M
J
J
A
S
0
N
D
Total
J
F
M
A
M
J
J
A
S
0
N
D
Total
Q BOD BOD TSS TSS Fecal3
(MGD) (mg/L) (lb/day) (mg/L) (lb/day) (#/100 mL)
1.2
30
300
75
751
200
2.4
35
290
36
320
760
2.7
31
259
40
330
420
2.0
25
208
24
200
130
2.1
26
218
32
266
130
2.3
35
291
32
266
150
b
b
b
b
b
b
1.3
50
542
62
670
130
1.1
50
460
125
1,250
200
2.3
b
490
b
642
76
1.5
b
650
b
600
180
2.0
48
760
40
635
620
1.9
32
507
32
507
311
580 MG
71 ton
87 ton
b
b
b
b
b
b
2.1
38
665
46
805
420
2.2
36
660
47
862
330
b
b
b
b
b
b
1.9
44
700
67
1,117
26
1.3
28
440
46
500
22
1.3
38
954
75
813
290
1.3
72
780
60
650
508
1.5
70
875
84
1,050
20
1.1
65
596
35
320
36
b
b
b
b
b
b
1.6
31
410
40
334
200
430 MG
92 ton
98 ton
51
-------
TABLE 16. (Continued)
Q
(MGD)
BOD
(mg/L)
BOD
(lb/day)
TSS
(mg/L)
TSS Fecala
(lb/day) (#/100 mL)
1988
J
1.8
32
493
27
416
495
F
1.8
36
567
32
504
32
M
1.9
31
509
31
542
33
Total 170 MG 23 ton 22 ton
Average 1.8+0.4C 41+14 536+204 47+25 591+286 240+211
a Fecal = Fecal coliform bacteria,
b Information not submitted for this report.
c Average = x + SD (SD = standard deviation).
52
-------
aerators and three grinders to improve plant performance (Olsen, G., 20 May
1988, personal communication).
2.2.3 Everett WWTP
The Everett WWTP was built in 1960 and is located east of the Snohomish
River on Smith Island. The plant is subject to frequent hydraulic and
organic overloading and is approaching maximum capacity (Determan 1987).
The plant consists of a headworks, two 15-ac aeration ponds, two facultative
stabilization ponds, and a 2-ac chlorine contact pond. The plant effluent
flows from the chlorine contact pond through a 48-in line that discharges
within a few feet of the surface near the east bank of the Snohomish River
(see Figure 2). The outfall has no diffuser. Minimal dilution, estimated
to be about 2.5:1, has been found at the point of discharge (Determan 1987).
A flapper gate at the end of the outfall is designed to minimize discharge
during peak tidal flows, but it does not operate properly. Incomplete
closure of the gate allows effluent material to be carried both upstream and
downstream from the outfall by tidal action. Alternative discharge methods
and configurations are currently under consideration (Determan 1987).
The plant effluent is monitored daily for dissolved oxygen (DO), BOD,
TSS, pH, fecal coliform bacteria and fecal streptococci bacteria according
the requirements of their NPDES Permit No. WA 002449-0. Heavy metals,
including chromium (total and hexavalent), copper, and zinc, are monitored
bimonthly. Monitoring data for May 1987 through April 1988 are given in
Table 17 (effluent variables) and for April 1987 through April 1988 in
Table 18 (heavy metals) (City of Everett 1988).
Both an Ecology water quality study (Determan 1987) and Class II
inspection (Reif 1987) were reported by Determan in 1987. These studies
assessed the characteristics of the effluent from the Everett plant and the
sediments and receiving waters nearby. Dye studies were conducted to track
the effluent discharge in the Snohomish River estuary. Chlorination
practices were examined, and regulated discharge variables and metals
concentrations in receiving water and sediment samples were studied. The
results of the Ecology water quality study suggest that the flow of the
53
-------
TABLE 17. EVERETT WWTP DISCHARGE
MONITORING REPORTS (MAY 1987-APRIL 1988) FOR EFFLUENT VARIABLES
Q
DO
BOD
TSS
Fecal
(MGD)
(mg/L)
(mg/L)
(mg/L)
(#/100
19 87
M
11.94
6.8
34
54
8
J
11.15
13.3
26
56
10
J
11.53
8.0
20
53
5
A
11.91
11.3
24
53
NRC
S
11.50
9.8
18
55
NR
0
10.26
9.2
19
41
NR
N
11.17
3.1
27
42
41
D
14.68
2.8
20
23
NR
Total
2,874 MG
1988
J
13.85
1.8
33
27
10
F
12.97
5.3
34
34
3
M
18.06
9.6
23
39
4
A
16.04
12.1
19
32
5
Total
1,834 MG
Average
12.92+2.32^
7.8+3.8
25+6
42+12
11+12
a Fecal = Fecal coliform bacteria,
b Average = x + SD (SD = standard deviation).
c NR = Not reported.
54
-------
TABLE 18. EVERETT WUTP DISCHARGE MONITORING REPORTS (APRIL 1987-APRIL 1988) FOR HEAVY METALS
Total
Ch rami u*
CooDer
Zinc
Lead
(lb/day)
(mg/L)
(lb/day)
(mg/L)
(lb/day)
(mg/L)
(lb/day)
(mg/L)
Permit
Requirements
8.8
0.1
2.65
0.03
37.1
0.42
8.8
0.1
1987
4/3-4/30
0.27
0.0021
0.99
0.010
10.95
0.111
0.20
0.002
5/1-5/28
0.33
0.0037
1.92
0.018
5.97
0.056
1.49
0.014
5/29-6/25
0.47
0.0048
5.24
0.054
6.11
0.063
0.19
0.002
7/31-9/3
0.72
0.0072
1.80
0.018
4.68
0.047
0.40
0.004
7/31-9/4
0.66
0.0058
1.11
0.011
2.17
0.019
0.40
0.004
10/2-10/29
0.34
0.004
0.55
0.006
2.29
0.027
0.68
0.008
10/30-11/26
0.62
0.0063
1.46
0.015
4.0
0.041
0.7
0.008
11/27-12/31
1.33
0.0055
6.77
0.028
11.45
0.084
0.48
0.002
1988
1/1-1/28
0.53
0.0055
2.87
0.030
5.27
0.055
0.57
0.006
1/29-2/25
0.42
0.0037
2.47
0.022
10.7
0.098
0.79
0.007
2/26-3/31
0.294
0.0028
3.16
0.031
11.3
0.111
0.509
0.005
4/1-4/28
1.5
0.0100
1.68
0.01
2.6
0.02
0.56
0.004
Average
0.6+0.4*
0.005+0.002
2.50+1.83
0.02+0.01
6.5+3.7
0.06+0.03
0.6+0.3
0.006+0.004
a Average = x + SO (SO = standard deviation).
-------
effluent plume, incoming tides, outgoing tides, and river current each
contributed to the net effect on the concentrations of the toxic chemicals at
the discharge zone. For example, total residual chlorine, exceeded acute
toxicity levels when stored effluent was released through the open tide gate
(Determan 1987). Such data serve to emphasize the need for a flow-paced
chlorination system and an adequate diffuser(s), both of which are presently
under construction.
Metals concentration data from three different water quality studies
(Determan 1987; Reif 1987; Singleton et al. 1982) of the Everett WWTP
discharge zone were reported by Determan (1987) and are presented in
Table 19. Data vary substantially among the studies, which may be the result
of different sampling locations or the effects of effluent flow and tidal
conditions at the time the samples were collected. Although the copper and
nickel concentrations reported by Determan (1987) did not exceed the
U.S. EPA water quality criteria, they are close to criteria values, and
concentrations of these two metals could be higher during slack tides when
currents are slowest. The concentrations of metals in sediment samples from
the Everett WWTP and two locations in the Snohomish River are shown in
Table 20. The values are all less than the highest apparent effects
threshold (HAET) Puget Sound. Nickel and chromium concentrations in samples
from the Everett WWTP chlorination lagoon exceeded the lowest apparent
effects threshold (LAET).
2.3 COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOWS
The majority of the Everett Harbor project area is served by a combined
sanitary and storm sewer system. In a combined system, both domestic waste
and stormwater runoff enter the same sewerage system. Combined sewer
systems overflow when the additional flow from stormwater runoff exceeds
the hydraulic capacity of the collection system. The excess flow, a mixture
of stormwater runoff and raw sewage, is discharged from planned overflow
points in the system (i.e., CSOs).
Historically, the Everett sewer system discharged directly to Port
Gardner and the Snohomish River through numerous outfalls. A complex system
56
-------
TABLE 19. CALCULATED UP-FLOW AND PREDICTED THEORETICAL DOWN-FLOW CONCENTRATIONS OF METALS
IN THE EFFLUENT DOWNSTREAM FROM THE EVERETT WWTP DILUTION ZONE
COMPARED TO OTHER STUDIES AND U.S. EPA CRITERIA
Metal
Determan
13 August 1986
Up-flow
(mg/L)
Determan
13 August 1986
Down-flow
(mg/L)
Reif
(1987)
(mg/L)
Singleton, et. al
(1982)
(mg/L)
U.S. EPA (1987)
Chronic/Acute
Saltwater Criteria
(mg/L)
Copper
<0.001
<0.005
0.014
0.0027
0.0029/0.0029"
Zinc
<0.001
0.012
0.039
0.033
0.086/0.095b
Nickel
<0.001
0.006
0.020
0.004
0.0083/0.075b
Total Chromium
<0.001
0.001
<0.001
0.078
0.050/1.100°
Cadmium
0.0003
0.005
0.001
<0.001
0.0093/0.043°
Lead
<0.001
0.006
0.020
0.008
0.0056/0.140°
Mercury <0.00004 <0.00004 <0.00005 <0.0002 0.000025/0.0021°
Silver 0.0002 0.0003 0.0011 0.002 --/0,0023d
a 1-hr average (not to be exceeded more than once In 3 yr).
k 24-hr average (maximum allowable at any time).
c 4-day average or 1-hr average (not to be exceeded more than once in 3 yr).
d Maximum allowable at any time.
Reference: Adapted from Determan (1987).
57
-------
TABLE 20. CONCENTRATIONS OF METALS IN SEDIMENT AT THE EVERETT WWTP
COMPARED TO TWO OTHER SITES IN THE SNOHOMISH RIVER
AND TO AET VALUES
Everett WWTP
Chlorination Snohomish River Snohomish River
Metal
Lagoon
(mg/kg)
Dagmar's Marina
(mg/kg)
Control Site
(mg/kg)
AETa
Low/High
Copper
107
17
19
310/800
Zinc
169
46
48
260/1,600
Nickel
42
24
23
28/49
Chromium
52
20
19
27/59
Cadmium
4.1
0.1
0.14
5.8/9.6
Lead
34
1.5
1.2
300/700
a From Tetra Tech (1986g).
Reference: Adapted from Determan (1987).
58
-------
of gravity sewers, pump stations, regulators, and force mains was constructed
in the 1960s to intercept most of these outfalls and convey the sewage to
treatment lagoons. Currently, within Everett's NESS there are 16 outfalls
(2 of which are deactivated), 37 regulators, and 10 lift stations (see
Figures 3 and 8).
In 1987, Ecology adopted CSO control regulations under the Washington
Administrative Code (WAC 173-245), that defined control of each site to
denote "that an average of one untreated discharge may occur per year." A
plan for the control of combined sewer overflows was developed for the City
of Everett to comply with the new state regulations [Culp Wesner and Culp-
Henningson, Durham and Richardson (CWC-HDR) and Ott Water Engineers 1987].
CWC-HDR and Ott Water Engineers classified the CSOs that discharge to Port
Gardner into groups of outfalls (PS for Puget Sound and SR for Snohomish
River), because the number of regulators made defining a single drainage
basin for each outfall difficult. Outfalls to the Snohomish River were
classified individually, but were given outfall group numbers for consis-
tency. The individual outfalls and their associated groups were then
modeled by CWC-HDR and Ott Water Engineers (Table 21). The purpose of
modeling the CSO's was to determine the effects of alternative CSO control
strategies on overflows in the Everett system. To evaluate alternative
control facilities and strategies, CWC-HDR and Ott Water Engineers used a
technical approach that involved Everett area rainfall data, CSO data, and an
updated set of computer models.
Two basic types of models were used: 1) a detailed model based on the
physical characteristics of the individual drainage basins, pipelines,
pumping stations, and regulators (the HYDRA model); and 2) a model based on
the hydrologic balance of rainfall, runoff, collection system capacity, and
CSO spills (the PROVE model). Outfalls are modeled in PROVE by groups,
which contain one or more outfalls. This grouping of outfalls was necessary
because all overflow weirs are not the same and the proportion of diverted
flow to nondiverted flow changes with total flow at each weir. This
proportion is also dependent upon downstream conditions such as back-water
surcharging. For this reason it is nearly impossible to define a single
59
-------
J2L
¦q-Q
L'tff
lift trtno*
LfGENO
CWC440He«donwewBi»wi
-------
TABLE 21. OUTFALLS AND THEIR ASSOCIATED GROUPS
IN THE EVERETT HARBOR PROJECT AREA
Outfall Group
Number Combined Sewer Overflows
Port Gardner
1 PS01, 2, 3
2 PS04, 5, 6, 7, 8
Snohomish River
3 SR01
4 SR02
5 SR03 (siphon to treatment plant)
6 SR04
7 SR05, 6 (deactivated)
8 SR07
9 SR08
Reference: CWC-HDR and Ott Water Engineers (1987).
61
-------
contributing basin for each outfall, especially in outfall Group 2 (PS04, 5,
6, 7, 8) (Figure 8).
The quality of water discharging from combined sewer overflows at a
given location is a function of the land use in the tributary drainage basin
and the relative proportions of baseflow and storm water. The quality can
also vary substantially from one area to another even for identical land
uses. Estimates of the various land-use characteristics in the NESS are
summarized in Table 22.
Outfall sites PS01, PS02, PS03 (outfall Group 1) represent the overflows
from the northwest part of Everett, between 9th and 21st Streets, and west of
Wetmore Avenue. PS03 rarely overflows due to the overflow weir, which has a
high elevation relative to the normal flow of the corresponding pipeline
(CWC-HDR and Ott Water Engineers 1987).
Outfall PS04 is located near 25th Street on property owned by Scott
Paper Company. The overflow from Lift Stations 3 and 4 is discharged at
Outfall PS05. This CSO collects the majority of flow west of Colby Avenue
between 26th and 60th Streets. Outfall PS06 has a large contributing area
which encompasses southwest Everett outfall. PS07 is located off of Bond
Street between Wall Street and Pacific Avenue. Regulation of flow upstream
of Lift Station 2, combined with the new interceptor, allows infrequent
overflows at Outfall PS08 (CWC-HDR and Ott Water Engineers 1987).
There are eight CSOs in the Snohomish River Group. Outfalls SR01 and
SR02 serve the north and northwest residential areas (see Figure 3).
Combined sewage collects near Lift Station 9, which pumps and regulates flow
near these outfalls. Overflows occur infrequently at Outfall SR03 located
at the Siphon Headworks. Instead, combined sewer flows that exceed the
capacity of the system overflow (or back up) elsewhere. The peak capacity
of the siphon headworks is approximately 55 MGD (CWC-HDR and Ott Water
Engineers 1987). Outfall SR04 overflows when runoff from a small area east
of 1-5 does not flow into the main interceptor. Outfalls SR05 and SR06 were
directly connected to the new river interceptor and have been deactivated.
Overflows at Outfall SR07 are caused by runoff from the central area between
62
-------
TABLE 22. SUMMARY OF LAND-USE CHARACTERISTICS
IN THE SERVICE AREA FOR NESS
Land-Use Characteristics Area
Total NESS 3,287 ac
Total impervious area3 1,123 ac
Total pervious area'' 1,977 ac
Total NESS combined area 3,100 ac
Weighted percent impervious 36%
a Impervious areas are defined as areas incapable of being penetrated by
moisture, such as parking lots and streets.
b Golf courses, lawns, parks, etc.
Reference: CWC-HDR and Ott Water Engineers (1987).
63
-------
13th Street and 36th Avenue. Outfall SR08, a 60-in overflow pipe at
36th Street, services an area nearly a third of the NESS drainage. It is the
largest contributary outfall to the Snohomish River (Table 23). The average
flow from Outfall SR08 is 5 times greater than the combined flow of all
eight Port Gardner outfalls. .On a system-wide basis, Outfall SR08 con-
tributes more than one-half of all the overflow volume. This CSO network
and its drainage system is presented in Figure 9. This figure obtained from
the City of Everett's Drainage Facilities (201 Plan) outlines the seven
subbasins and their contributing areas (Table 24).
The City of Everett has recently sampled storm water from four CSOs
during seven storm events (Mathias, D. 27 May 1988, personal communication).
Table 25 lists the CSO locations and events. Water quality samples were
obtained by flow-activated automatic water quality samplers (Model No. 2700,
manufactured by ISCO Inc.) at 15-min increments. Flow volume was recorded in
the same manhole with flowloggers (Model WDFM-8, manufactured by the
Montedoro-Whitney Corporation). Flow recordings were not available at the
time of this report, thus loading values were not calculated. A summary of
the results from the chemical analysis of the storm water is presented in
Table 26. Also presented in Table 26 are U.S. EPA freshwater quality
criteria. Seven metals (i.e., cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, mercury,
silver, and zinc) exceeded either chronic or acute U.S. EPA freshwater
quality criteria. Copper exceeded acute criteria at all four locations
(Outfalls PS05, PS06, SR07, and SR08).
CWC-HDR and Ott Water Engineers (1987) reported pollutant loadings based
on typical concentrations reported in the literature and technical reports
from the 1984 Toxicant Pretreatment Planning Study. CWC-HDR and Ott Water
Engineers (1987) used baseflow and runoff ratios and weighted land-use
ratios for CSO components. Weighted concentrations were then computed for
each outfall group and each pollutant (Table 27). The average annual CSO
volume was then multiplied by the final concentrations to yield estimated
annual mass discharge (Table 28).
64
-------
TABLE 23. OUTFALL GROUP OVERFLOW SUMMARY
Outfall
Group No. Outfal Is
Approximate CSO
Discharge Points
Service Area
(ac)
Average
Annual Estimated
StormwaterVolume of Annual 1-yr Return
Capacity Overflow Number CSO Event
(MGD) (MG) of Events Volume (MG)
PS01, 2, 3
2 PS04, 5, 6
7, 8
SR01
SR02
SR03
SR04
SR05, 6
SR07
SR08
ALL SYSTEM-WIDE
PS01 13th Street
PS02 14th Street
PS03 16th Street
PS04 25th Street
PS05 Everett Avenue
PS06 Hewitt Avenue
PS07 Bond Street
(between Wall Street
and Pacific Avenue)
PS06 Bond Street
(between Wall Street
and Pacific Avenue)
17th Street and
Marine View Drive
17th Street and
Marine View Drive
17th Street and
Marine View Drive
California Street
and Railway Avenue
SR05 Railway Avenue
between Hewitt Avenue
and California Street
SR06 Railroad crossing
between Hewitt Avenue
and Pacific Avenue
Pacific Avenue and
Ra i1 road
36th Street and
Ra11 road
NESS COMBINED:
183
397
4.8
4.8
61
563
0.4
0.1
Siphon Headworks
- All basins contribute
- Overflows are negligible
518
Deactivated with the
construction of the
riverside interceptor
488
890
3,100
7.0
6.0
4.4
48.9
5.4
84.8
35.3
-None-
36.3
25
69
79
111
-NeglIglble-
58
58
5.0 269.9 HH
28.1 485.0 72®
NESS TOTAL:
3,287
28.0
442
79
0.8
4.5
0.5
5.8
4.1
3.7
18.9
38.3
38
a Average.
Reference: Numbers taken from CWC-HOR and Ott Water Engineers (1987).
65
-------
ll *' ' ""Jl < ¦
-V ,v 0\»rt
ht li ,T<
* m
ill! 1UL
' fli'iUL
'III !L'L
hi :2ft
lw iuL'
!! ILL
j' if iLJ
i „ A4!LiL
JUUULfi
'.JLILl
L!A3i iUULiiiUU
UUIIIJUMJU
NNiif mm
;ni
I u
... lilUJ
( Lf ii ii iui.
yM\\ ii ii
wiiii r\:'ju
*21 ii :i ii uu
mZW IHHULf IL
N
U
mi'
(
irir in
!l
K-
It
AS ILK ii «
NOHTH END SEWER SYSTEM
(MESS) SEflVCE AREA
liguuIB
u
NOTE. AS we Helena) *•«
and new • memepiee
jpi
^JULlK
&
k
M
Figure 9. individual drainage subbasin boundaries for City of
Everett North End CSOs
-------
TABLE 24. APPROXIMATE DRAINAGE AREAS
FOR THE SEVEN SUBBASINS SHOWN IN FIGURE 9
Subbasins Area (ac)
A1 590
A2 560
A3 490
A4 340
A5 15
A6 640a
A7 320a
a Includes area south of 52nd Street.
67
-------
TABLE 25. SUMMARY OF STORMWATER SAMPLES
COLLECTED (1987-1988) BY THE CITY OF EVERETT3
Date
CSO
PS05b
PS06C
SR07d
SR08e
09/25/87
X
10/31/87
xf
11/13/87
X
X
01/20/88
X
03/02/88
X
03/24/88
X
03/26/88
X
a For geographical reference, see Figure 3.
k PS05 = Lift Station #3 (Railroad) (E009).
c PS06 = Hewitt and Bond (E008).
d SR07 = Pacific and Chestnut (E026).
e SR08 = 36th Street (Upstream of LS33) (E028).
f Represents a sample collected.
68
-------
TABLE 26. SUMMARY OF EVERETT CSO
STORMWATER CONTAMINANT DATA
U.S. EPA (1986)
Freshwater
Quality Criteria
Mean Concentration (ug/L) (Aquatic Life)
PS05 PS06 SR07 SR08 (ug/L)
Detected Analytes (E0091 (E008) (EQ26) (E028) Acute Chronic
Arsenic
Antimony
Beryl 1i um
Cadmi um
Chromi um
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Thai 1ium
Zinc
5.0
5.0
5.5
5.0a
10.9
51.0?
32.0°
0.9
28.0
2.5
35.5*
1.0
230.0*
3.5
5.0
3.0
1.0
10.0
36.0?
35.5°
0.2
5.0
15h
1.0b
2.0
1,115.0*
5.5
5.0
5'°h
2.0®
15.5b
78.0?
55.0°
0.2"
11.5
1.0b
1.0
290.0*
4.0
5.0
50h
1.75b
12.5b
121.5*
125.0?
0.7b
21.0
2.5
9.0*
1.5
365.0*
360
9,0005
130"
J.9
1700V16®
18f
82 T
2.4
1,400
260.
41H
1,400J
120
190 .
1,600?
5.3d
J.lf
210711®
12f
3.2
0.012,
160
35
0.12 .
40°
110f
Phenol
4-Methylphenol
6.0°
53.6°
10,200d
g
2.560d
9
gamna-BHC
0.17c
2.0
0.014
Diethyl phthalate
Di-n-butyl phthalate
Benzyl butyl phthalate
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)
phthalate
1.8C
228.0
2.8°
2.0°
2.4°
9.8°
5.2
7. 7C
26.7°
37.8
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
Methylene chloride
Chloroform
Tetrachloroethane
Tri chlorofluoromethane
Trichloroethylene
Trans-1,2-dlchloroethylene
Toluene
63.2°
1.8C
2. 9C
17.0C
8.35
7.0°
8.4°
3.2C
59.0°
55.6°
34.8°
9 j
28,900°
9,320°
9 j
45,000
9 A
17,500°
9 H
1,240°
9
9 j
21,900°
9
9
Xyl ene
Acetone
Benzoic acid
17.0C
5.0°
95.0C
9
9
9
9
9
9
a Concentration exceeds U.S. EPA acute criteria.
''Concentration exceeds U.S. EPA chronic criteria.
c Single concentration obtained from one sample. All other values represent means obtained
from two samples collected from each CSO, each during different storm events (see Table
25, Section 2.3).
d Insufficient data to develop criteria. Value presented is the U.S. EPA lowest observed
effect level (LOEL).
e The first value is for trivalent chromium (III) and the second value is for hexavalent
chromium (VI).
f Hardness dependent criteria (100 mg/L used).
9 No criteria or toxicity thresholds are presented in the water quality criteria documents.
Note: Other analytes were undetected at reasonable detection limits (see Table 42).
Reference: Data compiled from Mathias, 0. (23 May 1988, personal commune1 atIon).
69
-------
TABLE 27. OUTFALL SPECIFIC POLLUTANT
CONCENTRATIONS FOR NESS
Outfall Final Weighted Concentration (mg/L)
Group
BOD
TSS
Lead
Cadmium
Zinc
1
29.1
66.1
0.23
0.002
0.23
2
59.5
79.7
0.26
0.003
0.25
3
31.8
69.9
0.21
0.003
0.26
4
31.5
70.8
0.21
0.001
0.22
6
30.5
65.5
0.23
0.003
0.26
8
27.5
55.5
0.28
0.001
0.26
9
50.0
77.6
0.24
0.002
0.25
Reference: Data from CWC-HDR and Ott Water Engineers (1987).
70
-------
TABLE 28. ESTIMATED POLLUTANT LOADINGS FOR NESS
Outfall
Group
Average
Annual
Volume MG
BOD
Mass Loading (lbs/yr)
TSS Lead Cadmium Zinc
1
4.4
1,066
2,422
8.4
0.10
8.4
2
48.9
24,225
32,449
105.9
1.20
101.8
3
5.4
1,430
3,143
9.4
0.10
11.7
4
84.4
22,240
49,988
148.3
0.70
155.3
6
35.3
8,964
19,251
67.6
0.90
76.4
8
36.3
8,311
16,774
84.6
0.30
78.6
9
267.9
111,527
173,090
535.3
4.50
557.6
Reference: Data from CWC-HDR and Ott Water Engineers (1987).
71
-------
2.4 LANDFILLS
Two landfills (Everett and Tulalip) are located in the Everett Harbor
project area. Contaminants contained within each landfill can be transported
to the Snohomish River and its sloughs via surface runoff or leachate.
2.4.1 Everett Landfill
The old Everett landfill covered an area of about 70 ac adjacent to the
Snohomish River, near 40th Street in south Everett (see Figure 2). It was
operated by the City of Everett between 1917 and 1974. Prior to 1966, the
site was operated as a burning dump. The landfill primarily accepted wastes
from the Everett area, but unknown quantities of unspecified acids and bases
were disposed of at the site. The site has been closed since 1974, but is
still operated as a solid waste transfer station. The Snohomish County
Public Works Department compacts solid waste prior to transport to the
Cathcart sanitary landfill-
Because the landfill is unlined and leachate is not collected, there is
a high potential for leachate to contaminate groundwater in the area. The
water table beneath the site is shallow, with depths varying between 0 and
15 ft. Groundwater in the area generally flows toward the Snohomish River
and potential contamination could eventually reach the river. The tire fire
at the facility in September 1984 renewed interest in the site as a potential
pollutant problem area.
In December 1984, Ecology collected nine samples (i.e., two surface
water, five soil/ash, and two oil residue) to determine the chemical
composition of surface runoff and soils around the landfill (Tetra Tech
1985b). The largest concentrations of PAHs were found in samples of oil
floating on top of the ditch (Table 29). Dikes were installed in the
drainage ditch to prevent oil from reaching the Snohomish River. It is not
known how much oil discharged into the river before the dikes were installed.
A soil sample collected from the banks of the drainage ditch exhibited
the highest PAH content of all the soil samples. The LPAH concentration from
72
-------
TABLE 29. SUMMARY OF EVERETT TIRE FIRE DATA
Oil
1
Samples8
(nig/kg)
Water Samples'1
(ug/L)
c
Soil
d
Samples (mg/kg)
d d
d
LPAH
1,352
1,315
-
-
4.18
0.Z83
2.642
1.280
0.170
HPAH
891
760
-
-
15.4
3.33
3.81
0.610
3.62
2-Methyl-
380
230
-
.
N0e
ND
0.190
0.420
ND
naphthalene
-
Oi benzofuran
—
ND
—
—
ND
0.018
0.250
0.060
NO
Zi nc
-
--
89
125
196
129,800
61,200
22,200
80,000
Copper
--
—
31
28
108
140
230
84
164
Lead
-
-
<1
<1
116
705
128
56
204
Arsenic
-
—
10
3
12.7
31.4
11.0
7.4
13
Si lver
—
—
<0.1
<0.1
0.3
1.1
0.4
0.1
0.4
Chromiurn
-
—
40
10
32.1
32.9
328
28.5
20.2
Cyanide <
10 ug/L
<10 ug/L
—
—
0.37
1.36
0.85
<0.41
<0.41
a Oil residue floating in drainage ditch,
k Surface water samples.
c Soil scraped from side of drainage ditch.
^ Surface soiIs at site.
e ND «= Not detected.
Reference: Huntamer (1985).
73
-------
this drainage ditch soil sample was 4.18 mg/kg and the HPAH concentration was
15.4 mg/kg. These concentrations are higher than those found in street dust
samples from residential areas in Bellevue and industrial areas in Seattle
(Galvin and Moore 1982).
Zinc was the predominant metal detected in both the soils and surface
runoff samples from the site. Zinc concentrations ranged from 89 to
125 ug/L in the water samples and from 196 to 129,800 mg/kg in the soil
samples.
Under U.S. EPA Technical Directive Document F10-8704-04, a file review
and site inspection were conducted on the landfill by Ecology & Environment
(1988) to evaluate its status within U.S. EPA Uncontrolled Hazardous Waste
Site Program. Four water samples (three surface and one leachate), one
sediment, and three soil samples were collected on 22 July 1987 to determine
if contaminants from the landfill were migrating towards the Snohomish
River. The samples were analyzed for all the compounds on U.S. EPA's Target
Compound List, including inorganics, volatile organic compounds, acid and
base/neutral extractable organic compounds (ABN), pesticides, and PCBs.
Results of the analyses showed that PCBs were detected in the four
sediment samples (94-920 u§/kg). These compounds are thought to have been
carried into the landfill with unauthorized dumping of oil. PAH compounds
were detected in samples obtained in the ditch along the eastern railroad
track (south and north locations). These compounds may have originated from
the creosote-preserved railroad ties, in addition to pyrolytic oil produced
from the intense heat of the 1984 tire fire. No immediate explanation could
be given for the presence of other compounds such as chlorobenzene or
1,4-dichlorobenzene found in site water samples.
Ecology & Environment (1988) made the following conclusions regarding
the City of Everett Landfill site:
¦ Low levels of contaminants detected in sediment, surface
water, and leachate samples indicate contaminant migration
from the landfill toward the river via the drainage ditch
74
-------
¦ No evidence of pesticide contamination was found at the site
¦ The potential exists for long-term, chronic contamination of
the Snohomish River as a result of landfill leachate and
runoff.
Currently, a chain-link fence surrounds the tire burn area at the
landfill surface. No method of containment has been implemented to prevent
the zinc-laden ash from becoming airborne or transported offsite by surface
runoff.
2.4.2 Tulalip Landfill
The 150-ac landfill is located about 0.5 mi southwest of Marysville on
an island in the Snohomish River delta (see Figure 2). It was operated by
the Seattle Disposal Company between 1975 and 1979. The site was originally
excavated to a maximum depth of approximately 10 ft below mean sea level.
The excavated material was used to construct a dike around the perimeter of
the site. A canal was built, extending into the fill area, to provide barge
access for garbage originating in Seattle. There is no provision for
disposal of leachate collected at the landfill.
Although there are no records of quantity or type of material disposed
of at the site, it has been estimated that about 95 percent of the material
was from commercial and industrial companies in Seattle (Ecology & Environ-
ment 1984). The landfili was closed in October 1979 under order from
U.S. EPA because of concern over wetland destruction, water contamination,
and complaints from Marysville residents of odor problems.
Bacterial Contamination—Because this report focuses on chemical
contaminants, biological contaminants such as bacteria are not evaluated.
However, because the landfill accepted wastes from hospitals in the Seattle
area, there was some concern over the possibility of bacterial contamination
from the site, particularly with respect to antibiotic resistant bacteria.
While the landfill was in operation, U.S. EPA collected samples of water
75
-------
and sediment from various locations along the landfill's barge canal and in
Ebey Slough on three separate occasions: 6 August 1974, 7 October 1974, and
8 June 1976 (Vasconcelos 1974a,b; 1976). The range of bacterial concen-
trations found in the samples is summarized in Table 30.
Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Staphylococcus aureus. both human pathogens,
were found in all water samples taken near the landfill, and in Ebey Slough
samples. The pathogen Clostridium perfrinaens was also found in the sediment
samples and is an organism associated with food poisoning and therefore is a
significant concern in fishable waters.
Chemical Contamination--Samp1ina has been conducted at the Tulalip
landfill on two separate occasions since it was closed in 1979. A leachate
sample was collected by the Tulalip Fisheries Department on 23 February
1983. The sample was analyzed for conventional pollutants and selected
metals by Ecology. The total organic carbon content was 180 mg/L and the
concentration of zinc was 13 mg/L. Ecology & Environment and Ecology
inspected the site on 11 September 1984. During the inspection, two
leachate samples were collected and analyzed for priority pollutants. The
metals data are reported in Table 31.
Ecology & Environment (1984) estimated that between 50 and 100 million
gal of leachate are generated at the site each year. Due to the location of
the landfill, leachate from the site could enter both Steamboat and Ebey
Sloughs. Based on the leachate production estimates, daily metal loadings
would range between 0.02 and 0.1 lb/day for arsenic, 0.24 and 0.95 lb/day for
chromium, 0.05 and 0.66 lb/day for lead, and 0.16 and 0.76 lb/day for zinc.
U.S. EPA completed a field investigation of the Tulalip landfill in
February 1988. The following samples were collected:
¦ Groundwater from existing monitoring wells
¦ Surface water from pooling areas onsite and from neighboring
sloughs
76
-------
TABLE 30. SUMMARY OF BACTERIOLOGICAL DATA FOR TULALIP LANDFILL8
Location
Total Col i form
Bacteria
Fecal Coli form
Bacteria
Fecal
Streptococcus
Bacteria
Pseudomonas
aeruolnosa
StaDhvlococcus
aureus
Mouth of Barge Canal
Surface water
(No./100 mL)
3.300->16,000
170-450
330-1,300
20-34
320-330
Bottom water
(No./100 mL)
24,000-92,000
180-1,700
4,900-35,000
0-220
600-4,500
Sediment
(No./100 g)
24,000-130,000
450-4,900
-
-
-
Head Barge Canal
Surface water
(No./100 mL)
24.000-92,000
780-1,700
130-7,000
66-370
330-1,400
8ottom water
(No./100 mL)
92,000-240,000
840-92,000
54,000-240,000
10-230
3,700-12,000
Sediment
(No./100 g)
170.000-540,000
7,900-35,000
-
-
-
Ebey Slough (Reference)
Surface water
(No./lOO mL)
950->16,000
310-2,400
140-180
2-60
40-170
Bottom water
(No./lOO mL)
330-16,000
20-170
45-<180
0-17
50-280
Sediment
(No./lOO g)
680-95,000
<180-7,000
-
-
-
* Samples taken at high and low tide.
Reference: Vasconcelos (1974a,b; 1976).
Class A water quality standards for bacteriological contamination 1n fresh waters of the State of
Washington (Chapter 173-201 WAC) Include:
Fecal coHform organisms shall not exceed a geometric mean value of 100 organisms/ 100 mL,
with no more than 10 percent of samples exceeding 200 organisms/100 mL.
The section of the Snohomish River 1n the area of the Tulallp landfill Is classified as Class A
water with special provisions, with fecal collform organisms not to exceed a geometric mean value
of 200 organisms/100 mL, with no more than 10 percent of the samples exceeding 400 organisms/
100 mL.
77
-------
TABLE 31. SUMMARY OF AVAILABLE LEACHATE DATA
FROM TULALIP LANDFILL
Banks Seeps at Barge Puddle by
Canal Entrance Entrance Road
(ug/L) (ug/L)
Arsenic 15 49
Chromium 206 415
Copper - 758
Lead 289 48
Nickel - 457
Zinc 138 333
78
-------
¦ Groundwater from offsite domestic wells
¦ Leachate-stained sediment samples throughout the site.
These samples were analyzed for the compounds on U.S. EPA1s Target Compound
List. Results of this investigation were published in July 1988 but were not
made available to the public in time for inclusion in this document.
2.5 SURFACE RUNOFF PATHWAYS
Most surface water runoff from the project area is discharged into
Everett Harbor via natural drainages (e.g., streams and creeks). The
primary sources of surface water runoff include the Snohomish River and its
sloughs. Discharge from small creeks draining the portion of the basin
between Mukilteo and Everett, constitute only a small fraction of the areas
surface runoff. Because of the rural agricultural nature of most of the
project area, there are few developed storm sewer networks.
2.5.1 Rivers and Creeks
Snohomish River Area--
Most surface runoff in the project area enters the main stem and sloughs
(Ebey, Steamboat, and Union) of the Snohomish River (see Figure 2). The
Snohomish River's annual flow, measured by the U.S. Geological Survey about
20 mi upstream of the mouth (near Monroe), averages 6,400 MGO. Metals data
obtained during 1985-1986 at this station are presented in Table 32.
Another major carrier of surface runoff is the Marshland Drainage
District Canal (see Figure 2). The canal flows into the Snohomish River
above the Everett landfill and provides drainage to about 13,000 ac of
agricultural land on the west side of the river and about 1,500 ac of urban
land in the southeast end of Everett. Chemical contaminant data were not
available for this potential surface water discharge source.
79
-------
TABLE 32. WATER QUALITY DATA COLLECTED AT USGS STATION 12150800
ON THE SNOHOMISH RIVER NEAR MONROE, WASHINGTON
20 November 1985 20 February 1986 20 May 1986
(ug/L) (ug/L) (ug/L)
Arsenic
<1
<1
<1
Beryl 1ium
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
Cadmium
<1
<1
<1
Chromium
<1
<1
<1
Copper
4
4
6
Lead
<1
6
5
Mercury
<0.1
<0.1
0.4
Nickel
2
1
<1
Selenium
<1
<1
<1
Silver
<1
<1
1
Zinc
16
10
9
Reference: Williams, R. (22 March 1988, personal communication).
80
-------
The Tulalip Tribes contracted with the Snohomish County Conservation
District in May 1987 to monitor water quality associated with commercial
agricultural areas in the Snohomish River Basin. Four rivers and six creeks
are currently being sampled (i.e., Snohomish, Skykomish, Snoqualmie, and
Pi 1 chuck Rivers; and Cherry, Patterson, Woods, French, Allen, and Quilceda
Creeks). Only conventional variables are being monitored (i.e., fecal bac-
teria, nitrate, ammonia, temperature, dissolved oxygen, and water height).
South Port Gardner Area--
The South Port Gardner drainage basin extends from Elliott Point at
Mukilteo on the west side to near Federal Avenue in Everett on the east
side. The area is drained by 10 separate creeks (see Figure 2). Japanese
Gulch and Powder Mill Gulch drain the largest industrial areas around Paine
Field.
Drainage area and estimated discharges for the 1-yr storm (24-h storm
event with a 1-yr recurrence interval) for major streams and storm drains in
the South Port Gardner area are shown in Table 33. Water quality data for
these drainages are either unavailable or are limited to analyses of a
single base flow sample. The pollutant loadings were calculated from
estimated flows and the available chemical data and are shown in Table 34.
In August 1987, Ecology collected water and sediment samples from the
five major drainages serving Paine Field and analyzed for priority pollutants
and hazardous substances. The five drainages included Big Gulch, Japanese
Gulch, Powder Mill Gulch, Stickney Lake, and Swamp Creek. The laboratory
results were not available to be included in this report. The final report
on the characterization of runoff from the Paine Field Survey will be
completed by early October 1988 (Johnson, A., 16 August 1988, personal
communication).
2.5.2 Storm Drains
The South Port Gardner area is drained by numerous small storm drains
along Mukilteo Boulevard in southwest Everett. Within the City of Mukilteo
81
-------
TABLE 33. DRAINAGE BASIN AREAS AND FLOW ESTIMATES FOR
SURFACE RUNOFF DISCHARGES IN SOUTH PORT GARDNER
Area (ac)
Flow (MGD)
Powder Mi 11 Gulch
1,280
9.4
Pigeon Creek #1
973
6.4
Japanese Gulch
935
5.6
Pigeon Creek #2
900
4.2
Merrill and Ring Creek
800
2.4
Narbeck Creek
450
1.9
Glenwood Creek
400
0.6
Mukilteo Storm Drain #2
326
0.9
Edgewater Creek
200
0.3
Seaburst-Glenbaven Creek
185
1.3
Phillips Creek
105
0.003
Mukilteo Storm Drain #1
47
0.3
Reference: Tetra Tech (1985b).
82
-------
TABLE 34. LOADING ESTIMATES FOR CONVENTIONAL POLLUTANTS AND SELECTED
METALS FROM SURFACE RUNOFF DISCHARGES BASED ON A 1-YR STORM3
Source
TSS (lb)
BOD (lb)
Lead+Copper+Zinc
(lb)
South Port Gardner
Powder Mill Gulch 15,000
Pigeon Creek #1
Japanese Gulch 8,400
Pigeon Creek #2 6,300
Merrill and Ring Creek 3,600
Narbeck Creek 2,850
Glenwood Creek 2,800
Mukilteo Storm Drain #2 1,350
Edgewater Creek 450
Seahurst-Glenhaven Creek 1,950
Phillips Creek 5
Mukilteo Storm Drain #1 450
940
1,470
560
420
240
190
60
90
30
130
3
3
31
6
20
15
8
7
2
2
1
5
<1
1
Ebey Slough
Quilceda Creek
Allen Creek
Ebey Slough Storm Drain
5,700
2,460
820
380
14
Snohomish River
Marshland Canal
Tidegates
Snohomish River near Monroe
3,520
3,570
1,100
a 1-yr storm is defined as a 24-h storm event with a 1-yr recurrence
interval.
83
-------
there are only two storm drains that discharge directly into Port Gardner,
both located in the northwest corner of Mukilteo. Most of the areas
contributing to these Mukilteo Boulevard storm drains are small; consequent-
ly, discharge would be significantly less than the previously mentioned
major creek flows in the area.
Within Marysville there are six storm drain outfalls. Two discharge
into Allen Creek near 6th Street and three discharge into Quilceda Creek at
80th Street, 88th Street, and 100th Street. The sixth storm drain, serving
an area of about 500 ac on the southwest section of Marysville, discharges
into Ebey Slough, west of the Highway 509 bridge (Figure 10). Loading
estimates for these drains are presented in Tetra Tech (1985b).
In addition, there are several city and private storm drains that
discharge into the Snohomish River, downstream of Preston Point (see
Figure 10). However, the size of the areas contributing flows to these storm
drains is small, generally less than about 40 ac. Consequently, pollutant
loadings are not expected to be significant. Other storm drains discharging
to Port Gardner include three main groups (i.e., Port of Everett, City of
Everett, and private industries).
Port of Everett storm drains serve facilities at Hewitt Terminal,
Norton Terminal, and the North Marina. There are approximately nine small
drains that serve the North Marina parking area. Although not shown in
Figure 2 (see Section 2.0), all of these storm drains discharge off the
southern end of the marina. The city storm drains in the area generally
provide drainage only for Norton Avenue and adjacent areas.
Surface runoff drainage from the Scott Paper Mill is discharged via six
different outfalls (Figure 11). The north end of the property drains to
the Port of Everett storm drain at the head of the East Waterway. Runoff
from areas around the paper mill is routed through the primary clarifiers
before being discharged from Outfalls SW001 and S003. Runoff from the pulp
mill area is discharged directly from Outfall S003. The rest of the
property is served by three storm drains.
84
-------
SO-01 •
0 E0S-10
0 ED*-9
• 8048
E011-1
s
E011-2
00-04
OMI
va» m
«oa
07 MUI«
EVS>»# NO-13
OCOt-11
V NOflf »NOM
\ NMi y
* CNAAMN IT «.<«•»»)
0 CRECELIU* CTAL<1M4)
MTTELLC(1
U» CPA (IMS)
MALINf CT AL (t|BS)
MALMf ETAL. 0
~ jwo€*MNAM3Cflcee.vtem)
STOMA AN0AAMNMJLT(1tt?)
O US A*MV COWS OF SN®NEI*(1W)
• IMS SNOT
Figur# 10. Locations of offshore, drain, and groundwater
sampling stations in tha Evtratt Harbor projsct
area
-------
*03
LEGEND
~ CHAPMAN ETAL. (1984)
0 CRECELIUS ETAL. (1984)
u U.S. EPA (1986)
~ U.S. EPA (1982)
A MALINS ETAL (1982)
* MALINS ETAL (1985)
~ ANDERSON AND CFtECB-MS (1965)
¦ STORER AND ARSENAULT (1987)
C U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS (1985)
• THIS STUDY
+ TETRA TECH DRAIN SAMPLING STATIONS
(THIS STUDY)
EVS14 + NORT
EW-02
SR-08 •
~05
E011-1
+ + E011-2
EW-05
710
~ 16
'15
20*
~ IB
~
EVS20
EW-15 •
NO-01 •
~ EVS19
EW-03
02 7 4EVS13
~ 32
BPS30 0 T31
EVS15
~ 33
• EW-06
EVS22 ~
EW-09
EW-04*
29V
OBPS29 ~
~ 28
EW-oe •
EW-07
EW-11
EVS21 ~
psoea
EW-10
~ EVS17
EW-12 •
~ A3
EDS-3 O
+ E007
Ew-14
Figure 11. Locations of offshore and drain sampling stations
in the East Waterway study area.
86
-------
All runoff from the Weyerhaeuser Kraft Mill area is now routed through
the lagoon system and discharged to Steamboat Slough via Outfall WK001.
However, runoff from the wood products kraft mill plant is still discharged
into the Snohomish River. The plant area is reportedly served by 21 separate
storm drains (Tetra Tech 1985b).
Data are generally unavailable for all of the aforementioned storm
drains. Since the area they serve is minimal and the majority of flow
discharged from these drains is mostly dependent upon storm events, the
pollutant loading is thought to be insignificant. Further monitoring and
sampling programs are needed to confirm this conclusion.
2.6 GROUNDWATER
Groundwater contamination may occur as a result of improper waste
disposal practices and accidental spills of chemicals or petroleum products.
Although data are limited, available information indicates that the following
specific areas have potential for groundwater contamination:
¦ Tulalip landfill
¦ Everett landfill
¦ Mukilteo Defense Fuel Supply Depot
¦ Boeing Test Facility.
The two landfills are discussed in Section 2.4. Potential groundwater
contamination from the remaining two facilities is discussed below.
Mukilteo Defense Fuel Supply Depot--
The Mukilteo Defense Fuel Supply Depot is located in the southwest
corner of the project area (see Figure 2). The facility consists of a marine
fuel transfer pier, a railroad tank car loading area, and 10 bulk fuel
storage tanks that hold aviation gasoline and aviation turbine fuel (JP-4).
87
-------
The facility conducted a groundwater study in 1982 and 1983 to determine
if groundwater contamination is a problem. Results of this study are
presented in Tetra Tech (1985) and are summarized below. Initially, five
monitoring wells were installed along the northern boundary of the site,
with one additional well placed upgradient of the tanks at the southwest
corner of the property. After JP-4 was detected in Wells 4 and 6 in the
northeast corner of the facility, near Tanks 9 and 10, an additional six
monitoring wells were installed around these tanks to determine the extent
of the contamination.
Well 4 contained the greatest contamination, with JP-4 concentrations
rapidly increasing from a low of <1 mg/L in September 1982 to a high of
450,000 mg/L in July 1983 (Table 35). Because the monitoring program was
discontinued after July 1983, it is not known whether the 450,000 mg/L
represents the maximum JP-4 concentration in the plume. There are no data
defining the volume of groundwater discharged from the site to Possession
Sound. Consequently, pollutant loadings cannot be evaluated.
Tank 10, located at the eastern end of the facility and suspected of
leaking JP-4 into the groundwater, was empty at the time of the study and
has subsequently remained empty. Although the source of the contamination
from this tank was thereby eliminated, cleanup has not occurred at the site.
Therefore, the site will be an ongoing source of JP-4 contamination. The
Defense Fuel Supply Depot has performed structural repairs on Tank 10, and
plans additional adjustments before putting the tank back into use (Randall,
B., 9 August 1985, personal communication). Recent activities at this
facility, including a more thorough discussion of this leak and a 1987
Hydrogeologic Survey and Remedial Action Planning report, are discussed in
Section 2.1.
On 23 October 1986, during fuel barge loading operations, a leak was
detected and traced to a section of distribution line, north of the
containment wall for Tank 9. Four groundwater samples were collected from
three monitoring wells at the Mukilteo Defense Fuel Supply Depot in October
1986 during the Everett Harbor Action Program source investigation (this
88
-------
TABLE 35. SUMMARY OF DATA FROM MONITORING WELLS
AT THE MUKILTEO DEFENSE FUEL SUPPLY DEPOT
Well 4
Well 6
Well 9
Benzene (ug/L) (9/82)
100-200
2,000-4,000
NAa
Ethyl benzene (ug/L) (9/82)
400-500
200-300
NA
Toluene (ug/L) (9/82)
<10
100-150
NA
Chloroform (ug/L) (9/82)
<10
<10
NA
JP-4 (mg/L) (9/82)
<1
1.1
NA
(5/83)
8,400
72
--
(6/83)
200,000
22
4
(7/83)
450,000
27
—
a NA = Not analyzed.
89
-------
study). Results from the chemical analysis of these groundwater samples are
discussed in Sections 4.0 and 5.0 of this report.
Boeing Test Facility--
The 360-ac Boeing Test Facility is located in the eastern end of the
Tulalip Indian Reservation (see Figure 10). A complete discussion of this
facility is provided in Section 2.1 (Industrial Facilities).
2.7 ATMOSPHERIC DEPOSITION
Atmospheric deposition of contaminants occurs on land and water
surfaces in the Everett Harbor project area. Contaminants contained in the
fraction deposited on the land are transported to the waterways via surface
water runoff, and are therefore associated with storm drain and CSO
discharges in the project area.
According to the Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency (PSPCA)
records for 1987 (Anderson, J., 8 June 1988, personal communication), total
suspended particulates emissions from 13 sources monitored in the project
area were 1,615 ton/yr (Table 36). Some of the more commonly found toxic air
contaminant emissions in the Everett Harbor project area are summarized in
Table 37 (see Appendix G for a complete listing of toxic air contaminant
emissions in the project area).
The Everett tire fire that occurred in 1984-1985 produced a large amount
of contamination in the form of atmospheric deposition. The ash (see
Section 2.4) contained an average of 5 mg/kg of polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons (PAHs) and 7 percent heavy metal (zinc) concentrations by
weight (SAIC 1985). With the exception of the tire fire, metal loadings to
the Everett Harbor project area, by atmospheric deposition are negligible
compared with other source inputs.
90
-------
TABLE 36. SUMMARY OF SOURCE EMISSIONS IN THE EVERETT HARBOR PROJECT AREA
Registration
Emission in Tons for 1987
Number
Source
SOX*
TSPb
N0Xc
PM10
C0e
V0Cf
TAC
21400
Snohomish Co. (Paine Field) Airport
7
9
36
9
730
35
0
13120
Boeing Commercial Airplane (Everett)
55
14
fy
CM
CM
13
6,423
860
622
10169
Associated Sand and Gravel Co., Inc.
224
9
38
2
0
3
16000
U.S. Defense Fuel Supply Agency OLA
20
16338
TIZ's Door Sales, Inc.
12
11
16006
Providence Hospital
1
12164
Scott Paper Co. Northwest Operations
405
455
1,319
371
3,404
223
68
14024
Everett Port Facilities
185
7
14121
Sound Casket Mfg., Co., Inc.
2
2
11271
Centrecon, Inc.
12
1
10663
Nord/Jeld-Wen of Everett, Inc.
0
167
10
113
94
5
13
12425
Alpine Retreaders (J&V Investments)
2
2
12754
Weyerhaeuser Co., Kraft Mill
W
£4£
147
2fiZ
222
3
2i
Totals
1,307
1,615
1,743
839
11,646
1,162
744
a SOX « Any sulfur oxides.
k TSP • Total suspended particulates.
c NOX ¦ Any nitrogen oxides.
^ PMIO = Particulate matter <10 microns in size.
e CO « Carbon monoxide.
f VOC » Volatile organic compounds.
Reference: Anderson, J. (8 June 1988, personal comnunlcation).
91
-------
TABLE 37. COMMONLY FOUND TOXIC AIR CONTAMINANT
EMISSIONS IN THE EVERETT HARBOR PROJECT AREA
Emission
Contaminant (Tons/day)
Toluene 116.5
Xylene 104.00
Chloroform 43.00
Acetone 12.16
Phenol 7.00
Formaldehyde 5.09
Manganese 4.01
Ammonia 0.80
Nickel 0.34
Chromium 0.016
Reference: Anderson, J. (8 June 1988, personal
communication).
92
-------
2.8 SPILLS
Information on accidental spills on land and water in the area is
limited. Ecology maintains a file on spill complaints reported by private
citizens. These reports usually contain information on the date and
location of the spill, a description of what and how much was spilled, and
the cleanup measures taken. Typically, there is insufficient information
available to calculate contaminant loadings.
The U.S. Coast Guard maintains a file on marine spills. Spills were
recorded for the project area beginning in 1972 (Linch, Lt. Commander, 14
June 1988, personal communication). Spill information includes the date,
location, type of material, and estimated quantity spilled. The reported
spills consisted primarily of petroleum products (i.e., gasoline, diesel,
fuel oil, jet fuel, and waste oil). However, because the location is given
by latitude and longitude to the nearest minute, it is impossible to
determine the exact location of the spill. Also, because there is no
information on the amount of spilled material recovered from cleanup
operations, it is not possible to evaluate total loading of contaminants to
the Everett Harbor project area. The Mukilteo Defense Fuel Supply Depot has
had a number of fuel spills (see Section 2.1).
93
-------
3.0 METHODS
The approach used to identify problem sources and link potential
sources to offshore problem areas, as well as the techniques used to collect
drain sediment and groundwater samples, are described below.
3.1 SOURCE EVALUATION APPROACH
Potential problem sources were identified based on the contaminant
concentrations measured in the sediments collected from a limited number of
drains (i.e., CSOs and storm drains), and in water collected from monitoring
wells. Comparisons between the contaminants found in these onshore samples
and the contaminants that were found in sediments from the offshore problem
areas were also used to identify sources (PTI and Tetra Tech 1988b). The
evaluation of onshore chemical contamination was conducted using data from
the Everett Harbor Action Program sampling effort, which focused on three
monitoring wells, two combined sewer overflows and one storm drain.
Comparisons between potential sources and the receiving environment were
based on the Everett Harbor Action Program onshore and receiving environment
data, historical data, and additional information obtained from agency files
(see Section 2.0).
The identification of problem drains in this report is consistent with
the approach used to identify problem areas in the receiving environment of
Port Gardner and the lower Snohomish River (PTI and Tetra Tech 1988b).
Problem chemicals in each drain have been selected based on either of the
following criteria:
¦ Exceedance of a highest Apparent Effects Threshold (AET)
value for chemicals where AETs have been derived
¦ Elevation above reference (EAR) values greater than 1,000 for
chemicals where there are no available AET values.
94
-------
The EAR technique is a comparison of drain sediment data with offshore
receiving environment sediment data collected from reference areas (i.e.,
noncontaminated areas). EAR values are calculated by dividing the concen-
tration of a contaminant measured in the drain sediments by the concentra-
tion of that same contaminant measured in the reference area sediments.
The focus of the AET approach is to identify concentrations of chemical
contaminants in sediments that are associated with statistically significant
biological effects (relative to reference conditions). Biological indicators
used to develop AET values include:
¦ Depression in abundances of major taxonomic groups of benthic
infauna (e.g., Crustacea, Mollusca, Polychaeta)
¦ Amphipod mortality bioassay using Rhepoxvnius abronius
¦ Oyster larvae abnormality bioassay using Crassostrea oiqas
¦ Microtox bioluminescence bioassay using Photobacterium
phosphoreum.
For a given chemical and a specific biological indicator, the AET is the
concentration above which statistically significant biological effects
occurred in all samples of sediments analyzed.
AET values have been proposed for 64 organic and inorganic toxic
chemicals using synoptic chemical and biological data from 200 stations in
Puget Sound (Tetra Tech 1987). For each chemical, a separate AET was
developed for each biological indicator listed above, resulting in four sets
of AET values. A list of the highest (HAET) and lowest AET (LAET) for each
chemical is provided in Table 38.
Contaminants for which HAET values are unavailable were selected as
problem chemicals if elevated above reference concentrations were more than
95
-------
TABLE 38. PUGET SOUND AET VALUES
(ug/kg dry weight = ppb for organic compounds;
mg/kg dry weight = ppm for metals)
Lowest AET Highest AET
LPAHa
5,200
6,100
Naphthalene
2,100
2,400
Acenaphthylene
560
640
Acenaphthene
500
980
Fluorene
540
1,800
Phenanthrene
1,500
5,400
Anthracene
960
1,900
HPAHb
12,000
38,000
Fluoranthene
1,700
9,800
Pyrene
2,600
11,000
Benzo(a)anthracene
1,300
4,500
Chrysene
1,400
6,700
Benzofluoranthenes
3,200
8,000
Benzo(a)pyrene
1,600
6,800
Indeno(l,2,3-c,d)pyrene
600
880
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
230
1,200
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
670
5,400
Total PCBs
130
2,500
Total Chlorinated Benzenes
170
680
1,3-Dichlorobenzene
mm _
--
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
110
260
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
35
50
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
31
64
Hexachlorobenzene
70
230
Total Phthalates
3,300
3,400
Dimethyl phthalate
71
160
Diethyl phthalate
200
Di-n-butyl phthalate
1,400
1,400
Butyl benzyl phthalate
63
470
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
1,900
1,900
Pesticides
p, p1-DDE
9
15
p,p'-DDD
2
43
p,p'-DDT
3.9
11
96
-------
TABLE 38. (Continued)
Lowest AET Highest AET
Phenols
Phenol
420
1,200
2-Methylphenol
63
63
4-Methylphenol
670
1,200
2,4-Dimethyl phenol
29
29
Pentachlorophenol
—
--
2-Methoxyphenol
930
930
Miscellaneous Extractables
Hexachlorobutadiene
120
290
1-Methylphenanthrene
310
370
2-Methylnaphthalene
670
670
Biphenyl
260
270
Dibenzothiophene
240
250
Dibenzofuran
540
540
Benzyl alcohol
57
73
Benzoic acid
650
650
n-Nitrosodiphenyl amine
40
220
Volatile Oraanic ComDOunds
Tetrachloroethene
140
140
Ethyl benzene
33
37
Total xylenes
100
120
Metals
Antimony
3.2
26
Arsenic
85
700
Cadmium
5.8
9.6
Copper
310
800
Lead
300
700
Mercury
0.41
2.1
Nickel
28
49
Si 1ver
5.2
5.2
Zinc
260
1,600
a LPAH = Low molecular weight polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons,
b HPAH = High molecular weight polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons.
Reference: Tetra Tech (1987).
97
-------
1,000-fold. Drains whose sediments exceeded an HAET value or an EAR of 1,000
for at least one chemical were identified as potential problem sources.
Contaminant concentrations measured in the groundwater samples were
compared with available water quality criteria to identify problem chemicals.
Available freshwater and saltwater criteria (U.S. EPA 1986) are summarized
in Table 39. These values are based on acute and chronic toxicity to
aquatic life. Although these ambient water quality criteria are not
enforceable standards, they are general guidelines for interpreting water
quality data. A groundwater sample that exceeds ambient water quality
criteria or standards for a problem chemical may indicate that the area
warrants further investigation of potential sources and possible source
control actions.
The approach used to link potential contaminant sources to contamination
found in the receiving environment sediments was based on the following
information:
¦ Proximity of sources to the. problem area in the receiving
environment
¦ Comparison of the available source sediment chemistry and
stormwater data from the Everett Harbor initial screening
program and the City of Everett's CSO investigation (Mathias,
D.( 23 May 1988, personal communication) with available
offshore sediment data
¦ Spatial distribution of contaminants in the offshore sediments
¦ Past or ongoing practices that may have contributed to the
contamination observed in the receiving environment.
Contaminant sources (i.e., CSOs, storm drains, spills, groundwater
inflow, and waterfront land-use activities) are expected to have greater
effects on the areas immediately offshore than on deeper sites. Therefore,
the proximity of drain outfalls and waterfront facilities to the problem
98
-------
TABLE 39. SUMMARY OF U.S. EPA WATER QUALITY CRITERIA (UG/L)
Freshwater Aquatic Life3
Acute Chronic
Toxicity Toxicity
Saltwater Agnatic Lifea
Acute Chronic
Toxicity Toxicity
Metals
Antimony
Arsenic
Beryl 1ium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Thai 1ium
Zinc
Cyanide
LPAH
Naphthalene
Acenaphthylene
Acenaphthene
Fluorene
Phenanthrene
Anthracene
(9,000)
360
(130)
3.9d J
l,700c/16d
18c
82c
2.4
1,400c
260
4. lc
(1,400)
120c
22
(2,J00)
(l.jJOO)
b
b
HPAH
Fluoranthene
Pyrene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Chrysene
Total benzofluoranthenes
Benzo(a)pyrene
Indeno(l,2,3-c,d)pyrene
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
Benzo(g,h,ijperylene
PAH Total
(3.JB0)
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
(1,600)
190
\5#
210c/lld
12c
3.2C
0.012
160c
35
0.12
(40)
110fc
5.2
(6|°)
(5 |D)
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
l9
43 A
(10,300)/I,100"
2.9
140
2.1
75
410
(2^130)
95
1
(2,|50)
(9J0)
b
b
(40)
b
(300)
b
I6
9.3
50
2.9
5.6
0.025
8.3
I4
b
86
1
b
(7J0)
b
b
(tf)
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
99
-------
TABLE 39. (Continued)
Freshwater Aquatic Life* Saltwater Aquatic Lifea
Acute Chronic Acute Chronic
Toxicity Toxicity Toxicity Toxicity
Phenols
Phenol (10,200) (2,560) (5,g00) J
(10,200)
(2,560)
(2,020)
(365)
(30)
b
«
(2,120)
b
20 e
13e
b
b
b
b
b
(970)
(230)
(150)
(4.J80)
(2,gOO)
(940)
(3)
2,4-Dichlorophenol
4-Chloro-3-methyl
phenol
2,4-Dimethylphenol
Pentachlorophenol 20e 13e 13 (7.9)
2,3,5,6-Tetrachloro- . . .
phenol l u u (440)
b b
b b
b 1 b
b b
2.4.5-Trichlorophenol
2.4.6-Trichlorophenol
Nitrophenols (230) (150) (4,850) b
2-Chlorophenol (4,380) (2,000) B b
4-Chlorophenol b b (29,700) b
Phthalate esters (940) (3) (2,944) (3.4)
Pesticides
Aldrin 3.0 b 1.3 b
DDT 1.1 0.Q01 0.13 0.Q01
DOE (1,050) 5 (14) &
TDE (0.06) b (3.6) b
Demeton b 0.1 b 0.1
Dieldrin 2.5 0.0019 0.71 0.0019
Endosulfan 0.22 0.056 0.034 0.0087
Endrin 0V18 0.0023 0.037 0.0023
Guthion b 0.01 b 0.01
Heptachlor 0.52 0.0038 0.053 0.0036
Hexachlorocyclohexane
(Lindane) 2,0 0.06 0J6 b
Malathion b 0.1 b 0.1
Methoxychlor b 0.03 b 0.03
Mi rex b 0.001 b 0.Q01
Parathion 0.065 0.013 b b
Toxaphene 0.73 0.0002 0.21 0.0002
PCBs 2.0 0.014 10 0.03
100
-------
TABLE 39. (Continued)
Freshwater Aquatic Lifea
Acute Chronic
Toxicity Toxicity
Saltwater Aquatic Life3
Acute Chronic
Toxicity Toxicity
Volatiles
Acrylonitrile
(7,550)
(2,600)
b
Acrolein
(68)
(55)
Benzene
(5,300)
(5,100)
Trichloromethane
(chloroform)
(28,900)
(1,240)
b
Tetrachloromethane
(carbon tetra-
¦
chloride)
(35,200)
b
(50,000)
1,2-dichloroethane
(118,000)
(20 ,.000)
(113,000]
Dichloroethylenes
(11,600)
b
(224,000]
Dichloropropanes
(23,000)
(5,700)
(10,300)
Dichloropropenes
(6,060)
(244)
S790)
Ethyl benzene
(32,000)
b
*
(430)
Halomethanes
(11,000)
b
(12,000)
Pentachlorinated
ethanes
(7,240)
(1.J00)
(3g0)
Tetrachloroethanes
(9,320)
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloro-
ethane
b
(2,400)
(9,020)
Tet rach1oroethy1ene
(5,280)
(840)
(10,200)
Toluene
(17,500)
b
(6,g00)
Trichloroethanes
(18.000)
b
¦
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
D
b
(31,200)
1,1,2-Trichloroethane
b
(9,400)
b
Trichloroethylene
(45,000)
(21,900)
(2,000)
Miscellaneous Oxygenated Compounds
2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodi-
benzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) (0.01)
Isophorone (117,000)
Oroanonitrooen Compounds
Benzidine (2,500)
Dinitrotoluene (330)
Nitrobenzene (27,000)
Nitrosamines (5,850)
1,2-Diphenylhydrazine (270)
(0,0j)001)
b
(2jJ0)
b
b
b
(12,900)
(590)
(6,680)
(3,30g,000)
b
b
(700)
b
b
b
(3, J
b
(6,400)
(2gl)
b
(450)
(5,g00)
b
b
b
b
b
(3J0)
b
b
101
-------
TABLE 39. (Continued)
Freshwater Aquatic Life3 Saltwater Aquatic Life3
Acute Chronic Acute Chronic
Toxicity Toxicity Toxicity Toxicity
Chlorinated Aliphatic Hydrocarbons
Hexachloroethane (980) (540) (940) J*
Hexachlorobutadiene (90) (9.3) (32) b
Hexachlorocyclopenta-
diene (7) (5.2) (7) b
Ethers
Chloroalkyl ethers (238,000)
b b b
Haloethers (360) (122) b b
Chlorinated Aromatic Hydrocarbons
Chlorinated benzenes (250) (50) (160) (129)
Chlorinated naphtha-
lenes (1/500) b (7.5) b
Dichlorobenzenes (1,120) (763) (1970) b
a ( ) = Insufficient data to develop criteria. Value presented is the
lowest observed effect level.
b No criteria or toxicity thresholds are presented in the water quality
criteria documents.
c Freshwater quality criteria for some chemicals are a function of hardness.
For this table, a criteria concentration based on a hardness value of
100 mg/L calcium carbonate is provided.
d The first value is for trivalent chromium (III) and the second value is for
hexavalent chromium (VI).
e Freshwater quality criteria for some chemicals are a function of pH. For
this table, a criteria concentration based on a pH value of 7.8 is provided.
Reference: U.S. EPA (1986).
102
-------
stations identified in the receiving environment was a major factor in the
source evaluations.
The problem chemicals identified in the sources were also compared with
the problem chemicals identified in the offshore sediments. If the problem
chemicals differed between the source and the offshore sediments, it is
unlikely that the source was a major contributor to the contamination
problem.
To further evaluate the extent of contaminant contribution from drains
or waterfront activities, the relative percent distributions of chemical
concentrations were used to compare the offshore sediment samples with the
drain sediments. A relative distribution was obtained by calculating the
percentage contribution (by concentration) of a particular chemical or
compound within a related group of chemicals (e.g., HPAH, LPAH, or metals).
Plots of the relative percent distributions were used to compare source
sediment samples with offshore sediment samples. If the relative percent
distributions of chemicals differed between the source and offshore
sediments, it is unlikely that the source was a major contributor to the
contamination problem.
Evaluation of the spatial distribution of contaminants in the offshore
sediments aids in the identification of sources. For example, widespread
contamination in the offshore sediments suggests that there may be multiple
sources contributing to the contamination. In addition, concentration
gradients, which are frequently apparent in the offshore sediments, can help
identify a particular source or sources.
Information obtained from agencies familiar with an area's past or
ongoing industrial practices can be used to link sources to problem areas in
the receiving environment. Information on industrial practices in the
project area has been obtained from Ecology, U.S. EPA, the City of Everett,
the Snohomish County Health Department, and the Port of Everett.
Dredging can affect the distributions of contaminants in offshore
sediments. Therefore, dredging was considered in the evaluation of the
103
-------
spatial distribution of contaminants in the problem areas identified in the
receiving environment sediment samples. Dredging information compiled for
the Everett Harbor project area is presented in Appendix F.
3.2 SOURCE SAMPLING APPROACH
The techniques used to collect and analyze the source samples for this
investigation are described below.
3.2.1 Station Locations
Four sediment samples were collected from two CSOs and one storm drain
that discharge into the project area (see Figure 10). With the exception of
Lift Station #5 CSO (E011), all drains were sampled at a single station
located near the mouth of the drain. CSO E011 was sampled at two locations:
Manhole 1, the last manhole before the outfall (Sample E011-1) and Manhole 2,
the next manhole upstream from Manhole 1 (Sample E011-2).
In addition, four groundwater samples (including one field replicate)
were collected from three monitoring wells at the Mukilteo Defense Fuel
Supply Depot. The locations of these three monitoring wells are shown in
Figure 6 (see Section 2.1.3).
3.2.2 Sample Collection
The Everett Harbor onshore sampling program was conducted between 15 and
29 October 1986. Rainfall for October (2.93 in) was 0.26 in below normal.
Rainfall for the preceding month (2.40 in) was 0.34 in above normal.
Rainfall data are from the National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, North
Carolina (Hughes, J., 15 June 1988, personal communication). Below normal
rainfall during the sampling program aided the sampling effort by allowing
access to the drains for sediment sample collection and by minimizing
disturbances of drain sediment deposits.
Three drains were sampled during the Everett Harbor source sampling
effort. A summary of the drain sampling locations and a description of the
104
-------
sediment samples collected are presented in Table 40. The original sampling
plan called for the sampling of six drains. However, Lift Station #2 CSO
(E006) and the West Hewitt and Bond Street CSO (E008) were not sampled
because 1) of difficulties in reaching manholes at log storage facilities,
2) several manholes were inundated by tidal water (the lowest tide during
the study was 2 ft mean lower low water (MLLW), and 3) CSO discharge volumes
were expected to be negligible (Tetra Tech 1986d).
Drain sediment samples were collected, using stainless steel scoops and
spoons, from sediment deposits in the manhole and/or the drain line at each
sampling location (Tetra Tech 1986f). Sampling personnel collected separate
duplicate subsamples for volatile organic analyses. These subsamples were
placed in 40-crr)3 glass vials while personnel were still in the manhole.
Samples for the remaining chemical and physical analyses were placed in a
precleaned stainless steel bucket and brought to the surface of the manhole
prior to filling sample containers. This procedure minimized the time that
the sampling personnel were in the manhole. Samples were homogenized
(except those intended for volatile organic analyses) and placed in the
following containers for analyses:
¦ For extractable organic compound analysis, 500 cm3 of sample
were transferred to a precleaned glass jar, equipped with a
polytetrafluoroethane-cap liner.
¦ For metals analysis, 125 cm3 of sample were transferred to a
precleaned glass jar.
¦ For grain size analysis, 100 cm3 of sample were transferred to
a resealable plastic bag.
In addition to the four sediment samples, four groundwater samples
(including one field replicate) were collected from three monitoring wells
at the Mukilteo Defense Fuel Supply Depot. A summary of the monitoring
wells investigated, the depth at which samples were taken, and observations
noted during the sampling effort are presented in Table 41.
105
-------
TABLE 40
. EVERETT HARBOR COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW AND STORM DRAIN SAMPLING LOCATIONS AND SAMPLE DESCRIPTIONS
Sediment
Water
Station Name
Sample Location
Date
Type
Depth
Color
Depth
Coments
24 S. Bond St. CSO E007
Manhole off of Bond St.,
10/15/86
sandy
2 in
brown
Sample from ledge above leaping weir
SE of RR bridge
Norton terminal storm drain
Manhole inside fenceline in
10/15/86
silt
3-4 in
black
1 in
Strong H^S smell, very fine-grained
SE corner of terminal
oily sediment
Lift Station #5 CSO EOU - Manhole 1
Last manhole before outfall - on
10/29/86
sandy
3 in
brown
1 in
Small trickle of hot water in line
Scott Paper Co. property near
steam plant
- Manhole 2
Next manhole upstream of Manhole 1,
10/29/86
fine
4-5 in
black
-
Sediment looked like hog fuel sinter
near fuel sinter storage area material
o
-------
TABLE 41. MONITORING WELLS SAMPLED AT THE
MUKILTEO DEFENSE FUEL SUPPLY DEPOT
Monitoring
Wei 1
Sample
I.D.
Sample
Collection
Date
Water Table
(Depth Below
Surface, ft)
Comments
MW-4a
MUK4
MUK4D
10/16/86
8
Strong fuel smell,
black greasy sediment
at bottom of well,
sheen on water.
MW-8
MUK8
10/16/86
8.3
Water clear, no odor,
no sheen.
MW-12
MUK12
10/16/86
9.8
Water tan-colored,
lots of sediment in
sample.
a Field duplicate collected from this well.
107
-------
Originally, four additional monitoring wells (MW-6, MW-7, MW-9, and
MW-10) at the fuel depot were scheduled for sampling, but samples could not
be collected because the wells had bent casings or were either dry or
buried. At least three well volumes were hand-bailed from all sampled wells
prior to collecting the samples.
Metals--
The following 11 of the 13 U.S. EPA-priority pollutant metals were
analyzed in the four sediment samples and four groundwater samples collected
for the source study: antimony, arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead,
mercury, nickel, selenium, silver, and zinc. The remaining two priority
pollutant metals, beryllium, and thallium, were not analyzed because
historical data did not suggest that these metals were of concern in the
project area. Iron and manganese were also analyzed in the sediment samples.
Upon arrival at the analytical laboratory, the sediment samples were
frozen in accordance with PSEP protocols. Sediment samples were prepared by
thawing the frozen sediment, and then homogenizing, freeze-drying, and
grinding each sample. The sample was then either subjected to a total acid
digestion for atomic absorption (AA) analysis, or pressed into a pellet for
x-ray fluorescence (XRF) analysis.
Water samples were prepared according to procedures specified in PSEP
(Tetra Tech 1986e). Antimony, cadmium, mercury, selenium, and silver were
quantified by AA. Arsenic, chromium, copper, iron, lead, manganese, nickel,
and zinc were quantified using XRF analysis.
Extractable (Semivolatile) and Volatile Organic Compounds--
An isotope dilution gas chromatography/mass spectrometry (GC/MS)
procedure derived from Tetra Tech (1986a) was used to analyze acid and
base/neutral extractable compounds. As specified by this procedure, each
80-g homogenized sediment sample was spiked with the stable isotope-labeled
analogs of the target compounds. Target compounds without labeled analogs
were quantified using the nearest eluting, most chemically similar labeled
108
-------
compound as a recovery standard. All reported concentrations were corrected
for recovery using the isotope dilution technique. Recoveries of isotope-
labeled standards were determined by the internal standard technique.
Analyses for 34 volatile organic compounds were performed on all four
sediment source samples and on the four groundwater samples. The samples
were analyzed for volatile organics using the purge-and-trap GC/MS technique
specified in the U.S. EPA Contract Laboratory Program (CLP) protocols.
Six miscellaneous extractable compounds were analyzed in the source
samples. Several of these are PAH compounds (2-methylnaphthalene, 1-methyl -
pyrene, dibenzofuran, and dibenzothiophene). In addition, 15 TIO compounds
were measured in the source sediment samples (Table 42). These compounds
are found during GC/MS analysis and are tentatively identified by searching
for a match between the compound's mass spectrum and one of the thousands of
mass spectra contained in a computer database. Generally, the largest peaks
in the sample chromatograms that do not correspond to target compounds are
selected for tentative identification.
Pesticides and PCBs—
Nineteen pesticides (Table 42) were analyzed by gas chromatography/elec-
tron capture detection (GC/ECD). The analytical method originally specified
to the laboratory is described in Tetra Tech (1986a). This procedure calls
for extraction of a 100-g (wet-weight) sample with removal of 20 percent of
the extract for GC/ECD analysis of pesticides and PCBs. For this project, a
pesticide/PCB sample was extracted separately from the acid and base/neutral
sample that was to be analyzed by GC/MS. A 40-g (wet-weight) aliquot was
extracted and processed according to the protocol. Both quantitation and
confirmation were performed using packed columns and U.S. EPA CLP protocols,
rather than the capillary columns originally specified in Tetra Tech
(1986a). Most of the sample extracts were diluted to minimize interference
from nontarget compounds.
Sediment samples were analyzed for total PCBs, while the groundwater
samples were analyzed for individual Aroclor mixtures. Analyses of PCBs in
109
-------
TABLE 42. LIST OF CONTAMINANTS AND CONVENTIONAL
VARIABLES MEASURED DURING THE EVERETT HARBOR STUDY
Low Molecular Weight PAH
naphthalene3
acenaphthylenea
acenaphthenea
fluorene3
phenanthrenea
anthracene3
High Molecular Weight PAH
fluoranthene3
pyrene3
benzo(a)anthracene3
chrysene3
benzofluoranthenes (b and k)3
benzo(a)pyrene3
i ndeno(1,2,3-c,d)pyrene3
dibenzo(a,h)anthracene3
benzo(g,h,i)perylenea
Total PCBs3
Neutral Halogenated Compounds
1.2-dichlorobenzene3
1.3-dichlorobenzene3
1.4-dichlorobenzenea
1,2,4-trichlorobenzene3
hexachlorobenzene (HCB)a
2-chloronaphthalene3
hexachlorobutadiene3
hexachloroethane3
Phthalate Esters
dimethyl phthalate3
diethyl phthalate3
di-n-butyl phthalate3
butyl benzyl phthalate3
bi s(2-ethylhexyl)phtha1ate3
di-n-octyl phthalate3
Pesticides
p,p'-DDE3
p,p'-DDDa
p,p'-DDT3
aldrin3
chlordane3
dieldrin3
endrin3
endosulfan Ia
endosulfan II3
endosulfan sulfate3
endrin ketone
heptachlor3
hepachlor epoxide3
alpha-HCH3
beta-HCH3
delta-HCH3
gamma-HCH3 (lindane)
methoxychlor"
toxaphene3
Phenol and Alkyl-Substituted Phenols
phenol3
2-methylphenol
4-methylphenol
2,4-di methyl phenol3
4-chloro-3-methylphenol
Chlorinated Phenols/Guaiacols
2-chlorophenol3
2,4-di chlorophenol3
2,4,6-trichlorophenol3
2,4,5-trichlorophenol"
2,3,4,6-tetrachlorophenolb
pentachlorophenol3
3.4.5-trichloroguaiacol
4.5.6-trichloroguaiacol
tetrachloroguaiacol
Resin Acids
abietic acid
dehydroabietic acid
12-chlorodehydroabietic acid
14-chlorodehydroabietic acid
dichlorodehydroabietic acid
isopimarie acid
neoabietic acid
sandaracopimarie acid
Nitrogen-Containing Compounds
N-ni trosodi-n-propy1 ami ne3
N-nitrosodipheny1 amine3
nitrobenzene3
2-nitrophenol3
4-nitrophenola
110
-------
TABLE 42. (Continued)
2,4-dinitrophenola
4,6-dinitro-2-methy1phenol
4-chloroani 1 ine"
2-nit roani1ine
3-nitroarii 1 ine
4-nitroani1ine
2,4-dinitrotoluenea
2,6-dinitrotoluenea
3,3'-dichlorobenzidine3
Halogenated Ethers
bis(2-chloroethyl)ethera
bis(2-chloroi sopropyl)ether3
bis(2-chloroethoxy)methanea
4-chlorophenyl phenyl ether8
4-bromophenyl phenyl ether3
Miscellaneous Extractables and
Tentatively Identified Organic
Compounds
benzyl alcohol
benzoic acid"
dibenzofuran
2-methy1naphthalene
isophorone3
hexachlorocyclopentadienea
1-methylpyrene0
retene0
cymene (unspecified isomer)0
dibenzothiophenec
1,2,4-trithiolane0
diterpenoid hydrocarbon0
(base peak 255)
diterpenoid alcohol0
(base peak 271)
hexadecanoic acidc
hexadecanoic acid methyl esterc
hexadecenoic acid methyl esterc
cholesterol0
campesterol0
alkanol (unidentified)0
base peak 181, isomer #1°
base peak 181, isomer #2°
Volatile Organic Compounds
acetone
benzene
b romod i c h1o romet h ane
bromoform
bromomethane
2-butanone
carbon disulfidecarbon
tetrachloride
chlorobenzene
chloroethane
2-chloroethylvinyl ether
chloroform
chloromethane
di bromochloromethane
1.1-dichloroethane
1.2-dichloroethane
1.1-dichloroethene
trans-1,2-dichloroethene
1.2-dichloropropane
cis-l,3-dichloropropene
trans-l,3-dichloropropene
ethyl benzene
4-methyl-2-pentanone
2-hexanone
styrene
1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane
tetrachloroethene
1.1.1-trichloroethane
1.1.2-trichloroethane
trichloroethene
toluene
total xylenes
vinyl acetate
vinyl chloride
Metals
antimony3
arsenic
cadmi uma
chromium®
copper®
iron
lead3
manganese
mercury3
nickel®
selenium3
silver3
zinc3
Conventional Variables
total solids
percent fine-grained material
3 U.S. EPA priority pollutant.
b U.S. EPA hazardous substance list compound.
0 Tentatively identified organic compound.
Ill
-------
extracts were performed using two instrumental methods: GC/ECD, and GC/MS
with limited mass scanning. Only GC/ECD analyses were originally scheduled
for these samples. However, a review of the GC/ECD data indicated that
sample interferences detracted from the reliability of the qualitative and
quantitative results. The instrumentation and quantification methods for
GC/ECD analysis described in Tetra Tech (1986a) were followed with several
exceptions. Most notably, external standard quantification was used, rather
than the recommended internal standard method; peak heights were used rather
than peak areas; and a single-point calibration was used, rather than a
5-point calibration. A peak-by-peak, modified Webb-McCall technique was
used to quantify PCBs. GC/MS analyses were performed with a 30-m DB-5
fused silica capillary column. The congener standard containing repre-
sentative compounds differed slightly from the recommendations of Tetra
Tech (1986a) and U.S. EPA Method 680. 2,4-Dichlorobiphenyl was used
rather than 2,3-dichlorobiphenyl; 2,4,6-trichlorobiphenyl was used rather
than 2,4,5-trichlorobiphenyl; 2,2',3,4'.S.e'-hexachlorobiphenyl was used
rather than 2,2',4,4',5,6'-hexachlorobiphenyl; 2,2',3,4,5,6,6'-heptachloro-
biphenyl was used rather than 2,2',3,4',5,6,6'-heptachlorobiphenyl; and
2,2',3,3',5,5',6,6',-octachlorobiphenyl was used rather than 2,2',3,3'
4,5',6,6'-octachlorobiphenyl. A separate standard was used to establish
retention time windows for selected ion monitoring.
Pulp Mill Compounds--
The four source sediment samples were analyzed for selected compounds
related to pulp mill processes (i.e., resin acids and chlorinated phenols/
guaiacols). However, standard procedures for analysis of resin acids and
chlorinated phenols/guaiacols in sediments were not available. Therefore,
analytical methods for these compound classes were developed and validated
in conjunction with Laucks Testing Laboratory in Seattle, WA (PTI and Tetra
Tech 1988b). Resin acids were analyzed by full-scan GC/MS and chlorinated
phenolic compounds were analyzed by GC/MS-SIM (Selected Ion Monitoring).
112
-------
Anci 1 lary Analyses-
Total solids arid grain size were the only conventional variables
measured in the source sediment samples. The procedures used for grain size
and total solids determinations were in accordance with PSEP recommendations
(Tetra Tech 1986e).
3.2.3 Chemical Analyses
The contaminants measured during the onshore source investigation were
generally identical to those contaminants analyzed in the offshore sediments
(PTI and Tetra Tech 1988b). This facilitated comparisons between variables
measured in the two sampling efforts.
Data for 143 analytes, including 80 U.S. EPA priority pollutants and
5 additional organic compounds listed in the hazardous substance list were
reported for the source sediment samples collected during the Everett
Harbor Action Program (see Table 42). In addition, 2 conventional sediment
quality variables (grain size and total solids) and 15 tentatively identified
organic (TIO) compounds were measured.
The groundwater samples were analyzed for the same compounds as the
sediment samples, with the exception of the conventional variables, iron,
manganese, resin acids, chlorinated phenols and guaiacols, and the TIOs.
Most of the analytes of interest mentioned above have at least one of
the following two properties: 1) they bioaccumulate, possibly with adverse
biological effects in the food chain, or 2) they produce adverse biological
effects even when not bioaccumulated. U.S. EPA-priority pollutants dis-
charged into the project area are identified in Table 42 (see Section
3.2.2). Certain compounds that are not U.S. EPA-priority pollutants have
been measured because of their local significance. For example, of
particular interest are those substances that may be associated specifically
with pulp mills, such as resin acids and chlorinated phenolic compounds.
113
-------
Analytical procedures specified in Puget Sound Estuary Program (PSEP)
protocols (Tetra Tech 1986e) were used to analyze both the source and
offshore sediments. The PSEP protocols were developed to promote the use of
acceptable and comparable methods when measuring contaminants in Puget
Sound. In addition, the protocols provide guidelines to assess the quality
of data obtained from different laboratories or determined by different
analytical techniques.
3.2.4 Quality Assurance/Qualitv Control
Reviews of source sediment chemical data were performed in accordance
with PSEP guidelines (Tetra Tech 1986e). Quality assurance/quality control
(QA/QC) reviews of analytical results included assessments of accuracy [using
standard reference materials (SRM), matrix spike, and/or surrogate recovery
data] and precision (using data from analytical replicates). QA/QC reviews
also evaluated initial and ongoing calibration and tuning, blank results,
sample holding times, and tests of initial performance or other validation
data for certain non-CLP procedures.
Detailed QA/QC reports concerning the chemical analyses were prepared
and compiled in Tetra Tech (1988a). These reports are not reproduced in
this section, but are summarized below. A complete description of the
qualifiers used in this study is provided in Appendix A.
Metals--
The metals data are considered acceptable as qualified. Because
laboratory control limits for precision were exceeded for antimony, all
positive antimony data are considered to be estimated and were assigned an
"E" qualifier. Because the SRM analyzed was not certified for silver or
selenium, an accuracy assessment could not be made for these two analytes in
the sediment samples.
114
-------
Assessment of the Effect of Analytical Procedures on Metals Results--
The analytical methods used to determine metals in this study were
designed to measure the total concentrations of metals in sediments, in
contrast to methods that involve partial digestion. A small study was
conducted to examine the implications of using the "total metals" methods
(per PSEP protocols), especially when comparing results to reference area
data (e.g., reference data from Carr Inlet) generated by "strong acid"
methods, per U.S. EPA CLP. Two archived Carr Inlet samples collected during
the Commencement Bay Remedial Investigation (Tetra Tech 1985a) were analyzed
in triplicate using the "total metals" method from the present study, and
the "strong acid" method used during the Commencement Bay study. In
addition, selected samples collected during the Elliott Bay sampling effort
(PTI and Tetra Tech 1988a) were analyzed by the "total metals" and "strong
acid" methods for comparison purposes. The results of that comparison are
presented in PTI and Tetra Tech (1988a) and are summarized below.
Differences were observed for a number of metals analyzed by both
methods. However, the largest and most consistent differences were observed
for chromium. In both Carr Inlet samples, mean chromium concentrations by
"total metals" methods (in this case, XRF) were more than 4 times the mean
concentrations determined by the "strong acid" technique. Results from
samples from Port Susan and Elliott Bay/Duwamish River, with higher overall
chromium concentrations, were generally a factor of 2 greater when analyzed
by "total metals" methods than when "strong acid" methods were used.
Differences between antimony results by "total metals" vs. "strong
acid" methods could not be determined for Carr Inlet samples because
antimony was consistently undetected by the "strong acid" procedure.
However, concentrations of' antimony reported for Samples CR-11 and CR-13
using "strong acid" methods during the Commencement Bay Remedial Investi-
gation were approximately 15 times lower than the "total metals" values.
Similarly, for Duwamish River offshore sediment samples WW-12 and EW-15
collected during the Elliott Bay study (PTI and Tetra Tech 1988a), the "total
metals" procedure [including hydrogen fluoride digestion and analysis by gas
furnace atomic absorption (GFAA)] resulted in concentrations 10-20 times
115
-------
higher than concentrations determined by the "strong acid" procedure. This
marked discrepancy prompted reanalysis of the Elliott Bay samples by an
independent and more reliable technique for antimony (i.e., XRF). Compari-
sons between XRF and the "total metals" procedure used in the Elliott Bay
study (PTI and Tetra Tech 1988a) suggest that antimony concentrations
observed during that study could be considerable overestimates (e.g., by a
factor of 5).
The XRF analysis of antimony aroused sufficient uncertainty about the
"total metals" antimony concentrations reported in this study that antimony
data were not used to define or rank problem areas in the receiving
environment. However, antimony distributions are described in PTI and Tetra
Tech (1988b) and are used in the evaluation of sources because of their
potential value in assessing relative antimony contamination in Everett
Harbor.
Extractable (Semivolatile) and Volatile Organic Compounds--
The data for extractable organic cempounds are considered acceptable as
qualified. The analytical laboratory followed PSEP-specified protocols
(Tetra Tech 1986e) with the following exception:
¦ Benzoic acid levels in one of four blanks exceeded the PSEP
control limit of 2.5 ug total (Tetra Tech 1986e). Benzoic
acid values for the source sample associated with this blank
were qualified with an "E" after blank correction.
The data for volatile organic compounds are acceptable with the
exception of data for methylene chloride. Methylene chloride values were
rejected because of excessive blank contamination.
Pesticides and PCBs—
Many samples analyzed for chlorinated pesticides required dilution
because of interferences. This resulted in higher detection limits than
those specified in Tetra Tech (1986d). In addition, because of sample
116
-------
dilutions, no precision and accuracy data were obtained for the pesticide/PCB
analyses. However, the review of calibration dat-a suggested that the
analytical instrument was operating within acceptable limits. Data quali-
fiers were not assigned to positive pesticide results.
Source sediment samples were analyzed for total PCBs and groundwater
samples were analyzed for individual Aroclor mixtures. All sample data for
total PCBs are considered acceptable when qualified as estimates. Qualifi-
cation was necessary because only single-point calibration was used for
quantification. All concentrations greater than 50 ug/kg were determined by
6C/MS analyses, because of interferences encountered during 6C/ECD analyses.
Extracts for 6C/MS analysis were held longer than the 40-day holding time
specified in U.S. EPA CLP protocols. The extended extract holding time might
have resulted in either an underestimate or an overestimate of original
sample concentrations. An underestimate may have resulted from degradation
of PCBs, but such degradation would not be expected because of the well-
documented stability of this class of compounds (Hutzinger et al. 1974).
However, an overestimate of the PCB concentration may have resulted from
loss of solvent volume in the extract to evaporation.
Pulp Mill Compounds-
Overall, data for resin acids and chlorinated phenols/guaiacols are
considered acceptable. Pal.ustric acid data were rejected based on 0 percent
recoveries in both matrix spikes. Data were qualified with an E for
several possible reasons: 1) data were reported at a concentration
corresponding to less than half the lowest calibration standard; 2) data
were associated with an ongoing calibration that was outside PSEP limits; or
3) the interpretation of the mass spectrum was questionable.
Ancillary Analyses--
The overall quality of the total solids and grain size data is
acceptable. The accuracy of the method for sediment grain size analysis
(Tetra Tech 1986e) has not been assessed by the use of SRMs. Recovery is
examined by comparing the sum of the fraction weights with the calculated
117
-------
total weight of the sample prior to fractionation. This initial weight is
calculated using a percent solids value obtained from a separate solids
determination. Recoveries for the onshore samples are acceptable. Precision
was also acceptable for the samples.
118
-------
4.0 CHARACTERIZATION OF ONSHORE SAMPLES
The results from the analyses of the Everett Harbor Action Program
onshore samples are presented in Appendix A. For sediment samples,
analytical concentrations of metals are in mg/kg dry weight and organic
compounds are reported in ug/kg dry weight. Unless otherwise noted, all
sediment concentrations are reported in dry weight. For groundwater
samples, all units are ug/L. Data qualifiers are included with concentra-
tions throughout this report. A complete description of data qualifiers is
presented in Appendix A.
4.1 DRAIN SEDIMENTS
Four drain sediment samples were collected during the onshore sampling
effort. One sample (E007) was taken from CSO E007, two samples (E011-1 and
E011-2) were taken from Manholes 1 and 2, respectively, on CSO E011, and one
sample (NORT) was taken from the Norton Terminal storm drain (SD). The
locations of these drain sampling points, as well as the approximate
locations of the drain outfalls, are shown in Figure 4 (see Section 2.1).
4.1.1 Conventional Sediment Characteristics
The grain size characteristics of the drain sediment samples are
presented in Appendix A. Three of the four drains contained sediments that
were primarily sand. The fourth drain, the Norton Terminal SD, contained
sediment that was sandy silty clay. Drain sediments typically contain more
coarse-grained materials than fine-grained materials because the fine-grained
particles are flushed out of the drain rather than deposited. In general,
the sediments from the drains were more coarse-grained than the sediments
from nearby offshore stations (Appendix D).
119
-------
Total organic carbon, total nitrogen, and total sulfide contents of the
drain sediments were not measured in this study. Data for total solids
content are presented in Appendix A.
Because contaminants are frequently associated with the fine-grained
materials (i.e., silts, clays) and organic matter contained in sediments,
normalization to grain size and total organic carbon content is commonly
used to compare data from different stations. Alternatively, the relative
percent distribution of contaminants within a group of related chemicals can
be used to compare sediments from different stations. This latter approach
has been used in Section 5.1 of this report to compare the relative distribu-
tions of metals, LPAH compounds, and HPAH compounds in various sediments.
Direct comparisons of contaminant concentrations between sediments from
different stations have generally not been made. For contaminants other
than metals, LPAH, and HPAH, the comparisons between drain sediments and
offshore sediments have been based on the problem chemicals in both
sediments.
4.1.2 Problem Chemicals in Drain Sediments
HAET values were used to identify problem chemicals in the drain
sediments. For chemicals without established AET values, an EAR of 1,000 was
used to identify a problem chemical. Such an approach was used to identify
problem chemicals in the receiving environment sediments (PTI and Tetra Tech
1988b). However, of the chemicals found in the drain sediments for which an
AET had not been established, none had an EAR greater than 1,000. In fact,
no chemical in any of the four drain sediments had an EAR greater than 1,000,
and only one chemical (zinc in the sediment from Manhole 2 of CS0 E011) had
an EAR of greater than 500 (Appendix E).
The use of HAET to identify nickel, chromium, and antimony as problem
metals in drain sediments merits further discussion. AET values for nickel
have been established using a database that contains a relatively limited
range of concentrations (PTI and Tetra Tech 1988a). Therefore, past
analyses of data relating to Elliott Bay and Everett Harbor have used 90th
percentile concentrations to identify nickel as a problem chemical. Such an
120
-------
approach is not possible for the Everett Harbor drain sediments because of
the limited number of samples, so HAET values have been used instead.
As discussed in Section 3.2.4 of this report, comparisons of chromium
and antimony data from this study with similar data from past studies is
difficult because of differences in laboratory analytical procedures. The
concentrations of chromium reported in the Everett Harbor drain sediments
may be overestimated by a factor of 2 to 4 when compared to the data
reported for the Carr Inlet reference area (see Section 3.2.4). However, the
concentrations of chromium in all four of the Everett Harbor drain sediments
exceeded the HAET concentration by a factor of 2 to 4, and chromium was
therefore considered a potential problem chemical in all four sediments.
Similarly, the concentrations of antimony in the four Everett Harbor drain
sediments may be overestimated by a factor of 5 or more when compared to the
data reported for Carr Inlet. However, antimony was not found at concentra-
tions exceeding HAET in any of the four Everett Harbor drain sediments, and
was consequently not identified as a problem chemical in those sediments.
Table 43 lists the problem chemicals found in the four Everett Harbor
project area drain sediments. Chromium was the only problem chemical
identified in all four drain sediments. Nickel was a problem chemical in
three of the drain sediments. Dibenzofuran was a problem chemical in two of
the drain sediments. All other problem chemicals were identified in only
one of the drain sediments.
Sediment samples E011-1 and E011-2 were collected from two manholes
approximately 200 ft apart on CSO E011. (Manhole 2 is upstream of Manhole
1). Similarities between the two samples are not as great as might be
expected, given their proximity to each other. Both samples contained a
greater number of problem chemicals than the samples from the other drains.
Chromium and dibenzofuran were problem chemicals in both the samples.
However, there were some noteworthy differences between the two samples.
The sediment from Manhole 1 (E011-1) was brown 1n color (Tetra Tech 1986b)
and coarse-grained (93 percent sand; see Appendix A). In contrast, the
sediment from Manhole 2 (E011-2) was black (Tetra Tech 1986b) and fine-
grained (57 percent sand, 30 percent clay; see Appendix A). Both sediments
121
-------
TABLE 43. PROBLEM CHEMICALS IDENTIFIED
IN EVERETT HARBOR PROJECT AREA DRAIN SEDIMENTS3
Drain
Sediment
Number of
Problem Chemicals
Problem Chemicals
Identified
E007
3
Chromium**, nickelc, DDTd
E011-1
6
Chromium'', acenaphthene^, LPAHd»e,
4-methyl phenol**, benzoic acid'',
dibenzofurand
E011-2
8
Chrorniumb, nickelcA cadmiumd,
zincd, naphthalene^, dibenzofuran,
dimethyl phthalated, acenaphthylene",
NORT
2
Chromium^, nickelc
a Defined by exceedance of HAET concentration.
b Concentrations of chromium may be overestimated by a factor of 2 to 4. See
Section 4.1.2 and Section 3.2.4.
c The HAET for nickel has been established using a relatively limited range
of concentrations. See Section 4.1.2.
d The concentration of this chemical was the highest measured in the four
drain sediments.
e LPAH is defined as the sum of naphthalene, acenaphthylene, acenaphthene,
flourene, phenanthrene, and anthracene.
122
-------
contained LPAH compounds, but at dissimilar concentrations, which resulted
in the identification of different LPAH compounds as problem chemicals in
the two sediments. Problem chemicals that were identified in Sample E011-1
and not Sample E011-2 included acenaphthene, total LPAH, 4-methylphenol, and
benzoic acid. However, benzoic acid was undetected in the E011-2 sediment
at a detection limit that exceeded HAET. Problem chemicals that were found
in Sample E011-2 and not Sample E011-1 include nickel, cadmium, zinc,
naphthalene, acenaphthylene and dimethyl phthalate. These differences may
be the result of multiple contaminant sources within the drainage basin, or
may be attributable to the differences in the grain sizes of the two samples.
Table 44 contains the list of chemicals that were undetected in the
four drain sediments, but had detection limits greater than or equal to the
HAET concentration. These chemicals could have been present in the sediments
at levels exceeding the HAET, but it is impossible to determine if they
actually were. Consequently, they have not been listed as problem chemicals.
4.2 GROUNDWATER SAMPLES
As part of the onshore sampling effort for this study, four groundwater
samples were collected from three monitoring wells at the Mulkilteo Defense
Fuel Supply Depot. A sample and field duplicate (MUK 4 and MUK 4D) were
collected from monitoring Well 4. The third sample (MUK8) was collected from
monitoring Well 8, and the fourth sample (MUK12) was collected from
monitoring Well 12. The locations of these sampling points are shown in
Figure 6 (see Section 2.1.3). These four samples were collected because of
suspected leakage of JP-4 jet fuel from Tank 10 at the depot (Tetra
Tech 1986b).
The results from the analysis of these samples are presented in
Table 45, along with the U.S. EPA freshwater quality criteria for aquatic
life. The criteria do not represent enforceable standards, which are
instead established by the State of Washington in WAC 173-201-047.
Additionally, the criteria presented in Table 45 apply to surface waters,
not groundwater. They are presented for comparison purposes only, to
provide a general, qualitative description of acceptable water quality.
123
-------
TABLE 44. CHEMICALS UNDETECTED IN THE EVERETT HARBOR PROJECT
AREA DRAIN SEDIMENTS WITH DETECTION LIMITS > HAET CONCENTRATIONS
Drain
Sediment Undetected Chemicals With Detection Limits > HAET
E007 None
E011-1 2-Methylphenol; 2,4-dimethylphenol;
1,2-di chlorobenzene; 1,2,4-tri chlorobenzene;
benzyl alcohol
E011-2 2-Methylphenol; 2,4-dimethylphenol;
1,2-dichlorobenzene; benzoic acid; benzyl alcohol
NORT 2-Methylphenol; 2,4-dimethylphenol;
1,2,4-trichlorobenzene; benzyl alcohol
124
-------
TABLE 45. SUMMARY OF RESULTS FROM ANALYSIS OF GROUNDWATER
AT MUKILTEO DEFENSE FUEL SUPPLY DEPOT OCTOBER 1986*
U.S. EPA (1986)
Freshwater
Quality Criteria
Wells fuo/L) (Aquatic Life)
h UiaZJJ
MUK 4 MUK 4D MUK 8 MUK 12 Acute Chronic
Antimony
2.7
4.1
8.1
5.4
9,000
1,600d
Arsenic
3.04
2.35
5.79
1.00
360
190
Cadni um
0.144
0.098
0.0808
0.0284
3.9*
11*
Chromi um
6.13
6.07
7.65
1.66
1,700 /16
210*/11
Copper
E10.2
E6.69
E14.7C
E2.18
18®
12e
Lead
12.3C
1.23
7.08®
1.83
82*
3.2"
Mercury
E0.03
E0.004
E0.0003
E0.0006
2.4
0.012
Nickel
7.24
6.82
14.5
1.21
1,400*
160*
Silver
0.0655
0.125°
0.0198
0.0083
4. le
0.12
Zi nc
18.0
19.6
22.7
3.60
120*
110"
Acenaphthene
30
21
U10
U10
l,700d
520d
F1 uorene
26
15
U10
U10
9
9
Phenanthrene
27
11
U10
U10
8
9
Anthracene
E4
E2
U10
U10
fl
9
F1uoranthene
16
10
U10
U10
3,980°
9
Pyrene
12
E7
U10
U10
9
9
Benzo(a)anthracene
U10
E2
U10
U10
9
9
Chrysene
U10
E2
U10
U10
9
9
Benzo(b+k)fl uoranthenes
U10
2
U10
U10
9
9
8enzo(a)pyrene
U10
2
U10
U10
9
9
Dibenzofuran
17
11
U10
U10
9
-j
9
Benzene
E7
E4
U5
U5
5,300°
9
2-Methylnaphthalene
14
U10
U10
U10
9
9
LPAH
El 10
E69
U60
U60
9
9
HPAH
L98
E55
U90
U90
9
9
a This table lists only contaminants that were detected. All other analyzed contaminants were undetected at
relatively low detection limits (see Appendix A).
k 0 « field duplicate.
c Concentration exceeds chronic criteria.
d Insufficient data to develop criteria. Value presented Is the lowest observed effect level (LOEL).
6 Hardness dependent criteria (100 mg/L used).
* The first value 1s for trlvalent chromium (III) and the second value 1s for hexavalent chromium (VI).
9 No criteria or toxicity thresholds are presented 1n the water quality documents.
E « Concentration listed Is an estimated value.
L • Concentration is less than the maximum shown.
U « Chemical was undetected. Number shown is the analytical detection limit for the chemical.
125
-------
In the water from monitoring Well 8, the concentration of copper
exceeded the U.S. EPA chronic criterion. Water from monitoring Wells 4 and
8 contained concentrations of lead which exceeded the chronic criterion.
Concentrations of mercury and silver in the water from monitoring Well 4
exceeded the chronic criterion (Table 45).
Freshwater criteria are not available for many of the organic compounds
found in the four groundwater samples, but the samples typically contained
low concentrations of organic compounds. The chemicals not listed in Table
RS11 were undetected at relatively low detection limits (Appendix A).
However, the results presented in Table 45 should not be used to infer that
the groundwater in the area is uncontaminated. Monitoring Well 4 contained
water (Samples MUK 4 and MUK 4D) with a strong fuel odor and a visible
surface sheen, and monitoring Well 7 contained a tan-colored oily substance
that leaked out of the sampling bailer and could not be sampled (Tetra Tech
1986b).
Fuels such as those stored at the Mulkilteo facility contain varying
amounts of PAH compounds. Although certain PAHs were found in the groundwa-
ter samples, laboratory analyses for lighter hydrocarbons (e.g., alkanes) or
specific fuels were not conducted. Therefore, the presence of fuels or
petroleum-related materials in the groundwater samples may not be reflected
in the results presented in Table 45.
126
-------
5.0 SOURCE EVALUATIONS
Problem area identification and prioritization in the Everett Harbor
project area was based on a series of chemical and biological indices (PTI
and Tetra Tech 1988b). These indices were used to relate conditions at
stations within the project area to reference conditions in relatively
uncontaminated embayments of Puget Sound. Project areas with sediments that
contained high concentrations of chemicals and exhibited adverse biological
effects received a ranking of "high priority" for evaluation of contaminant
sources and remedial actions.
In the following sections, available information on potential sources
of contamination (e.g., CSOs, storm drains, groundwater, industrial
facilities, wastewater treatment plants, etc.) and offshore sediment data
were evaluated in order to link sources to problem areas in the receiving
environment. Evaluations of potential sources were completed for the two
problem areas (East Waterway and nearshore Port Gardner; Figure 12)
identified in PTI and Tetra Tech (1988b). Evaluations of potential sources
of contamination were also performed for the six individual problem stations
(SR-05, SD-03, ES-03, OG-01, SD-01, and SR-07; Figure 12) that were located
outside the two problem areas (PTI and Tetra Tech 1988b). Five main factors
were considered in the evaluations:
¦ Proximity of the potential source to the problem station
offshore
»
¦ Similarity of problem chemicals in onshore samples and
offshore sediments (where chemical data for potential sources
were available)
¦ Similarity of the relative percent distribution of chemicals
within the drain and receiving environment sediments (where
drain sediment data were available)
127
-------
SO-Ol •
SR-Of
SB-07,
EA8T WATERWAY
Problem area .
00-01 •
NEAR8HORE PORT GARDNER
PROBLEM AREA
NOTE: EnttamSltlflfll ¦ HA6T or Tt«f II
Biologic*! Crtlana axcaaflad
Pmftlfn fein. Contain Mvaral
pntMi ttationi. UnMdattnMUng
praMam mm «• MttmiMd boundvlM
baaad on data (Including
hiatoneal data) and ara not highly
pradaa. Station! not alCMding ma
cntarta may ai«t witnm pnNffl amaa.
Rataranca: PTIand Talra TachltMIOl
Figur# 12. Problem arvaa and problam stations in ths Evsratt Harbor
projact araa.
128
-------
¦ The spatial distribution of contaminants in the offshore
sediments
¦ Available information on past or ongoing practices that may
have contributed to the contamination observed in the
receiving environment.
5.1 PROBLEM AREAS
S.l.l East Waterway Problem Area
A portion of the East Waterway was designated as a problem area
primarily because of its scores for sediment chemistry, which averaged
58 percent of the maximum possible (PTI and Tetra Tech 1988b). The average
score for biological indicators of contamination in the East Waterway was
20 percent of the maximum possible. The highest concentrations of most of
the chemicals measured in the receiving environment study occurred at
stations in this problem area, and the most severe sediment contamination
was along the eastern shore (PTI and Tetra Tech 1988b).
The two chemicals that exceeded HAET concentrations most frequently in
the East Waterway sediments were 4-methylphenol and LPAH. Other phenolic
compounds, as well as HPAH, also exceeded HAET at certain East Waterway
stations. The concentration of 4-methylphenol was highest at Station EW-07
(Figure 13), and elevated at all stations in the waterway. LPAH concen-
trations were highest at Stations EW-04, EW-07, EW-13 and EW-14, but were
also elevated at most of the East Waterway stations. Naphthalene was the
predominant PAH compound in the problem area (PTI and Tetra Tech 1988b).
Many compounds historically related to the pulp industry (e.g., resin
acids, chlorinated phenols, chlorinated guaiacols) were found at elevated
concentrations in the sediments of the East Waterway. Unchlorlnated resin
acids, which occur naturally in the resins and tissues of certain plants, are
highly concentrated by pulping processes. Chlorinated resin acids, as well
as chlorinated guaiacols, are useful geochemical tracers of pulp mill
129
-------
LEGEND
¦<3 SURFACE RUNOFF DISCHARGE LOCATIONS
4a cso
~
o
w
A
A
~
¦
o
+
CHAPMAN ETAL. (1964)
CRECELIUS ET AL. (1984)
U.S. EPA (1986)
U.S. EPA (1982)
MALINSETAL. (1062)
MALINS ET AL. (19B5)
ANDERSON AND CRECELIUS (1985)
STORER AND ARSENAULT (1987)
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS (1985)
THIS STUDY
TETRA TECH DRAIN SAMPLING STATIONS
(THIS STUDY)
SR-08 •
EVS14 + NORT
EW
EW-01 \
EW-03
02 V ~EVSia
~ 32
BPS30 0 *31
EVS15
• EW-06
03 V
EVS16#
*33
E011-1
+ + E011-2
EW-05
EVS22 ~
EW-09
EW-08
EW-07
EW-11 •
01 £
EVS21~
17 ~
~ EVS17
EW-12 9
~ A3
EDS-3 0
+ E007
E007
EW-14
EW-15 •
NG41 •
* EVS19
Figure 13. Locations of offshore and drain sampling stations,
CSOs, and storm drains in the East Waterway study
area.
130
-------
activities because they are generated during the chlorine bleaching process
(PTI and Tetra Tech 1988b).
The two most prevalent resin acids in the project area, dehydroabietic
acid (DHA) and abietic acid, were found at their highest observed concentra-
tions at Stations EW-04 and EW-13 (Figure 13), respectively. The spatial
distribution patterns of resin acid concentrations suggested that contamina-
tion at Stations EW-04 and EW-13 derived from distinct sources of a similar
nature; however, chlorinated compounds were more prevalent at Station EW-04
than at Station EW-13. Concentrations of chlorinated resin acids, 2-chloro-
phenol, pentachlorophenol, 2-methyphenol, 2,4-dimethylphenol and several
other compounds maximized at Station EW-04. Chlorinated phenols and
chlorinated guaiacols had pronounced concentration maxima at Stations EW-01
and EW-02 (PTI and Tetra Tech 1988b).
Metals were not identified as problem chemicals in the sediments from
the East Waterway as frequently as organic compounds. Copper and zinc were
the only metals with concentrations that exceeded HAET, and both metals
exceeded HAET concentration only at Station EW-14 (Figure 13). Zinc
exceeded LAET concentration at several historical stations in the area
[e.g., Stations BPS30 (Crecelius et al. 1984); E-04 (Battelle 1986); and PS05
(Storer and Arsenault 1987)]. Mercury exceeded LAET concentration at
Station EW-10. Arsenic, cadmium, lead and mercury exceeded LAET concen-
trations at Station EW-14.
Drains as Potential Contaminant Sources--
During the onshore sampling effort for this study, four sediment
samples were collected from three drains that discharge into the East
Waterway problem area. Results from the chemical and physical analysis of
these sediments appear in Appendix A, and are discussed in Section 4.0 of
this report. The discussion below evaluates those drains, as well as other
onshore facilities and activities, for their potential contributions to the
chemical contamination measured in the sediments from the East Waterway.
131
-------
Norton Terminal SD--The outfall for the Norton Terminal SD is located
approximately 200 ft north of offshore Station EW-01, at the head of the
East Waterway (see Figure 13). In the sediment from Station EW-01, phenol
(Z1,600 ug/kg) and 4-methyl phenol (6,000 ug/kg) were found at concentrations
that exceeded HAET, and butylbenzyl phthalate (70 ug/kg) and n-nitrosodi-
phenylamine (57 ug/kg) exceeded LAET concentrations. Several chlorinated
phenols, chlorinated guaiacols and one resin acid (sandarocopimaric acid,
14,000 ug/kg) exceeded 90th percentile concentrations at Station EW-01
(PTI and Tetra Tech 1988b). None of these contaminants were identified as
problem chemicals in the Norton Terminal SD sediment.
Sediments from the storm drain contained only chromium (133 mg/kg) and
nickel (67.2 mg/kg) at concentrations that exceeded HAET, and antimony
(E6.0 mg/kg) at a concentration that exceeded LAET. Concentrations of
chlorinated phenols in the drain sediment were less than 100 ug/kg, except
for pentachlorophenol (330 ug/kg), which was undetected in the sediment from
offshore Station EW-01. Chlorinated guaiacols were not detected in the
drain sediment (at detection limits of 20 ug/kg), and sandaracopimaric acid
was measured at E390 ug/kg. DHA, which was found in the sediment from
Station EW-01 at a concentration of 10,000 ug/kg, was measured in the drain
sediment at a concentration of 4,800 ug/kg.
The general dissimilarity between the organic compounds found in the
sediment from the Norton Terminal SD and those found in the sediment from
Station EW-01 is further demonstrated by comparing the relative percent
distribution of selected contaminants found in each sediment. Relative
distribution (see Section 3.1) was obtained by calculating the percentage
contribution (by concentration) of a particular chemical or compound within
a group of related chemicals (e.g., LPAH, HPAH, or metals). The relative
distributions of LPAH and HPAH compounds measured in the sediments from
Station EW-01 and the Norton Terminal SD are presented in Figure 14, and
the relative distributions of selected pulp industry compounds measured in
the two sediments are presented in Figure 15.
The relative distributions of LPAH compounds in the two sediments
(Figure 14) do not match each other well, primarily because of the limited
132
-------
r
50 ~l
40 -
30 -
20-
S 10 H
z
O
jcsr
h C
n
in &
50 -i
u.
> W 40-
5 30 "I
Ui
c
20-1
10
0
LPAH
HPAH
,
STATION EW-01
NORTON TERMINAL STORM DRAIN
v. "XX
•flu
Figure 14. Comparison of relative percent distribution of PAH compounds in sediment
from Station EW-01 and sediment from the Norton Terminal Storm Drain.
-------
CHLORINATED PHENOLS
RESIN ACIDS
50
~ 40
C
• 30 H
U
i20-
^ 10-
3 to-
rn
E 70 "
g 60
5 so-
ul 40
>
P 30
<
_l 20-
Ul
ec io
t r
* V
STATION EW-01
NORTON TERMINAL
STORM DRAIN
OCxN ^NNS
"%r <
-------
number of LPAH compounds detected in the drain sediment. The relative
distributions of HPAH compounds in the two sediments are more similar, but
there are still differences between the two [e.g., fluoranthene, pyrene,
and dibenzo(a,h)anthracene relative abundances]. The relative distributions
of the pulp industry compounds in the two sediments (Figure 15) also do not
match each other well. It is apparent from these data that the Norton
Terminal SD was probably not a major contributor to the elevated concentra-
tions of organic compounds found in the sediment from Station EW-01.
The relative distribution and total concentration of PAH compounds in
the drain sediment were generally well outside the ranges expected for
street dust (Table 46), which suggests that the source of the relatively
small amount of PAH contamination found in the drain may not have been
solely from street runoff. (It should be noted that the data presented in
Tables 46 and 47 for street dust is from analysis of street dust from
Bellevue and Seattle, WA rather than Everett, and is presented for comparison
purposes only).
The relative distribution of metals in the Norton Terminal SD sediment
is very similar to the relative distribution of metals in the sediment from
offshore Station EW-01 (Figure 16). It is possible that the Norton Terminal
SD has contributed to metals contamination at Station EW-01, although
concentrations of metals had not reached problem levels in the offshore
sediment at the time of sampling. However, the relative distribution of
metals in the drain sediment generally falls outside the ranges expected for
urban street dust (Table 47), which suggests that street runoff may not
have been the only source of the metals found in the drain.
Given the lack of similarity in problem chemicals between the drain and
offshore sediments, and the general lack of agreement between the relative
distributions of chemicals in the two sediments, a link between the Norton
Terminal SD and the contamination offshore could not be demonstrated at the
time of sample collection. However, the storm drain may have contributed to
metals contamination offshore that had not reached problem levels at the
time of sampling.
135
-------
TABLE 46. RELATIVE PERCENT DISTRIBUTION OF PAH COMPOUNDS IN SEDIMENTS FROM DRAINS DISCHARGING INTO THE EAST WATERWAY
Norton Terminal
CSO E011
CSO E011
Street Dusta
PAH Compound
Storm Drain
Manhole 1
Manhole 2
CSO E007
Street Dust*3
LPAH
Naphthalene
42
20
53
7.7
0
0
Acenaphthylene
NDC
2.3
13
3.5
0
0
Acenaphthene
N0C
18
1.4
13
0
0-7
Fluorene
N0C
13
2.2
9.4
0
0-7
Phenanthrene
46
32
26
45
100
68-100
Anthracene
12
15
4.1
22
0
0-18
Total LPAH (ug/kg)
26d
8,190d
5,824d
l,814d
1.200-2,600e
640-3,400e
HP AH
Fluoranthene
6.8
33
30
17
26-48
24-100
Pyrene
NDC
36
26
17
26-52
0-52
Benzo(a)anthracene
7.0
6.9
6.3
8.2
0-12
0
Chrysene
14
7.9
9.8
13
0-19
0-23
Benzol b) fluoranthene
7 9
1 1
1ft
0
0
Benzo(k) fluoranthene
J.O
/ .c
10
io
0-16
0-24
Benzo(a)pyrene
8.8
3.9
5.1
10
0-9
0-13
lndeno(l,2,3-c,d)pyrene
7.0
1.9
4.0
7.1
0
0
Oi benzo(a,h)anthracene
18
0.6
1.0
2.0
0
0
Benzo(g,h,1jperylene
8.8
2.3
4.9
7.1
0
0
Total HPAH (ug/kg)
57d
8,869d
4,282d
5.500d
3,100-9,480e
780-9,480e
a Street dust samples collected from two industrial and two conmercial areas in Seattle, UA.
J
^ Street dust samples collected from five residential areas and three suburban arterials in Bellevue, UA; and two industrial and two conmercial areas in Seattle, WA.
c NO - Not detected.
d Values reported as dry-weight concentration.
e Street dust values reported as wet-weight concentration.
Reference: 6alvin and Noore (1982).
-------
50-i
STATION EW-01
40
30 -
10-
*-C
28
hi a
SO -1
NORTON TERMINAL
STORM DRAIN
40 -
-I
20-
10-
Sb
As
Cd
Cr
Cu
Pb
Figure 16. Comparison of relative percent distribution of metals in sediment from Station
EW-01 and sediment from the Norton Terminal Storm Drain.
-------
TABLE 47. RELATIVE PERCENT DISTRIBUTION OF METALS IN SEDIMENTS
FROM DRAINS DISCHARGING INTO THE EAST WATERWAY
Metal
Norton Terminal
Storm Drain
CSO E011
Manhole 1
CSO E011
Manhole 2
CSO E007
Street
Dust3
Antimony
1.3
4.5
0.2
1.4
<1
Arsenic
2.9
0.8
0.2
1.1
1-5
Cadmium
0.15
0.1
0.2
0.1
<1
Chromi urn
29
44
1.7
28
2-15
Copper
15
3.9
2.0
CO
I—
4-12
Lead
7.9
9.8
3.7
29
30-64
Mercury
1.1
0.01
0.01
0.1
<1
Silver
0.08
0.02
0.03
0.06
<1
Zinc
43
37
92
32
14-54
Total metals 463b
(mg/kg)
371b
10,753b
675b
650-1,800c
a Street dust samples collected from two industrial and two commercial areas
in Seattle, WA.
b Values reported as dry-weight concentration.
c Street dust values reported as wet-weight concentration.
137
-------
Pulp industry compounds were generally undetected in Sample E011-1 at
relatively low detection limits. In Sample E011-2, chlorinated phenols
were the predominant pulp industry compounds measured, rather than the resin
acids that were more predominant in the offshore sediment. DHA (700 ug/kg;
EAR=11) was the only resin acid detected in drain sediment Sample E011-2 at
a substantially elevated concentration. Relative distributions of pulp
industry compounds in the two sediment samples from CSO E011 and the
sediment from offshore Station EW-04 (Figure 17) do not match each other
well, except for the high relative abundance of DHA in both sediments.
The relative distributions of PAH compounds in the sediments from
CSO E011 are similar to the relative distribution of PAH compounds in
sediments from Station EW-04 (Figure 18). The relative abundances of certain
individual LPAH and HPAH compounds measured in the two drain sediments fall
within the ranges expected for street dust (see Table 46), while relative
abundances of others do not. In addition, the total concentrations of LPAH
and HPAH fall within the ranges expected for street dust. Therefore, it is
possible that a portion of the PAH contamination observed in CSO E011
originated with street runoff.
The relative distributions of metals in sediments from Station EW-04
and CSO E011 (Samples E011-1 and E011-2) presented in Figure 19 do not
match each other well, especially with respect to the relative abundances of
chromium and zinc. The concentration of zinc (9,890 mg/kg) in Sample E011-2
exceeded HAET, and may have been a source of the elevated zinc concentrations
found at various historical stations (discussed earlier in this section) in
the East Waterway. Concentrations of zinc and several other metals found in
stormwater samples collected from CSOs E009 and E008 by the City of Everett
(Mathias, D., 23 May 1988, personal communication) exceeded U.S. EPA acute
or chronic effects criteria (see Table 26), which suggests that more than
one of the city's CSOs may have contributed to the the metals contamination
observed in the sediments from the East Waterway.
The relative abundances of most of the metals found in the two drain
sediment samples, as well as the total metals- concentrations in both
140
-------
CSO EQ11-- CSO EOll is the CSO for Lift Station #5 in the City of
Everett's sewer system. Sediment samples were collected from two manholes
on the CSO line (see Figure 3). Sample E011-1 was collected from Manhole 1
(MH1), the manhole closest to the outfall. Sample E011-2 was collected from
Manhole 2 (MH2), the next most upstream manhole (Tetra Tech 1986b). Both
manholes are on Scott Paper Company property.
The outfall for CSO EOll is approximately 250 ft north of offshore
Station EW-04 (see Figure 13). In the sediment from Station EW-04, LPAH
(25,000 ug/kg), phenol (2,100 ug/kg), 2-methylphenol (1,200 ug/kg),
4-methylphenol (35,000 ug/kg), 2,4-dimethylphenol (520 ug/kg), benzyl alcohol
(810 ug/kg), 1,2-dichlorobenzene (96 ug/kg), and PCBs (E9.600 ug/kg) were
measured at concentrations that exceeded HAET. Fluoranthene (2,300 ug/kg)
exceeded the LAET concentration, and 2-chlorophenol (160 ug/kg), 2,4-di-
chlorophenol (91 ug/kg), 2,3,4,6-tetrachlorophenol (78 ug/kg), pentachloro-
phenol (E460 ug/kg), abietic acid (52,000 ug/kg), isopimaric acid
(E5,600 ug/kg), sandaracopimaric acid (8,800 ug/kg), 12-chlorodehydroabietic
acid (11,000 ug/kg), and 14-chlorodehydroabietic acid (3,400 ug/kg) exceeded
90th percentile concentrations. DHA (83,000 ug/kg) exceeded an EAR of 1,000
in the sediment from Station EW-04 (PTI and Tetra Tech 1988b).
A similar group of problem chemicals was identified in the drain sedi-
ments from CSO EOll. In drain sediment Sample E011-1, LPAH (8,190 ug/kg),
acenaphthene (1,500 ug/kg), 4-methylphenol (3,300 ug/kg), and benzoic
acid (2,400 ug/kg) exceeded HAET concentrations. In drain sediment
Sample E011-2, napthalene (Z3,100 ug/kg), acenaphthylene (770 ug/kg), and
dimethyl phthalate (250 ug/kg) exceeded HAET concentrations. Chemicals that
exceeded LAET concentrations in Sample E011-1 or E011-2, or both, included
various PAH compounds, total LPAH, total HPAH, and butylbenzyl phthalate.
Three contaminants identified as problem chemicals in the sediment from
offshore Station EW-04 (benzyl alcohol, 2-methylphenol, and 2,4-dimethyl-
phenol) were undetected in samples E011-1 and E011-2, but were undetected at
detection limits that exceeded HAET (see Table 44). It is possible that
these three compounds were present in the drain sediments at concentrations
that exceeded HAET.
139
-------
CHLORINATED PHENOLS
RESIN ACIDS
50 -l
STATION EW-04
40 -
30 -
20 -
10 -
50-i
100
100
CSO E011 (MH1)
30 -
20 -
10 -
o
111 70-1
>
60 -
CSO E011 (MH2)
»-
<
50 -
UJ
K 40-
30-
20-
10 -
Figure 17. Comparison of relative percent distribution of pulp industry compounds in
sediment from Station EW-04 and sediment from two locations along CSO
E011.
-------
IN)
LPAH HPAH
50 -|
40 -
30 -
C- 20 -
Z 50-,
o
r- 40-
CSO E011 (MH1)
m »-
PC 20-
™ io -
Ul
>
C 60-,
CSO E011 (MH2)
SO -
ac 40
30 -
20 -
10 -
XNNNXXV
Figure 18. Comparison of relative percent distribution of PAH compounds in sediments
from Station EW-04 and sediment from two locations along CSO E011.
-------
50 —i
40 -
30 -
20-
10-
0 -
STATION EW-04
©
O
Q>
a
so n
40
2 30-
O 20-
5 io-
S 0
22 ioo-
Q
90-
UJ
> 80-
5 7M
-J
UJ 60 H
oe
50 -
40 -
30 -
20 -
10-
0
CSO E011 (MH1)
CSO E011 (MH2)
t f
Sb
Cd
Cr
Cu
Pb
Hg
Figure 19. Comparison of relative percent distribution of metals
in sediment from Station EW-04 and sediment from
two locations along CSO E011.
143
-------
samples, fall outside the ranges expected for street dust (see Table 47).
It is likely that sources other than street runoff contributed to the metals
contamination observed in the drain sediment.
Based on the large number of problem chemicals common to both CSO E011
and offshore Station EW-04, their proximity to each other, and to a lesser
extent the relative distributions of chemicals in both, it is likely that
CSO E011 has contributed to the chemical contamination measured in the
sediment from Station EW-04, especially the PAH and 4-methylphenol contami-
nation. A portion of this PAH contamination may be attributable to street
runoff. However, analysis of the data suggests that there are additional
sources of contamination at Station EW-04, particularly for the compounds
related to the pulp industry (e.g., resin acids, chlorinated phenols).
CSO E0Q7-- The outfall for CSO E007 is located approximately 550 ft
east of Station EW-12 (see Figure 13), just south of a Port of Everett
pier. In the sediments from Station EW-12, 4-methylphenol (X3,600 ug/kg)
exceeded HAET. No other chemicals exceeded AET or 90th percentile concen-
trations at this station. The concentration of 4-methylphenol in the
sediment from CSO E007 was not highly elevated and did not approach the LAET
value. The only chemicals measured in the drain sediment at concentrations
that exceeded HAET were chromium (189 mg/kg), nickel (56.4 mg/kg), and DDT
(26 ug/kg). Concentrations of individual LPAH and HPAH compounds were
elevated in the drain sediment, but did not approach LAET values.
The relative distributions of PAH compounds in the sediments from
Station EW-12 and CSO E007 are presented in Figure 20. The relative
distributions of LPAH compounds in the two sediments are dissimilar, but
the relative distributions of HPAH compounds in the two sediments are in
closer agreement. It is possible that CSO E007 contributed to HPAH
contamination offshore that had not reached problem levels at the time of
sampling. The relative abundances of virtually all of the individual PAH
compounds detected in the drain sediment fall outside the ranges expected
for street dust (see Table 46), which suggests that street runoff was
probably not the major source of the PAH compounds measured in the drain
sediment. A comparison of the relative distributions of pulp industry
144
-------
LPAH
HPAH
z
O
F
3
ID
c?
H C
S8
tu3
>
P
<
-i
in
oc
STATION EW-12
CSO E007
Figure 20. Comparison of relative percent distribution of PAH compounds in sediment
from Station EW-12 and sediment from CSO E007.
-------
compounds in the two sediments is not possible because sediment from Station
EW-12 was not analyzed for such compounds.
The relative distribution of metals in the sediments from Station EW-12
and CSO E007 are presented in Figure 21, and match each other well, except
for the higher relative abundance of lead in the drain sediment. It is
possible that CSO E007 contributed to metals contamination offshore that had
not reached problem levels at the time of sampling. However, the relative
abundance of most of the metals measured in the drain sediment, as well as
the total metals concentration measured, is within the ranges expected for
street dust (see Table 47), which suggests that street runoff may have been
the major source of the metals measured in the drain sediment.
Based on the above data, a link between CSO E007 and the contamination
observed at offshore Station EW-12 could not be demonstrated at the time of
sample collection. However, the drain may have contributed HPAH compounds
and metals to the receiving environment at concentrations that did not
exceed problem levels at the time of sampling.
Other Potential Sources of Contamination--
Many compounds related to the pulp industry (e.g., chlorinated phenols,
chlorinated guaiacols, chlorinated and unchlorinated resin acids) were found
in the sediments from the East Waterway. Two major industrial facilities
along the East Waterway have been or still are involved in the production of
pulp: Scott Paper Company, and Weyerhaeuser Thermomechanical. The Scott
Paper Company facility is located on the eastern side of the mouth of the
waterway, north of the Hewitt Avenue Terminal and south of the Norton
Terminal (see Figure 4). Weyerhaeuser Thermomechanical, now closed, was
located south of the mouth of the waterway along its eastern edge, southwest
of what is now Anaconda Aluminum and Port of Everett property (see Figure 4).
At its East Waterway facility, Scott Paper Company produces an ammonia-
base, paper-grade sulfite pulp and towel and tissue paper. The plant has
operated at the site since 1930. A number of industrial discharge outfalls
(both historical and current) from the facility are located in the East
146
-------
50 -|
STATION EW-12
40 -
30 -
50 ~| CSO E007
40-
30-
20 -
10-
Sb
As
Cd
Cr
Cu
Pb
Zn
Figure 21. Comparison of relative percent distribution of metals in sediment from Station
EW-12 and sediment from CSO E007.
-------
Waterway (see Figure 4). Of those outfalls, only the deepwater diffuser
(SW001), the riearshore diffuser (S003), and the secondary treatment plant
outfall (S008) are still operating. When primary clarifiers were installed
in the 1960s, the use of most of the other outfalls was discontinued (Tetra
Tech 1985b).
Discharges from both the nearshore and deepwater diffusers consist of
surface runoff and effluent from the primary clarifiers. Clarifier
influent consists primarily of paper mill wastewater, and small contribu-
tions from pulp mill wastes, steamplant discharges, and filter backwash.
Outfall S008 was constructed in 1980 to discharge effluent from the
facility's secondary treatment plant. The treatment plant processes
wastewater from the pulp mill and from the spent sulfite liquor recovery
system (Tetra Tech 1985b). An estimate of pollutant loading from outfall
S008 was made in Tetra Tech (1985b), using data from a U.S. EPA survey of
compounds found in treated effluents from paper-grade sulfite pulp mills and
an assumed flow rate of 12 MGD from the outfall. The resulting estimated
loadings of organic compounds to the East Waterway were 25 lb/day for DHA,
8 lb/day for abietic acid, and 4 lb/day for chlorodehydroabietic acid
(Tetra Tech 1985b). However, pollutant loadings calculated using Scott
Paper Company data for the treated mill effluent are generally lower (e.g.,
0.2 lb/day for DHA and no detected abietic acid; Tetra Tech 1985b).
Weyerhaueser produced paper and dissolving grade pulp at its East
Waterway facility, using a calcium-based sulfite process until 1975. Before
construction of the deepwater diffuser (SW001; see Figure 4) in 1951,
Weyerhaueser discharged untreated wastes from the washing, bleaching, and
drying process at the mill through nearshore Outfalls WT002 and WT003.
Outfall WT004 discharged stormwater runoff and wastewater from limestone
cleaning operations. Outfall WT006 discharged stormwater runoff from the
north end of the plant. After 1951, the plant discharged most of its
effluent through the deepwater diffuser (SW001). Until wastewater control
systems were installed, this effluent consisted primarily of untreated
sulfite waste liquor (Tetra Tech 1985b).
148
-------
In 1975, the sulfite mill was converted to a thermomechanical plant in
an effort to reduce pollutant loadings from the mill. At that time,
Outfalls WT002 and WT003 were sealed and abandoned, and discharges from
Outfalls WT004 and WT006 were limited to stormwater runoff from areas not
involved with the pulping process. All process wastes were treated at the
newly built secondary treatment plant before being discharged through the
deepwater diffuser. The thermomechanical mill was closed permanently in
1980 (Tetra Tech 1985b). Few data are available for loadings of pollutants
discharged from these outfalls other than conventional variables, such as
BOD and TSS.
Another widespread contaminant found in sediments collected from the
East Waterway was 4-methylphenol. 4-Methylphenol is used in phenolic resins,
in magnet wire, as a plasticizer in fire retardants, and in an antioxidant,
butylated hydroxytoluene (Burch, W., 1 September 1987, personal communica-
tion). No specific sources of 4-methylphenol in the East Waterway area
have been identified, other than the contamination found in CSO E011.
Concentrations of LPAH and to a lesser extent, HPAH, were also elevated
in most areas of the East Waterway. PAH compounds are found in fossil fuels
and petroleum-related materials, including coal tar creosote, which is used
to protect wood from decay (Merck 1983). The large number of treated wood
pilings in the East Waterway area that form docks, piers, and related
structures may be a source of PAH compounds. Additionally, shipping
industry vessels and their related fuels and oils might be a source of this
contamination. LPAH compounds are characteristic of unburned fossil fuels,
and HPAH compounds are characteristic of combusted fuel material (Lee et al.
1977).
Summary—
The sediment contamination in the East Waterway apparently originates
from several sources. At least one CSO (E011) has probably contributed to
the PAH and 4-methylphenol contamination offshore. Historical and current
pulp industry activities may have contributed chlorinated phenolic compounds
and resin acids to the sediment offshore. Additional sampling of area CSOs,
149
-------
storm drains, runoff discharges, and additional information on area
industries is required to further define relationships between potential
sources and the contamination observed in the East Waterway, particularly
for contaminants such as 4-methylphenol and PAH compounds.
5.1.2 Nearshore Port Gardner Problem Area
The major contaminants observed in sediments from the nearshore Port
Gardner problem area were polar organic compounds, such as 4-methylphenol,
benzoic acid, and to a lesser extent, phenol. Relatively high concentrations
of PAH and PCBs were observed at a few stations. Overall, distributions of
different contaminants were not uniform in this problem area. Of the
problem chemicals in this area, 4-methylphenol most often exceeded HAET
concentrations, but concentration gradients for this compound were not
apparent, and the stations with the highest concentrations were not adjacent
to each other. Spatial distributions of 4-methylphenol concentrations
between the East Waterway and the Port Gardner problem area suggest a local
"ce or sources rather than sediment transport from the more highly
contaminated East Waterway (PTI and Tetra Tech 1988b).
Station NG-09, near the Mulkilteo wastewater treatment plant and west
of the Mukilteo fuel depot (see Figure 6), had relatively high concen-
trations of chemicals in addition to 4-methylphenol. The concentrations of
phenol and PCBs in the sediment from this station exceeded HAET, and the
concentration of LPAH exceeded LAET. Concentrations of these chemicals at
nearby stations were generally much lower. Benzoic acid concentrations
exceeded HAET at three stations offshore from the Mulkilteo fuel depot:
Stations NG-05, NG-07, and NG-08. Concentrations of benzoic acid generally
decreased moving inshore from these stations (PTI and Tetra Tech 1988b).
Groundwater as a Potential Contaminant Source--
During the onshore sampling effort for this study, four groundwater
samples (including one field replicate) were collected from three monitoring
wells at the Mulkilteo Defense Fuel Supply Depot (see Figure 6). Results
from the chemical analysis of those samples are presented in Appendix A, and
150
-------
are discussed in Section 4.0 of this report. The discussion below evaluates
those samples, as well as other onshore facilities and activities, for their
potential contributions to the chemical contamination found in the sediments
from the nearshore Port Gardner problem area.
The four groundwater samples contained few of the target chemicals
listed in Table 42 (see Section 3.2.3), and the few chemicals detected were
generally at relatively low concentrations. Only a few metals exceeded U.S.
EPA freshwater quality criteria for chronic effects (see Table 45). A few
PAH compounds were found at low concentrations (less than 30 ug/L) in the
sample from monitoring Well 4 (and its field replicate). The problem
chemicals identified in the sediments from the nearshore Port Gardner area,
especially 4-methylphenol, benzoic acid, phenol, and PCBs, were generally
undetected in the groundwater samples at low detection limits (typically
10 ug/L). Based on the dissimilarity between the problem chemicals found in
the sediments offshore of Port Gardner and those found in the groundwater
samples, a link between the groundwater beneath the fuel supply depot and
the contamination found in the sediment offshore could not be demonstrated
at the time the groundwater samples were collected. However, as discussed
in Section 4.2, sampling personnel observed that groundwater samples from at
least two of the monitoring wells were contaminated with one or more oily
substances (Tetra Tech 1986b). Since laboratory analyses for specific fuels
or other petroleum-related materials were not performed these samples, it is
not possible to evaluate the nature or amount of this oily contaminant, or
its effects offshore.
Other Potential Sources of Contamination—
The two major facilities along the shoreline of the nearshore Port
Gardner problem area are the Mulkilteo WWTP and the Mulkilteo Defense Fuel
Supply Depot (see Figure 6). The WWTP is discussed in Section 2.2.
The fuel depot has several discharge outfalls along shoreline of Port
Gardner (see Figures 2 and 6) (see Sections 2.1 and 2.6 of this report).
Outfalls 1 through 5 are for stormwater and fuel condensate. Outfall 6
discharges stormwater and wastewater from the fuels laboratory onsite
151
-------
(Tetra Tech 1985b). Few data are available concerning the chemical
constituents of the materials discharged from these outfalls.
Three creeks (Japanese Gulch, Edgewater Creek, and Powder Mill Gulch;
see Figure 6) discharge into Port Gardner within the problem area. Few
data are available concerning the possible presence of contaminants in these
creeks. In addition, specific sources of the contaminants observed in
offshore sediments have not been documented in the drainage basins for these
creeks.
Summary--
Additional data on the contents of discharges from the Mulkilteo WWTP
and the Mulkilteo Defense Fuel Supply Depot are needed to further define
sources of the contamination found in the sediments offshore Port Gardner.
Additional data on industries.and practices in the drainage basins for the
10 creeks that discharge into the Port Gardner area would also be helpful in
identifying sources of contamination. Ecology is currently conducting a
study of toxic chemical contamination in and around Paine Field and its
related drainages. This study will provide additional data on contaminants
in several of the creeks that flow into the Port Gardner area, and may help
to identify sources of contamination. The results of the study were expected
to be published in October 1988 (Johnson, A., 16 August 1988, personal
communication).
5.2 PROBLEM STATIONS OUTSIDE PROBLEM AREAS
5.2.1 Problem Station QG-01
The sole problem chemical at Station 0G-01 (see Figure 12) was
4-methylphenol (1,300 ug/kg). Sediment from most other stations in the area
contained similar 4-methylphenol concentrations, which were slightly less
than the HAET but greater than the LAET. Overall this area was characterized
by uniform concentrations of a number of chemicals, including 4-methylphenol,
PAH (predominantly naphthalene, as in the East Waterway), resin acids
(chlorinated and unchlorinated), and a cymene isomer (PTI and Tetra Tech
152
-------
1988b). These chemicals have varying degrees of association with the pulp
industry.
Although such chemicals could have been transported from the East
Waterway, the following evidence suggests that the source of the contamina-
tion is closer to Station OG-Ol:
¦ Concentrations are spatially uniform in the area, and do not
clearly decrease with distance from the East Waterway
¦ Examination of chemical contamination along a transect from
Station EW-15 (at the mouth of the East Waterway) to nearby
Station NG-01 to Station OG-Ol (further away from EW-15)
reveals that concentrations of several diagnostic compounds,
such as 4-methylphenol and naphthalene, decrease from Station
EW-15 to Station NG-01 and then increase at Station OG-Ol
(resin acids were not measured at Stations NG-01 and OG-Ol)
¦ Contamination patterns within the East Waterway (i.e.,
prominent concentration maxima for certain chemicals) do not
suggest the presence of strong advection processes (PTI and
Tetra Tech 1988b).
Station OG-Ol was located near the SW001 outfall diffuser (see
Figures 2 and 12) currently used by the Scott Paper Company. Scott uses
the outfall to discharge effluent from its primary clarifiers (see Sec-
tion 5.1.1). Before their thermomechanical pulp mill closed in 1980,
Weyerhaeuser discharged a variety of effluents through this outfall,
including untreated sulfite waste liquor and effluent from a secondary
treatment plant (Tetra Tech 1985b). These discharges from Outfall SW001
probably were the source of the resin acids found in the area around
Station 0G-01. Specific sources of the 4-methylphenol and PAH contamination
found in the area have not been identified.
153
-------
5.2.2 Problem Station SD-03
Station SD-03, located on the Snohomish River delta approximately
1,600 ft offshore of the western side of the East Waterway (see Figure 12),
contained sediments with concentrations of three chemicals exceeding HAET:
benzoic acid (X770 ug/kg), benzyl alcohol (X99 ug/kg), and DDT (23 ug/kg).
The concentration of 4-methylphenol (X760 ug/kg) in the sediment from this
station exceeded LAET (PTI and Tetra Tech 1988b).
Station SD-03 is offshore from historical Outfall WG002 (see Figure 4).
Western Gear Machinery Company, a firm that specialized in heavy equipment
and machinery for the oil drilling industry, was located along the western
side of the East Waterway. Prior to the company's move in 1988, Western
Gear discharged noncontact cooling water through Outfall WG002. No specific
sources of benzoic acid, benzyl alcohol, or DDT have been identified. The
use of DDT was severely restricted in 1973, and the contamination found at
Station SD-03 may be from past usage of the pesticide.
5.2.3 Problem Station SR-05
Station SR-05 was located in the Snohomish River, offshore of the
Weyerhaeuser Kraft Mill (see Figures 2 and 12). Benzoic acid (1,000 ug/kg)
and 4-methylphenol (2,000 ug/kg) exceeded HAET at this station. The
4-methylphenol concentration at adjacent Station SR-04 (980 ug/kg) exceeded
the LAET. A number of resin acids were detected at Station SR-05, including
DHA and abietic acid. Concentrations of these resin acids decreased moving
upriver from Station SR-05 to SR-03, and were roughly five times lower at
Station SR-04 than at Station SR-05 (PTI and Tetra Tech 1988b).
Station SR-05 was located close to several of Weyerhaueser's discharge
outfalls (see Figure 2). Outfall WK004, which is upstream of Station SR-05,
discharges backwash from the plant's water filtration system. Outfall
WK002, slightly downstream of SR-05, discharges noncontact cooling water
from the pulp mill. Outfall WK005, on the other side of the Snohomish River
and slightly downstream of SR-05, discharges surface water runoff from Smith
Island. Weyerhaueser pumps all the wastewater from pulping operations, as
154
-------
well as stormwater runoff from the mill area, into an aerated lagoon system
on Smith Island. Effluent from these lagoons is discharged to Steamboat
Slough through Outfall WK001, located on the northwestern side of Smith
Island (Tetra Tech 1985b). Because of the distance involved, Outfall WK001
was probably not a major contributor to the contamination at Station SR-05.
Few data are available on the specific chemicals found in the other
discharges. Weyerhaueser reported in its 1983 permit application that
cresol (a methyl phenol) would be present in effluent from all the outfalls
(Tetra Tech 1985b). Specific sources of benzoic acid in the area have not
been identified.
5.2.4 Problem Station ES-03
Station ES-03 was located in Ebey Slough, just southeast of the mouth
of Quilceda Creek (see Figure 12). Benzoic acid (E760 ug/kg) and 4-methyl-
phenol (1,400 ug/kg) concentrations exceeded HAET at this station. Phenol
(Z1,200 ug/kg) exceeded the LAET concentration at Station ES-03. Concentra-
tions of benzoic acid and 4-methylphenol at Station ES-02 (upriver) were at
least 30 times lower than at Station ES-03 (PTI and Tetra Tech 1988b).
A potential source of the benzoic acid and phenol observed at Station
ES-03 may have been the Tulalip landfill (see Figure 2). The landfill is
located in an estuarine-tidal action area. Normal tidal action submerges
at least part of the site, and would thus allow leachate to be released to
the offshore environment. In the past, benzoic acid and phenol have been
detected in leachate samples from the landfill (Ecology & Environment
1984).
The 4-methylphenol contamination at Station ES-03 may be associated
with the various wood waste and treating facilities throughout the Snohomish
River and its sloughs. Buse Timber, located on Union Slough, and the
Weyerhaeuser Kraft mill outfall (WK001) on Steamboat Slough, are the nearest
wood products facilities to Station ES-03 (see Figure 2). However, sediments
collected from Stations SS-03, SS-04, and SS-05 in Steamboat Slough,
immediately offshore of Outfall WK001 (see Figures 2 and 10), contained
4-methylphenol at concentrations (17-1,100 ug/kg) lower than those observed
155
-------
at Station ES-03, which suggests a source of 4-methylphenol closer to
Station ES-03 than Outfall WK001. Such a source has not been identified.
Outfall WK001 discharges effluent from the treatment lagoon on Smith Island,
which contains wastes from the mill's pulping operations (Tetra Tech 1985b).
5.2.5 Problem Station SR-07
Station SR-07, located near the Everett Marina in the Snohomish River,
north of the East Waterway (see Figure 12), was designated as a problem
station based upon benthic effects that exceeded action level guidelines; no
AET concentrations were exceeded at this station. However, tributyltin
(TBT) was measured in the sediments from this station at a concentration of
0.093 mg/kg, which is 15 times greater than the concentration of TBT
(0.006 mg/kg) measured in the single reference sediment that was collected.
The sediments from Station SR-07 also contained a high concentration of
sulfides (300 mg/kg) and were very fine-grained, consisting of 96 percent
fine-grained material (PTI and Tetra Tech 1988b).
Tributyltin is used in marine antifouling paints as a biocide (Grovhoug
et al. 1987). TBT found at Station SR-07 may have originated with the boat
painting and refinishing activities that take place in the marina area.
Specific sources of sulfides in the area have not been identified.
5.2.6 Problem Station SD-01
Sediments from Station SD-01, which was located on the Snohomish River
delta (see Figure 12), did not contain any chemicals at concentrations
exceeding any AET. It was designated a problem station based on benthic
effects that exceeded action level guidelines. Physical characteristics of
this station include sandy sediments (12 percent gravel and less than
5 percent fine-grained material), low total organic carbon content, low
sulfide content, and swift currents. EAR for Everett Harbor problem
chemicals did not exceed 4 at this station. These data contradict the
identification of this site as a potential problem area. The biological
effects observed at this station may be the results of stresses imposed by
156
-------
the physical environment rather than chemical contamination (PTI and Tetra
Tech 1988b).
157
-------
6.0 SUMMARY
The data for various potential sources of contamination in the Everett
Harbor project area were evaluated in an attempt to link specific contaminant
sources (e.g., drains, groundwater, waterfront land-use activities) to the
two problem areas and six problem stations identified in PTI and Tetra Tech
(1988b). The two CSOs and one storm drain that were sampled for sediment
analysis during this study were compared to one another based on the problem
chemicals identified in the drain sediments. The three monitoring wells
that were sampled for groundwater analysis were also evaluated for chemical
contamination, using U.S. EPA Freshwater Quality Criteria as a general
description of acceptable water quality. Because of the small number of
samples taken, onshore sources were not ranked to establish priorities for
further investigation.
In a few cases, it was possible to associate specific sources of
contamination to the problem areas or problem stations offshore. The
sediments in CSO E011 have probably contributed to the 4-methylphenol and
LPAH contamination observed at offshore Station EW-04. Stormwater in CSOs
E008 and E009 has probably contributed to metals contamination in the East
Waterway. The resin acids observed near Station 0G-01 may have been
discharged from Outfall SW001. Leachate from the Tulalip landfill may have
contributed to the benzoic acid and phenol contamination at Station ES-03.
The tributyl tin observed in the sediments at Station SR-07 may have
originated with the boat painting and refinishing activities that take place
in the Everett Marina.
In many cases, no specific sources of the problem chemicals found in
offshore sediments could be identified because of a lack of chemical data
pertaining to nearby potential sources. To more thoroughly identify
specific sources of contamination, further investigation in the project area
is needed. Additional sediment and water samples need to be collected from
158
-------
CSOs, storm drains, natural drainages (e.g., creeks), and industrial
discharges in the project area.
Additional sediment and water samples from CSOs are needed because of
the complexity of the CSO system. The many overflow weirs, regulators, and
pumping stations make it difficult to identify sources of specific chemicals
within a drainage basin. A monitoring approach similar to the one proposed
in Tetra Tech (1988a), combined with information on the activities and
practices of industries within the drainage basins, would make it possible
to screen drainage basins for chemical contamination and trace a contaminant
to its ultimate source.
Sediment and water samples from city and private storm drains are
needed because a large number of these drains near problem stations have
not been characterized. Sediment and water samples from area creeks are
needed because some of these natural drainages serve industrialized areas
and have not been investigated. Further characterization of the effluents
being discharged from the local industrial facilities, particularly those
involved with pulping activities, would help define the contamination caused
by historical rather than ongoing activities.
Results from a U.S. EPA field investigation of the Tulalip landfill
were published in July 1988 but were not made available to the public in
time for inclusion in this document. Results from an Ecology study of Paine
Field and its drainages are expected to be published in October 1988
(Johnson, A., 16 August 1988, personal communication). In addition, the
City of Everett continues to monitor both water quality and quantity in
selected CSOs during rainfall events. These data will help determine
potential sources of contamination in the project area, while the sampling
discussed above will be needed to eliminate the remaining data gaps. The
need for this additional sampling should be taken into account when revising
the Everett Harbor Action Plan.
159
-------
REFERENCES
Adams, J. 23 May 1988. Personal Communication (phone by Ms. Sharon
Steele, Tetra Tech, Inc., Bellevue, WA). Mukilteo City Engineer, Mukilteo,
WA.
Analytical Resources. 1987. Organics analysis data sheet (dated 2 September
1987). Prepared for Washington Department of Ecology, Redmond, WA.
Analytical Resources, Inc., Seattle, WA.
Anderson, J.W. and E.A. Crecelius. 1985. Analysis of sediments and soils
for chemical contamination for the design of U.S. Navy Homeport facility at
East Waterway of Everett Harbor, Washington. Final Report. Prepared for
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle, WA. Battelle Pacific Northwest
Division, Marine Research Laboratory, Sequim, WA. 35 pp.
Anderson, J. 9 June 1988. Personal Communication (phone by Mr. Robert
Storer, Tetra Tech, Inc., Bellevue, WA). Puget Sound Air Pollution Control
Agency, Seattle, WA.
Archer, S. 9 September 1983. Personal Communication (letter to Mr. Bruce
Johnson, Washington Department of Ecology, concerning resin acids analysis
and conventional pollutant data). Scott Paper Company, Everett, WA.
Arden, H. 8 June 1988. Personal Communication (phone by Mr. Robert
Storer, Tetra Tech, Inc., Bellevue, WA). U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
Seattle, WA.
Bailey, A. 7 November 1985. Personal Communication (letter to Dr. Robert
Pastorok, concerning a summary of additional priority-pollutant organic
analyses). Scott Paper Company, Everett, WA.
Baird, C. 23 May 1988. Personal Communication (phone by Mr. Robert
Storer, Tetra Tech, Inc., Bellevue, WA). Senior Wastewater Treatment Plant
Operator, Public Works Department, Everett, WA.
Battelle Northwest. 1986. Reconnaissance survey of eight bays in Puget
Sound. Volumes I & II. Final Report. Prepared for the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency Region X. Battelle Pacific Northwest Division, Marine
Research Laboratory, Sequim, WA.
Bechtel, T. 19 July 1985. Personal Communication (letter to Mr. Bruce
Johnson, Washington Department of Ecology, concerning priority-pollutant
metals analyses). Scott Paper Company, Everett, WA.
Bechtel, T. 1 July 1988. Personal Communication (phone by Ms. Sharon
Steele, Tetra Tech, Inc., Bellevue, WA, concerning Scott water flow system).
Scott Paper Company, Everett, WA.
160
-------
Burch, W.M. 1 September 1987. Personal Communication (memo to Mr. Ron
Kreizenbeck, Director of Office of Policy and Program Management regarding
OTS Support to PSEP: Source Identification). U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances, Washington, DC.
Carrell, B. 5 March 1987. Personal Communication (memorandum to
Mr. L. Ashley, Washington Department of Ecology, concerning PCB analyses).
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region X, Manchester Environmental
Laboratory, Manchester, WA.
~
Carrell, B. 24 November 1987. Personal Communication (laboratory analysis
report concerning pesticide/PCB analysis) U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency Region X, Manchester Environmental Laboratory, Manchester, WA.
CH2M HILL. 1980. Lower Snohomish Basin 201 facilities plan. North end
drainages sub-basin map. Technical Appendix F. Prepared for the City of
Everett. CH2M HILL, Bellevue, WA.
Chapman, P.M., R.N. Dexter, J. Morgan, R. Fink, D. Mitchell, R.M. Kocan, and
M.L. Landolt. 1984. Survey of biological effects of toxicants upon Puget
Sound biota - III. Tests in Everett Harbor, Samish and Bellingham Bays.
NOAA Technical Memorandum NOS 0MS2, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, Rockville, MD. 48 pp.
Crecelius, E.A., N.S. Bloom, and J.M. Gurtisen. 1984. Distribution of
contaminants in sediment cores and muds, balance of contaminants discharged
to East Waterway and Port Gardner, Everett, Washington. Draft Report.
Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region X and U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers. Battelle Northwest, Sequim, WA.
Culp Wesner and Culp-Henningson, Durham and Richardson (CWC-HDR) and Ott
Water Engineers. 1987. Combined sewer overflow control plan. Final Report
and Appendix. Prepared for the City of Everett, Public Works Department,
Everett, WA.
Dawson, L. 15 March 1988. Personal Communication (letter to Mr. David
Wright, Washington Department of Ecology, concerning heavy metals monitoring
results). John Fluke Mfg. Co., Inc., Everett, WA.
Determan, T.A. 1987. The effect of the Everett wastewater treatment plant
on water quality in the Snohomish River estuary. Washington Department of
Ecology, Water Quality Investigations Section, Olympia, WA.
Ecology and Environment. 1984. Preliminary site inspection report of
Tulalip landfill. TDD R10-8408-10. Prepared for U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency Region X, Seattle, WA. Ecology & Environment, Inc.
Seattle, WA.
Ecology and Environment. 1988. Site inspection report for City of Everett
landfill, Everett, WA. TDD F10-8704-04. Prepared for U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency Region X, Field Operations and Technical Support Branch.
Ecology & Environment, Inc., Seattle, WA. 23 pp. + appendices.
161
-------
Everett, City of. 1982. Coastal zone management study. City of Everett,
Planning Department, Everett, WA. pp. 30-44.
Everett, City of. 1988. Discharge monitoring reports for April 1987
through April 1988. City of Everett, Everett, WA.
Gregoire, D. 1 June 1988. Personal Communication (informational material
received at work group meeting for Everett Harbor by Mr. Robert Storer,
Tetra Tech, Inc.) Port of Everett, Everett, WA.
Galvin, D.V., and R.K. Moore. 1982. Toxicants in urban runoff. Metro
Toxicant Program Report No. 2. Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle,
Seattle, WA. 160 pp.
Grovhoug, J.G., R.L. Fransham, and P.F. Seligman. 1987. Butyltin compound
concentrations in selected U.S. harbor systems, a baseline assessment.
Final Report. NOSC Technical Report 1155. Naval Ocean Systems Center,
San Diego, CA. 201 pp. + appendices.
Hubbard, T., and T. Sample. 1988. Sources of toxicants in storm drains,
control measures, and remedial actions. Paper presented at the First Annual
Meeting on Puget Sound Research held 18 and 19 March 1988, co-sponsored by
Puget Sound Water Quality Management Authority. Municipality of Metropolitan
Seattle, Seattle, WA.
Hughes, J. 15 June 1988. Personal Communication (phone by Ms. Lynne
Kilpatrick-Howard, Tetra Tech, Inc., Bellevue, WA). National Climatic Data
Center, Asheville, NC.
Huntamer, D. 1985. Analyses of Everett tire fire soil and water samples,
Everett, Snohomish County. Washington Department of Ecology, Olympia, WA.
Hutzinger, 0., S. Safe, and V. Zitko. 1974. The chemistry of PCBs.
CRC Press, Cleveland, OH. 269 pp.
John Fluke Mfg. Co. 1981. NPDES permit for Seaway Boulevard location.
John Fluke Mfg. Co., Inc., Everett, WA.
John Fluke Mfg. Co. 1985. NPDES permit for Evergreen Way location. John
Fluke Mfg. Co., Inc., Everett, WA.
Johnson, A. 16 August 1988. Personal Communication (phone by Mr. Robert
Storer, Tetra Tech, Inc., Bellevue, WA). Washington Department of Ecology,
Olympia, WA.
Johnson, B. 9 August 1983. Personal Communication (letter to Mr. Timothy
Bechtel, Scott Paper Company, Everett, concerning resin acid analyses of
pulp mill effluent). Washington Department of Ecology, Olympia, WA.
Kerwin, J. 7 September 1988. Personal Communication (phone by Mr. Robert
Storer, Tetra Tech, Inc., Bellevue, WA). City of Everett, Pretreatment
Program, Everett, WA.
162
-------
Kjosness, D. 1 August 1988. Personal Communication (phone to Dr. Lawrence
McCrone, Office of Puget Sound, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
regarding Ecology chemical data for various effluent streams in the Everett
Harbor area). Washington Department of Ecology, Lacey, WA.
Kohkoku (USA). 1984. NPDES permit. Kohkoku (USA), Inc., Everett, WA.
Laucks Testing Laboratories. 1987. Certificate Laboratory No. 1813 (dated
30 January 1987). Laucks Testing Laboratories, Inc., Seattle, WA.
Lee, M.L., G.P. Prado, J.B. Howard, and R.A. Hites. 1977. Source identifi-
cation of urban airborne polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons by gas chroma-
tographic mass spectrometry and high resolution mass spectrometry. Biomed.
Mass Spectrom. 4(3):182-186.
Linch, Lt. Commander. 14 June 1988. Personal Communication (phone by
Mr. Robert Storer, Tetra Tech, Inc., Bellevue, WA). U.S. Coast Guard,
Seattle, WA.
Malins, D.C., B.B. McCain, D.W. Brown, A.K. Sparks, H.O. Hodgins, and
S.L. Chan. 1982. Chemical contaminants and abnormalities in fish and inver-
tebrates from Puget Sound. NOAA Technical Memorandum 0MPA-19. National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Rockville, MD.
Malins, D.C., M.M. Krahn, D.W. Brown, L.D. Rhodes, M.S. Myers, B.B. McCain,
and S.L. Chan. 1985. Toxic chemicals in marine sediment and biota from
Mukilteo, Washington: relationships with hepatic neoplasms and other
hepatic lesions in English sole (Parophrvs vetulus). J. Natl. Cancer Inst.
74:487-494.
Marysville, City of. 1988. 1983 municipal sewage treatment plant NPDES
Permit WA-002249-7 and 1985, 1986, 1987, 1988 discharge monitoring reports.
City of Marysville, WA.
Mathias, D. 23 May 1988. Personal Communication (letter along with data to
Mr. Robert Storer, Tetra Tech, Inc., concerning City of Everett CSO
stormwater data). City of Everett, Public Works Department, Everett, WA.
Matta, M.F. 1986. Sampling at Puget Sound area wood treaters.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region X, Seattle, WA. 6 pp.
Merck Index. 1983. 10th edition. Merck and Company, Inc., Rahway, NJ.
1,463 pp. + appendices.
Mukilteo, City of. 1988. 1986 municipal sewage plant NPDES permit
WA-002329-9 and 1987 and 1988 discharge monitoring reports. City of
Mukilteo, Mukilteo, WA.
Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle. 1985. Duwamish industrial nonpoint
source investigations. 205(j) Final Report. Municipality of Metropolitan
Seattle, Water Quality Division, Seattle, WA.
163
-------
Murdock, D. 19 June 1987. Personal Communication (memorandum to files at
Washington Department of Ecology regarding sandblasting waste at Fisherman's
Boat Shop). Washington Department of Ecology, Redmond, WA.
Murdock, D. 6 July 1988. Personal Communication (meeting with Ms. Sharon
Steele, Tetra Tech, Inc., Bellevue, WA). Washington Department of Ecology,
Redmond, WA.
01 sen, G. 20 May 1988. Personal Communication (phone by Ms. Sharon
Steele, Tetra Tech, Inc., Bellevue, WA). Maintenance Foreman, Marysville,
WA.
Paine Field Clean-up Committee. 1987-1988. Paine Field Clean-up Committee
minutes. Airport Office, Paine Field, Everett, WA.
PTI Environmental Services. 1988. Everett Harbor action program: 1988
action plan. Draft Report. Prepared for Tetra Tech, Inc. and U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency Region X. PTI Environmental Services, Bellevue, WA.
PTI Environmental Services and Tetra Tech. 1988a. Elliott Bay action
program: analysis of toxic problem areas. Draft Report. Prepared for U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency Region X, Office of Puget Sound. Tetra
Tech, Inc., Bellevue, WA. 330 pp. + appendices.
PTI Environmental Services and Tetra Tech. 1988b. Everett Harbor action
program: analysis of toxic problem areas. Draft Report. Prepared for U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency Region X. Tetra Tech, Inc., Bellevue, WA.
282 pp. + appendices.
Randall, B. 9 August 1985. Personal Communication (phone by Ms. Beth
Schmoyer, Tetra Tech, Inc., Bellevue, WA). Defense Fuel Supply Center,
Camaron Station, VA.
Reif, D. April 1987. City of Everett Class II inspection. Personal
Communication (memorandum to Mr. David Wright, Northwest Region Office).
Washington Department of Ecology, Olympia, WA. 15 pp (not seen).
Ruppert, H. 12 May 1988. Personal Communication (phone by Ms. Sharon
Steele, Tetra Tech, Inc., Bellevue, WA, concerning Weyerhaeuser discharge
monitoring reports). Weyerhaeuser Company, Everett Kraft Mill, Everett, WA.
Ruppert, H. 20 May 1988. Personal Communication (letter with attachments
to Ms. Sharon Steele, Tetra Tech, Inc., Bellevue, WA, concerning monitoring
reports and priority pollutant analyses). Weyerhaeuser Company, Everett
Kraft Mill, Everett, WA.
Ruppert, H. 3 June 1988. Personal Communication (phone by Ms. Sharon
Steele, Tetra Tech, Inc., Bellevue, WA, concerning Weyerhaeuser discharge
monitoring reports). Weyerhaeuser Company, Everett Kraft Mill, Everett, WA.
SAIC. 1985. Preliminary problem assessment of the City of Everett landfill
tire fire. 11 pp. Prepared for the City of Everett. SAIC, Bellevue, WA.
164
-------
Safioles, S. 30 June 1988. Personal Communication (phone by Ms. Sharon
Steele, Tetra Tech, Inc., Bellevue, WA, concerning Defense Fuel Support Point
ground contamination). Washington Department of Ecology, Redmond, WA.
Sample, T. 1987. Rediscovery of the lower Duwamish River estuary—solutions
to pollution by point and nonpoint source controls, pp. 2134-2140, Vol. 2.
In: Coastal Zone '87, Proceedings of the Fifth Symposium on Coastal and
Ocean Management. 0. Magoon, H. Converse, D. Miner, L. Tobin, D. Clark, and
G. Domurat (eds). American Society of Civil Engineers, New York, NY.
Scott Paper Company. 1979. Scott Paper Company Everett Plant 1979 NPDES
Permit. Scott Paper Company, Everett, WA.
Scott Paper Company. 1981. Scott Paper Company Everett Plant 1981 permit
application. Scott Paper Company, Everett, WA.
Scott Paper Company. 1988. Environmental monthly water reports, 1985-
April 1988. Scott Paper Company, Everett, WA. 40 pp.
Spadaro, P.A., 6 May 1986. Personal Communication (letter to Mr. Don
Hamilton, Port of Everett, concerning chemical and biological analyses).
Hart-Crowser & Associates, Inc., Seattle, WA.
Spencer, D. and Rodgers, W. 1987. Hydrogeologic Survey and Remedial Action
Planning TENCO Defense Fuel Support Point, Mukilteo, Washington. Earth
Consultants, Bellevue, WA.
Storer, R.A., and P.M. Arsenault. 1987. City of Everett CSO Study,
Phase II, Task 7 - Water Quality (sediment sampling). Technical Memorandum.
Ott Water Engineers, Inc.
Tetra Tech. 1985a. Commencement Bay nearshore/tideflats remedial investiga-
tion. Volumes 1 and 2. Final Report. EPA 910/9-85-134b. Prepared for the
Washington Department of Ecology and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Tetra Tech, Inc., Bellevue, WA.
Tetra Tech. 1985b. Everett Harbor action plan: initial data summaries and
problem identification. Draft Report. Prepared for U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency Region X, Office of Puget Sound. Tetra Tech, Inc.,
Bellevue, WA.
Tetra Tech. 1986a. Analytical methods for U.S. EPA priority pollutants and
301(h) pesticides in estuarine and marine sediments. Final Report.
Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Marine and
Estuary Protection, Washington, DC. Tetra Tech, Inc., Bellevue, WA.
Tetra Tech. 1986b. Everett Harbor toxics action program: field summary
report, source sampling, October 15, 16, and 29, 1986. Prepared for
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region X, Office of Puget Sound. Tetra
Tech, Inc., Bellevue, WA.
Tetra Tech. 1986c. Everett Harbor action program: review of existing
action plans. Final Report. Prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency Region X, Office of Puget Sound. Tetra Tech, Inc., Bellevue, WA.
165
-------
Tetra Tech. 1986d. Quality assurance project plan for field investigations
to support development of the Everett Harbor action plan. Prepared for the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region X. Tetra Tech, Inc., Bellevue,
WA.
Tetra Tech. 1986e. Recommended protocols for measuring selected environ-
mental variables in Puget Sound. Final Report. Prepared for the U.S. En-
vironmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Tetra
Tech, Inc., Bellevue, WA.
Tetra Tech. 1986f. Sampling and analysis design for development of Everett
Harbor action program. Draft Report. Prepared for the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency Region X. Tetra Tech, Inc., Bellevue, WA.
Tetra Tech. 1986g. User's manual for the pollutant of concern matrix.
Final Report. Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region X.
Tetra Tech, Inc., Bellevue, WA. 64 pp.
Tetra Tech. 1987. Commencement Bay nearshore/tideflats feasibility study:
development of sediment criteria. Prepared for Washington Department of
Ecology and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Tetra Tech, Inc.,
Bellevue, WA.
Tetra Tech. 1988a. Elliott Bay action program: storm drain monitoring
approach. Final Report. Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region X, Office of Puget Sound. Tetra Tech Inc., Bellevue, WA.
Tetra Tech. 1988b. Everett Harbor action program: data quality assurance
assessment. Final Report. Prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency Region X, Office of Puget Sound. Tetra Tech, Inc., Bellevue, WA.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1985. U.S. Navy Homeport facility at East
Waterway, Everett Harbor, Washington: biological and chemical analyses of
sediments. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle, WA. 15 pp.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1982. Port Gardner deep water
sediment survey. Unpublished data. U.S. EPA Region X, Seattle, WA. 18 pp.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1986. Quality criteria for water
1986. Update #2 (1 May 1987). EPA 440/5-86-001. U.S. EPA, Office of Water,
Washington, DC.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region X Lab Management System. 1987.
Sample 1 project analysis results: Fisherman's Boat Shop, Everett.
Prepared for Washington Department of Ecology, Northwest Region. U.S. EPA
Region X, Seattle, WA.
Vasconcelos, G.J. 1974a. Bacteriological results of seawater and sediment
samples taken from Ebey Slough and the barge canal passing through the
Tulalip landfill operation, 7 October 1974. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency Region X, Seattle, WA. 4 pp.
166
-------
Vasconcelos, G.J. 1974b. Bacteriological results of four grab samples
taken at the leachate and several points on the barge canal on 8 August
1974. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region X, Seattle, WA. 3 pp.
Vasconcelos, G.J. 1976. Bacteriological results of water and sediment
samples collected on 8 June 1976 from Tulalip landfill site. U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency Region X, Seattle, WA. 12 pp.
Weyerhaeuser Company. 1983. NPDES permit application. Weyerhaeuser
Company, Everett Kraft Mill, Everett, WA.
Weyerhaeuser Company. 1985. NPDES permit. Weyerhaeuser Company, Everett
Kraft Mill, Everett, WA.
Weyerhaeuser Company. 1988. Weyerhaeuser Company Everett Kraft Mill 1983
NPDES permit WA-00300-0 and 1985, 1986, 1987, and 1988 discharge monitoring
reports. Weyerhaeuser Company, Everett, WA.
Williams, J.R., H.E. Pearson, and J.D. Wilson. 1985. Streamflow statistics
and drainage-basin characteristics for the Puget Sound region, Washington.
Volume II. Eastern Puget Sound from Seattle to the Canadian Border.
U.S. Geological survey Open-File Report 84-144-B. U.S. Department of the
Interior, Tacoma, WA. 420 pp.
Williams, R. 22 March 1988. Personal Communication (phone by Mr. Robert
Storer, Tetra Tech, Inc., Bellevue, WA). U.S. Geological Survey, Tacoma, WA.
Winters, T. 16 January 1987. Personal- Communication (event log concerning
Paine Field hazardous waste inspection). Snohomish County, Safety and
Industrial Insurance Office, Everett, WA. 2 pp.
Wright, D. 1 June 1988. Personal Communication (meeting with Ms. Sharon
Steele, Tetra Tech, Inc., and Mr. Robert Storer, Tetra Tech, Inc., Bellevue,
WA to discuss Everett industries and other sources of harbor contamination).
Washington Department of Ecology, Redmond, WA.
167
-------
APPENDIX A
PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL DATA FOR
THE DRAINS AND GROUNDWATER SAMPLES COLLECTED
DURING THE EVERETT HARBOR ACTION PROGRAM SOURCE INVESTIGATION
-------
TABLES
Number Page
A-l Everett Harbor source sampling locations A-2
A-2 Concentrations of metals in Everett Harbor source samples A-3
A-3 Concentrations of volatile compounds in Everett Harbor
source samples: halogenated alkanes I A-4
A-4 Concentrations of volatile compounds in Everett Harbor
source samples: halogenated alkanes II A-5
A-5 Concentrations of volatile compounds in Everett Harbor
source samples: halogenated alkanes A-7
A-6 Concentrations of volatile compounds in Everett Harbor:
source samples: aromatic hydrocarbons A-8
A-7 Concentrations of volatile compounds in Everett Harbor
source samples: chlorinated aromatic hydrocarbons A-9
A-8 Concentrations of volatile compounds in Everett Harbor
source samples: ethers A-10
A-9 Concentrations of volatile compounds in Everett Harbor
source samples: ketones A-l1
A-10 Concentrations of volatile compounds in Everett Harbor
source samples: miscellaneous volatile compounds A-12
A-11 Concentrations of extractable organic compounds in Everett
Harbor source samples: phenols A-13
A-12 Concentrations of extractable organic compounds in Everett
Harbor source samples: substituted phenols A-14
A-13 Concentrations of extractable organic compounds in Everett
Harbor source samples: low molecular weight hydrocarbons A-15
A-14 Concentrations of extractable organic compounds in Everett
Harbor source samples: high molecular weight polyaromatic
hydrocarbons A-16
A-15 Concentrations of extractable organic compounds in Everett
Harbor source samples: chlorinated aromatic hydrocarbons A-18
A-15 Concentrations of extractable organic compounds in Everett
Harbor source samples: chlorinated aliphatic hydrocarbons A-19
A-ii
-------
A-17 Concentrations of extractable organic compounds in Everett
Harbor source samples: halogenated ethers A-20
A-18 Concentrations of extractable organic compounds in Everett
Harbor source samples: phthalates A-21
A-19 Concentrations of extractable organic compounds in Everett
Harbor source samples: miscellaneous oxygenated compounds A-22
A-20 Concentrations of extractable organic compounds in Everett
Harbor source samples: organonitrogen compounds A-23
A-21 Concentrations of extractable organic compounds in Everett
Harbor source samples: miscellaneous aromatic compounds A-25
A-22 Concentrations (ug/kg dry weight) of resin acid compounds
in Everett Harbor drain sediments A-26
A-23 Concentrations (ug/kg dry weight) of chlorinated phenols
and guaiacols in Everett Harbor drain sediments A-27
A-24 Concentrations of extractable organic compounds in Everett
Harbor source samples: group sums A-28
A-25 Concentrations (ug/kg dry weight) of tentatively identified
organic compounds in Everett Harbor drain sediments A-29
A-26 Concentrations of pesticides in Everett Harbor source
samples A-30
A-27 Concentrations of polychlorinated biphenyls in Everett
Harbor source samples A-32
A-28 Percent total solids and grain size determination in
Everett Harbor drain sediments A-33
A-iii
-------
PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL DATA FOR THE DRAINS AND GROUNDWATER
SAMPLES COLLECTED DURING EVERETT HARBOR ACTION PROGRAM
Chemical data collected in support of the Everett Harbor Action Program
during 15-29 October 1986 are presented in this appendix. Data qualifiers
were used to describe, clarify, or explain data values. A complete list of
data qualifiers used in the Everett Harbor Action Program is provided below:
¦ U = The compound or element was not detected at the detection
limit shown. Detection limits are generally defined as the
lowest measurable concentration reliably detectable by a
particular method.
¦ E = The reported concentration is an estimate. The estimated
qualifier was assigned for a variety of reasons including
exceedance of control limits for calibration, precision,
accuracy, and holding times.
¦ B = Concentration was corrected for blank contribution.
Blank contribution was greater than or equal to the sample
value, therefore reported value is the detection limit.
¦ Z = Concentration was corrected for blank contribution.
Value still exceeds the detection limit.
¦ X = This qualifier was assigned if the labeled internal
standard recovery reported by the laboratory was less than
10 percent.
¦ L = This qualifier indicates that the value is less than the
maximum shown. An "L" qualifier was applied to a group sum
because analytical detection limits for undetected compounds
were included in' the summation of representative compounds
within a chemical group.
A-l
-------
TABLE A-I. EVERETT HARBOR SOURCE SAMPLING LOCATIONS
Station Drainage
DRAIN SEDIMENT STATIONS
Location
East
Coord.
North
Coord.
E007 17110019-EW-007
E011-1 17110019* EW-OI1
E011-2 17110019-EW-011
NORT 17110019-EW-042
24 S. Bond St. CSO (E007)
Lift Station <5 CSO (E011) - Manhole 1
Lift Station >5 CSO (E011) - Manhole 2
Norton Terminal Storm Drain
1660670 359690
1661145 362230
1661350 362235
1661380 364320
Station Drainage
GROUNDiATER STATIONS
Location
East North
Coord. Coord.
MUK4 17110019-NG-004 Mukilteo defense fuel supply, near NE corner of Tank 10 1643270 350730
MUK8 17110019-NG-008 Mukilteo defense fuel supply, between Tanks 8 and 9 1642760 350495
MUK12 17110019-NG-O12 Mukilteo defense fuel supply, east of Tank 10 1643350 350740
A-2
-------
TABLE A-2. CONCENTRATIONS OF METALS IN EVERETT HARBOR SOURCE SAMPLES
DRAI
IN SEDIMENTS
(mg/kg
DRY WEIGHT)
Station
Rep
Date
Ant imony
Arsen i c
Cadm i um
Chrom i um
Copper
1 ron
E007
10/15/86
E9.48
7 . 5
0. 73
189
52.6
2.71
EO11-1
10/29/86
E16.8
2.8
0.27
163
14.4
2.33
EO11-2
10/29/86
E19.4
17.3
25.3
186
218
3. 78
NORT
10/15/86
E6.05
13.5
0.71
133
71.0
4.27
Stat i on
Rep
Date
Lead
Manganese
N i eke 1
Se1 en i um
S i1ver
Z i nc
E007
10/15/86
198
551
56.4
U0.25
0.44
217
E011-1
10/29/86
36.3
520
45.4
U0.25
0.087
137
E011-2
10/29/86
393
2680
84.0
0.93
2.93
9890
NORT
10/15/86
36. 7
660
67.2
U0.20
0.36
201
Mer cur y
EO.603
E0.039
E1 . 50
EO.233
GROUNDWATER (ug/L)
Station Rep Date Antimony Arsenic • Cadmium Chromium Copper
MUK4
1
10/16/86
2.7
3.04
0. 144
6.13
E10.2
MUK4
2F
10/16/86
4. 1
2.35
0.098
6.07
E6.69
MUK4
Mean
10/16/86
3.4
2. 70
0.121
6.10
E8.44
MUX 8
10/16/86
8.1
5.79
0.0808
7.65
E14. 7
MUK12
10/16/86
5.4
1 .00
0.0284
1 .66
CO
CM
UJ
Stat i on
Rep
Date
Lead
Nickel
SeI en ium
S i1ver
Z i nc
Mercury
MUK4
1
10/16/86
12.3
7.24
U0.97
0.0655
18.0
E0.03
MUK4
2F
10/16/86
1 .23
6.82
U0.97
0. 125
19.6
E0.004
MUK4
Mean
10/16/86
6.76
7.03
U0.97
0.0952
18.8
E0.017
MUK8
10/16/86
7.08
14.5
U0.97
0.0198
22.7
E0.0003
MUX 1 2
10/16/86
1 .83
1.21
U0.97
0.0083
3.60
E0.0008
A-3
-------
TABLE A-3. CONCENTRATIONS OF VOLATILE COMPOUNDS IN EVERETT HARBOR SOURCE SAMPLES
HALOGENATED ALKANES I
DRAIN SEDIMENTS (ug/kg DRV WEIGHT)
Station Rep
Samp I i ng
Date
chI or o-
methane
bromo-
methane
chIoro-
ethane
1 , 1-
d i -
ch I oro-
ethane
chIoro-
f orm
1,2-
<3 i -
ch I oro-
ethane
E007
10/15/86
U8
U8
U8
U4
U4
U4
E01 1-1
10/29/86
U7
U7
U7
U3
U3
U3
E011-2
10/29/86
U16
U16
U16
U8
31
U8
NORT
10/15/86
U1 5
U15
U15
U0
U8
U8
GROUNDWATER
(ug/L)
1 , 1-
1,2-
d i -
d i -
Samp 1 i ng
ch1 or o-
bromo-
ch1oro-
ch1oro-
ch1 or o-
chIoro
Stat i on
Rep
Date
methane
methane
ethane
ethane
form
ethane
MUK4
1
10/16/86
U50
U50
U50
U25
U25
U25
MUK4
2F
10/16/86
U25
U25
U25
U1 3
U1 3
U1 3
MUK4
Mean
10/16/86
U25
U25
U25
U13
U13
U13
MUK8
10/16/86
U10
U10
U10
U5
U5
U5
MUK12
10/16/86
U10
U10
U10
U5
U5
U5
A-4
-------
TABLE A-4. CONCENTRATIONS OF VOLATILE COMPOUNDS in EVERETT HARBOR SOURCE SAMPLED-
HALOGENATED ALKANES II
DRAIN SEDIMENTS (ug/kg DRY WEIGHT)
1,1,1-
bromo-
1 ,2-
d i -
1.1,2-
tr i -
car ban
d i -
d i -
bromo-
tr j -
Samp I i ng
chIoro-
tetra-
ch1oro-
ch1oro-
ch1oro-
ch 1 oro
Stat i on
Rep
Date
ethane
chlor ide
methane
propane
methane
ethane
E007
10/15/86
U4
U4
U4
U4
U4
U4
E011-1
10/29/86
U3
U3
U3
U3
U3
U3
EOI1-2
10/29/86
U8
U8
U8
U8
U8
US
NORT
10/15/86
U8
U8
U8
U8
U8
U8
1,1,2,2-
tetra-
Samp 1ing
chloro-
Stat i on
Rep
Date
bromoform
ethane
E007
10/15/86
U4
U4
E011-1
10/29/86
U3
U3
E011-2
10/29/86
U8
U8
NORT
10/15/86
U8
U8
A-5
-------
TABLE A-4. (CONTINUED)
GROUNDWATER (ug/L)
1,1,1-
bromo-
1,2-
d i -
1,1,2-
tr i -
carbon
d i -
d i -
bromo-
tr i -
Samp 1 i ng
ch1 oro-
tetra-
ch1 oro-
chI or o-
ch1oro-
ch1oro
Stat i on
Rep
Date
ethane
ch1 or ide
methane
propane
methane
ethane
MUM
1
10/16/86
U25
U25
U25
U25
U25
U25
MUM
2F
10/16/86
U13
U13
U1 3
U1 3
U13
U13
MUM
Mean
10/16/86
U13
U13
U1 3
U1 3
U13
U13
MUK8
10/16/86
U5
U5
U5
U5
U5
U5
MUK12
10/16/86
U5
U5
U5
U5
U5
U5
1 , 1,2.2-
tatra-
Samp 1 i ng
ch1oro-
Stat i on
Rep
Date
bromoform
ethane
MUM
1
10/16/86
U25
U25
MUK4
2F
10/16/86
U13
U13
MUM
Mean
10/16/86
U13
U13
MUK8
10/16/86
U5
U5
MUK 12
10/16/86
U5
U5
A-6
-------
TABLE A-5. CONCENTRATIONS OF VOLATILE COMPOUNDS IN EVERETT HARBOR SOURCE SAMPLES:
HALOGENATED ALKENES
DRAIN SEDIMENT (ug/kg DRY WEIGHT)
Stat i on
Samp 1i ng
Rep Date
vinyl
ch1 or i de
1 . 1-
d i -
ch 1 oro-
ethene
trans-
1,2-
d i -
ch1oro-
ethene
trans-
1 ,3-
d 1 -
ch1oro-
propene
c is-
1 ,3-
d i -
ch1oro-
propene
tr 1 -
ch1 or o-
ethene
te tr a-
ch1 ore
ethene
E007
10/15/86
U8
U4
U4
U4
U4
U4
El
E011-1
10/29/86
U7
U3
U3
U3
U3
U3
U3
E01 1-2
10/29/86
U16
U8
U8
U8
U8
U8
U8
NORT
10/15/86
U1 5
U8
U8
U8
U8
U8
U8
GROUNDWATER (ug/L)
trans-
trans-
c i s-
1 , 1-
1,2-
1,3-
1.3-
d i -
d i -
d i -
d i -
tr i -
tetra-
Samp 1 i ng
v i ny 1
ch1 or o-
ch1oro-
ch1oro-
ch1 oro-
ch1oro-
ch1oro-
Station
Rep
Date
ch1 or ide
ethene
ethene
propene
propene
ethene
B t hens
MUM
1
10/16/86
U50
U25
U25
U25
U25
U25
U25
MUK4
2F
10/16/86
U25
U13
U13
U13
U13
Ut 3
U1 3
MUK4
Mean
10/16/86
U25
U13
U13
U1 3
U13
U1 3
U1 3
MUK8
10/16/86
U10
U5
U5
U5
U5
U5
U5
MUK12
10/16/86
U10
U5
U5
U5
U5
U5
U5
A-7
-------
TABLE A-6. CONCENTRATIONS OF VOLATILE COMPOUNDS IN EVERETT HARBOR SOURCE SAMPLES:
AROMATIC HYDROCARBONS
DRAIN SEDIMENTS (ug/kg DRY WEIGHT)
Sampling ethyl- total
Stat ion Rep Date benzene toluene benzene styrene xylenes
E007
10/15/86
U4
U4
U4
U4
U4
EOI1-1
10/29/86
U3
U3
U3
U3
U3
EOI1-2
10/29/86
U8
U8
U0
U8
U8
NORT
10/15/86
U8
U8
U8
U8
2
GROUNDWATER
(ug/L)
Samp 1 i ng
ethy1 -
tota
Station Rep Date benzene toluene benzene styrene xylenes
MUK4
1
10/16/86
E7
U25
U25
U25
U25
MUK4
2F
10/16/86
E4
U1 3
U13
U13
U13
MUM
Mean
10/16/86
E6
U13
U13
U13
U13
MUK8
10/16/86
U5
U5
U5
U5
U5
MUK12
10/16/86
U5
U5
U5
U5
U5
A-8
-------
TABLE A-7. CONCENTRATIONS OF VOLATILE COMPOUNDS IN EVERETT HARBOR SOURCE SAMPLES:
CHLORINATEO AROMATIC HYDROCARBONS
DRAIN SEDIMENTS (ug/kg DRY WEIGHT)
Samp I i ng chIoro-
Station Rep Date benzene
E007 10/15/86 U4
EO11-1 10/29/86 U3
E011-2 10/29/86 U8
NORT 10/15/86 2
GROUNDWATER (ug/L)
Samp 1i ng
chIoro-
Stat i on
Rep
Date
benzene
MUK4
1
10/16/86
U25
MUK4
2F
10/16/86
U1 3
MUK4
Mean
10/16/86
U1 3
MUK8
10/16/86
U5
MUK12
10/16/86
U5
A-9
-------
TABLE A-8. CONCENTRATIONS OF VOLATILE COMPOUNDS IN EVERETT HARBOR SOURCE SAMPLES:
ETHERS
DRAIN SEDIMENTS (ug/kg DRY WEIGHT)
2-
ch1 or o-
ethy1 -
Samp 1 1ng
vinyl-
Station Rep
Date
ether
E007
10/15/86
U8
E011-1
10/29/86
U7
E011-2
10/29/86
U1 6
NORT
10/15/86
U1 5
GROUNDWATER (ug/L)
2-
ch1oro-
ethy1 -
Samp 1 i ng
v i ny 1 -
Stat i on
Rep
Date
ether
MUK4
1
10/16/86
U50
MUK4
2F
10/16/86
U25
MUM
Mean
10/16/86
U25
MUK8
10/16/86
U10
MUK12
10/16/86
U10
A-10
-------
TABLE A-9. CONCENTRATIONS OF VOLATILE COMPOUNDS IN EVERETT HARBOR SOURCE SAMPLES
KETONES
DRAIN SEDIMENTS (ug/kg DRY WEIGHT)
4-
methyI-
2-
Sampling 2- 2- penta-
Station Rep Date acetone butanone hexanone none
E007
10/15/86
U8
U8
U8
U8
EOI1-1
10/29/86
U10
U7
U7
U7
E011-2
10/29/86
U10
U1 6
U16
U16
NORT
10/15/86
U15
U1 5
U15
U1 5
GROUNDWATER (ug/L)
4-
methyI -
2-
Sampling 2- 2- penta-
Station Rep Date acetone butanone hexanone none
MUK4
1
10/16/86
U50
U50
U50
U50
MUK4
2F
10/16/86
U25
U25
U25
U25
MUK4
Mean
10/16/86
U25
U25
U25
U25
MUK8
10/16/86
U10
U1 0
U10
U10
MUK12
10/16/86
U10
U10
U10
U10
-------
TABLE A-10. CONCENTRATIONS OF VOLATILE COMPOUNDS IN EVERETT HARBOR SOURCE
SAMPLES: MISCELLANEOUS VOLATILE COMPOUNDS
DRAIN SEDIMENTS (ug/kg DRY WEIGHT)
carbon
Samp I i ng d i- vinyI
Station Rep Date sulfide acetate
E007
10/15/86
U4
U8
E01 1-1
10/29/86
U3
U7
EO11-2
10/29/86
U8
U16
NORT
10/15/86
U8
U1 5
Samp Ii ng
Station Rep Date
GROUNDWATER (ug/L)
carbon
d i- v i nyI
suIf ide acetate
MUK4
1
10/16/86
U25
U50
MUM
2F
10/16/86
U1 3
U25
MUM
Mean
10/16/86
U1 3
U25
MUK8
10/16/86
U5
U10
MUK12
10/16/86
U5
UIO
A-12
-------
TABLE A-11. CONCENTRATIONS OF EXTRACTABLE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS IN EVERETT HARBOR
SOURCE SAMPLES: PHENOLS
DRAIN SEDIMENTS (ug/kg DRY WEIGHT)
2-
4-
2,4-d i
Samp 1 1ng
methy1 -
me thy 1 -
me thy 1
Station Rep
Date
pheno1
pheno1
pheno1
pheno1
E007
10/15/86
19
U20
31
U10
E011-1
10/29/86
Z120
U200
3300
U50
E01 1-2
10/29/86
U50
U200
48
U50
NORT
10/15/86
6
U200
43
U50
GROUNDWATER (ug/L)
2-
4-
2,4-d i-
Samp 1 i ng
methy1 -
methy1 -
methy1 -
Stat i on
Rep
Date
pheno1
pheno1
pheno1
pheno1
MUK4
1
10/16/86
UIO
UIO
UIO
UIO
MUK4
2F
10/16/86
U10
U10
UIO
UIO
MUK4
Mean
10/16/86
UIO
U10
UIO
UIO
MUK8
10/16/86
UIO
UIO
UIO
UIO
MUK12
10/16/86
UIO
UIO
UIO
UIO
A-13
-------
TABLE A-12. CONCENTRATIONS OF EXTRACTABLE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS IN EVERETT HARBOR
SOURCE SAMPLES: SUBSTITUTED PHENOLS
DRAIN SEDIMENTS (ug/kg DRY WEIGHT)
4,6-
2-
2,4-
d i nItro-
4-
4-ch1 oro-
Samp 1 i ng
n i tro-
d i n i tro-
2-methyI -
n i tro-
3-methy1 -
Station
Rep
Date
pheno1
pheno1
phenoI
pheno1
pheno1
E007
10/15/86
U50
U50
U100
U50
U50
E011-1
10/29/86
U50
U50
U100
U50
U50
E011-2
10/29/86
U50
U50
U100
U50
U50
NORT
10/15/86
U50
U50
U100
U50
U50
GROUNDWATER
(ug/L)
1
CD
**
CM
2,4,5-
2-
2,4-di-
4-chIoro-
tr i -
tr i -
penta-
Sampl ing
ch1oro
chloro-
3-methy1 -
ch 1 oro-
chloro-
ch1oro
Stat i on
Rep
Date
pheno1
pheno1
pheno1
pheno1
pheno1
pheno1
MUM
1
10/16/86
U10
U10
U10
U10
U50
U50
MUM
2F
10/16/86
U10
U10
U10
U10
U50
U50
MUM
Mean
10/16/86
U10
U10
U10
U10
U50
U50
MUK8
10/16/86
U10
U10
U10
U10
U50
U50
MUK12
10/16/86
U10
U10
U10
U10
U50
U50
4,6-
2-
2,4-
d i n i tro-
4-
Sampl ing
n i tro-
dinitro-
2-methy1 -
n i tro-
Stat i on
Rep
Date
pheno1
phenoI
pheno1
pheno1
MUM
1
10/16/86
U10
U50
U50
U50
MUM
2F
10/16/86
U10
U50
U50
U50
MUM
Mean
10/16/86
U10
U50
U50
U50
MUK8
10/16/86
U10
U50
U50
U50
MUK12
10/16/86
U10
U50
U50
U50
A-14
-------
TABLE A-13. CONCENTRATIONS OF EXTRACTABLE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS IN EVERETT HARBOR
SOURCE SAMPLES: LOW MOLECULAR WEIGHT HYDROCARBONS
DRAIN SEDI
MENTS (ug/kg DRY WEI
GHT)
ace-
Samp 1 i ng
naphtha-
naphthy-
acenaph-
phenan-
anthra
Station
Rep
Date
1 ene
1 ene
thene
f1uorene
thr ene
cene
E007
10/15/86
Z140
64
230
170
810
400
E01 1-1
10/29/86
21600
190
1500
1 100
2600
1200
E011-2
10/29/86
Z3100
770
84
130
1500
240
NORT
10/15/86
21 1
U10
U10
U10
12
3
GROUNDWATER
(ug/L)
ace-
Samp 1 i ng
naphtha-
naphthy-
acenaph-
phenan-
anthra
Stat i on
Rep
Date
1 ene
1 ene
thene
f I uorene
threne
cene
MUM
1
10/16/86
U10
U10
30
26
27
E4
MUM
2F
10/16/86
U10
U10
21
15
11
E2
MUM
Mean
10/16/86
U10
U10
26
20
19
E3
MUK8
10/16/86
U10
U10
U10
U10
U10
U10
MUK12
10/16/86
U10
U10
U10
U10
U10
U10
A-15
-------
TABLE A-U. CONCENTRATIONS OF EXTRACTABLE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS IN EVERETT HARBOR
SOURCE SAMPLES: HIGH MOLECULAR WEIGHT POLYAROMATIC HYDROCARBONS
DRAIN SEDIMENTS (ug/kg DRY WEIGHT)
Stat i on
Rep
Samp 1 i ng
Date
. fIuor-
anthene
pyrene
benzo-
(a>-
anthra-
cene
chr ysene
benzo-
(a) -
pyrene
i ndei
(1,2
cd) -
pyr e
E007
10/15/86
940
Z930
450
730
570
390
E011-1
10/29/86
4600
Z5000
960
1100
540
270
E011-2
10/29/86
1300
Z1 100
270
420
220
170
NORT
10/15/86
12
BIO
4
8
5
4
d i -
benzo-
benzo-
(a,h) -
benzo-
(B+K)
Samp 1 i ng
anthra-
(g,h, i)-
f 1 uoran-
Stat i on
Rep
Date
cene
pery1ene
thenes
E007
E011-1
E011-2
NORT
10/15/86
10/29/86
10/29/86
10/15/86
110
79
42
10
390
320
210
5
E990
E1000
E550
E9
A-16
-------
TABLE A-14. (CONTINUED)
GROUNDWATER (ug/L)
benzo- indeno-
(a)- benzo- (1,2,3-
Stat i on
Rep
Samp 1 i ng
Date
fIuor-
anthene
pyrene
anthra-
cene
chrysene
(a)-
pyrene
cd) -
pyrene
MUK4
MUK4
MUK4
MUK8
MUK12
1
2F
Mean
10/16/86
10/16/86
10/16/86
10/16/86
10/16/86
16
10
13
U10
U10
12
E7
E1 0
U10
U10
UIO
E2
E2
U10
U10
UIO
E2
E2
UIO
UIO
U10
2
2
U10
U10
UIO
UIO
UIO
UIO
UIO
Stat ion
Rep
Samp 1 i ng
Date
d i -
benzo-
(a,h) -
anthra-
cene
ben2o-
(g,h, i)-
peryIene
benzo-
(B+K)
fIuoran-
thenes
MUK4
MUK4
MUK4
MUK8
MUK12
1
2F
Mean
10/16/86
10/16/86
10/16/86
10/16/86
10/16/86
U10
U10
U10
U10
UIO
UIO
U10
UIO
UIO
UIO
UIO
E2
E2
U10
U10
A-17
-------
TABLE A-15. CONCENTRATIONS OF EXTRACTABLE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS IN EVERETT HARBOR
SOURCE SAMPLES: CHLORINATED AROMATIC HYDROCARBONS
DRAIN SEDIMENTS (ug/kg DRV WEIGHT)
1,2,4-
1,3-
1,4-
1 ,2-
tr i -
2-ch1oro-
hexa-
Sampl1ng
d i ch1 oro-
d i ch1oro
- d i ch1oro-
ch1 or o-
naphtha-
ch1oro-
Stat i on
Rep
Date
benzene
benzene
benzene
benzene
1 ene
benzene
E007
10/15/86
5
51
42
U10
U50
U20
E011-1
10/29/86
U500
X92
U500
U200
U50
U50
E011-2
10/29/86
X65
X190
U50
U10
U50
U50
NORT
10/15/86
U10
10
U10
U200
U50
U50
GROUNDWATER
(ug/L)
1,2,4-
1.3-
1,4-
1 ,2-
tr i-
2-ch1oro-
hexa-
Samp 1 1ng
d i ch1oro-
d i ch1oro
- dichloro-
ch1oro-
naphtha-
ch1 oro-
Stat i on
Rep
Date
benzene
benzene
benzene
benzene
1 ene
benzene
MUM
1
10/16/86
U10
U10
U10
U10
U10
U10
MUM
2F
10/16/86
U10
U10
U10
U10
U10
U10
MUM
Mean
10/16/86
U10
U10
U10
U10
U10
U10
MUK8
10/16/86
U10
U10
U10
U10
U10
U10
MUK12
10/16/86
U10
U10
U10
U10
U10
U10
A-18
-------
TABLE A-16. CONCENTRATIONS OF EXTRACTABLE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS IN EVERETT HARBOR
SOURCE SAMPLES: CHLORINATED ALIPHATIC HYDROCARBONS
DRAIN SEDIMENTS (ug/kg DRY WEIGHT)
hexa-
Station Rep
Sampl i ng
Date
hexa-
ch1oro-
ethane
hexa-
ch1oro-
butadi ene
chIoro
eye Io-
penta-
d i ene
E007
10/15/86
U20
U20
U200
E01 1-1
10/29/86
U20
U50
U200
E011-2
10/29/86
U20
U50
U200
NORT
10/15/86
U20
U10
U200
GROUNDWATER (ug/L)
Station Rep
Samp I i ng
Date
hexa-
chIoro-
hexa- hexa- cyclo-
chloro- chloro- penta-
ethane butadiene diene
MUK4
MUK4
MUK4
MUK8
MUK12
1
2F
Mean
10/16/86
10/16/86
10/16/86
10/16/86
10/16/86
U10
U10
U10
U10
U10
U10
U10
U10
U10
U10
U10
U10
U10
U10
U10
A-19
-------
TABLE A-17. CONCENTRATIONS OF EXTRACTABLE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS IN EVERETT HARBOR
SOURCE SAMPLES: HALOGENATED ETHERS
DRAIN SEDIMENTS (ug/kg DRY WEIGHT)
b i s(2-
b i s(2-
b is(2-
4-ch1 or o-
4-bromo
ch1oro-
ch1oro-
ch1oro-
pheny1 -
pheny1 -
Samp 1 i ng
ethy1)
i sopropy1
) ethoxy)
phenyl -
pheny1 -
Station Rep
Date
ether
ether
methane
ether
ether
E007
10/15/86
U20
U10
U10
U10
U10
E011-1
10/29/86
U20
U10
U10
U10
U10
E011-2
10/29/86
U20
U10
U10
U10
U10
NORT
10/15/86
U20
U10
U10
U10
U10
GROUNDWATER (ug/L)
b i s (2-
b is(2-
bis(2-
4-ch1oro-
4-bromo-
ch1 or o-
chIoro-
ch1oro-
pheny1 -
pheny1 -
Samp I i ng
ethy 1)
i sopropyI
1) ethoxy)
pheny1 -
phenyl -
Stat i on
Rep
Date
ether
ether
methane
ether
ether
MUM
1
10/16/86
U10
U10
U10
U10
U10
MUK4
2F
10/16/86
U10
U10
U10
U10
U10
MUK4
Mean
10/16/86
U10
U10
U10
U10
U10
MUK8
10/16/86
U10
U10
U10
U10
U10
MUX 12
10/16/86
U10
U10
U10
U10
U10
A-20
-------
TABLE A-18. CONCENTRATIONS OF EXTRACTABLE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS IN EVERETT HARBOR
SOURCE SAMPLES: PHTHALATES
DRAIN SEDIMENTS (ug/kg DRY WEIGHT)
b is-
d i -
d i -
d i -n-
buty1 -
(2-ethy1 -
d i -n-
Samp 1 i ng methy1 -
ethy1 -
buty1 -
benzyl -
hexy1 -
octy I -
Stat i on
Rep Date phthalate
phtha1 ate
phtha1 ate
phtha1 ate
phtha1 ate
PhthalatP
E007
10/15/86 U10
U10
Z96
160
Z650
Z48
E011-1
10/29/86 U10
U10
U10
U10
Z1 1 00
U10
EOI1-2
10/29/86 250
U10
2740
180
Z430
842
NORT
10/15/86 U10
U10
BIO
13
Z39
U10
GROUNDWATER (ug/L)
b is-
d i-
di-
d 1 -n-
buty1 -
(2-ethy1 -
d 1 -n-
Sampli ng
methy1 -
ethy1 -
buty1 -
benzy1 -
hexy1 -
octy 1
Stat i on
Rep
Date
phtha1 ate
phtha1 ate
phtha1 ate
phtha1 ate
phthalate phtha
MUK4
1
10/16/86
U10
U10
U10
U10
U10
U10
MUK4
2F
10/16/86
U10
U10
U10
U10
U10
U10
MUK4
Mean
10/16/86
U10
U10
U10
U10
U10
U10
MUK8
10/16/86
U10
U10
U10
U10
U10
U10
MUK12
10/16/86
U10
U10
U10
U10
U10
U10
A-21
-------
TABLE A-19. CONCENTRATIONS OF EXTRACTABLE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS IN EVERETT HARBOR
SOURCE SAMPLES: MISCELLANEOUS OXYGENATED COMPOUNDS
DRAIN SEDIMENTS (ug/kg DRY WEIGHT)
Station Rep
Samp I i ng
Date
i so-
phorone
benzyI
a I coho I
benzo i c
ac i d
d i benzo-
furan
E007
EO11-1
E011-2
NORT
10/15/06
10/29/86
10/29/86
10/15/86
U50
U50
U50
U50
U20
U200
U200
U200
400
2400
U800
E6
170
1300
680
3
GROUNDWATER
(ug/L)
Samp Ii ng
i so-
benzy1
benzo i c
d I bei
Stat i on
Rep
Date
phorone
alcohol
ac id
furai
MUK4
I
10/16/86
U10
U10
U50
17
MUM
2F
10/16/86
U10
U10
U50
11
MUK4
Mean
10/16/86
U10
U10
U50
14
MUK8
10/16/86
U10
U10
U50
U10
MUK12
10/16/86
U10
U10
U50
U10
A-22
-------
TABLE A-20. CONCENTRATIONS OF EXTRACTA8LE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS IN EVERETT HARBOR
SOURCE SAMPLES: ORGANONITROGEN COMPOUNDS
DRAIN SEDIMENTS (ug/kg DRY WEIGHT)
Station Rep
E007
EOI1-1
E01 1-2
NORT
Sampli ng n i tro-
Date benzene
n-
n i troso-
d i -n-
propyI -
am i ne
4-
chIoro-
anI I i ne
2-
chIoro-
an iI i ne
3-
chIoro-
an i I i ne
4-n i tro-
aniI i ne
10/15/86 U10 U10
10/29/86 U10 U10
10/29/86 U10 U10
10/15/86 U10 U10
U10
U10
U10
U10
U10
U10
U10
U10
U50
U50
U50
U50
U100
U100
U100
U100
Station Rep
2,6-
SampIi ng d i n i tro-
Date
to Iuene
2,4-
d i n i tro-
toIuene
n-
n i troso-
d i -
phenyI -
ami ne
3,3'd i-
chIoro-
benz i d i ne
E007
E011-1
EOI1-2
NORT
10/15/86 U10 U10
10/29/86 U10 U10
10/29/86 U10 U10
10/15/86 U10 U10
40
U50
U10
U50
180
U50
23
U50
A-23
-------
TABLE A-20. (CONTINUED)
GROUNDWATER (ug/L)
Station Rep
Samp I i ng n itro-
Date benzene
n-
n i troso-
d i -n-
propyI -
ami ne
4-
chIoro-
an iI i ne
2-
chIoro-
an i I i ne
3-
chIoro-
an iI i ne
4-n i tro-
an iI i ne
MUM 1 10/16/86 U10 U10 U10 U50 U50 U50
MUM 2F 10/16/86 U10 U10 U10 U50 U50 U50
MUM Mean 10/16/86 U10 U10 U10 U50 U50 U50
MUK8 10/16/86 U10 U10 U10 U50 U50 U50
MUK12 10/16/86 U10 U10 U10 U50 U50 U50
n-
Stat i on
Rep
Samp 1 i ng
Date
2,6-
d i n i tro-
to1uene
2,4-
d i n i tro-
to1uene
n i troso-
d i -
pheny1 -
ami ne
3,3'di-
ch1oro-
benz id i ne
MUM
1
10/16/86
U10
U10
U10
U20
MUK4
2F
10/16/86
U10
U10
U10
U20
MUM
Mean
10/16/86
U10
U10
U10
U20
MUK8
10/16/86
U10
U10
U10
U20
MUK12
10/16/86
U10
U10
U10
U20
A-24
-------
TABLE A-21. CONCENTRATIONS OF EXTRACTABLE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS IN EV/ERETT HARBOR
SOURCE SAMPLES: MISCELLANEOUS AROMATIC COMPOUNDS
DRAIN SEDIMENTS (ug/kg DRY WEIGHT)
2-methyI -
Sampling naphtha-
Station Rep Date I ene
E007 10/15/86 2110
£01 1-1 10/29/86 Z430
EO11-2 10/29/86 Z600
NORT 10/15/86 U10
GROUNDWATER lug/L)
2-methyI -
Sampling naphtha-
Station Rep Date I ene
MUM
f
10/1
6/86
14
MUM
2F
10/1
6/86
U10
MUM
Mean
10/1
6/86
U10
MUK8
10/1
6/86
U10
MUK12
10/1
6/86
U10
A-25
-------
TABLE A-22. CONCENTRATIONS (UG/KG DRY WEIGHT) OF RESIN ACID COMPOUNDS IN EVERETT
HARBOR DRAIN SEDIMENTS
Stat i on
Samp I ing
Rep Date
sand-
araco-
p i mar i c
ac id
i so-
p imar i c
ac id
dehydro-
ab i et i c
ac i d
ab iet ic
ac i d
neo-
ab iet i c
ac i d
E0C7
EO11-1
E011-2
NORT
10/15/86
10/29/86
10/29/86
10/15/86
E69
U1 50
El 40
E390
E1 70
U1 50
E1 70
E1600
790
E29
700
4800
660
U1 50
U290
U340
U200
U1 50
U290
U340
Station Rep
Samp I i ng
Date
14-
chIoro-
dehydro-
ab i et i c
ac id
12-
chIoro-
dehydro-
ab i et i c
ac id
d i -
chIoro-
dehydro-
ab i et i c
ac id
E007
E011-1
E011-2
NORT
10/15/86
10/29/86
10/29/86
10/15/86
U200
U150
U290
U340
U200
U150
U290
U340
U200
U150
U290
U340
A-26
-------
TABLE A-23. CONCENTRATIONS (UG/KG DRY WEIGHT) OF CHLORINATED PHENOLS AND
GUAIACOLS IN EVERETT HARBOR DRAIN SEDIMENTS
2,4-
2,4,6-
2.4,5-
2,3,4,6-
2-
d i -
tr i -
tr i -
tetra-
penta-
Samp 1i ng
ch1 or o-
ch1 or o-
ch1oro-
chI or o-
chIoro-
ch1 oro
Stat ion
Rep
Date
pheno1
pheno1
pheno1
pheno I
phenoI
pheno1
E007
10/15/86
U5
U5
El
E2
E4
63
E011 - 1
10/29/86
U4
U4
U4
U4
U4
E3
E011-2
10/29/86
U13
44
1 70
El 1
230
480
NORT
10/15/86
47
36
26
43
88
330
3,4,5-
4,5,6-
tr i -
tr i -
tetra-
Samp 1 i ng
ch 1oro-
ch1oro-
ch1oro-
Stat i on
Rep
Date
gua i aco1
guai aco1
guai aco1
E007
10/15/86
U5
U5
U5
E011-1
10/29/86
U4
U4
U4
E011-2
10/29/86
U13
U1 3
U1 3
NORT
10/15/86
U20
U20
U20
A-27
-------
TABLE A-24. CONCENTRATIONS OF EXTRACTABLE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS IN EVERETT HARBOR
SOURCE SAMPLES: GROUP SUMS
DRAIN SEDIMENTS (ug/kg DRY WEIGHT)
1 ow
high
mo 1 ecu 1ar
mo 1 ecu 1ar
we i ght
we i ght
tota 1
aromati c
aromat i c
benzo-
Samp 1 i ng
hydro-
hydro-
f 1 uoran-
Stat i on
Rep
Date
carbons
carbons
thenes
E007
10/15/86
Z1 800
Z5500
990
E01 1 -1
10/29/86
Z8200
L14000
1000
E01 1-2
10/29/86
Z5800
Z4300
550
NORT
10/15/86
L56
L67
9
GROUNDWATER
(ug/L)
I ow
h igh
mo 1 ecu 1ar
mo 1 ecu 1ar
we i ght
we ight
tota 1
aromat i c
aromat i c
benzo-
Samp 1 i ng
hydro-
hydro-
f 1 uorai
Stat i on
Rep
Date
carbons
carbons
thenes
MUK4
1
10/16/86
El 10
L98
U10
MUK4
2F
10/16/86
E69
L55
E2
MUK4
Mean
10/16/86
E88
L77
E2
MUK8
10/16/86
U60
U90
U10
MUK12
10/16/86
U60
U90
U10
A-28
-------
TABLE A-25. CONCENTRATIONS (UG/KG DRY WEIGHT) OF TENTATIVELY IDENTIFIED ORGANIC
COMPOUNDS IN EVERETT HARBOR DRAIN SEDIMENTS
hexa-
base base d i- deceno i c
1 ,2,4-
peak
peak
ben2o-
ac i d
Samp 1 1ng
tr i -
m/z 181,
m/z 181,
th i o-
methy
Station
Rep
Date
cymene
thiolane
isomer 1
isomer 2
phene
ester
E007
10/15/86
E20
U
U
U
E34
E24
E011-1
10/29/86
E1 00
E970
U
u
E210
U
E0I1-2
10/29/86
E370
U
E29
u
E40
U
NORT
10/15/86
El .6
U
B
B
U
E10
hexa-
decano i c
d i ter-
ac i d
hexa-
peno i d
d i ter-
1-
Samp 1 i ng
methy 1
decano i c
hydro-
peno i d
methy
Stat i on
Rep
Date
ester
ac i d
carbon
a 1 coho1
retene
pyreni
E007
10/15/86
El 40
E510
E1 6
U
U
E62
EO11 -1
10/29/86
E530
U
E80
E49
E88
E760
E011-2
10/29/86
E1 40
B
E89
U
U
E36
NORT
10/15/86
E42
E52
U
El .0
U
U
Samp I i ng
cho 1 -
camp-
Stat ion
Rep
Date
a 1kano1
estero1
estero1
E007
10/15/86
E1 30
E40
U
E011-1
10/29/86
E760
U
U
E011-2
10/29/86
E61
U
U
NORT
10/15/86
El 7
E51
U
A-29
-------
TABLE A-26. CONCENTRATIONS OF PESTICIDES IN EVERETT HARBOR SOURCE SAMPLES
DRAIN SEDIMENTS (ug/lcg DRY WEIGHT)
Samp I i ng
Station Rep Date p,p'-DDE p,p'-DDD p,p'-DDT aldrin dleldrin chlordane
E007
10/15/86
U1 .0
U1 .0
26
U5.0
13
U50
EO11-1
10/29/86
U10
U10
U10
U5.0
U10
U50
EOI1-2
10/29/86
U10
U10
U10
U5.0
U10
U500
NORT
10/15/86
U1 .0
U1 .0
U1 .0
U0.50
U1 .0
U5.0
gamma-
a 1pha-
beta-
Samp 1i ng
a 1pha-
beta-
de1ta-
HCH
endo-
endo-
Stat i on
Rep
Date
HCH
HCH
HCH
(1 i ndane)
su1 fan
su1 fan
E007
10/15/86
U5.0
U5.0
U5.0
U5.0
U5.0
U1 .0
EOI 1-1
10/29/86
U5.0
U5.0
U5.0
U5.0
U5.0
U10
E01 1-2
10/29/86
U50
U50
U5.0
U50
U5.0
U10
NORT
10/15/86
U0.50
U0.50
U0.50
U0.50
U0.50
U1 .0
endo-
hepta-
Samp 1 i ng
su1 fan
hepta-
ch 1 or
toxa-
endr i n
metho;
Stat ion
Rep
Date
su1 fate
endr i n
ch lor
epox ide
phene
ketone
ch 1 or
E007
10/15/86
U10
U1 .0
U5.0
US. 0
U100
U10
U50
EOI 1-1
10/29/86
U10
U10
U5.0
U5.0
U100
U10
U50
E011-2
10/29/86
U10
U10
U50
U5.0
U100
U10
U50
NORT
10/15/86
U1 .0
U1 .0
U0.50
U0.50
U10
U1 .0
U5.0
A-30
-------
TABLE A-26. (CONTINUED)
GROUNDWATER (ug/L)
Station
Rep
Samp 1 1ng
Date
p,p'-DDE
p.p'-DDD
p,p'-DDT
a 1dr i n
d i e1dr i n
i chlordane
MUK4
MUK8
MUK12
10/16/86
10/16/86
10/16/86
UO. 10
UO. 10
UO. 10
UO. 10
UO. 10
UO. 10
UO. 10
UO. 10
UO. 10
UO. 05
UO. 05
UO. 05
UO. 10
UO. 10
UO. 10
UO. 50
UO. 50
UO. 50
Stat i on
Rep
Samp 1 i ng
Date
a 1pha-
HCH
beta-
HCH
de1ta-
HCH
gamma-
HCH
(1 i ndane)
a 1pha-
endo-
su1fan
beta-
endo-
su1 fan
MUM
MUK8
MUK12
10/16/86
10/16/86
10/16/86
UO. 05
UO. 05
UO. 05
UO. 05
UO. 05
UO. 05
UO. 05
UO. 05
UO. 05
UO. 05
UO. 05
UO. 05
UO. 05
UO. 05
UO. 05
UO. 10
UO. 10
UO. 10
Stat i on
Rep
Samp 1 i ng
Date
endo-
su1 fan
su1 fate
endr i n
hepta-
ch I or
hepta-
ch 1 or
epox ide
toxa-
pherie
endr i n
ketone
methoxy
ch | or
MUK4
MUK8
MUKI2
10/16/86
10/16/86
10/16/86
UO. 10
UO. 10
UO. 10
UO. 10
UO. 10
UO. 10
UO. 05
UO. 05
UO. 05
UO. 05
UO. 05
UO. 05
U1 .00
U1 .00
U1 .00
UO. 10
UO. 10
UO. 10
UO. 50
UO. 50
UO. 50
A-31
-------
TABLE A-27. CONCENTRATIONS OF POLYCHLORINATED BI PHENYLS IN EVERETT HARBOR SOURCE
SAMPLES
DRAIN SEDIMENTS (ug/kg DRY WEIGHT)
Sampling Aroclor Aroclor Aroclor Aroclor Aroclor Aroclor Aroclor Total
Station Rep Date 1016 1221 1232 1242 124B 1254 1260 PCBs
E007
E011-1
E011-2
NORT
10/15/86
10/29/86
10/29/86
10/15/86
E220
U50
U50
U50
GROUNDWATER (ug/L)
Stat i on
Samp I i ng ArocI
Rep Date 1016
or
Aroc
1221
or
Aroc I
1232
or
Aroc
1242
or
ArocI or
1248
ArocI or
1254
ArocI or
1260
Tota I
PCBs
MUK4
MUK8
MUK12
10/16/86
10/16/86
10/16/86
U0.50
U0.50
U0.50
U0.50
U0.50
U0.50
U0.50
U0.50
U0.50
U0.50
U0.50
U0.50
U0.50
U0.50
U0.50
U0.50
U0.50
U0.50
U1 .00
U1 .00
U1 .00
A-32
-------
TABLE A-28. PERCENT TOTAL SOLIDS AND GRAIN SIZE DETERMINATIONS IN EVERETT HARBOR
DRAIN SEDIMENTS
percent
Sampling total percent percent percent percent
Stat i on Rep
Date
so 1ids
rocks
sand
silt
clay
E007 1
10/15/86
75.6
0.1
88.8
5. 1
6.0
E007 2
10/15/86
75.8
0.2
88.3
7.2
4.3
E007 Mean
10/15/86
75.7
0.2
88.4
6.2
5.2
EO11-1
10/29/86
76.5
4.8
93.5
1 .4
0.3
EO11-2
10/29/86
44.3
4.8
57. 1
29.9
8.2
NORT 1
10/15/86
34.9
6.4
22.5
27. 1
44.0
NORT 2
10/15/86
36.3
10.1
22.5
25.2
42. 1
NORT Mean
10/15/86
35.6
8.2
22.4
26.2
43.0
A-33
-------
APPENDIX B
POTENTIAL CONTAMINANT SOURCES
IDENTIFIED IN THE EVERETT HARBOR PROJECT AREA
-------
APPENDIX B
POTENTIAL CONTAMINANT SOURCES
IDENTIFIED IN THE EVERETT HARBOR PROJECT AREA
EAST WATERWAY (EW)
Scott Pulp and Paper Company, 26th Street and Federal Avenue
Nearshore diffuser S003
Secondary treatment plant outfall S008
S002 (historical)
Storm drains
Port of Everett
Hewitt Terminal Piers 1 and 3
Pacific Terminal Piers B, D, and E
South Terminal - Weyerhaeuser Sulfite/Thermomechanical Plant
(closed)
Storm drains
Anaconda aluminum dome
Everett Cold Storage (American Ice-"& Cold Storage), 2815 Federal Avenue
Mobil Oil Co. (Johnston Petroleum Products), 2731 Federal Avenue
Foss Tug, Port of Everett (between Pier B and Pier D)
Dunlap log yard
Dunlap Towing, 2702 Federal Avenue
Western Gear (closed), 2100 Norton Avenue
U.S. Naval Reserve
TAT, USA Corp. log yard
CSOs (City of Everett)
Storm drains (City of Everett)
OFFSHORE PORT GARDNER (0G)
Scott-Weyerhaeuser deepwater diffuser SW001
B-l
-------
NEARSHORE PORT GARDNER fNG)
Mukilteo storm drains
Muki1teo WWTP
Defense Fuel Support Point - Mukilteo - outfalls M001 through M006
Boeing-Paine Field Area
Snohomish County Airport-Paine Field
Air Force landfill
Underground storage tanks
Boeing Commercial Aircraft, 3003 West Casino Road
John Fluke Mfg. Co., 9028 Evergreen Way
John Fluke Mfg. Co., 6920 Seaway Boulevard
Kohkoku (USA), Inc., 1407 - 80th Street SW
Associated Sand & Gravel, 6300 Glenwood Avenue
Creeks
Merrill and Ring Creek Pigeon Creek #1
SNOHOMISH RIVER fSR)
Everett WWTP
Weyerhaeuser Kraft Mill, Alverson Boulevard
outfalls WK002, WK004, and WK005
Everett Landfill
CSOs (City of Everett)
Storm drains (City of Everett and private)
Marshland Canal
Marina area
Everett Marina, 1700 West Marine View Drive
Marina Village, 14th Street
Boat repair businesses
Harbor Marine, 1402 West Marine Drive
B-2
Japanese Gulch
Edgewater Creek
Powder Mill Gulch
Narbeck Creek
Phillips Creek
Glenwood Creek
. Seahurst and Glenhaven Creek
Pigeon Creek #2
-------
Fisherman's Boat Shop, 949 - 14th Street
Everett Bayside Marine, 1001 - 14th Street
Performance Marine, 1130 West Marine Drive
Individual boat owners
Storm drains
Steuart Seafoods, 1520 West Marine View Drive
American Boiler Works, 1332 West Marine Drive
Tri-Coatings (Marpac), Inc., 1104 - 10th Street
Centrecon, 1130 West Marine View Drive
Norton Terminal
Log storage yards
Buse Timber, 3812 - 28th Place NE
Canyon Lumber, 3821 - 26th Place
E.A. Nord Co., 300 West Marine View Drive
Bay Wood Products, 200 West Marine View Drive
Pacific Plating, 2421 Hewitt Avenue
Custom Pacific Plating, 2421 Hewitt Avenue
Truckcare, 2730 Harrison
EBEY SLOUGH (ES)
Marysville storm drains
Marysville WWTP
Boeing test facility, Tulalip Indian Reservation
Tulalip Landfill
Quilceda Creek
Allen Creek
STEAMBOAT SLOUGH (SS)
Tulalip Landfill
B-3
-------
Weyerhaeuser Kraft Mill - outfall WK001
UNION SLOUGH
Buse Mi 11
MISCELLANEOUS
Burlington Northern Railroad
Atmospheric deposition (Appendix G)
B-4
-------
APPENDIX C
NPDES-PERMITTED DISCHARGERS AND
CITY OF EVERETT INDUSTRIAL PRETREATMENT
PERMITTED FACILITIES
-------
APPENDIX C
NPDES-PERMITTED INDUSTRIAL DISCHARGERS
AND CITY OF EVERETT INDUSTRIAL PRETREATMENT PERMITTED FACILITIES
NPDES-PERMITTED INDUSTRIAL DISCHARGERS
Defense Fuel Support Point - Mukilteo
Scott Pulp and Paper Co.
Weyerhaeuser Everett Kraft Mill
CITY OF EVERETT INDUSTRIAL PRETREATMENT PERMITTED FACILITIES
Boeing Commercial Airplane Co.
Centrecon
Custom Pacific Plating
John Fluke Mfg. Co. - Seaway Blvd.
John Fluke Mfg. Co. - Evergreen Way
Kohkoku (USA), Inc.
Pacific Plating
Cathcart Landfill
Stewart Seafood
Tri-Coatings, Inc. (Marpac)
C-l
-------
APPENDIX D
GRAIN SIZE CHARACTERISTICS OF THE SEDIMENTS
IN THE DRAINS AND OFFSHORE RECEIVING ENVIRONMENT
IN THE EAST WATERWAY STUDY AREA
-------
CLAY
EW-02 •
EW-03*
NORT SD
EW-12\
fmEGl 1-1 CSO
• EW-04
EW-13
• EW-08
EW-06*
SAND
SILT
CLAY
EW-09*
EW-01
EW-11
EW-07
EW-05
EW-10
EW-15
• EW-14
°<>
OH
&
E007
• CSO
• E011-2
CSO
SAND
SILTY SANDS
SANDY SILTS
SILT
Figure D-1. Grain size characteristics of offshore and drain
sediment samples collected from the East Waterway
study area.
D-1
-------
APPENDIX E
ELEVATION ABOVE REFERENCE VALUES
FOR CHEMICALS OBSERVED IN
DRAIN SEDIMENTS
-------
TABLE E-l. EAR VALUES FOR SELECTED METALS
FOUND IN EVERETT HARBOR DRAIN SEDIMENTS3
24th Street and Lift Station #5 Lift Station #5 Norton Terminal
Bond Street Manhole 1 Manhole 2 Storm Drain
Compound
(CSO E007)
(CSO E011-1)
(CSO E011-2)
(NORT)
Arsenic
2.2
__b
5.1
4.0
Cadmium
--
—
26.6
—
Chromium
12.6
10.9
12.4
8.9
Copper
8.2
2.2
34.1
11.1
Lead
21.5
3.9
42.7
4.0
Nickel
3.3
2.7
4.9
4.0
Zinc
11.4
7.2
520
10.6
Mercury
15.1
--
37.5
5.8
Si 1ver
4.9
—
32.6
4.0
Selenium
--
--
1.3
—
Antimony
86.2
153
176
55
a EARs are calculated by dividing the measured concentration of a contaminant in a
sediment by the measured concentration of the contaminant in sediment from a reference
area. Mean reference concentrations in sediments from Carr Inlet were obtained from
Tetra Tech (1988b).
b ._ = Concentrations of contaminants less than those found in the reference area
sediments (i.e., an EAR of less than 1).
E-l
-------
TABLE E-2. EAR VALUES FOR SELECTED EXTRACTABLE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS
FOUND IN EVERETT HARBOR DRAIN SEDIMENTS®
24th Street and Lift Station #5 Lift Station #5 Norton Terminal
Bond Street Manhole 1 Manhole 2 Storm Drain
Compound
(CSO E007)
(CSO E011-1)
(CSO E011-2)
(NORT)
Phenol
__b
3.6
—
--
4-Methylphenol
2.4
254
3.7
3.3
Naphthalene
20.6
235
456
1.6
Acenaphthylene
15.6
46.3
188
—
Acenaphthene
56.1
366
20.5
--
Fluorene
41.5
268
31.7
--
Phenanthrene
62.3
200
115
Anthracene
44
132
26.4
--
Fluoranthene
61
299
84.4
--
Pyrene
64.6
347
76.4
--
Benzol-
anthracene
56.2
120
33.8
Chrysene
67.6
102
38.9
--
Bis(2-ethy1 -
hexyl)phthalate
38.2
64.7
25.3
2.3
Di-n-butyl-
phthalate
—
—
4.4
--
Dimethyl-
phthalate
—
—
6.2
--
Di-n-octyl-
phthalate
2.4
--
2.1
—
Butyl benzyl -
phthalate
9.4
10.6
E-2
-------
TABLE E-2. (Continued)
24th Street and Lift Station #5 Lift Station #5 Norton Terminal
Bond Street Manhole 1 Manhole 2 Storm Drain
Compound
(CSO E007)
(CSO E011-1)
(CSO E011-2)
(NORT)
Benzo(a)pyrene
100
94.7
38.6
Indeno(l,2,3-
cd)pyrene
81.2
56.2
35.4
—
Dibenzo(a.h)-
anthracene
26.8
19.3
10.2
2.4
Benzo(g,h,i)-
perylene
84.8
69.6
45.6
1.1
Total benzo-
fluoranthenes
124
125
69
1.1
1,3-Dichloro-
benzene
1.4
--
18.6
1,4-Dichloro-
benzene
14.6
26.3
54.3
2.8
1,2-Dichloro-
benzene
12
--
Benzoic acid
2.9
17.1
--
Dibenzofuran
45.9
351
184
--
N-nitroso-
diphenyl amine
9.8
43.9
5.6
2-Methyl-
naphthalene
26.2
102
143
4'-DDT
2.6
—
—
--
Dieldrin
1.3
—
—
—
2-Chlorophenol
—
—
—
13.4
2,4-Dichloro-
phenol
• •
mm
6.5
5.3
E-3
-------
TABLE E-2. (Continued)
Compound
24th Street and
Bond Street
(CSO E007)
Lift Station #5
Manhole 1
(CSO E011-1)
Lift Station #5
Manhole 2
(CSO E011-2)
Norton Terminal
Storm Drain
(NORT)
2,4,6-Tri-
chlorophenol
--
25.0
3.8
2,4,5-Tri-
chlorophenol
—
1.1
4.3
Pentachloro-
phenol
1.9
--
14.5
10.0
Total PCBs
36.7
--
—
Total EAR
1,279
3,478
2,706
164
a EARs are calculated by dividing the measured concentration of a contaminant in a
sediment by the measured concentration of the contaminant in sediment from a reference
area. Mean reference concentrations in sediments from Carr Inlet were obtained from
Tetra Tech (1988).
b -- = Concentrations of contaminants less than those found in reference area sediments
(i.e., an EAR of less than 1).
E-4
-------
TABLE E-3. EAR VALUES FOR SELECTED PULP INDUSTRY-RELATED
COMPOUNDS FOUND IN EVERETT HARBOR DRAIN SEDIMENTS*
24th Street and
Lift Station #5
Lift Station #5
Norton Terminal
Bond Street
Manhole 1
Manhole 2
Storm Drain
Compounds
(CSO E007)
(CSO E011-1)
(CSO E011-2)
(NORT)
2-Chlorophenol
b
—
—
...
2,4-Dichlorophenol
—
—
6.5
5.3
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol
—
—
25
3.8
2,4,5-Trichlorophenol
—
—
3.7
14
2,3,4,6-Tetrachlorophenol
—
—
77
29
Pentachl orophenol
1.9
—
14
10
3,4,5-Trichloroguaiacol
—
—
—
...
4,5,6-Trichloroguaiacol
—
...
...
Tetrachloroguaiacol
---
...
...
...
Sandaracopimaric acid
...
—
...
2.6
Isopimaric acid
...
...
11
Dehydroabietic acid (DHA)
13
...
11
76
Abietic acid
4.4
...
...
...
Neoabietic acid
—
...
—
—
14-Chlorodehydroabietic acid
—
...
...
...
12-Chlorodehydroabietic acid
—
...
...
...
Dichlorodehydroabietic acid
—
...
...
...
a EARs are calculated by dividing the measured concentration of a contaminant in a sediment by the measured
concentration of the contaminant 1n sediment from a reference area. Mean reference concentrations in sediments
from Port Susan were obtained from PTI and Tetra Tech (1988b).
^ -- = Concentrations of contaminants less than those found in the reference area sediments (i.e., an EAR of
less than 1).
E-5
-------
APPENDIX F
DREDGING HISTORY IN THE EVERETT HARBOR PROJECT AREA
-------
APPENDIX F
DREDGING HISTORY IN THE EVERETT HARBOR PROJECT AREA
Information on historical dredging was compiled to determine the
potential for these activities to disturb offshore sediments, and therefore,
affect interpretation of spatial patterns of chemical contamination.
Recent dredge and fill activity in the Everett Harbor study area is
primarily for channel maintenance and for dock and terminal construction
(Figure F-l). Dredging operations are currently conducted by the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, the Port of Everett, and private landowners. The U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers is responsible for the greatest volume of dredging
activity in the Snohomish River. Maintenance dredging of the main navigation
channel has been performed every few years since 1969 (see Table F-l).
Almost twice as much material has been removed from the upstream settling
basin as from the downstream settling basin. The Port of Everett is
planning a variety of activities to upgrade and expand facilities along the
eastern shore of Port Gardner and the southern portion of the East Waterway.
A series of dredging and filling projects will be associated with these
actions. The U.S. Navy ("Homeport") plans to dredge approximately 3.305
million yd-* of sediment from the East Waterway in different phases beginning
in 1988, pending court appeals.
F-l
-------
ABANDONED DIKE
BREAKWATER
TRAINING DIKE
DIKES
DOWNSTREAM END
PROJECT CHANNEL
{« X 150')
DOWNSTREAM
SETTLING BASIN
(20* X 70ff X 12001
V
CHANNEL
(15'X 150'AND 15-X 4251
UPSTREAM
SETTLING BASIN
(40- DEEP)
CHANNEL
1700' TO «XT WIDE X 3ff DEEP)
UPSTREAM END
PROJECT CHANNEL
(ffX 15ff)
A* A* EAST
WATERWAY
LEGEND
¦¦¦ SETTLING BASIN
¦ ¦¦III DOWNSTREAM CHANNEL
limilllt UPSTREAM CHANNEL
Reference to dimensions are authorized
federal channels that are maintained as
needed.
meters
Figure F-1. Locations of dredging sites within the lower Snohomish
River basin.
F-2
-------
TABLE F-l. EVERETT HARBOR AND SNOHOMISH RIVER
DREDGING SUMMARY 1969-1986
Year
Area Dredged
Volume (yd-3)
1969
Downstream basin and channel
452,704
1970-1
Upstream basin and channel
540,232
1974
Upstream basin and channel
278,500
1976-7
Downstream basin and channel
507,843
1978
East Waterway
131,919
1980
Upstream basin and channel
678,487
1983
Downstream basin and channel
208,427
1984
Upstream basin and channel
213,586
1986
Upstream basin and channel
181,582
Scheduled
1988
Upstream basin and channel
Estimated
350,000
Note: Dredged volumes from settling basins typically account for
most of the total volume removed from basin and channel combined.
Reference: Arden, H. (8 June 1988, personal communication).
F-3
-------
APPENDIX 6
PUGET SOUND AIR POLLUTION REGISTRATION FILES
IN THE EVERETT HARBOR PROJECT AREA
-------
CONTENTS
Page
SNOHOMISH COUNTY (PAINE FIELD) AIRPORT
G-l
BOEING COMMERCIAL AIRPLANE (EVERETT)
G-3
ASSOCIATED SAND AND GRAVEL COMPANY, INC.
G-6
U.S. DEFENSE FUEL SUPPLY AGENCY DLA
G-8
TIZ'S DOOR SALES, INC.
G-9
PROVIDENCE HOSPITAL
G-l 1
SCOTT PAPER COMPANY NORTHWEST OPERATIONS
G-13
EVERETT PORT FACILITIES
G-15
SOUND CASKET MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC.
G-16
CENTRECON, INC.
G-18
NORD/JELD-WEN OF EVERETT, INC.
G-19
ALPINE RETREADS (J&V INVESTMENTS)
G-21
WEYERHAEUSER COMPANY KRAFT MILL
G-23
-------
PUGET SOUND AIR POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY
200 W Mercer St #205, Seattle, WA 98119-3958
JUN 8, 1988, 1:09 PM
Registration File Listing
SNOHOMISH CO (PAINE FIELD) AIRPORT Reg #:21400
DOE #: 83
Mail to:
BLDG C-l, PAINE FIELD 3000 ROCKAFELLER AVE
SNOHOMISH COUNTY 98204 EVERETT, WA 98204
WILLIAM DOLAN AIRPORT INFORMATION OFFICER 353-2110
THOMAS WINTERS SAFETY SPECIALIST 259-9413
UTM: 554.00 / 5306.00
1988 ANNUAL ASBESTOS NOTIFICATION #889010
SIC # 4512 SCHEDULED AIR TRANSPORTATION
EPA Program: SIP Classification: Al
Inspection Record (CM File):
INSPECTED 12-02-83 HWD
12-24-84 RJG
12-11-85 RJG
02-12-87 MAM 2
Toxic Air Contaminant (TAC) Emissions (SP File):
1986 1987
FORMALDEHYDE - 1 1 Lb
NICKEL - 4 4 Lb
Kg/Day
1986 1987
Air Contaminant Emissions:
Tons/Year
1986
1987
TSPM
8
9
SOX
7
7
NOX
33
36
VOC
31
35
CO
616
730
PM10
7
9
TAC
0
0
6-1
-------
PUGET SOUND AIR POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY
JUN 8, 1988, 1:09 PM
Registration File Listing
SNOHOMISH CO (PAINE FIELD) AIRPORT Reg #:21400
Air Contaminant Emissions:
Kg/Day
1986
1987
TSPM
20
22
SOX
17
17
NOX
82
89
VOC
77
87
CO
1531
1814
PM10
17
22
TAC
0
0
G-2
-------
PUGET SOUND AIR POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY
200 W Mercer St #205, Seattle, WA 98119-3958
JUN 8, 1988, 1:09 PM
Registration File Listing
BOEING COMMERCIAL AIRPLANE (EVERETT) Reg #:13120
DOE #: 39
Mail to:
3003 W CASINO RD, EVERETT PO BOX 3707 MS OH-26
SNOHOMISH COUNTY 98201 SEATTLE, WA 98124
FRED STEWART FACILITIES ENGINEERING MANAGER 342-1130
CONNIE CARLSON POLLUTION CONTROL ENGINEER 342-0871
UTM: 554.00 / 5307.40
1988 ANNUAL ASBESTOS NOTIFICATION #889045
SIC # 3721 AIRCRAFT
EPA Program: SIP Classification: A1
Inspection Record (CM File):
INSPECTED 06-13-81 RJG/AKN
09-16-81 HWD
12-10-81 HWD
09-29-82 RJG
07-13-83 HWD '
06-13-84 HWD
01-07-85 RJG
07-18-85 RJG
09-29-86 JLH 2
08-27-87 PBB 2
Toxic Air Contaminant (TAC) Emissions (SP File):
1986
1987
ACETONE
7
12
Ton
AMMONIA
wm
1962
1593
Lb
BUTANONE (METHYL ETHYL KETONE)
-
192
275
Ton
BUTYL ACETATE
-
30
9
Ton
BUTYL ALCOHOL
-
1047
1598
Lb
BUTYROLACTONE
-
0
3
Ton
CHROMIUM
_
10
2
Lb
CYCLOHEXANONE
-
32
41
Ton
ETHOXYETHYL ACETATE (CELLOSOLVE
ACETATE)
-
27
34
Ton
ETHYL ACETATE
-
15
6
Ton
ETHYLENE GLYCOL
-
6
5
Ton
ETHYLENE GLYCOL MONOBUTYL ETHER (BUTYL
CELLOSOLVE)
-
0
7
Ton
FORMALDEHYDE
-
124
31
Lb
G-3
-------
PUGET SOUND AIR POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY
JUN 8, 1988, 1:09 PH
Registration File Listing
BOEING COMMERCIAL AIRPLANE (EVERETT) Reg #:13120
Toxic Air Contaminant (TAC) Emissions (SP File):
1986
1987
ISOPROPYL ALCOHOL
_
13
24
Ton
MANGANESE
W
6
1
Lb
METHYL PENTANONE (METHYL ISOBUTYL
KETONE)
-
7
10
Ton
NICKEL
-
203
48
Lb
SYNTHETIC RESIN
-
5
3
Ton
TOLUENE
-
128
105
Ton
TRICHLOROETHANE
-
222
26
Ton
TRICHLOROETHYLENE
-
4
2
Ton
XYLENE
-
A3
59
Ton
Kg/Day
1986
1987
ACETONE
16
31
AMMONIA
-
2
2
BUTANONE (METHYL ETHYL KETONE)
-
478
683
BUTYL ACETATE
-
76
22
BUTYL ALCOHOL
-
1
2
BUTYROLACTONE
-
0
7
CYCLOHEXANONE
-
78
101
ETHOXYETHYL ACETATE (CELLOSOLVE
ACETATE)
-
67
85
ETHYL ACETATE
-
38
14
ETHYLENE GLYCOL
m
15
12
ETHYLENE GLYCOL MONOBUTYL ETHER (BUTYL
CELLOSOLVE)
m
0
18
ISOPROPYL ALCOHOL
-
32
59
METHYL PENTANONE (METHYL ISOBUTYL
KETONE)
-
17
26
SYNTHETIC RESIN
-
12
7
TOLUENE
-
319
262
TRICHLOROETHANE
-
552
64
G-4
-------
PUGET SOUND AIR POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY
JUN 8. 1988, 1:09 PM
Registration File Listing
BOEING COMMERCIAL AIRPLANE (EVERETT) Reg #:13120
Toxic Air Contaminant (TAC) Emissions (SP File):
- Kg/Day
1986 1987
TRICHLOROETHYLENE - 10 5
XYLENE - 108 147
Air Contaminant Emissions:
Tons/Year
1986
1987
TSPM
21
14
SOX
207
55
NOX
217
222
VOC
754
860
CO
5807
6423
PM10
20
14
TAC
733
623
Kg/Day
1986
1987
TSPM
52
35
SOX
514
137
NOX
539
552
VOC
1874
2138
CO
14433
15964
PM10
50
35
TAC
1821
1548
G-5
-------
PUGET SOUND AIR POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY
200 W Mercer St #205, Seattle, WA 98119-3958
JUN 8, 1988, 1:09 PM
Registration File Listing
ASSOCIATED SAND AND GRAVEL CO INC
6300 GLENWOOD AVE. EVERETT
SNOHOMISH COUNTY 98203
Reg #:10169
DOE #: 3
Mail to:
PO BOX 2037
EVERETT, WA
98203
DALE SURDYK MANAGER 624-0301
GERALD CRANE MANGR PROPERTY & ENGR 355-2111
UTM: 556.80 / 5309.72
SIC # 3273 READY-MIXED CONCRETE
EPA Program: SIP NSPS
Inspection Record (CM File):
Classification: A1
INSPECTED 11-12-81
HWD
05-13-82
HWD
06-30-83
RJG
09-27-83
JKA
05-14-84
HWD
05-23-84
HWD
05-15-85
RJG
07-07-86
RJG
2
07-15-86
RJG
2
08-25-87
JLH
2
04-14-88
RJG
1
Toxic Air Contaminant (TAC) Emissions (SP File):
1986
1987
CHROMIUM
FORMALDEHYDE
MANGANESE
NICKEL
3
3
2
63
4 Lb
3 Ton
2 Lb
72 Lb
FORMALDEHYDE
1986
7
Kg/Day
1987
8
G-6
-------
PUGET SOUND AIR POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY
JUN 8, 1988, 1:09 PM
Registration File Listing
ASSOCIATED SAND AND GRAVEL CO INC Reg #:10169
Air Contaminant Emissions:
Tons/Year
1986
1987
TSPM
208
224
SOX
0
0
NOX
8
9
VOC
0
0
CO
2
2
PM10
37
38
TAC
3
3
Kg/Day
1986
1987
TSPM
517
557
SOX
0
0
NOX
20
22
VOC
0
0
CO
5
5
PM10
92
94
TAC
8
8
G-7
-------
PUGET SOUND AIR POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY
200 W Mercer St #205, Seattle, WA 98119-3958
JUN 8, 1988, 1:09 PM
Registration File Listing
U S DEFENSE FUEL SUPPLY AGENCY DLA Reg #:16000
- DOE #: 78
Mail to:
FRONT & PARK ST, MUKILTEO DFSC-FQ CAMERON STATION
SNOHOMISH COUNTY 98275 ALEXANDER, VA 22304-6160
W E GOODE/HASAN DOGRUL CHIEF ENVIR QUALITY DIV/CONTACT 274-6989
JIM REYNOLDS/GEORGE HELMS SUPERINTENDENT/REGIONAL ENGINEER 355-2051
UTM: 552.50 / 5310.70
SIC # 5171 PETROLEUM BULK STATIONS AND TERMINALS
EPA Program: SIP Classification: Al
Inspection Record (CM File):
INSPECTED 11-15-83 RJG
11-08-84 RJG
12-11-85 RJG
02-19-87 MAM 2
07-08-87 PBB 2
Air Contaminant Emissions:
Tons/Year
1986
1987
TSPM
0
0
SOX
0
0
NOX
0
0
VOC
42
20
CO
0
0
PM10
0
0
TAC
0
0
Kg/Day
1986
1987
TSPM
0
0
SOX
0
0
NOX
0
0
VOC
104
50
CO
0
0
PM10
0
0
TAC
0
0
G-8
-------
PUGET SOUND AIR POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY
200 W Mercer St #205, Seattle, WA 98119-3958
JUN 8, 1988, 1:09 PM
Registration File Listing
TIZ'S DOOR SALES INC Reg #:16338
DOE #:
Mail to:
2118 38TH ST, EVERETT PO BOX 1078
SNOHOMISH COUNTY 98201-5021 EVERETT, WA 98206
PAT MAAHS PRODUCTION MANAGER 259-4437
UTM: 559.80 / 5312.80
SIC # 2431 MILLWORK
EPA Program: SIP Classification: B
Inspection Record (CM File):
INSPECTED 12-20-83 HWD
12-11-84 RJG
11-01-85 RJG
11-26-86 JLH 2
08-27-87 PBB 2
Toxic Air Contaminant (TAC) Emissions (SP File):
TOLUENE
TOLUENE
Air Contaminant Emissions:
Tons/Year
1986
1987
TSPM
0
0
SOX
0
0
NOX
0
0
VOC
13
12
CO
0
0
PM10
0
0
TAC
11
11
1986 1987
11 11 Ton
Kg/Day
1986 1987
29 27
6-9
-------
PUGET SOUND AIR POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY
JUN 8, 1988, 1:09 PM
Registration File Listing
TIZ'S DOOR SALES INC Reg #:16338
Air Contaminant Emissions:
Kg/Day
1986
1987
TSPM
0
0
SOX
0
0
NOX
0
0
VOC
32
30
CO
0
0
PM10
0
0
TAC
27
27
G-10
-------
PUGET SOUND AIR POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY
200 V Mercer St #205, Seattle, WA 98119-3958
JUN 8, 1988, 1:09 PM
Registration File Listing
PROVIDENCE HOSPITAL
916 PACIFIC AVE, EVERETT
SNOHOMISH COUNTY 98201
Reg #:16006
DOE #:
Mail to:
PO BOX 1067
EVERETT, WA 98206-1067
CARL MUNDING/WALT SALINE ADMINISTRATOR/ADMIN DIR BU SERV 258-7123
EUGENE GOEHRS CHIEF ENGINEER 258-7854
UTM: 558.55 / 5313.75
SIC # 8062 GENERAL MEDICAL AND SURGICAL HOSPITALS
EPA Program: SIP Classification: B
Inspection Record (CM File):
INSPECTED 06-25-81 RJG
06-09-82 HVD
06-23-83 RJG
11-06-84 RJG
10-16-85 RJG
02-11-87 JLH 2
Toxic Air Contaminant (TAC) Emissions (SP File):
ETHYLENE OXIDE
ETHYLENE OXIDE
Air Contaminant Emissions:
Tons/Year
1986 1987
1680 1700 Lb
Kg/Day
1986
2
1987
2
1986
1987
TSPM
0
0
SOX
0
0
NOX
0
0
VOC
0
0
CO
0
0
PM10
0
0
TAC
1
1
G-ll
-------
PUGET SOUND AIR POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY
JUN 8, 1988, 1:09 PM
Registration File Listing
PROVIDENCE HOSPITAL Reg #:16006
Air Contaminant Emissions:
Kg/Day
1986 1987
TSPM
0 0
SOX
0 0
NOX
0 0
VOC
0 0
CO
0 0
PM10
0 0
TAC
2 2
G-12
-------
PUGET SOUND AIR POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY
200 U Mercer St #205, Seattle, WA 98119-3958
JUN 8, 1988, 1:09 PM
Registration File Listing
SCOTT PAPER CO NORTHWEST OPERATIONS
2600 FEDERAL AVE, EVERETT
SNOHOMISH COUNTY 98201
Reg #:12164
DOE #: 70
Mail to:
PO BOX 925
EVERETT, WA 98206-0925
TIMOTHY BECHTEL ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGER 259-7393
ALEX M. HOOD UTILITIES MGR 259-7482
UTM: 558.50 / 5314.60
SIC # 2621 PAPER MILLS
EPA Program: SIP NESHAP
Inspection Record (CM File)
INSPECTED 11-09-81 HWD
05-19-82 HffD
05-23-83 RJG
05-16-84 HWD
05-30-85 RJG
02-27-87 JLH 2
07-08-87 PBB 2
03-22-88 RJG 1
Classification: Al
Toxic Air Contaminant (TAC) Emissions (SP File):
1986
1987
CHLORINE
600
0
Lb
CHLOROFORM
-
22
22
Ton
CHROMIUM
-
1
3
Lb
DIOXINS
_
9
9
Lb
FORMALDEHYDE
-
23
30
Lb
MANGANESE
-
1
2
Lb
NICKEL
-
27
55
Lb
POM (POLYCYCLIC ORGANIC MATTER)
-
1023
1013
Lb
XYLENE
-
78
45
Ton
Kg/Day
1986 1987
CHLORINE
CHLOROFORM
1
56
0
56
G-13
-------
PUGET SOUND AIR POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY
JUN 8, 1988, 1:09 PM
Registration File Listing
SCOTT PAPER CO NORTHWEST OPERATIONS Reg #:12164
Toxic Air Contaminant (TAC) Emissions (SP File):
Kg/Day
1986 1987
POM (POLYCYCLIC ORGANIC HATTER) -11
XYLENE - 195 112
Air Contaminant Emissions:
Tons/Year
1986
1987
TSPM
456
454
SOX
373
405
NOX
1310
1318
VOC
257
223
CO
3435
3404
PM10
373
371
TAC
101
68
Kg/Day
1986
1987
TSPM
1133
1128
SOX
927
1007
NOX
3256
3276
VOC
639
554
CO
8538
8461
PM10
927
922
TAC
251
168
G-14
-------
PUGET SOUND AIR POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY
200 W Mercer St #205, Seattle, WA 98119-3958
JUN 8, 1988, 1:09 PM
Registration File Listing
Reg #:14024
DOE #: 9
Mall to:
PO BOX 538
EVERETT, WA 98206-0538
PHIL BANNON DIRECTOR 259-3164
ED PASKOVSKIS OPERATIONS MNGR 259-3164
UTM: 558.00 / 5314.00
EVERETT PORT FACILITIES
PIER 1, EVERETT
SNOHOMISH COUNTY 98201
SIC # 4491 MARINE CARGO HANDLING
EPA Program: SIP Classification: A1
Inspection Record (CM File):
INSPECTED 11-05-81 HVD
07-14-82 RJG
11-10-82 RJG
06-13-83 RJG
12-12-83 HVD
11-14-84 RJG
10-24-85 RJG
10-24-85 RJG
02-05-87 JLH 2
08-31-87 PBB 2
Air Contaminant Emissions:
Tons/Year
1986
1987
TSPM
186
185
SOX
0
0
NOX
0
0
VOC
0
0
CO
0
0
PM10
7
7
TAC
0
0
Kg/Day
1986
1987
TSPM
462
460
SOX
0
0
NOX
0
0
VOC
0
0
CO
0
0
PM10
17
17
TAC
0
0
G-15
-------
PUGET SOUND AIR POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY
200 W Mercer St #205, Seattle, WA 98119-3958
JUN 8, 1988, 1:09 PM
Registration File Listing
SOUND CASKET MFG. CO., INC.
2815 BAKER AVE, EVERETT
SNOHOMISH COUNTY 98201
Reg #:14121
DOE #:
Mail to:
PO BOX 1023
EVERETT, WA 98206-1023
KEN WASHO PRESIDENT 259-6012
E.R. CHRISTENSEN MANAGER 259-6012
UTM: 560.13 / 5314.19
SIC # 3995 BURIAL CASKETS
EPA Program: SIP Classification: B
Inspection Record (CM File):
INSPECTED 10-21-83 HWD
11-06-84 RJG
10-29-85 RJG
02-05-87 JLH 2
09-08-87 PBB 2
10-06-87 PBB 2
Toxic Air Contaminant (TAC) Emissions (SP File):
1986
1987
ACETONE
_
242
250
Lb
BUTANONE (METHYL ETHYL KETONE)
-
958
990
Lb
BUTYL ALCOHOL
-
242
250
Lb
HEXANE
-
1917
1980
Lb
ISOPROPYL ALCOHOL
-
242
250
Lb
METHANOL (METHYL ALCOHOL)
¦H
242
250
Lb
NAPHTHA VM&P
-
242
250
Lb
TOLUENE
~
484
500
Lb
Kg/Day
1986
1987
BUTANONE (METHYL ETHYL KETONE)
1
1
HEXANE
2
2
TOLUENE
-
1
1
G-16
-------
PUGET SOUND AIR POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY
JUN 8, 1988, 1:09 PM
Registration File Listing
SOUND CASKET MFG. CO., INC. Reg #:14121
Air Contaminant Emissions:
Tons/Year
1986 1987
TSPM
0
0
SOX
0
0
NOX
0
0
VOC
2
2
CO
0
0
PM10
0
0
TAC
2
2
Kg/Day
1986 1987
TSPM
0
0
SOX
0
0
NOX
0
0
VOC
5
5
CO
0
0
PM10
0
0
TAC
6
6
G-17
-------
PUGET SOUND AIR POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY
200 W Mercer St #205, Seattle, WA 98119-3958
JUN 8, 1988, 1:09 PM
Registration File Listing
CENTRECON INC
1130 W MARINE VIEW DR. EVERETT
SNOHOMISH COUNTY 98201
JAMES SCHACK PRESIDENT 258-2616
ROBERT SCHARF PLANT SUPERINTENDENT 258-2616
UTM: 558.70 / 5316.55
SIC # 3272 CONCRETE PRODUCTS
EPA Program: SIP Classification: B
Inspection Record (CM File):
INSPECTED 12-07-82 RJG
12-14-83 HWD
12-20-84 RJG
11-19-85 RJG
02-05-87 JLH 2
08-26-87 PBB 2
Air Contaminant Emissions:
Tons/Year
1986
1987
TSPM
12
12
SOX
0
0
NOX
0
0
VOC
0
0
CO
0
0
PM10
1
1
TAC
0
0
Kg/Day
1986
1987
TSPM
30
30
SOX
0
0
NOX
0
0
VOC
0
0
CO
0
0
PM10
2
2
TAC
0
0
Reg #:11271
DOE #: 88
Mail to:
PO BOX 28
EVERETT, WA 98206-0028
G-18
-------
PUGET SOUND AIR POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY
200 W Mercer St #205, Seattle, WA 98119-3958
JUN 8, 1988, 1:09 PM
Registration File Listing
NORD/JELD-WEN OF EVERETT INC
300 W MARINE VIEW DR, EVERETT
SNOHOMISH COUNTY 98201
RONALD J MINER GENERAL MANAGER
LEON WELLS MAINTENANCE MANAGER
UTM: 558.91 / 5317.90
Reg #:10663
DOE #: 17
Mail to:
PO BOX 1187
EVERETT, WA 98206-1187
259-9292
259-9292
SIC # 2431 MILLWORK
EPA Program: SIP
Inspection Record (CM File):
INSPECTED 01-06-81 RJG
06-24-81 RJG
01-14-82 HWD
06-17-82 HWD
01-19-83 RJG
06-27-84 HWD
01-24-85 RJG
06-17-86 RJG 1
07-14-87 PBB 2
Classification: A1
Toxic Air Contaminant (TAC) Emissions (SP File):
1986
1987
ACETALDEHYDE
1920
1730
Lb
FORMALDEHYDE
2
2
Ton
MANGANESE
_
4
4
Ton
PHENOL
_
8
7
Ton
POM (POLYCYCLIC ORGANIC MATTER)
-
32
29
Lb
Kg/Day
1986
1987
ACETALDEHYDE
2
2
FORMALDEHYDE
_
5
4
MANGANESE
10
9
PHENOL
-
20
18
6-19
-------
PUGET SOUND AIR POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY
JUN 8, 1988, 1:09 PM
Registration File Listing
NORD/JELD-WEN OF EVERETT INC Reg #-.10663
Air Contaminant Emissions:
Tons/Year
1986
1987
TSPM
154
167
SOX
0
0
NOX
11
10
VOC
6
5
CO
104
94
PM10
110
112
TAC
15
14
Kg/Day
1986
1987
TSPM
383
415
SOX
0
0
NOX
27
25
VOC
15
12
CO
258
234
PM10
273
278
TAC
37
34
G-20
-------
PUGET SOUND AIR POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY
200 W Mercer St #205, Seattle, WA 98119-3958
JUN 8, 1988, 1:09 PM
Registration File Listing
ALPINE RETREADERS (J&V INVESTMENTS)
406 SE EVERETT MALL WAY #104, EVERETT
SNOHOMISH COUNTY 98208
JOHN BRONSON OWNER 259-0814
KEN EPPERLY MANAGER 347-5626
UTM: 560.60 / 5317.70
SIC #7534 TIRE RETREADING AND REPAIR SHOPS
EPA Program: SIP Classification: B
Inspection Record (CM File):
INSPECTED 04-08-81
JLH
09-23-81
HWD
07-09-82
RJG
07-14-83
HWD
07-31-84
RJG
08-05-85
RJG
11-20-85
RJG
02-02-87
JLH
2
09-04-87
PBB
2
02-17-88
RJG
2
Toxic Air Contaminant (TAC) Emissions (SP File):
1986 1987
HEXANE - 2 2 Ton
Kg/Day
1986
HEXANE - 5
Air Contaminant Emissions:
Tons/Year
1986
1987
TSPM
0
0
SOX
0
0
NOX
0
0
VOC
2
2
CO
0
0
PM10
0
0
TAC
2
2
Reg #.-12425
DOE #:
Mail to:
2701 WALNUT AVE
EVERETT, WA 98201
1987
5
G-21
-------
PUGET SOUND AIR POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY
JUN 8, 1988, 1:09 PM
Registration File Listing
ALPINE RETREADERS (J&V INVESTMENTS) Reg #:12425
Air Contaminant Emissions:
Kg/Day
1986 1987
TSPM
0 0
SOX
0 0
NOX
0 0
VOC
5 5
CO
0 0
PM10
0 0
TAC
5 5
6-22
-------
PUGET SOUND AIR POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY
200 W Mercer St #205, Seattle, WA 98119-3958
JUN 8, 1988, 1:09 PH
Registration File Listing
WEYERHAEUSER CO, KRAFT MILL
101 E MARINE VIEW DR, EVERETT
SNOHOMISH COUNTY 98201
Reg #:12754
DOE #: 8
Mail to:
L01 E MARINE VIEW DR
EVERETT, WA 98201
WILLIAM P MILLER 339-2800
HAROLD RUPPERT ENVIRONMENTAL SUPERVISOR 339-2868
UTM: 560.30 / 5318.30
SIC # 2611 PULP MILLS
EPA Program: SIP
Inspection Record (CM File)
INSPECTED 05-21-81 RJG
06-23-82 HWD
06-28-83 RJG
06-27-84 HWD
12-16-85 RJG
10-16-86 JLN 2
03-16-88 RJG 1
03-16-88 RJG 1
Classification: A1
Toxic Air Contaminant (TAC) Emissions (SP File):
1986
1987
CHLORINE
_
23
0 Ton
CHLOROFORM
-
20
21 Ton
CHROMIUM
-
34
25 Lb
FORMALDEHYDE
-
160
119 Lb
HYDROGEN SULFIDE
-
32
0 Ton
MANGANESE
-
19
14 Lb
NICKEL
677
504 Lb
POM (POLYCYCLIC ORGANIC MATTER)
-
1
1 Lb
Kg/Day
1986
1987
CHLORINE
57
0
CHLOROFORM
_
51
53
HYDROGEN SULFIDE
-
80
0
NICKEL
-
1
1
G-23
-------
PUGET SOUND AIR POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY
JUN 8, 1988, 1:09 PM
Registration File Listing
WEYERHAEUSER CO, KRAFT MILL Reg #-.12754
Air Contaminant Emissions:
Tons/Year
1986
1987
TSPM
538
549
SOX
1023
840
NOX
159
147
VOC
4
3
CO
943
993
PM10
285
287
TAC
75
21
Kg/Day
1986
1987
TSPM
1337
1365
SOX
2543
2088
NOX
395
365
VOC
10
7
CO
2344
2468
PM10
708
713
TAC
188
53
G-24
------- |