1988 RECONNAISSANCE SURVEY OF ENVIRONMENTAL
CONDITIONS IN 13 PU6ET SOUND LOCATIONS
Contract No. 68-03-3319
Work Assignment No. 1-113
APRIL 1989
Submitted to
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION 10
Seattle, Washington
Prepared by
E. A. Crecelius
D. L. Woodruff
Battelle, Marine Sciences Laboratory
Sequim, Washington
M. S. Myers
NOAA-NMFS
Northwest and Alaska Fisheries Center
Seattle, Washington
for
Battelle
Ocean Sciences
397 Washington Street
Duxbury, Massachusetts 02332
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In the spring of 1988, Battelle conducted a reconnaissance survey
in non-urban bays and areas of Puget Sound. The objective of this survey was
to characterize sediment quality, fish tissue chemistry, and fish disease to
identify potential contamination problems in these areas. This survey
focused on four bays (Dyes Inlet, Gig Harbor, Port Angeles Harbor, and Oak
Harbor) which have not been examined extensively for contamination problems
but which may be affected by contamination from local industry, marinas,
sewage outfalls, and military bases.
The major tasks that comprised this survey included the following:
» Characterize sediment quality by contaminant levels and
amphipod bioassays at six stations in each of the four non-
urban bays.
• Analyze sediment samples from agricultural and urban areas for
20 pesticides that are currently in use.
• Analyze tissues of flatfish collected from 13 areas for
evidence of contaminants.
• Characterize liver diseases or liver disorders in sole from
Dyes Inlet, Gig Harbor, and the mouth of the Lake Washington
Ship Canal.
» Archive benthic infaunal samples for potential future
analysis.
This report presents the results of the survey and draws a
comparison with results from similar investigations in other areas of Puget
Sound.
This study was organized to benefit from work conducted by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 10; the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Northwest and Alaska Fisheries Center;
Puget Sound Water Quality Authority; Battelle-Northwest, Marine Sciences
Laboratory (MSL); and Battelle Ocean Sciences (BOS). The EPA Region 10
staff conducted amphipod sediment bioassays. The NOAA Northwest and Alaska
Fisheries Center organized the field sampling cruise that was conducted
onboard their research vessel, the R/V Streeter; analyzed fish tissues for
-------
contaminants and metabolites of hydrocarbons; and analyzed the livers of sole
for tumors and other diseases. The Battelle groups participated in the field
survey, the chemical analyses of sediments, project management and report
preparation.
It should be understood that the results of this survey represent
a reconnaissance of the problems and are not always rigorously quantitative.
The major findings resulting from this report are summarized below.
SEDIMENT CHARACTERISTICS
Surface sediments (0 to 2 cm) were sampled at six locations in each
of four non-urban bays. Water depth at the sediment stations within a given
bay were relatively uniform. The sediment grain size was usually sandy near
the entrances of the bays and muddy in the head of the bays. Organic carbon
content increased from 0.5% in sandy sediments to 7% in muddy sediments.
CONTAMINANTS IN SEDIMENTS
Some of the sediments were found to contain slightly elevated
levels of arsenic, cadmium, copper, lead, mercury, silver, and zinc compared
to reference areas of Puget Sound. Other metals that were present in
concentrations typical of reference Puget Sound sediments included aluminum,
chromium, iron, manganese, nickel, and antimony. Except for mercury and
silver at several stations, the concentrations of metals do not exceed the
Puget Sound apparent effect threshold (AET) sediment quality values (Barrick
et al. 1988).
The concentration of tributyltin (TBT), a highly toxic pesticide
used in boat antifouling paint, was highest in areas nearest marinas.
However, the TBT concentrations in the four non-urban bays were at least one
order of magnitude lower than those reported in sediments from marinas and
industrial waterways of Puget Sound.
The concentrations of organic priority pollutant chemicals were
generally low compared with concentrations reported for urban areas, such as
Elliott and Commencement Bays. Only one sediment sample in the four
m
-------
embayments (Gig Harbor) exceeded the AET values (Barrick et al. 1988) for
polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH). PCBs were detected at low levels in
most samples, with Gig Harbor containing the highest concentrations.
Chlorinated pesticides were usually not detected, and only one sample (from
Port Angeles) contained a low but detectable concentration of chlorinated
guaiacol, a compound associated with pulp mill effluent.
PESTICIDE RECONNAISSANCE SURVEY
Surface sediments, collected from 17 stations in the mouth of Puget
Sound rivers and Lake Washington, were analyzed for 20 pesticides that are
known to be in current use in the Puget Sound region. Five pesticides
including chlorpyrifos, dicamba, dichobenil, 2,4-D, and lindanewere
detected in the concentration range of 2 to 31 /tg/kg at one or more stations.
Pentachlorophenol was detected in the range of 7 to 56 fig/kg dry wt in
samples; however, these data are qualified as unreliable because the matrix
spike recoveries were very low and possibly the results underestimate actual
concentrations.
AMPHIPOD BIOASSAYS
None of the sediments tested by the amphipod bioassay indicated a
toxic response. These results are consistent with the AET sediment quality
values; i.e., none of the sediment samples contained levels of contaminants
that greatly exceeded the amphipod AET.
CONTAMINANTS IN FISH TISSUE
The concentrations of PAH metabolites, PCBs, chlorinated
pesticides, and trace metals were determined for fish collected from 13
locations in Puget Sound (Quartermaster Harbor, Sinclair Inlet, Liberty Bay,
Port Gamble, Port Townsend, Port Susan, Richmond Beach, Skagit Bay, and the
Lake Washington Ship Canal in addition to the other four bays where sediments
were studied). PCBs were present in muscle and liver tissue from all areas.
IV
-------
The highest concentrations of PCBs were in English sole from Gig Harbor, the
bay which had the highest level of PCBs in sediments. The concentrations of
PCBs in Gig Harbor muscle tissue (257 /*g/kg wet wt) were similar to the
levels reported for urban bays of Puget Sound (Tetra Tech 1988a), but were
below U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) action levels for safe
consumption by humans. Trace metals in fish muscle were low and relatively
uniform except for a slight elevation of lead, mercury, and arsenic at
several sites. These metal concentrations are not considered to be a public
health risk. The average concentrations of PCBs in fish muscle tissue (182
/ig/kg) sampled in this survey result in a lifetime cancer risk of 2 x 10" (2
persons in 10,000 develop cancer) if these fish are consumed at a rate of 30
meals per year for life (70 years). The health risk results of this
reconnaissance survey are similar to those of Tetra Tech (1988a), which
evaluated the health risk assessment of chemical contamination in Puget Sound
seafood.
Fish from most of the sites surveyed had concentrations of
fluorescent aromatic compounds (FACs) in bile, indicative of very low to
moderate levels of uptake of PAHs from petroleum or combustion-related
sources. Levels of FACs in bile of sanddabs from Port Angeles indicate that
these fish may have been contaminated with petroleum; however, there are no
comparable data for sanddab collected at a reference site.
FISH DISEASES
The specimens that were examined included 151 English sole and 29
rock sole taken from Gig Harbor, Dyes Inlet, and the mouth of the Lake
Washington Ship Canal. Two other areas, Port Angeles and Oak Harbor, were
sampled, but sole were not captured. A broad spectrum of pathologic
conditions was observed with the focus of this study on idiopathic
conditions of the liver. Idiopathic lesions have no apparent association
with an infectious agent. Fish from Gig Harbor and Dyes Inlet exhibited
idiopathic liver disease levels which were similar to levels found in
reference areas in Puget Sound. The prevalence of liver lesions found in
-------
fish from the Lake Washington Ship Canal was most similar to results from
moderately contaminated sites, such as Elliott Bay and Everett Harbor.
CONCLUSIONS
This reconnaissance survey indicates the health of 13 areas of
Puget Sound and the mouth of the Lake Washington Ship Canal is good based on
sediment chemistry and sediment bioassays in four bays and fish tissue
chemistry in all areas. In the four non-urban bays where sediments were
tested for chemicals, generally low concentrations (below most AET values)
were detected although anthropogenic sources cause contamination in these
bays to be elevated compared to rural reference bays. Benthic infaunal
samples have not been analyzed because the amphipod sediment bioassays
indicated no toxic response and the sediment chemical levels were low.
Analyses of flatfish tissues indicate relatively low levels of
contaminants in fish. These contaminate levels are not a major health risk
to humans who consume fish from these areas. The prevalence of liver
disorders in sole are generally similar to reference areas of Puget Sound,
except for the mouth of the Lake Washington Ship Canal.
A survey for 20 pesticides that are in current use in the Puget
Sound area indicated that a few were detected at low levels in some
locations.
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This document was prepared by Battelle-Northwest, under the
direction of Dr. Eric A. Crecelius, for Battelle Ocean Sciences and the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 10, in partial fulfillment of
EPA Contract No. 68-03-3319. This project was funded through the National
Estuary Program under the authority of the Clean Water Act, as amended, and
by the Puget Sound Estuary Program. Funding was approved by the EPA Office
of Marine and Estuarine Protection, The Technical Monitor for Battelle was
Mark Curran. John Armstrong served as Work Assignment Manager for EPA.
Many laboratory and field personnel contributed to the success of
this project. The following individuals participated in the field work,
laboratory analyses, and report preparation.
Dr. John Armstrong
Dr. Sin-Lam Chan
Dr. Betsy Brown
Dr. John Strand
Hr, Margaret Krahn
Mr. Donald Brown
Dr. Robert Clark
Dr. Allen Uhler
Mr. William Steinhauer
Ms. Carol Peven
Mr. Tim Fortman
Mr. Charles Apts
Ms. Amy Squires
Ms. Ann Trelstad
Mr. Joe Cummins
Ms. Christy Conrad
Dr. Walter Pearson
Dr. Usha Varanasi
Mr. Jeff Anderson
Ms. Donna Baker
Mr. Paul Plesha
Ms. Clare Ryan
Ms. Clara Stehr
Mr. Doug Weber
Dr. Jack Gakstatter
Mr. Michael Rylko
Ms. Lyndal Johnson
Mr. Michael Jacobson
Mr. Peter Stripland
Mr. Steve Quinell
EPA
NOAA
Battelle
Battelle
Battelle
NOAA
NOAA
Battelle
Battelle
Battelle
Battelle
Battelle
Battelle
Battelle
EPA
Battelle
Battelle
NOAA
Battelle
EPA
NOAA
WDOE
NOAA
NOAA
EPA
EPA
NOAA
PSWQA
WDOE
WDF
Field Collection
Tissue Chemistry
Report Review
Report Review
Bile Chemistry
Tissue Chemistry
Tissue Chemistry
Sediment Chemistry
Sediment Chemistry
Sediment Chemistry
Sediment Chemistry
Sediment Chemistry
Data Analysis
Typing
Amphipod Bioassay
Typing
Field Collection
Report Review
Field Collection
Field Collection
Field Collection
Field Collection
Field Collection
Field Collection
Field Collection
Field Collection
Field Collection
Field Collection
Field Collection
Field Collection
VI 1
-------
CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY. 11
INTRODUCTION • 1
OVERVIEW OF FIELD STUDY DESIGN. 1
SAMPLING PROTOCOLS 8
Location and Position of Sampling Stations 8
Collection of Sediment for PSWQA Monitoring
Program 9
Benthic Infauna 9
Amphipod Sediment Bioassays 9
Chemical Contaminants and Conventional Parameters 10
Pesticide Reconnaissance Survey 10
Histopathology and Bioaccumulation in Fish 11
CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL ANALYSES. 12
Analysis of Conventional Parameters
and Chemicals in Sediments 12
Guaiacols 12
Pesticides Reconnaissance Survey
of Sediment 12
Amphipod Bioassays 16
Fluorescent Aromatic Compounds (FACs)
in Fish Bile . .17
Chemical Analyses of Fish Tissue 17
Trace Metals in Fish Muscle 17
Fish Histopathology 18
QUALITY CONTROL RESULTS .19
METALS IN SEDIMENT .19
vn i
-------
ORGANIC COMPOUNDS IN FOUR NON-URBAN BAY
SEDIMENT SAMPLES .19
PESTICIDE RECONNAISSANCE SURVEY 20
METALS IN TISSUE 21
ORGANIC COMPOUNDS IN FISH TISSUE 21
FACs IN FISH BILE .21
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 22
SEDIMENT CHARACTERISTICS 22
Grain Size and Organic Carbon 22
Trace Metals in Sediment ......... .27
Comparison of Metals with Other Studies 36
Organic Contaminants in Sediments. 44
Pesticide Reconnaissance Survey Results .55
AMPHIPOD BIOASSAY 58
SEDIMENT CHEMISTRY COMPARED TO PUGET SOUND
SEDIMENT QUALITY VALUES 61
CONTAMINANTS IN FISH TISSUE 62
PCBs and Priority Pollutant Pesticides
in Flatfish Muscle 64
PCBs and Priority Pollutant Pesticides
in Flatfish Liver 70
Fluorescent Aromatic Compounds (FACs)
in Fish Bile 74
Trace Metals in Flatfish Muscle 76
Public Health Considerations 76
FISH HISTOPATHOLOGY 80
General Patterns of Lesion Prevalences 81
IX
-------
English Sole 81
Rock Sole , .81
Comparisons of Lesion Prevalences
Among Study Areas 84
Relationships Between Hepatic Lesions
and Mean Ages and Gender of Fish Sampled 84
Comparisons of Histopathological Analyses
with Recent Historical Data 86
USEFULNESS OF THE RECONNAISSANCE SURVEY CONCEPT 89
REFERENCES 91
APPENDIX A - SURVEY REPORT A.I
APPENDIX B - QA/QC B.I
APPENDIX C - DATA C.I
-------
FIGURES
Figure 1. Location of Benthic Sediment Stations and
Trawls in Dyes Inlet 2
Figure 2. Location of Benthic Sediment Stations and
Trawls in Gig Harbor 3
Figure 3. Location of Benthic Sediment Stations and
Trawls in Port Angeles Harbor 4
Figure 4. Location of Benthic Sediment Stations and
Trawls in Oak Harbor 5
Figure 5, Locations of 4 Non-Urban Bays and 11
Fisheries Stations Sampled During This Survey, ..... 6
Figure 6. Sediment Sampling Locations for Pesticide
Survey and PSWQA Grain-Size Survey .7
Figure 7. Concentrations of Silt and Clay (Mud) in Six
Sediment Samples Collected From Each of Four
Non-Urban Bays: Dyes Inlet » DI, Gig Harbor = GH,
Port Angeles = PA, and Oak Harbor = OH 25
Figure 8.
Figure 9,
Figure 10.
Figure 11.
Concentrations of Total Organic Carbon (TOC)
in Six Sediment Samples Collected from Each
of Four Non-Urban Bays: Dyes Inlet = DI, Gig
Harbor = GH, Port Angeles = PA, and Oak Harbor
Concentration of Arsenic (As) in Six
Sediment Samples Collected from Each of
Four Non-Urban Bays: Dyes Inlet = DI,
Gig Harbor = GH, Port Angeles = PH, and
Oak Harbor = OH. ....
= OH,
.26
.29
Concentration of Cadmium (Cd) in Six
Sediment Samples Collected from Each of
Four Non-Urban Bays: Dyes Inlet = DI,
Gig Harbor = GH, Port Angeles = PH, and
Oak Harbor = OH
.30
Concentration of Copper (Cu) in Six
Sediment Samples Collected from Each of
Four Non-Urban Bays: Dyes Inlet = DI,
Gig Harbor = GH, Port Angeles = PH, and
Oak Harbor = OH . . . ,
.31
XI
-------
Figure 12,
Figure 13,
Figure 14,
Figure 15,
Figure 16,
Figure 17,
Concentration of Lead (Pb) in Six
Sediment Samples Collected from Each of
Four Non-Urban Bays; Dyes Inlet = DI,
Gig Harbor - GH, Port Angeles = PH, and
Oak Harbor = OH
.32
Concentration of Mercury (Hg) in Six
Sediment Samples Collected from Each of
Four Non-Urban Bays: Dyes Inlet = DI,
Gig Harbor = GH, Port Angeles = PH, and
Oak Harbor = OH
.33
Concentration of Silver (Ag) in Six
Sediment Samples Collected from Each of
Four Non-Urban Bays: Dyes Inlet = DI,
Gig Harbor = GH, Port Angeles = PH, and
Oak Harbor = OH ,
.34
Concentration of Zinc (In) in Six
Sediment Collected from Each of
Four Non-Urban Bays: Dyes Inlet = DI,
Gig Harbor = GH, Port Angeles = PH,
and Oak Harbor = OH
.35
Comparison of the Mean Concentration of Arsenic
(As) in Sediments from the Non-Urban Bays in This
Survey with Other Areas of Puget Sound: Dyes
Inlet = DI, Gig Harbor = GH, Port Angeles = PA,
Oak Harbor = OH, Elliott Bay (South Shoreline) =
EB, Commencement Bay (City Waterway) = CB, Everett
Harbor (East Waterway) = EH, Sinclair Inlet = SI,
Puget Sound Main Basin = PS, Puget Sound Main
Basin Sediments Deposited before the Year 1900 =
Pre-1900, Sequim Bay = SB
.37
Comparison of the Mean Concentration of Cadmium
(Cd) in Sediments from the Non-Urban Bays in This
Survey with Those in Other Areas of Puget Sound
Dyes Inlet = DI, Gig Harbor = GH, Port Angeles =
PA, Oak Harbor - OH, Elliott Bay (South Shoreline)
EB, Commencement Bay (City Waterway) = CB, Everett
Harbor (East Waterway) = EH, Sinclair Inlet - SI,
Puget Sound Main Basin = PS, Puget Sound Main
Basin Sediments Deposited before the Year 1900 =
Pre-1900, Sequim Bay = SB
.38
-------
Figure 18.
Figure 19,
figure 20.
Figure 21,
Comparison of the Mean Concentration of Copper
(Cu) in Sediments from the Non-Urban Bays in This
Survey with Those in Other Areas of Puget Sound
Dyes Inlet = DI, Gig Harbor = GH, Port Angeles =
PA, Oak Harbor = OH, Elliott Bay (South Shoreline)
EB, Commencement Bay (City Waterway) = CB, Everett
Harbor (East Waterway) = EH, Sinclair Inlet = SI,
Puget Sound Main Basin = PS, Puget Sound Main
Basin Sediments Deposited before the Year 1900 =
Pre-1900, Sequim Bay = SB
.39
Comparison of the Mean Concentration of Lead (Pb)
in Sediments from the Non-Urban Bays in This
Survey with Those in Other Areas of Puget Sound
Dyes Inlet = DI, Gig Harbor = GH, Port Angeles =
PA, Oak Harbor = OH, Elliott Bay (South Shoreline)
EB, Commencement Bay (City Waterway) = CB, Everett
Harbor (East Waterway) = EH, Sinclair Inlet = SI,
Puget Sound Main Basin = PS, Puget Sound Main
Basin Sediments Deposited before the Year 1900 =
Pre-1900, Sequim Bay = SB
.40
Comparison of the Mean Concentration of Mercury
(Hg) in Sediments from the Non-Urban Bays in This
Survey with Those in Other Areas of Puget Sound
Dyes Inlet • DI, Gig Harbor = GH, Port Angeles =
PA, Oak Harbor = OH, Elliott Bay (South Shoreline)
EB, Commencement Bay (City Waterway) = CB, Everett
Harbor (East Waterway) = EH, Sinclair Inlet = SI,
Puget Sound Main Basin = PS, Puget Sound Main
Basin Sediments Deposited before the Year 1900 =
Pre-1900, Sequim Bay = SB
.41
Comparison of the Mean Concentration of Silver
(Ag) in Sediments from the Non-Urban Bays in This
Survey with Those in Other Areas of Puget Sound
Dyes Inlet = DI, Gig Harbor = GH, Port Angeles =
PA, Oak Harbor = OH, Elliott Bay (South Shoreline)
EB, Commencement Bay (City Waterway) = CB, Everett
Harbor (East Waterway) = EH, Sinclair Inlet = SI,
Puget Sound Main Basin = PS, Puget Sound Main
Basin Sediments Deposited before the Year 1900 =
Pre-1900, Sequim Bay = SB
.42
xm
-------
Figure 22,
Figure 23.
Figure 24,
Figure 25,
Figure 26,
Figure 27.
Comparison of the Mean Concentration of Zinc (In)
in Sediments from the Non-Urban Bays in This
Survey with Those in Other Areas of Puget Sound
Dyes Inlet - DI, Gig Harbor = GH, Port Angeles =
PA, Oak Harbor = OH, Elliott Bay (South Shoreline)
EB, Commencement Bay (City Waterway) = CB, Everett
Harbor (East Waterway) « EH, Sinclair Inlet = SI,
Puget Sound Main Basin = PS, Puget Sound Main
Basin Sediments Deposited before the Year 1900 =
Pre-1900, Sequim Bay = SB
.43
Concentrations of Butyltins in Six Sediment
Samples Collected from Each of Four Non-Urban
Bays: Dyes Inlet = DI, Gig Harbor = GH, Port
Angeles = PA, and Oak Harbor = OH ,
.47
Concentrations of Organic Compounds in Six
Sediment Samples Collected from Each of Four
Non-Urban Bays: Dyes Inlet = DI, Gig Harbor =
GH, Port Angeles = PA, and Oak Harbor = OH . .
.49
Comparison of the Summed PAH in Sediments from
the Non-Urban Bays in This Survey with Those
in Other Areas of Puget Sound: Dyes Inlet = DI,
Gig Harbor = GH, Port Angeles = PA, Oak Harbor = OH,
Elliott Bay (South Shoreline) = EB, Commencement
Bay (City Waterway) = CB, Everett Harbor (East
Waterway) = EH, Sinclair Inlet = SI, Puget Sound
Main Basin = PS, Puget Sound Main Basin Sediments
Deposited before the Year 1900 = Pre-1900, Sequim
Bay = SB . .50
Concentrations of Organic Compounds (Total
PCS) in Six Sediment Samples Collected from
Each of Four Non-Urban Bays: Dyes Inlet = DI,
Gig Harbor = GH, Port Angeles = PA, and Oak
Harbor - OH 51
Comparison of the Mean Total PCBs in
Sediments from the Non-Urban Bays in This
Survey with Those in Other Areas of Puget Sound
Dyes Inlet = DI, Gig Harbor = GH, Port Angeles =
PA, Oak Harbor = OH, Elliott Bay (South Shoreline) =
EB, Commencement Bay (City Waterway) = CB, Everett
Harbor (East Waterway) = EH, Sinclair Inlet = SI,
Puget Sound Main Basin = PS, Puget Sound Main
Basin Sediments Deposited before the Year 1900 =
Pre-1900, Sequim Bay = SB. 52
xiv
-------
Figure 28, Concentrations of Organic Compounds (Total DDT)
in Six Sediment Samples Collected from Each of
Four Non-Urban Bays: Dyes Inlet = DI, Gig Harbor =
GH, Port Angeles = PA, and Oak Harbor = OH 53
Figure 29. Comparison of the Mean Total DDT in Sediments
from the Non-Urban Bays in This Survey with Those
in Other Areas of Puget Sound: Dyes Inlet = DI,
Gig Harbor = GH, Port Angeles = PA, Oak Harbor = OH,
Elliott Bay (South Shoreline) = EB, Commencement
Bay (City Waterway) = CB, Everett Harbor (East
Waterway) = EH, Sinclair Inlet = SI, Puget
Sound Main Basin = PS, Puget Sound Main Basin
Sediments Deposited before the Year 1900 = Pre-1900,
Sequim Bay = SB 54
Figure 30. Concentrations of PCB (/*g/kg wet wt) in Flatfish
Muscle Tissue Collected from 13 Locations in Puget
Sound: Dyes Inlet = DI, Gig Harbor = GH, Port
Angeles = PA, Oak Harbor = OH, Lake Washington
Ship Canal = LWSC, Quartermaster Harbor = QH,
Sinclair Inlet = SI, Liberty Bay = LB, Port
Gamble = PG, Port Townsend = PT, Skagit Bay = SKB,
Port Susan = PS, Richmond Beach = RB 68
xv
-------
TABLES
Table 1. List of Chemicals and Conventional Parameters
for Analysis in Puget Sound Reconnaissance
Survey, April 1988 13
Table 2. Summary of Analytical Methods for Chemicals and
Conventional Parameters 14
Table 3. Concentration of Total Solids, TOC, and Grain Size
for Sediments in Four Non-Urban Bays and Two
Reference Sites (Units % Dry Wt) 23
Table 4. Mean Concentration of Total Solids and Grain Size
of Sediments at Several Puget Sound Locations 24
Table 5. Concentration of Metals in Non-Urban Sediments 28
Table 6. Concentrations of Organic Compounds in Sediments from
Four Non-Urban Bays 45
Table 7. Concentrations of Butyl tin Compounds in Sediments
from Four Non-Urban Bays 46
Table 8. Concentrations of Pesticides in Reconnaissance
Survey of Pesticides in Sediments (/*g/kg Dry
Weight) 56
Table 9. Mean Amphipod Survival for Five Replicates of
10-Day Sediment Bioassays 59
Table 10. Percentage of the 24 Sediment Stations from
Four Non-Urban Bays that Exceed Either the
Lowest Apparent Effect Threshold (AET) or the
Highest AET For Concentration of Chemicals 63
Table 11. Concentrations, fig/kg (PPB) Wet Weight,
of Chlorinated Analytes in One Fish Muscle
Composite From Each Area 65
Table 12. Concentrations, fig/g (PPB) Wet Weight, of
Chlorinated Chemicals in Method Blanks for
Fish Muscle Samples , 69
Table 13. Screening Level Concentrations, pg/kg (ppb)
Wet Weight, of Chlorinated Analytes in Fish
Liver Samples 71
xvi
-------
Table 14. Fluorescent Aromatic Compounds in Fish Bile
from Selected Puget Sound Sites .75
Table 15. The Concentrations of Metals in One Fish
Tissue Composite From Each Area of Puget
Sound .77
Table 16. A Comparison of Mean Contaminant Concentrations
From Flatfish Tissue (Collected From 13 Areas
or Non-Urban Bays in Puget Sound) with Available
Human Helth Criteria or Lifetime Cancer Risk .79
Table 17. Prevalences (% Affected) of Hepatic Lesions in Adult
English Sole From Gig Harbor, Dyes Inlet and Lake
Washington Ship Canal, April 20 - May 4, 1988 82
Table 18. Prevalences (% Affected) of Hepatic Lesions in Adult
Rock Sole From Gig Harbor, April 20, 1988 .83
Table 19. Mean Agents and Age Ranges for English Sole
(All Fish) From Gig Harbor, Dyes Inlet, and
Lake Washington Ship Canal Affected with
Specific Idiopathic Liver Lesions 85
Table 20. Comparisons of Prevalences of Hepatic Lesions in
English Sole from Different Locations in Puget Sound. . . .88
xvii
-------
INTRODUCTION
The national program for estuarine studies and pollution abatement
is implemented through U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Regional
Offices under the guidance of the Office of Marine and Estuarine Protection.
EPA Region 10, through the Office of Puget Sound, is responsible for the
development and implementation of an estuarine program for Puget Sound. A
component of this program in FY 88 was a reconnaissance survey of 13 areas of
Puget Sound. The survey had multiple objectives, including characterization
of contaminant-related problems in non-urban/non-industrial embayments and
characterization of the distribution and concentration of pesticides in the
estuarine environment. Meeting these objectives included sampling and
evaluation of sediment chemistry, sediment toxicity, fish disease, and fish
tissue chemistry. Benthic infaunal community structure samples were
collected and would have been analyzed if sediment chemistry and bioassays
gave conflicting results.
OVERVIEW OF FIELD STUDY DESIGN
The reconnaissance survey included sampling of four non-urban bays
for sediments and fish (Figures 1-4) (Gig Harbor, Dyes Inlet, Port Angeles
Harbor, and Oak Harbor) and 11 additional bays or areas for fish only
(Figure 5) (Quartermaster Harbor, Sinclair Inlet, Liberty Bay, Port Gamble,
Port Townsend, Port Susan, Saratoga Passage, Richmond Beach, Skagit Bay, Port
Madison, and the Lake Washington Ship Canal). Sediment samples for grain
size were also collected for the Puget Sound Water Quality Authority (PSWQA)
at 17 stations (Figure 6). The PSWQA provided station locations and sample
containers. The locations where sediments were collected for the pesticide
survey are shown in Figure 6.
In each of the four non-urban bays, sediments from six stations
were sampled for chemistry, conventional (grain size, total solids, and
total organic carbon), bioassays, and benthos. The locations of the sediment
stations are presented in Figures 1 to 4. The benthic station locations were
-------
47"
381
37'
SILVERDALE
N
A Sediment Stations
Trawls
FIGURE 1. Location of Benthic Sediment Stations and Trawls
in Dyes Inlet
-------
30'
10
47"
021
A Sediment Stations
T) Trawls
'eras'
FIGURE 2. Location of Benthic Sediment Stations and Trawls
in Gig Harbor
-------
STRAIT OF JUAN DE FUCA
PORT ANGELES HARBOR
& Sediment Stations
© Trawls
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
PORTANGELES
Nautical Milts
FIGURE 3. Location of Benthic Sediment Stations and Trawls in Port Angeles Harbor
-------
ir
OAK HARBOR
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Nautical Miles
A Sediment Stations
CT) Trawls
'36'
FIGURE 4. Location of Benthic Sediment Stations and Trawls
in Oak Harbor
-------
15'
48
(OO1
30
47C
STRAIT OF JUAN DE FUCA
"EVERETT
SJsTACOMA
-------
15'
48"
00'
45'
30'
47°
15
STRAIT OF JUAN DEFUCA
KEY
A Pesticide
• Grain Size
30'
15' 123°00' 45' 122°30' 15'
FIGURE 6. Sediment Sampling Locations for Pesticide Survey and
PSWQA Grain-Size Survey.
-------
selected with the intention of sampling the most contaminated sediments in
the bay while not sampling within 30 m of a known source such as an outfall
or within a marina.
In each of these four bays, sampling for English sole was attempted
near the sediment stations using a 7.3-m (24-ft) otter trawl (Mearns and
Allen, 1978) towed at about 2 knots usually against the current (Figures 1
to 4). If possible, 60 fish (greater than 23 cm in length) from each bay
were to be caught and processed on shipboard by National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration-National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA-NMFS)
staff for histopathological examination of individual fish. In each of the
13 bays or areas, a composite of 5 livers, a composite of 5 fish bile
samples, and a composite from 5 fish muscle tissues were prepared for
chemical analyses.
SAMPLING PROTOCOLS
Location and Position of Sampling Stations
The sediment stations were selected deliberately to sample the more
chemically contaminated region of the bays, but to avoid known contamination
sources. Stations were located at least 30 m away from docks, marinas, and
outfalls. Within each bay, sediments were collected from approximately the
same water depth and sediment type.
Fish were collected near the sediment stations when possible. When
this was not possible, other areas in the bays were trawled. When sampling
for fish in areas where sediments were not collected, the sampling area was
selected based on previous experience in collecting flatfish in these areas.
Station position was identified by a combination of Loran C, radar,
and compass bearing to charted objects, as specified in the Puget Sound
Estuary Protocol (PSEP) (Tetra Tech, 1986). The location of each sediment
station was recorded as latitude and longitude to the nearest hundredth of a
minute. Coordinates for the start and end of each trawl deployment were
recorded. Expected positioning accuracy is ±25 m. Water depth of each
-------
station was corrected to mean lower low water (MLLW). The positioning data
are included in Appendix A.
Collection ofSedimentFor PSHQAMonitoring Program
Collection of Sediments for PSWQA Monitoring Program was to
support the development of the Puget Sound Water Quality Authority Monitoring
Program by providing samples from areas proposed as long-term monitoring
stations in the Puget Sound Ambient Monitoring Program. Three replicate grab
samples were collected with a Q,l-m2 Van Veen grab from the following
stations for sediment grain-size analysis (Tetra Tech, 1986): Discovery Bay,
Port Townsend, mouth of straits out of Admiralty Inlet, Saratoga Passage
North, Saratoga Passage South, Port Susan North, Port Susan South, Northern
Hood Canal, Port Madison, Presidents Point, and Sinclair Inlet.
Benthi'c Infauna
Infauna were sampled at six stations in each of the four bays using
a 0.1-m2 Van Veen grab (five replicates per station). The sediment was then
washed through a 1.0-mm screen and organisms preserved in buffered formalin.
In accordance with the PSEP (Tetra Tech, 1986), samples were placed in
alcohol after the cruise. The benthic infauna samples were not analyzed
because both the sediment chemistry data and the sediment bioassays indicated
the sediments were not toxic.
Amphipod Sediment Bioassays
Six stations in each of four bays were sampled. A 2-L sample of
surface sediment (0 to 2 cm) was collected by compositing sediment from
several 0.1-m2 grab samples. The sediment was placed in acid cleaned and
solvent rinsed glass jars, and stored at 4°C (Tetra Tech, 1986) for 1 to 4
days before transfer to the EPA Region 10 Laboratory, Manchester, where EPA
personnel evaluated sediment toxicity using amphipod bioassays. One sample
of fine-grained sediment from Poverty Bay was collected for a grain-size
-------
control in the bioassays. Fine-grain sediment can have a toxic effect on
amphipods. Sandy sediment from West Beach, Whidbey Island, was collected in
April 1988, and was used as the reference sediment.
Chemical Contaminants and Conventional Parameters
The same surface sediment composites collected for the amphipod
bioassays were packaged in appropriate clean containers for organic
chemicals, pesticides, metals, grain size, and organic carbon. These
activities followed the PSEP (Tetra Tech, 1986) for collection of sediments
for the conventional parameters.
Pesticide Reconnaissance Survey
The objective of this portion of the Pesticide Reconnaissance
Survey was to obtain samples that were likely to represent worst-case
scenarios of sediment-bound pesticide transport into estuarine environments.
The list of pesticide analytes reflects a broad range of pesticide use. The
selection of these analytes and general sampling locations were based on
information reported by Tetra Tech (1988b). The Tetra Tech report evaluated
the quantity, toxicity, and stability of pesticides that are in current use
in the Puget Sound drainage basin. Sampling was conducted by EPA staff in
July 1988 in or near the mouths of several rivers including the Skagit,
Stillaguamish, Snohomish, Sammamish, and Nisqually, and in Lakes Washington
and Union (Figure 6) and Table 5 in Appendix A. Sampling transects were
established along a gradient from the embayments toward and into the riverine
flow.
Two types of sampling technique were employed: a pole-rigged
Eckman Dredge for submerged sediments, and a hand-held spatula for skimming
exposed sediment surfaces. Either technique yielded a sample taken from only
the top 1 cm of sediment, the most recently deposited sediment. The 0-1 cm
layer was sampled, as opposed to a deeper sample layer such as 0-2 cm,
because of the fairly rapid degradation rates of most contemporary
pesticides. Each 200-mL sediment sample was a composite of three to five
10
-------
grabs collected from each transect. Sediment sampling field quality
assurance (QA) was followed per Puget Sound Protocols (Tetra Tech, 1986).
Histopatholoqy and Bioaccumulation in Fish
Personnel from NMFS assisted Battelle with the collection and
processing of fish specimens. Scientists from NMFS conducted
histopathological analyses on 60 fish from each of three bays (Gig Harbor,
Dyes Inlet, and the Lake Washington Ship Canal).
Adult English sole (Parophrys yetulas) and rock sole (Lepidopsetta
bilineata) were captured by otter trawl onboard the R/V Harold H. Streeter
between the dates of April 20, 1988, and May 4, 1988. Fish were immediately
placed in holding tanks and maintained with flowing seawater. Specimens
greater than 23 cm in total length were selected for necropsy. The intended
sample size for the primary target species (English sole) was 60 individuals.
If English sole were not available, large rock sole were taken if captured.
If rock sole were not available, then no fish were retained.
In 15 bays or areas (Figure 5), a composite of fish muscle from
five fish was prepared for tissue chemistry. In addition, one composite of
five fish livers, and one composite of five fish bile samples, were taken for
chemical analyses. Composites from Port Madison and Saratoga Passage were
not analyzed due to limited resources.
The target fish species was English sole (>23 cm in length)
because previous studies (Myers et al,, 1987; Rhodes et al., 1987) have shown
that larger and older English sole have a higher prevalence of the liver
disease that correlates positively with the concentrations of hydrocarbons in
sediments. Approximately 3 hours of trawling were conducted in each of the
four non-urban bays. If less than 60 large English sole were collected, then
other fish species were saved for possible analyses. In the 11 bays or areas
where sediments were not collected, up to 2 hours of trawling was conducted
in an attempt to catch five large English sole or other species of flatfish.
11
-------
CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL ANALYSES
Analysis of Conventional Parameters and Chemicals in Sediment
Chemical analyses of sediment samples were performed for the
chemicals listed in Table 1. This list of chemicals includes most of the
PSEP and Puget Sound Dredged Disposal Analysis (PSDDA) chemicals of concern.
Chemicals not included because of the general absence in non-urban areas were
most phthalates, volatile organics, and miscellaneous extractables. The
analyses also tested for butyltins, used in antifouling boat paints, and
guaiacols, associated with pulp mills. The conventional sediment parameters
of grain size, total organic carbon, and total solids were determined using
Puget Sound Protocols (Tetra Tech, 1986). A summary of analytical techniques
is provided in Table 2.
Guaiacols
Standard procedures for analyses of guaiacols/chlorinated phenols
in sediments are not available. However, Laucks Testing Laboratories
(Seattle, Washington) in conjunction with the Everett Harbor Action Program
(PTI and Tetra Tech, 1988b), developed an analytical technique which was
applied to six sediments from Port Angeles Harbor, a harbor containing two
pulp mills, which are the possible sources of these compounds. The technique
consisted of solvent extraction (acetone/hexane) of acidified sediment
followed by derivatization with acetic anhydride and quantification by GC/MS
with selective-ion monitoring.
Pesticide Reconnaissance Survey of Sediment
The following strategy was intended to afford detection of 20 of
the 25 pesticides of primary concern in Puget Sound sediments. The other
five pesticides were not analyzed because chemical techniques were not
available for sediments and would need to be developed. The 20 compounds
are all relatively stable semivolatile organic compounds that were prepared
12
-------
TABLE 1. LIST OF CHEMICALS AND CONVENTIONAL PARAMETERS
FOR ANALYSIS IN PUGET SOUND RECONNAISSANCE SURVEY,
APRIL 1988
Limit of Detection
Metals
LOD (pg/g)
100.0 Aluminum
0.1 Silver
2.0 Arsenic
0.1 Cadmium
10.0 Chromium
10.0 Copper
100.0 Iron
0.02 Mercury
10.0 Manganese
5.0 Nickel
2.0 Lead
0.5 Antimony
0.02 Butyl tin
10.0 Zinc
Phenols
LOD (pg/kg)
40 phenol
40 2 -methyl phenol
40 4-methyl phenol
40 2,4-dimethylphenol
40 pentachlorophenol
Aromatic Hydrocarbons
LOD (gg/Kg)
200 naphthalene
200 2-methylnapthalene
200 acenaphthylene
200 fluorene
100 phenanthrene
100 anthracene
100 fluoranthene
100 pyrene
100 benzo(a)anthracene
100 indeno(l,2,3-c,d)pyrene
100 dibenzo(a,h)anthraeene
100 benzo(g,h,i)perylene
(LOD) Required
Chlorinated Hydrocarbons
LOD (gg/kg)
50 1,2-dichlorobenzene
50 1,3-dichlorobenzene
50 1,4-dichlorobenzene
50 1,2,4-trichlorobenzene
50 hexachlorobenzene (HCB)
50 hexachlorobutadiene
Phthalates
100 bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Guaiacols in Areas Adjacent
to Pulp Mills
50 3,4,5-trichloroguaiacol
50 tetrachloroguaiacol
50 2-methoxyphenol (guaiacol)
50 4,5,6-trichloroguaiacol
Priority Pollutant Pesticides
1 p.p'-DDE
1 p.p'-DDD
1 p,p'-DDT
1 aldrin
1 dieldrin
1 chlordane
1 heptachlor
1 gamma-HCH (lindane)
10 Total PCBs
Conventional Parameters
0.1% Grain size
0.1% Total organic carbon
0.1% Total solids
13
-------
TABLE 2. SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL METHODS FOR CHEMICALS AND CONVENTIONAL PARAMETERS
Parameter
Method
Unit
Reference
Organic Chemicals
Priority Pollutant
Pesticides
PCBs
Neutrals
Acid/Bases
Guaiacols
Extraction/
GC-ECD
Extraction/
GC-ECD
Extraction/
6C-MS
Extraction/
GC/MS
Extract ion-Deri vat izat ion
Mg/kg dry
pg/kg dry
Mg/kg dry
Mg/kg dry
Mg/kg dry
wt
wt
wt
wt
wt
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
SW
SW
SW
SW
Oikari
846
846
846
846
and
Method
Method
Method
Method
Anas,
, 1986
, 1986
, 1986
, 1986
1985
Metals
AT, Cr, Cu, Pb, Ni
As, Zn, Fe, Mn
Ag, Cd, Sb
Hg
Butyltin
Conventional Parameter
Grain size
Total organic carbon
Total solids
GC/MS-SIM
X-ray Fluorescence
Graphite AA
Cold Vapor
Extraction-Deri vatization
Sieve and Pipette
Leco Furnace
Oven Dry
pg/g dry wt
dry wt
ng/g dry wt
pg/kg dry wt
% dry wt
% dry wt
% dry wt
Nielson and Sanders, 1983
Rantala and Loring, 1975
Bloom and Crecelius, 1987
Unger et al., 1986
Plumb, 1981
Tetra Tech, 1986
Tetra Tech, 1986
-------
for analysis by a combination of two extraction procedures. Extraction
Procedure 1 used solvent extraction followed by HPLC cleanup. The extract
was then split for quantification by either: (1) high performance liquid
chromatography with an ultraviolet light detector (HPLC-UVD), or (2) by gas
chromatography (GC) using either an electron capture detector (GC-ECD), or
(3) a nitrogen-phosphorus detector (GC-NPD). The strategy of using these
methods enabled analyte detection in the low part-per-billion Ug/kg) range.
One compound, glyphosate, was not soluble in organic solvent and was not
analyzed. Two compounds, diuron and tebuthioron, were not quantifiable in
sediment samples because background peaks were not eliminated by the column
chromatography used to purify the sediment extracts. Additional chemical
separation methods would be necessary to quantify these two compounds.
A description of the Extraction Procedure 1 follows.
Approximately 100 g of sediment was extracted with a 50:50 methylene
chloride:acetone mixture. After three samples were obtained, anhydrous
sodium sulfate was added to each sample for water removal. Surrogates (1,3-
dimethyl-2-nitrobenzene, dibromooctafluorobiphenyl) were added before the
first shake. The sample extracts were concentrated to 10 to 15 ml in a
Kaderna-Danish apparatus, further concentrated to 1 ml under nitrogen, and
accurately measured with a syringe before HPLC cleanup by the method of Krahn
et al. (1988). Extracts were concentrated under nitrogen and spiked with
internal standards (triphenylphosphate, dibutylchlorendate, ethylbenzene).
The sample extracts were then split approximately in half. The one half was
for HPLC analysis; the other half was further concentrated under nitrogen,
solvent-substituted with hexane, and concentrated to a final volume of
approximately 500 pi for analysis by GC/NP and GC/EC.
Extraction Procedure 2 followed U.S. EPA (1986) SW846 Method 8150
for chlorinated herbicides. Samples were extracted with ether and sodium
sulfate and processed through florisil. Extracts were derivatized with
diazomethane before quantification by GC-ECD and dual column confirmation.
The surrogate used was 2,4-dichorophenylacetic acid. The three compounds
quantified by this procedure (dicamba, 2,4-D and pentachlorophenol) had low
matrix spike recoveries (about 28%, 33%, and 2%, respectively) and therefore
15
-------
these data were qualified (QM) because the results possibly underestimate the
actual concentrations due to low matrix spike recoveries.
Amphipod Bioassays
The EPA Region 10 Laboratory conducted sediment toxicity tests with
Rhepoxynius abronius on 24 stations in the four non-urban bays and a
reference sediment from West Beach on Whidbey Island and a grain-size control
from Poverty Bay in East Passage of Puget Sound.
Acute lethality, emergence, and reburial of amphipods exposed for
10 days to whole, fresh (unfrozen) sediments were measured using the
methodology of Tetra Tech (1986). The salinity of interstitial water was
measured and found to be in the acceptable range, 23 to 31 ppt. A 2-cm layer
of test sediment was placed in 1-L glass beakers and covered with
approximately 800 ml of clean seawater (28 ppt salinity). Each beaker was
seeded (randomly and blindly) with 20 amphipods and aerated. Five replicates
(20 amphipods each) were run per test sediment. Selected water quality
parameters (pH, dissolved oxygen, temperature, and salinity) were measured at
the beginning and end of each test. Testing was conducted at 15° *1°C under
constant light, and incubator temperatures were recorded continuously. Test
containers were checked daily to establish early trends in mortality and
sediment avoidance and to gently sink any amphipods that had left the
sediments overnight and become trapped by surface tension at the air/water
interface. The negative (clean) control or reference sediments were a sandy
sediment from the amphipod collection site at West Beach on Whidbey Island
and a muddy sediment from Poverty Bay. These control sediments were run
concurrently with each series of test sediments. Along with each test, the
LC-50 concentrations for CdCl2 were determined after a 96-h exposure.
Cadmium chloride was used as a reference toxicant without sediment. Amphipod
bioassays were initiated on all sediments within a 2-week period following
field collection of sediments.
16
-------
Fluorescent Aromatic Compounds (FACs) In Fish Bile
The collection and analysis procedures described by Krahn et al.
(1986a) were followed in the analysis of pooled bile from fish collected from
13 Puget Sound sites. A bile composite was collected from five fish from
each site, and the samples were frozen until analysis. To analyze the
samples, bile was injected directly into a liquid chromatograph, and a
gradient (100% water to 100% methanol) was programmed for the reverse phase
column. Two fluorescence detectors were used in series: the
excitation/emission wavelengths of one were set to 290/335 nm and normalized
to naphthene (NAP) (where metabolites of 2 to 3 ring PAHs—generally from
petroleum sources--fluoresce); the other was set to 380/430 nm and normalized
to benzo[a]pyrene (BaP) (where metabolites of 4 to 6 ring PAHs—from
combustion sources—fluoresce). Concentration of the FACs at each wavelength
is relative, rather than absolute.
Chemical Analyses of Fish Tissue
Chemical contaminants in samples of fish muscle and fish liver were
analyzed by NMFS personnel. Samples of fish muscle composited from five fish
were extracted (MacLeod et al., 1985) and analyzed for the chlorinated
hydrocarbon pesticides (CHs) and PCBs. These analytes were isolated by the
HPLC method of Krahn et al. (1988) and determined by GC with electron capture
detection (MacLeod et al., 1985). Samples of fish liver were analyzed on a
screening basis for CHs and PCBs because the data are of lower priority for
human health and muscle tissue data. The samples of liver were extracted and
analyzed by the methods just described, but the concentrations are reported
in ranges.
Trace Metals in Fish Muscle
Samples of fish muscle were analyzed for 10 metals by NMFS
personnel. For each area, one sample of muscle tissue composited from five
17
-------
fish was digested in nitric acid and hydrogen peroxide and then analyzed by
atomic absorption.
Fish Histopathology
Necropsy protocol for each fish included initial assignment of a
unique specimen number, determination of total length and weight, extraction
of otoliths to determine fish age, notation of gender, and the description of
any grossly visible liver lesions. Liver tissue for histopathologic
examination was excised, fixed, processed, sectioned, stained, and examined
according to Puget Sound Protocol Manual for Fish Histopathology (Tetra Tech,
1987). All histologic slides were examined and diagnoses performed by a
single pathologist, who was not aware of the site of capture of any specimen
until all slides were read. Age determinations from otoliths were conducted
by methods described previously (Chilton and Beamish, 1982). Statworks
and/or Statview 512+ were used to determine the prevalence of lesions and to
record length-site, gender-site, and age-site data by analysis of variance
(ANOVA).
18
-------
QUALITY CONTROL RESULTS
All chemical and conventional data were reviewed according to
guidelines of the PSEP for quality control (QC) (EPA, 1986 b,c,d). A summary
of the QC results is included in this section. More complete details of the
QC review and discussion are given in the QA/QC section of this report,
Appendix B.
METALS IN SEDIMENT
• The concentrations of all metals in the certified reference
material (NBS-1646) were within 20% of the certified value
which is acceptable.
* The coefficient of variation (CV) for triplicate field samples
ranged from 3% to 13% for metals.
• Matrix spike recoveries of the four metals (Ag, Cd, Hg, and
Sb) in sediments analyzed after total digestion by atomic
absorption ranged from 80% to 107%. The other nine metals
were analyzed by X-ray florescence and did not require matrix
spikes.
ORGANIC COMPOUNDS IN FOUR NON-URBAN BAY SEDIMENT SAMPLES
• Matrix spike recoveries for all organic compounds except DDT
and dieldrin were above 50% which is considered acceptable
(Tetra Tech, 1988c). Results for these two compounds are
qualified because of low recoveries (Table 10, page B.18).
• Surrogate recoveries for each sediment sample were greater
than 50% for at least one surrogate of each of the phenol-,
and PAH-type compounds except for two sediments which had
phenol surrogate recoveries of 39% and 48%. These data were
not qualified because recoveries were near 50%. The priority
pollutant pesticide/PCB surrogate recoveries were almost all
in the unacceptably low range of 11% to 27%. The
pesticide/PCB data were judged to be acceptable and reliable
in spite of the low surrogate recoveries for DBOFB (Table 12,
page B.21) because the DBOFB eluted in a region of the
chrorriatogram where many other interfering compounds also
eluted, making accurate peak measurement difficult. Because
19
-------
the recovery of all the priority pollutant pesticide matrix
spike analytes were acceptable, it is reasonable to use their
recovery to gauge method performance, and not base method
efficiency on DBOFB. Matrix spike samples did not contain
PCBs to avoid interferences with the peaks of the priority
pollutant pesticides. However, we know that from other matrix
spike recovery studies conducted in the same laboratory that
pesticides and PCBs have similar extraction efficiency and,
therefore, the good pesticide recoveries infer that the PCB
recoveries should be in the same range.
Detection limits for all organic compounds were more sensitive
than required as presented in Table 1.
Butyl tin surrogate recoveries for tripropyltin were in the
acceptable range of 51% to 110%. Matrix spike recoveries for
TBT, DBT, and MBT were 94%, 96%, and 36%, respectively.
Monobutyltin data are qualified because of low recoveries that
are typical for MBT in sediments.
PESTICIDE RECONNAISSANCE SURVEY
Detection limits for most of the pesticides were in the range
of 1 to 5 M9/kg dry wt. Chlordane detection limit was high
(55 M9/kg) because it is composed of about 50 components
(Table 13, page B.22).
Spike blank recoveries were in the range of 41% to 152% except
for pentachlorophenol and phorate which were qualified as
possibly lower than actual, had recoveries of 19% and 15%,
respectively. Spike recoveries for diazinon and chlordane
were not determined because they would interfere with other
pesticides Table 13, page B.22).
Recoveries of surrogate compounds in field samples were in the
range of 10% to 62% for nitrogen and phosphorus compounds and
23% to 187% for chlorinated compounds. The recovery of the
surrogate for the herbicides (dicamba, 2,40 and
pentachlorophenol) were very high because of a co-eluting peak
in the sediment samples (Table 14, page B.24). In the future
a different surrogate should be used.
Matrix spike recoveries were below the acceptable 50% level
for five compounds. Field data were qualified as unreliable,
and possibly lower than actual, for the following compounds:
pronamide, dicamba, 2,4-D, fenvalerate, and pentachlorophenol
(Table 13, page B.23).
20
-------
METALS IN TISSUE
* The concentrations of metals in certified tissue reference
materials were usually within the certified range and always
in the acceptable range.
ORGANIC COMPOUNDS IN FISH TISSUE
• Matrix spike recoveries were very good usually in the range of
87% to 120%. Acceptable range is grater than 50%.
e The concentrations of chlorinated compounds in a reference
material (NMFS Oyster 1) were similar to values reported from
previous analyses of this material.
FACs IN FISH BILE
« Coefficient of variation for replicate calibration standards
and the bile pool were less than or equal to 5% and 7%,
respectively. These are acceptable values.
21
-------
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
SEDIMENT CHARACTERISTICS
The locations for sediment stations in the four non-urban bays were
selected based on knowledge of suspected pollution sources and sediment
grain-size patterns. Stations were located near, but beyond the direct
influence of suspected pollution sources, such as marinas, outfalls, and
industry, and in areas with fine-grained sediment where chemicals are likely
to accumulate. The results of the analyses for solids, grain size and TOC
are included in Tables 3 and 4, and the detailed grain size results for the
PSWQA stations are presented in Appendix C.
Grain Size and Organic Carbon
In each bay, the grain-size distribution varied from sandy
sediments near the entrance of the bay to muddy sediments in the back of the
bay (Figure 7). There was a strong relationship between grain size, total
solids, and TOC (Figure 8). As the percent of mud (silt plus clay)
increased, the concentration of TOC increased and the concentration of total
solids decreased. These sediment characteristics are typical for sediments
in Puget Sound. The relatively high TOC concentrations from inner Port
Angeles Harbor (Station 4, 5, and 6) result from inputs of wood and bark
derived from the wood products industries in the bay.
The grain sizes of the reference sediments, collected for amphipod
bioassays, were appropriate for their intended function (Table 3). The West
Beach sand, collected from the native habitat of the amphipods on Whidbey
Island, contained very little mud. The Poverty Bay mud, from East Passage
near Des Moines, was used to determine the effect of fine-grain reference
sediment on the survival of amphipods. Because the species of amphipods used
in the bioassays inhabit clean sand, a muddy sediment from a relatively
unpolluted area was used as a grain-size control to determine the toxicity of
mud to amphipods.
22
-------
TABLE 3. CONCENTRATION OF TOTAL SOLIDS, TOC, AND GRAIN
FOR SEDIMENTS IN FOUR NON-URBAN BAYS AND TWO
REFERENCE SITES (UNITS % DRY HT)
SIZE
Station 1.0.
Dyes Inlet
Sta. 1
Sta. 2
Sta. 3
Sta. 4
Sta. 5
Sta. 6
Gig Harbor
Sta. 1
Sta. 2
Sta. 3W
Sta. 4
Sta. 5
Sta. 6
Port Angeles
Sta. 1
Sta. 2
Sta. 3
Sta. 4(b)
Sta. 5
Sta. 6
Oak Harbor
Sta. 1
Sta. 2
Sta. 3
Sta. 4
Sta. 5
Sta. 6
Reference Sediments
Poverty Bay ntud
Kest Beach sand
Gravel >2 ••
Sand 2 - O.D63
So?i3s
88.7
43.2
42.4
30.7
31.6
28.2
60. B
58.7
52.3
45.0
43.9
55.9
68.0
64.5
47.0
40.5
32.4
23.3
49.0
49.9
44.3
43.8
41.6
50.6
for Aaphipod
31.9
83.3
m
Grain-Size AnalysisW
X TOC
0.5
1.8
1.5
3,0
3.2
3.4
0.9
0.9
1.6
2.2
2.5
1.4
0.6
1.2
3.5
5.2
5.4
7.4
6.1
4.9
1.3
1.3
1.4
0.9
Bioassays
2.1
0.0
% Gravel
2.9
6.5
0.0
3.2
0.2
0.0
D.O
O.D
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.3
0.0
0.0
0.1
1.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.3
D.D
0.2
D.2
4.5
I Sand
81.5
26.4
47.6
4.0
6.7
2.5
77.9
71.3
54.4
19.7
18.5
54.2
80.4
64.8
16.7
15.6
18.8
3.8
22.9
22.2
1Z.6
11.0
4.0
21.7
11.7
93.6
X Silfc
1.8
37.6
22.2
43.6
32.2
51.4
11.4
15.4
26.2
54.7
49.5
30. B
16.6
22.4
52.7
46.9
41.7
40.3
44.4
48.8
49.3
49.0
49.6
51.1
33.2
0.4
X Clay
13.7
29.5
30.2
49.2
60.9
46.2
10.7
13.3
19.5
26.6
32.0
15.1
3.0
12.8
30.5
36.4
39.4
55.9
32.8
28.9
38.1
39.7
46.4
27.0
54.9
l.S
Silt 0.063 - 0.004 ••
Clay
-------
TABLE 4. MEAN CONCENTRATION OF TOTAL SOLIDS AND
GRAIN SIZE OF SEDIMENTS AT SEVERAL PU6ET
SOUND LOCATIONS(«)
General Location Station*
Discovery Bay
Port Townsend
Admiralty Inlet
Admiralty Inlet
Saratoga Passage, North
Saratoga Passage, North
Saratoga Passage, South
Port Susan, North
Port Susan, South
Port Susan, South
Northern Hood Canal
Northern Hood Canal
Port Madison
Presidents Point
Presidents Point
Sinclair Inlet
Sinclair Inlet
Lake Washington Ship Canal
S-l
S-2
S-3E
S-3*
S-4W
S-4E
S-5
s-e
S-7E
S-7W
S-8E
S-8f
S-9
S-10E
S-l Of
S-l IE
S-l If
S-12
t Mean of several field replicates, see Appendix
(a) This infornation was gathered
selecting sediment lonitoring
(b) Gravel: )2nin, coarser than 0
(c) Sand: 0.063 - 2na, 0 to 4 phi
(d) Mud or silt plus clay: (C.C63
XSolids
23.6
51.8
89.7
62.4
76.4
76.2
31.3
41.1
47.4
65.1
66.8
64.8
69. B
75.9
73.2
71.4
27.4
59.7
C for detai 1.
for the Puget Sound Water Qual
stations.
phi .
mm, finer than
4 phi.
*Gr,ve.(b)
1.0
1.6
18.8
30.9
0.4
0.5
1.0
1.6
0.2
0.6
1.2
O.B
0.7
2.7
0.3
33.1
1.9
4.2
ity Authority
*SandW
3.7
50.7
40.6
53.9
92.4
63.8
18.1
S.6
63.1
74.6
78.1
79,3
70.3
S9.4
94.1
64.5
20.0
67,0
to use in
*Mud(d)
95.4
47.7
40.3
IS. 2
7.2
35.7
81.4
92.8
36.6
24.6
20.8
19.9
29
11.7
5.6
2.4
71.5
28. 8
24
-------
c
*
too
90 H
80
70 -
60 -
50 -
40 -
30 -
20 -
10 -
0
/
/
'',
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
\
/
/
DM 2 3 4 5 6 GH1 2
i i
3 4
/
/
/
/
\
/
/
\\v\
I
5 6 PA1
Station
2
\
/
\
/
/
/
FIGURE 7. Concentrations of Silt and Clay (Mud) in Six Sediment Samples Collected
From Each of Four Non-Urban Bays: Dyes Inlet = DI, Gig Harbor = GH,
Port Angeles = PA, and Oak Harbor = OH.
/
/
\
3456 OH1 23456
-------
•
U
8
7 -
6 -
5 -
4 -
3 -
2 -
jT
I r
CH1 2
V
V
y
3 4
1
5
',
7
f
r
/
t
/
y
y
r
V
f
y
r
JT
f
6 GH1 2 3 4
5
Station
i i i i r
6 PA1 2 3 4 5 6
r
\
/
y
;y
\
y
f
v.
17.
23456
FIGURE 8. Concentrations of Total Organic Carbon (TOC) in Six Sediment
Samples Collected from Each of Four Non-Urban Bays: Dyes Inlet
Gig Harbor = GH, Port Angeles = PA, and Oak Harbor = OH.
= DI,
-------
The sediments collected at 18 stations for the PSWQA were analyzed
by a commercial testing laboratory for total solids and grain size. The
PSWQA staff selected the station locations (Figure 6); the Authority will
design a long-term monitoring program for Puget Sound based on analysis
results. The grain size varies between coarse sediments from areas of strong
tidal currents, such as Admiralty Inlet, and eastern Sinclair Inlet, to fine
sediments in quiet bays (Table 4).
Trace Metals in Sediment
Table 5 gives the concentrations of 13 metals at six sediment
stations from each of the four non-urban bays. Only seven metals (As, Cd,
Cu, Pb, Hg, Ag, and Zn) were elevated above natural abundances at some
stations; these metals will be discussed in this report. The other six
metals (Al, Cr, Fe, Mn, Ni, and Sb) were found in concentrations typical of
uncontaminated Puget Sound sediments (PNL, 1986; Romberg et al., 1984). The
concentrations of the seven metals that were elevated are presented as bar
graphs in Figures 9 to 15. In these figures, the stations are grouped by
Bay, with the station numbers increasing from the entrance channel toward the
back of the bay. Generally, the sediment grain size decreases from sandy
sediments at the entrance of the bay to muddy sediment further into the bay.
The concentrations of the seven metals presented in Figures 9 to 15 generally
covary with the concentration of mud and TOC. The highest concentrations of
metals are in the inner region of the bays. This trend is due to both the
association of heavy metals with fine-grained sediment and proximity of
pollution sources to the inner stations. The stations that have the least
contamination of trace metals are the sandy Port Angeles (Stations 1 and 2)
and the muddy inner harbor stations (5 and 6) at Oak Harbor. The levels at
these four stations are similar to the levels of metals in sediment deposited
in Puget Sound over 100 years ago (Bloom and Crecelius, 1987; Crecelius and
Bloom, 1988).
The source of the relatively high concentrations of Cu, Pb, Hg, and
Ag in Dyes Inlet appears to be the Bremerton area. The land use around Dyes
Inlet is rural or residential, and not likely to be a significant source of
27
-------
TABLE 5. CONCENTRATION OF METALS IN NON-URBAN SEDIMENTS
Station I.D.
Dyes Inlet
Sta. 1
Sta. 2
Sta. 3
Sta. 4
Sta. 5
Sta. 8
Gig Harbor
Sta. 1
Sta. 2
Sta. 3a
Sta. 4
Sta. 5
Sta. 6
Port Angeles
Sta. 1
Sta. 2
Sta. 3
Sta. 4
Sta. 5
Sta. 6
Oak Harbor
Sta. 1
Sta. 2
Sta. 3
Sta. 4
Sta. i
Sta. 6
Al
6.68
5.91
6.03
6.14
6.33
6.24
5.47
5.90
6.43
6.82
6.49
6.13
6.33
6.48
6.71
6.18
5.98
5.53
5.24
6.48
6.68
7.52
7.60
7.21
Ag
0.13
0.54
0.43
1.18
0.85
1.04
0.20
0.23
0.40
0.67
0.53
0.27
0.02
0.06
0.17
0.12
0.18
0.17
0.13
0.17
0.32
0.29
0.31
0.15
As
4.1
8.9
9,9
17.7
18.8
19.3
7.6
7.3
9.1
12.1
15.4
6.9
5.7
6.8
11.2
8.9
14.8
12.2
8.6
9.0
11.1
10.5
10.4
7.5
Cd
0.93
1.11
0.67
0.97
1.41
1.07
0.30
0.22
0.32
0.37
0.28
0.26
<0.02
0.03
0.39
0.66
1.78
4.59
0.74
0.59
0.45
0.44
0.63
0.54
Cr
118
162
104
111
113
101
90
108
101
128
120
89
66
96
73
86
91
87
76
87
126
113
155
126
Cu
19
51
44
90
72
81
29
31
49
69
62
37
19
17
42
37
48
55
34
40
43
47
48
32
Fe
1.85
2.93
2.80
3.84
3.51
3.63
2.07
2.21
2.52
2.82
2.86
2.19
3.30
2.18
3.68
3.27
3.25
3.32
3.21
3.36
4.12
4.17
4.13
3.32
Hg
0.1S3
0.386
0.316
0.717
0.659
0.790
0.127
0.224
0.213
0.356
0.371
0.273
0.043
0.099
0.266
0.224
0.458
1.290
0.285
0.253
0.083
0.095
0.099
0.067
Un
371
414
448
484
438
442
415
446
437
442
456
417
399
285
382
333
325
292
288
335
605
629
552
513
Ni
22
43
42
60
58
62
26
28
33
34
38
29
28
22
41
34
37
30
27
35
79
78
71
45
Pb
20.5
46.6
34. S
79.2
57.4
74.0
20.6
21.2
35.1
58.4
41.1
27.1
8.0
10.2
25.1
19.1
27.1
37.2
21.4
21.4
15.3
13.7
15.1
12.1
Sb
0.27
0.55
0.54
1.29
0.81
1.03
0.90
0.62
0.93
1.16
1.15
0.54
0.07
0.14
0.41
0.29
0.41
0.47
0.27
0.27
0.28
0.27
0.21
0.07
Zn
47
100
93
168
143
150
57
62
77
93
91
63
65
49
104
96
163
482
92
96
99
112
95
74
(a)
Mean of three field replicates.
-------
O>
20
19
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
r
/
/
f
/
/
/
/
/
T
DI1 2
7
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
7
/
/
y
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
<•
-------
co
o
4.5 -
A _
3.5 -
3 ~~
2.5
2 H
1.5
1 -
0.5 -
~7\
/
r
f/1
7
f
r
w i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i
DI1 23456 GHl2345iPA1 23456 OHl 23456
Station
FIGURE 10. Concentration of Cadmium (Cd) in Six Sediment Samples Collected
from each of Four Non-Urban Bays: Dyes Inlet = DI, Gig Harbor = GH,
Port Angeles = PA, and Oak Harbor = OH.
-------
CO
\
80 -
70 -
60
50
40
30 -
20 -
10 -
i
\
/
/
/
/
7
7
7
7
/
7
/
7
7
j
\
7
/
\
7
f
/
/
f
/
/
/
/
/
f
/
/
/
/
/
/
\
7
/
',
/
/
/
(T
/
/
r
/
/
/
i i
i i
/
/
/
e
f
/
/
/
/
7
/
/
/
',
DI12345SGH12345iPA1 23436 OH1 23456
Station
FIGURE 11. Concentration of Copper (Cu) in Six Sediment Samples Collected
from each of Four Non-Urban Bays: Dyes Inlet = 01, Gig Harbor = GH,
Port Angeles = PA, and Oak Harbor = OH.
-------
*-N
+f
t>
*i
us
80
70 -
60 -
50 -
40 -
30 -
20 -
to -
f
/
T
^
/
/
^
/
'<-
f
/
4
/
/
/
/
r
X
x
X
X
x
x
X
x
X
x
x
/
T
X
/
/
'',
T
f
'',
T
y/
T
j'
x
X
r
r
^
T
V,
/
7
/
T^
T
T
/
T
X
T
f
'',
*/
T
r
X
r^
I I I I I
DI1 23456 GH1 23456 PA1 23456 OH1 23456
Station
FIGURE 12. Concentration of Lead (Pb) in Six Sediment Samples Collected
from each of Four Non-Urban Bays: Dyes Inlet = DI, Gig Harbor = GH,
Port Angeles = PA, and Oak Harbor = OH.
-------
CO
GO
*
^o
?
i.a —
1.2 -
1.1 -
i _
0.9 -
0.8 -
0.7 -
0.6 -
0.5 -
0.4 -
0.3 -
0.2 -
01-
n
y
/
y
/
f
/
' /
/
'/
/
S
/
V
/
/
/
'/
xxxxx
/
/
'/
s
'/
/
/
/
/
^
/
/
/
V
/
f/
/
/
/
'/
/
/
/
'/
/
/
/
/
/ ,
/ ,
y'
'/
'/
/
'/
'/
y
/ ,
/
/
/
>
'/
/
/ ,
/
/
V
/
'/
/
/
/
/
/
/ ,
/
/
fTl
/
'/
/
\/
/
/
/
'/
/
s
/
/,
S
/
'/
'/
/
s
/
f
/
.
'/
|
//
jF
/
f
' ' /
/
S
/
/'
/ /
y >
/ /
y* y t>~r i y s
££££/*/.
DI1 23456 GH1 23456 PA1 23456 OH1 23456
Station
FIGURE 13. Concentrations of Mercury (Hg) in Six Sediment Samples Collected
from each of Four Non-Urban Bays: Dyes Inlet = DI, Gig Harbor = GH,
Port Angeles = PA, and Oak Harbor = OH.
-------
&
t
U)
-Pi
s
1.1 -
1 —
0.9 -
0.8 -
0.7 -
0.6 -
0.5 -
OA
.5
0.3 -
Oo
.z
0.1 -
/^
/
1
DM
\ r \
/
/
/
/
/
/
S
/
/
\
2
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
1
3
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
\
4
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
f /
/
/
/
/
1
5
^
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/ /
/
1
6
' s
/
' J
/
/
/
1
GH1
/
y
yT
'
//
'/
\
2
/
/
/
f
/
'
//
/
\
3
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
\
4
/
X
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
\
5
/ X
^ / / /
/ / / /
/ , ' ' y
/ / r7—\ / / / / / »
/ / ^/ ////////
/ TT~J/ //////////
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
6 PA1 2 3 4 5 6 OH1 23456
Station
FIGURE 14. Concentrations of Silver (Ag) in Six Sediment Samples Collected
from each of Four Non-Urban Bays: Dyes Inlet = DI, Gig Harbor =
Port Angeles = PA, and Oak Harbor = OH.
GH,
-------
t>
"i
00
tn
4OO -
300 -
200 -J
100 -
/
^
V
f
/
DI1 2 3 4 5
I I I I I I
6 GH1 2 3 4 6
6 PA1 2
Station
i i i i i r i r
3456 OH1 23456
FIGURE 15. Concentrations of Zinc (Zn) in Six Sediment Samples Collected
from each of Four Non-Urban Bays: Dyes Inlet = DI, Gig Harbor
Port Angeles = PA, and Oak Harbor = OH.
= GH,
-------
these metals. The sediments of Sinclair Inlet, located near the entrance to
Dyes Inlet, are contaminated with these same metals at concentrations
generally higher than those in Dyes Inlet sediments, but in approximately the
same ratio of enrichment. Therefore, the suspected major source of
contaminants to Dyes Inlet is contaminated suspended matter from Sinclair
Inlet, which is transported by the strong tidal currents at the entrance of
Dyes Inlet and deposited in the fine-grained sediment of Dyes Inlet.
In Gig Harbor, the inner harbor stations are slightly contaminated
with Pb, Cu, and Hg compared to reference areas of Puget Sound. The obvious
sources of metals in this harbor are boats and sewage. The elevated
concentrations of butyltin compounds in Gig Harbor sediments (presented
later) is supporting evidence that boating activity contributes to the
contamination.
The inner three stations in Port Angeles Harbor contain elevated
concentrations of Cd, Cu, Hg, and Zn. Station 6 has the highest levels of
Cd, Hg, and Zn measured in this survey. Possible sources are the pulp and
forest products mills located on this harbor.
Oak Harbor sediments are relatively uniform in grain size and
exhibit very little heavy metal contamination. A sewage outfall, marina, and
naval air station are the suspected sources of the low level of contaminants
in this harbor.
Comparison of Metals with Other Studies
The mean concentrations of seven metals in the fine-grain sediments
(less than 60% sand) from non-urban bays are compared with mean concentration
of these metals in other areas of Puget Sound. The areas selected for
comparison represent some of the most contaminated and some of the least
contaminated in Puget Sound. The results are presented as bar graphs in
Figures 16-22. The first four bars on the left are from this study, the
other areas are EB (Elliott Bay South Shoreline, PTI-Tetra Tech, 1988a), CB
(Commencement Bay City Waterway, Tetra Tech, 1985), EH (Everett Harbor East
Waterway, Anderson and Crecelius, 1985), SI (Sinclair Inlet, PNL, 1986), PS
(Puget Sound Main Basin, Romberg et al., 1984), Pre-1900 (Puget Sound main
36
-------
90
80 -
70 -
60 -
5O -
T3
40 -
D>
CD
co
20 -
PS Pre-1900 SB
FIGURE 16. Comparison of the Mean Concentration of Arsenic (As) in Sediments
from the Non-Urban Bays in This Survey with Other Areas of Puget
Sound: Dyes Inlet = DI, Gig Harbor = GH, Port Angeles = PA, Oak
Harbor = OH, Elliott Bay (South Shoreline) = EB, Commencement Bay
(City Waterway) = CB, Everett Harbor (East Waterway) = EH, Sinclair
Inlet = SI, Puget Sound Main Basin = PS, Puget Sound Main Basin
Sediments Deposited before the Year 1900 = Pre-1900, Sequim Bay =
SB. References and Data are provided in Appendix B.
-------
o>
OJ
co
5 j
4 J
3 -
2 _
1 -
ZZA
CM
Oil
PS Pra-1900 SB
FIGURE 17. Comparison of the Mean Concentration of Cadmium (Cd) in Sediments
from the Non-Urban Bays in This Survey with Those in Other Areas
of Puget Sound: Dyes Inlet = DI, Gig Harbor = GH, Port Angeles = PA,
Oak Harbor = OH, Elliott Bay (South Shoreline) = EB, Commencement Bay
(City Waterway) = CB, Everett Harbor (East Waterway) = EH, Sinclair
Inlet = SI, Puget Sound Main Basin = PS, Puget Sound Main Basin Sediments
Deposited before the year 1900 = Pre-1900, Sequim Bay = SB.
References and Data are provided in Appendix B.
-------
-o
en
=?
PS Pr«-1900 SB
FIGURE 18. Comparison of the Mean Concentration of Copper (Cu) Sediments from the
Urban Bays in This Survey with Those in Other Areas of Puget Sound: Dyes Inlet
= DI, Gig Harbor = GH, Port Angeles = PA, Oak Harbor = OH, Elliott Bay (South
Shoreline) = EB, Commencement Bay (City Waterway) = CB, Everett Harbor (East
Waterway) = EH, Sinclair Inlet = SI, Puget Sound Main Basin = PS, Puget Sound
Main Basin Sediments Deposited before the year 1900 = Pre-1900, Sequim Bay =
SB. References and Data are provided in Appendix B.
-------
6 -
-C
en
- — o
mi—
en
at
o
1 -
YZZ
Dl
CM
PA
OH
CO
Eli
51
1 i r~~
PS Pre-190O SB
FIGURE 19. Comparison of the Mean Concentration of Lead (Pb) in Sediments from the
Non-Urban Bays in This Survey with Those in Other Areas in Puget Sound:
Dyes Inlet = DI, Gig Harbor = GH, Port Angeles = PA, Oak Harbor = OH,
Elliott Bay (South Shoreline) = EB, Commencement Bay (City Waterway) = CB,
Everett Harbor (East Waterway) = EH, Sinclair Inlet = SI, Puget Sound
Main Basin = PS, Puget Sound Main Basin Sediments Deposited before the
year 1900 = Pre-1900, Sequim Bay = SB. References and Data are provided
in Appendix B.
-------
en
5
•o
PS Pr«-19GO SB
FIGURE 20. Comparison of the Mean Concentration of Mercury (Hg) in Sediments from
the Non-Urban Bays in This Survey with Those in Other Areas in Puget Sound
Dyes Inlet = 01, Gig Harbor = GH, Port Angeles = PA, Oak Harbor = OH,
Elliott Bay (South Shoreline) = EB, Commencement Bay (City Waterway)'= CB
Everett Harbor (East Waterway) = EH, Sinclair Inlet = SI, Puget Sound Main
Basin = PS, Puget Sound Main Basin Sediments Deposited before the year
1900 = Pre-1900, Sequim Bay = SB. References and Data are provided in
Appendix B.
-------
tit
T3
o>
o>
0.5 -
0
FIGURE 21. Comparison of the Mean Concentration of Silver (Ag) in Sediments from the
Non-Urban Bays in This Survey with Those in Other Areas in Puget Sound.
Dyes Inlet = DI, Gig Harbor = GH, Port Angeles = PA, Oak Harbor = OH,
Elliott Bay (South Shoreline) = EB, Commencement Bay (City Waterway) = CB,
Everett Harbor (East Waterway) = EH, Sinclair Inlet = SI, Puget Sound
Main Basin = PS, Puget Sound Main Basin Sediments Deposited before the
year 1900 = Pre-1900, Sequim Bay = SB. References and Data are provided
in Appendix B.
-------
1/1
13
o
en
1.3 -T
1.2 -
t.1 -
1 -
0.9 -
0.8 -
0.7 ^
0.6 -
0.5 -
0.4 -
0.3 -
0.2 -
o.i -7
77A
Di
GH
r
PA
OH
VTAY/AWA
i
PS Pr«-1900 SO
FIGURE 22. Comparison of the Mean Concentration of Zinc (Zn) in Sediments from the
Non-Urban Bays in This Survey with Those in Other Areas in Puget Sound.
Dyes Inlet = DI, Gig Harbor = GH, Port Angeles = PA, Oak Harbor = OH,
Elliott Bay (South Shoreline) = EB, Commencement Bay (City Waterway) = CB,
Everett Harbor (East Waterway) = EH, Sinclair Inlet = SI, Puget Sound
Main Basin = PS, Puget Sound Main Basin Sediments Deposited before the
year 1900 = Pre-1900, Sequim Bay = SB. References and Data are provided
in Appendix B.
-------
basin dated sediment deposited in the 19th century, Romberg et al., 1984),
and SB (Sequim Bay, PNL, 1986). The chemical data used for the comparisons
are listed in Appendix C. These urban areas include some of the most
contaminated marine sediment in Puget Sound and for comparison relatively
pristine sediments from pre-1900 and Sequim Bay. These comparisons indicate
that the four non-urban bays are contaminated with some heavy metals compared
with pre-1900 or Sequim Bay levels, but not nearly as contaminated as
sediments from urban bays, particularly Elliott and Commencement Bays.
Organic Contaminants in Sediments
The 24 sediment samples from the four non-urban bays were analyzed
for a variety of organic compounds, including butyltin compounds, PAHs, PCBs,
six priority pollutant pesticides, chlorinated benzenes, hexachlorobutadiene,
bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate, phenols, chlorinated phenols, and guaiacols.
Some of these organic contaminants were not detected in this survey. The
compounds, which were frequently or occasionally detected include tributyltin
(TBT), PAHs, PCBs, and DDT derivatives, are presented in Table 6. The
concentrations of the individual PAH compounds are listed in Appendix C.
A major source of TBT compounds to coastal waters is from the use
of organotin antifouling paint on boat hulls. Other sources of butyltin
compounds include pesticides, the chemical industry, and degradation of TBT.
The concentrations of total butyltins (BT) (sum of mono-, di-, and
tributyltin) are presented in Figure 23 (units are ^g/kg as Sn). The
concentrations of the three individual compounds are presented in Table 7.
The highest concentrations are in the range of 23 to 37 /*9/kg BT for 7 of the
12 stations in Gig Harbor and Port Angeles Harbor. Both harbors have
marinas, and Port Angeles also has commercial shipping traffic. The
concentrations of BT in Dyes Inlet and Oak Harbor are substantially lower
than in the other bays. Sediment at Stations 5 and 6 near the Oak Harbor
Marina contain slightly higher levels of BT than at the other stations from
this harbor. In comparison, BT concentrations reported by two other studies
in Puget Sound range from >500 ^g/kg in three marinas to 20 to 300 ^g/kg in
44
-------
TABLE 6. CONCENTRATIONS OF ORGANIC COMPOUNDS IN SEDIMENTS
FROM FOUR NON-URBAN BAYS (DRY HEIGHT)
Station I.D.
Dyes Inlet
Sta. 1
Sta. 2
Sta. 3
Sta. 4
Sta. 5
Sta. 6
Gig Harbor
Sta. 1
Sta. 2
Sta. 3b
Sta. 4
Sta. 5
Sta. 6
Port Angeles
Sta. 1
Sta. 2
Sta. 3
Sta. 4a
Sta. 5
Sta. 6
Oak Harbor
Sta. 1
Sta. 2
Sta. 3
Sta. 4
Sta. 5
Sta. 6
Summed PAH
/tg/kg
1203
1358
943
2748
1399
1443
4325
2986
6272
45392
6392
2148
371
1594
4071
4886
3721
4798
128
193
314
322
437
217
Total PCB
/*g/kg
0.6
6,0
4.0
7.9
4.5
9.0
4.0
5.0
25.6
18.5
97.3
6.0
<0.1
1.0
5.4
6.6
8.4
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
8.8
6.1
O.I
Total DDT(a)
MgAg
O.I
0.1
O.I
O.I
O.I
0.8
0.1
0.1
0.4
0.6
3.1
0.1
O.I
0.1
4.8
0.7
O.I
O.I
0.1
O.I
O.I
O.I
O.I
O.I
TBT
/ig/kg as Sn
3
10
7
10
8
7
17
27
26
30
29
37
<2
3
14
23
28
8
3
<2
<2
<2
10
4
(a) Sum of ODD, DDE, and DDT.
(b) Mean of three field replicates.
45
-------
TABLE 7. CONCENTRATIONS OF BUTYLTIN COMPOUNDS IN
SEDIMENTS FROM FOUR NON-URBAN BAYS. UNITS
ARE ^G/KG DRY WEIGHT AS TIN
Tri-
Station I.D. butyltin
Dyes Inlet
Sta. 1
Sta. 2
Sta. 3
Sta. 4
Sta. 5
Sta. 6
Gig Harbor
Sta. 1
Sta. 2
Sta. 3 *
Sta. 4
Sta. 6
Sta. 6
Port Angeles
Sta. 1
Sta. 2
Sta. 3
Sta. 4 *
Sta. 5
Sta. 6
Oak Harbor
Sta. 1
Sta. 2
Sta. 3
Sta, 4
Sta. 5
Sta. 6
3
6
4
6
4
4
ID
14
14
15
13
15
nd
3
11
17
22
8
3
nd
nd
nd
7
4
Di-
buty It in
nd
4
3
4
4
3
4
7
7
7
ID
9
nd
nd
3
4
6
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
3
nd
Mono-
byty Itin
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
3 Q
6 Q
4 5
8 q
6 5
13 Q
nd
nd
nd
2 Q
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
Total
butyl tins
3
10
7
ID
8
7
17
27
26
30
29
37
nd
3
14
23
28
8
3
nd
nd
nd
10
4
%
Tri butyl in
100
60
57
60
50
57
E6
52
53
50
45
40
nd
100
76
72
79
100
100
nd
nd
nd
70
100
* Mean of three field replicates.
nd = Not detected at 2 fjg/kg.
| = Qualified as unreliable because of low matrix spike recoveries.
46
-------
•«*
JC
*
*
tj
\
f
'',
j'
/
f
/
T
*•
/
r
/;
X
Dll 2 3 4 5 6 GH1 2 3 4 5 6 PA1 2
r
f
/
/
/
/
/
r
/
4
/
''/
1^^
6 OH1
7
/
T—r~~r
234
/
56
FIGURE 23. Concentrations of Butyltins in Six Sediment Samples Collected
from each of Four Non-Urban Bays: Dyes Inlet = DI, Gig Harbor = GH,
Port Angeles = PA, and Oak Harbor = OH.
-------
Elliott Bay and <3 fig/kg in sediments from deep water in the main basin
(Varanasi et al., 1988: PTI, 1988).
The concentrations of PAH in sediment are generally in the range of
1,000 to 6,000 fig/kg except for one station in Gig Harbor, which is a factor
of 10 higher than in surrounding sediments (Table 6 and Figure 24). The
levels of PAH in Oak Harbor are substantially lower than those in the other
three non-urban bays. The high concentration of PAH in Gig Harbor Station 4
may indicate contamination at that station or the sediment sample could
contain pieces of blacktop road surface material, tar, or creosote-treated
wood.
The levels of PAH found in this survey are typical of sediment from
non-urban areas. Sources of PAH include combustion of fossil fuels and
wood, discharges of petroleum products, sewage outfalls, and street runoff.
The mean concentrations of PAH in the four non-urban bays is shown with that
of several Puget Sound urban bays in Figure 25. This comparison indicates
the non-urban bays have relatively low concentrations, all below the AETs for
PAH.
The concentration of total PCB in sediments ranged from below the
detection limit of 0.1 /*g/kg to 97 fig/kg at Gig Harbor Station 5. The
results, presented in Figure 26, indicate the presence of relatively low
concentrations of PCBs in many of the sediments from the four non-urban bays.
Gig Harbor had the three highest concentrations (sources unknown) whereas the
concentrations in Dyes Inlet and Port Angeles Harbor were somewhat lower.
Only two of the six Oak Harbor sediments contained detectable levels of PCBs.
For comparison with PCB concentration in sediments from other areas of Puget
Sound, the results of this study are given with that of urban bays of Puget
Sound in Figure 27. The four non-urban bays have much lower concentrations
of PCBs than the urban bays.
The concentrations of total DDT (sum of ODD, DDE, and DDT) in
sediments from the four non-urban bays are presented in Figure 28. Most of
the sediments contained less than 0.1 /*g/kg total DDT. Six of the 24
stations contained low concentrations, 0.4 to 4.8 /*g/kg. For comparison,
sediments from several Puget Sound urban bays contained 20 to 80 fig/kg, as
presented in Figure 29.
48
-------
t) 3
^ 0
mj
45 -
40 -
35 -
30 -
25 -
20 -
15 -
10 -
5 -
0 -
/
T / /
ZUTlmZJZlJZl/ / /
/
/
'/
/
//
//
/
/
^/ \7 1
/ ' 7/7^
\ \ \ \ \ i i i i i i i i -"I i i i i i i i i i i
DM 2 3 4 5 6 GUI 234 56 PA1 23456 Old 23456
FIGURE 24. Concentrations of Organic Compounds (Total PAH) in Six
Sediment Samples Collected from Each of Four Non-Urban
Bays: Dyes Inlet = DI, Gig Harbor = GH, Port Angeles = PA,
and Oak Harbor = OH.
-------
t-s
V 3
tn
o
4OO
350 -
300 ~
250 -
20O -
150
10O -
PA
OH
ED
CD
r^ , p-
PS Pro 1900 SQ
FIGURE 25. Comparison of the Summed PAH in Sediments from the Non-Urban Bays
in This Survey with Those in Other Areas of Puget Sound: Dyes
Inlet = 01, Gig Harbor = GH, Port Angeles = PA, Oak Harbor = OH,
Elliott Bay (South Shoreline) = EB, Commencement Bay (City
Waterway) = CB, Everett Harbor (East Waterway) = EH, Sinclair
Inlet = SI, Puget Sound Main Basin = PS, Puget Sound Main
Basin Sediments Deposited before the year 1900 = Pre-1900,
Sequim Bay = SB. References and Data are provided in Appendix B.
-------
iuu -
90 -
80 -
70 -
y-V
•*»
r
9 60 -
£ 50 -
o»
^ 40 -
5
30 -
20 -
10 -
0 -
DI1
/
I
2
1
3
{
4
FIGURE 26.
r/i
5
/
1
6
i
A
GUI
'4
2
Concentrations
/
/
/
I
3
of
/
I
4
^
/
^
/
y/
/
/
/
_ , r-r-i ' > '"/ _
7^ T-\// / y-
/ ^ A / / / /
l i 1 II II l I l 1 I l I
5 6 PA1 2 3 4 5 6 OMI 2 3 4 5 6
Organic Compounds (Total PCB) in Six
Sediment Samples Collected from Each of Four Non-Urban Bays:
Dyes Inlet = DI, Gig Harbor = GH, Port Angeles = PA; and
Oak Harbor = OH.
-------
t) D
^ 0
1.1 -
\ -
0.9 -
0.0 -
0.7 -
0.6 -
0.5 -
0.4 -
0.3 -
0.2 -
0.1 -
0 -
ZJ
PS Fre 1900 SB
FIGURE 27. Comparison of the Mean Total PCBs in Sediments from the Non-Urban Bays
in This Survey with Those in Other Areas of Puget Sound: Dyes Inlet = DI,
Gig Harbor = GH, Port Angeles = PA, Oak Harbor = OH, Elliott Bay (South
Shoreline) = EB, Commencement Bay (City Waterway) = CB, Everett Harbor
(East Waterway) = EH, Sinclair Inlet = SI, Puget Sound Main Basin = PS,
Puget Sound Main Basin Sediments Deposited before the year 1900 = Pre-1900,
Sequim Bay = SB. References and Data are provided in Appendix B.
-------
4 -
£
D>
3 -
(n
OJ
2 -
1 -
0 -
pj^pj^j
/
^oi^p
r
z
mim m nn TT~\ en
Wt 2 3 4
6 GII1 23456 PA1 234
5 6 OH1 23456
FIGURE 28. Concentrations of Organic Compounds (Total DDT) in Six
Sediment Samples Collected from Each of Four Non-Urban Bays;
Dyes Inlet = DJ; Gig Harbor = GH, Port Angeles = PA; and
Oak Harbor = OH.
-------
50 -
70 -
c.
a>
•~
20 -
JO
Dl
CI
r
PS
Pr« 190O
FIGURE 29. Comparison of the Mean Total DOT in Sediments from the Non-Urban Bays
in This Survey with Those in Other Areas of Puget Sound: Dyes Inlet = DI,
Gig Harbor = GH, Port Angeles = PA, Oak Harbor = OH, Elliott Bay (South
Shoreline) = EB, Commencement Bay (City Waterway) = CB, Everett Harbor (East
Waterway) = EH, Sinclair Inlet = SI, Puget Sound Main Basin = PS, Puget Sound
Hain Basin Sediments Deposited before the year 1900 = Pre-1900, Sequim Bay =
SB, References and Data are provided in Appendix B.
-------
Five other priority pollutant chlorinated pesticides were not
detected in the non-urban bay sediments. Two of the pesticides, chlordane
and lindane, were included in the list of 20 pesticides that were sought in
the pesticide reconnaissance survey of sediments from several river mouths in
Puget Sound.
Sediments from Port Angeles Harbor were analyzed for guaiacol and
several related chlorinated guaiacols that can be produced by the pulp and
paper industry. Because Port Angeles has two pulp mills that discharge
treated effluent through marine outfalls, the sediment from this bay was
analyzed for these special compounds. Only one compound, 3-,4-,5-
trichloroguaiacol, was detected at 10 /tg/kg in sediment from Station 4, which
is located about 1.5 miles from an outfall. All other compounds were below
the obtained detection limit of 8 /tg/kg in the six sediment samples. For
comparison, PTI and Tetra Tech (1988b) report these three chlorinated
guaiacol compounds in the range of 20 to 110 fig/kg in approximately 10% of
the sediments analyzed from stations near a pulp mill in the East Waterway of
Everett Harbor, an area that has received pulp mill effluent for over
50 years.
Pesticide Reconnaissance Survey Results
Sediment samples were collected for the pesticide survey by the EPA
Region 10 staff along transects in the estuaries of several rivers. The
sampling locations, which are shown in Figure 6 and locations given in
Appendix A, Table 5, were selected based on estimates of pesticide use in
the Puget Sound basin (Tetra Tech, 1988b). The stations sampled include one
in Dugulla Bay (Whidbey Island), four near the Skagit River mouth, one in
the Stillaguamish River, two in the Snohomish River, two in the Sammamish
Slough near Kenmore, four in the Lake Washington-Lake Union system, two in
the Nisqually River mouth, and one in Sequalitchew Creek near Fort Lewis.
The 17 sediment samples were analyzed for 20 pesticides, listed in
Table 8. All samples that contained detectable pesticides were confirmed by
quantification on a second confirmation column. Twelve of the 20 pesticides
55
-------
TABLE 8. CONCENTRATIOHS OF PESTICIDES IN RECONNAISSANCE SURVEY
OF PESTICIDES IN SEDIMENTS G»g/kg DRY HT)
CJ1
en
Pesticides
Atrazine
Butyl ate
Diazinon (a)
(a)
Oisulfoton
(bl
Ethyl Pirathion v '
Methyl Parathion
Phorate
Prometon
Pronanide
Siiazine
Trif lural in
Vernolate
Chlordine
(b)
Chlorpyrifos
Dicaiba
Dichobeni t
2,4-D
Fenvalerate
Lindane
Pen tach 1 o ropheno 1
Category
N
N
N,P
P
N
N
P
N
N
N,CI
N
N
Cl
CI.M.P
Cl
Cl
Cl
CI,N
Cl
Cl
GC Detector
NPD
NPD
NPD
NPD
NPD
NPD
NPD
NPD
NPD
NPD
NPD
NPD
ECD
ECD
ECD
ECD
ECD
ECD
ECD
ECD
Dectection Liiil
ug/Kg Dry ft
1
1.6
—
3.0
1.6
2.8
1.3
1.3
4.8
2.4
2.2
1.4
SS
2.1
0,02
1.4
0.06
13.2
2.1
0.01
; Ik. fash.
Sta. 1
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
2.7 qi
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
31 qM
Lk. lash.
Sta. 2
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
2.0
ND
ND
20
56 qM
Lk. lash.
Sta. 3
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
2.3
ND
ND
7.1
14 qM
Site
Lk. fash.
Sta. 4
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
7.0 qr
ND
4.9
ND
ND
ND
53 qM
Lk. Wash.
Sta. 5
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
3.0 qi
ND
3.8
ND
ND
3.5
12 qM
Lk fash
Sta. 8
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
32 qM
(a) Diazinon and Disulfoton co-elute, therefore all reported concentrations represent a suited result.
(b) Ethyl Paration and Chlorpyrifos co-elute, therefore all reported concentrations represent a su«»ed result.
N = Nitrogen
P = Phosphorus
Cl = Chlorine
NPD = Nitrogen phosphorus detector
ECD = Electron capture detector
ND = Not detected at the given detection liiiit in column 4.
QM = qualified as data possibly lower than actual value because of low natrix spike recoveries.
HI = Qualified as unreliable data because of natrix interferences in *atrix spike recovery test.
-------
TABLE 8. CONTINUED
Pesticides
Atrazine
Butyl ate
Diazinon
Disulofton
Ethyl Parathion * '
Methyl Parathion
Phorate
Proaieton
Pronanide
Sinazine
Triflural in
Vernolate
Chlordane
Chlorpyrifos
Dicanba
Oichobeni 1
2,4-0
Fenvalerate
Lindane
Pentach lorophenol
Sti 1 laguaiish
Rivtr
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
8.4
11 qy
Nisqual ly
Sta. 1
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
1.5 qM
ND
ND
ND
2.2
8,7 qu
Nisqual ly
Sta. 2
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
12 qU
ND
ND
ND
11
7.5 qu
Snohoiish
Sta. 1
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
5.9
24 qu
Snohoiish
Sta. 2
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
7.8 qu
Site
Dugualla
Bay
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
9.5 qy
Skagit
Sta. 1
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
is qu
Skagit
Sta. 2
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
31 qu
ND
ND
7.9 qu
Skagit
Sta. 3
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
17 qu
ND
2.8
10 QM
Skagit
Sta. 4
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
43 qu
ND
6.7
is qu
Sequal itchew
Creek
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
12 qu
ND
ND
46 qu
(a) Diazinon and Disulfoton co-elute, therefore all reported concentrations represent a sunned result.
(b) Ethyl Paration and Chlorpyrifos co-elute, therefore, all reported concentrations represent a sunned result.
N = Nitrogen
P = Phosphorus
Cl = Chlorine
NPD = Nitrogen phosphorus detector
BCD = Electron capture detector
ND = Not detected at the given detection limit in column 4.
QM - Qualified as data possibly lower than actual value because of low natrix spike recoveries.
-------
were quantified using the nitrogen (N) and phosphorous (P) detector. Of the
12 N or P containing pesticides, none of the 17 stations contained detectable
concentrations that were confirmed by dual column analysis. Six pesticides
containing chlorine were quantified by electron capture detector. Of these
six chlorinated pesticides, only lindane and pentachlorophenol were detected
frequently. Pentachlorophenol, a common wood preservative, was detected at
all 17 stations. However, because of the low matrix spike recoveries for
pentachlorophenol, the data are qualified unreliable. Chloropyrifos was
detected in three of the six Lake Washington stations although matrix
interferences in the matrix spikes caused these results to be qualified.
Lindane was detected at 9 of the 17 stations. Dichobenil was detected in
four Lake Washington sediment samples in the range of 2 to 4.9 M9/kg. Both
dicamba and 2,4-D were detected in a few sites but because of low matrix
spike recoveries, the data are qualified.
This pesticide reconnaissance apparently provides the only data
available for most of these pesticides in sediments from Puget Sound.
Previous studies have reported several of these pesticides in urban bays,
including pentachlorophenol and lindane.
The scope of this study did not include evaluation of the
environmental significance of the pesticide levels in sediments. There are
U.S. EPA water quality criteria for pentachlorophenol, chlordane, and
ethylparathion (parathion), which are relatively low compared with criteria
for other toxic chemicals. However, the only sediment quality guidelines for
Puget Sound sediment is the AET for pentachlorophenol, which is 170 ^g/kg,
approximately three times the level measured at three stations.
AMPHIPOD BIOASSAY
Results of the amphipod sediment bioassays are presented in
Table 9. Detailed results are provided in Appendix C. Three sets of
amphipod bioassays were performed. The first set was started on April 28
with sediments collected from Dyes Inlet and Gig Harbor. The second set was
started on May 6 with sediments collected from Port Angeles and Oak Harbors.
A mean survival of 90% or more is considered acceptable for amphipod sediment
58
-------
TABLE 9. MEAN AMPHIPOD SURVIVAL FOR FIVE REPLICATES
OF 10-DAY SEDIMENT BIOASSAYS. TWENTY
INDIVIDUALS WERE USED PER REPLICATE.
SUPPORTING INFORMATION ON REBURIAL AND
EMERGENCE IS IN APPENDIX C.
Station I.D. and
Dates of Bioassays
Survivors
Mean * SO
Survival
Mean %
Control Sediments
West Beach sand
(4/28 - 5/8/88)
(5/6 - 16/88)
(5/12 - 22/88)
Poverty Bay mud
(4/28 - 5/8/88)
(5/12 - 22/88)
Dyes Inlet (4/28 - 5/8/88)
Sta, 1
Sta. 2
Reanalysis Sta. 2
(5/12 - 22/88)
Sta. 3
Reanalysis Sta. 3
(5/12 - 22/88)
Sta. 4
Reanalysis Sta. 4
(5/12 - 22/88)
Sta. 5
Sta. 6
Reanalysis Sta, 6
(5/12 - 22/88)
Gig Harbor (4/28 - 5/8/88)
Sta. 1
Sta. 2
Sta. 3(a)
Reanalysis Sta. 3
(5/12 - 22/88)
Sta. 4
Sta. 5
Sta. 6
17.0 * 1.0
20.0 * 0.0
20.0 * 0.0
16.0 * 2.0
18.5 * 1.7
16.4 *
18.0 *
17.3
15.6
19.7
14.2
16.0
16.6
14.2
2.1
1.0
* 0.6
* 2.3
* 0.6
± 3.9
* 2.7
± 1.5
* 2.5
17.0 * 0.0
16.8 * 2.6
16,8 * 2.5
16.3 * 2.1
19.0
17.4
17.6
17.8
* 1.7
* 2.8
* 1.1
* 1.8
85
100
100
80
93
82
90
87
78
99
71
80
83
71
85
84
84
79
95
87
88
89
59
-------
TABLE 9 (Continued)
Station I.D. and
Dates of Bioassays
Survivors
Mean ± SD
Survival
Mean %
Port Angeles (5/6 - 16/88)
Sta. 1
Sta. 2
Sta. 3
Sta. 4 (a)
Sta. 5
Sta. 6
Oak Harbor (5/6 - 16/88)
19.8 A 0.5
19.8 * 0.5
17.8 * 1.3
19.2 * 1.3
19.0 * 1.2
19.4 ± 0.5
(a)
99
99
89
96
95
97
Sta.
Sta.
Sta.
Sta.
Sta.
Sta.
1
2
3
4
5
6
16.6
17.4
17.6
17.4
17.2
19.2
* 1.7
± 2.4
* 1.5
* 1.8
* 2.2
* 0.5
83
87
88
87
86
96
Mean of three field replicates,
60
-------
bioassay controls (Swartz et al., 1985). Because the survival of the
amphipods in the control sediments of the first set of tests was 80% to 85%,
less than 90% needed to validate the test, some of the sediments were
retested. The third set was started on May 12 to retest some of the
sediments used in the first set of tests. Sediments that were retested were
held at 4°C for about 3 weeks.
The results of the control or reference sediments (West Beach sand
and Poverty Bay mud) indicated that the batch of amphipods used in the first
set of tests (April 28) were more sensitive to both their native sand and the
Poverty Bay mud than the second batch of amphipods used for the subsequent
two sets of bioassays (May 6 and 12). The PSEP for the amphipod sediment
bioassay (Tetra Tech, 1986) requires that survival rate for the control sand
be at least 90%. A reference toxicant test, amphipod survival at the end of
the 96-h exposure to cadmium, also indicated the batch of amphipods used on
April 28 was more sensitive (in poorer condition) than the batch used later.
The cadmium 96-h LDso results were 0.24, 0.74, and 1.09 mg/L for the three
respective sets of bioassays.
Mean values of amphipod survival are greater than or equal to 80%
for all sediments tested on May 6 and May 12 control survival was 93% to
100%. These results indicate the sediments tested from these bays do not
cause increased amphipod mortality compared with reference sediments. These
results are consistent with other surveys of sediment toxicity, which usually
did not detect amphipod toxicity for sediment from non-urban areas of Puget
Sound (PNL, 1986).
SEDIMENT CHEMISTRY COMPARED TO PUGET SOUND SEDIMENT QUALITY VALUES
Sediment quality values based on AET concentrations are available
for a variety of chemicals of concern in Puget Sound. An AET value for a
specific chemical indicates the concentration of a chemical above which a
specific toxic effect is expected to occur. The AETs have been determined
for a number of contaminants in Puget Sound sediments using results from
several hundred sediment samples (Barrick et al., 1988). The four types of
biological tests for which AET values are currently available include
61
-------
amphipod sediment bioassay, benthic abundance, oyster larvae bioassay, and
microtox bioassay. For each individual contaminant there may be four
different AET values derived independently for each of the four types of
sediment quality tests. The AET values may differ for each test, and no
test is consistently more sensitive than the others for all chemicals of
concern. When an AET is exceeded for a single indicator (e.g., amphipod
bioassay), adverse effects may be occurring to that species or species group.
When an AET is exceeded for multiple indicators, adverse effects are probably
occurring to multiple species or species groups.
The sediment chemistry results for the 24 sediments collected in
this survey of four non-urban bays have been compared with the lowest AET
(LAET) (most sensitive for a specific chemical) and the highest AET (HAET)
for the number of chemicals of concern. The percentage of the sediment
stations that exceeded either the LAETs or HAETs is presented in Table 10.
Only five chemicals exceeded the LAET by a small amount at a few stations,
and no sediment sample exceeded the HAET. Mercury exceeded the Microtox AET
of 0.41 fig/g in five stations or 21% of the sediment stations. Silver
exceeded the AET for oyster larvae (0.56 M9/9) at four stations or 17% of the
stations, and Zn exceeded the benthic AET (410 /*g/g) at one station or 4% of
the stations. Of the organic chemicals examined, only one station or 4% of
the stations exceeded the LAETs for low- molecular-weight PAH (LPAH) (5,200
jig/kg) and high-molecular-weight PAH (HPAH) (12,000 /tg/kg). In both cases,
this sediment sample was from Station 4 in Gig Harbor.
Because the LAET for chemicals of concern measured in this survey
were based on either the microtox, oyster larvae or benthic abundance tests,
and were lower than the amphipod-based AET in all cases, it is consistent
that the results from the amphipod sediment bioassays did not indicate the
presence of toxic sediments.
CONTAMINANTS IN FISH TISSUE
Fish tissue was analyzed to evaluate the accumulation of selected
contaminants in the liver and muscle tissue of flatfish in 13 study areas of
Puget Sound. The organic contaminants selected for analysis (PCBs and eight
62
-------
TABLE 10. PERCENTAGE OF THE 24 SEDIMENT STATIONS FROM FOUR NON-URBAN BAYS
THAT EXCEED EITHER THE LOWEST APPARENT EFFECT THRESHOLD (AET) OR
THE HIGHEST AET FOR CONCENTRATION OF CHEMICALS
CTI
CO
Chemical Parameters
Metals (ptg/g dry weight; ppm)
Ant i sony
Arsenic
Cadiiu*
Chroiiun
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Si Iver
Zinc
Organics (^g/kg dry weight; ppb)
LPAH
HPAH
PCB
1,3-dichlorobenzene
1,4-dichlorobenzene
1 , 2-d i ch 1 orobenzene
1, 2, 4-tri eh 1 orobenzene
b i s [2-ethy 1 hexy 1 ] phtha 1 ate
phenol
2-»ethyl phenol
4-«ethyl phenol
2, 4-d i lethy 1 pheno 1
pentachlorophenol
hexachlorobenzene
hex ach 1 o robutad i ene
DDE
ODD
DDT
Range of
Values
D. 07-1. 3
4-19
<0.02-4.6
68-162
17-90
8-79
0.04-1.3
22-79
0.02-1.18
49-482
<50-9,460
95-35,900
8-97
<51
<52
<52
140
>0.5B
410
6,200
12,000
130
>170
110
SO
31
1,900
420
63
870
29
>140
22
11
9
16
>6
,ET
B
B
B
B
L
B
M
A
L
B
L
M
M
A
M
B
M
L
L
A
L
L
L
B
B
B
B
L
I of Stations
> Lowest AET
0
0
0
0
0
0
21
0
17
4
4
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Nusber of
Stations
> Lowest AET
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
4
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Highest
200
700
9.6
270
1,300
660
2.1
>140
6.1
1,600
24,000
69,000
3,100
>170
120
>110
64
>3,100
1,200
72
3,600
210
690
230
180
15
43
>270
ACT
A
L
L
A
A
A
A
B
A
L
A
A
A
B
A
A
L
A
A
B
A
B
B
L
A
A
A
A
X of Stations
> Highest AET
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
A = A»phipod AET
B = Benthie AET
L = Oyster Larvae AET
M = Microtox AET.
-------
other chlorinated organic compounds or pesticides) have a high potential for
accumulation in higher organisms such as fish. Of the 10 trace metals
sought in muscle tissue, only mercury is usually of concern because of its
potential toxicity to mammals. Previous studies in industrial bays of Puget
Sound have indicated PCBs are bioaccumulated at concentrations exceeding
reference levels. The objective of the present study was to describe the
geographic trends in bioaccumulation and to determine whether levels of
tissue contaminants were of concern regarding public health.
PCBs and Priority Pollutant Pesticides in Flatfish Muscle
The concentrations of PCBs and pesticides in flatfish muscle tissue
are presented in Table 11 and in Figure 30. From each bay or area, one
composite of muscle tissue from five fish was analyzed. The data are
expressed in units of /tg/kg wet weight and are not corrected for recovery of
surrogate standards, which usually ranged between 90% to 120%. Because the
surrogate recoveries were excellent, no correction was considered. The data
for the chlorinated hydrocarbons and pesticides are not blank corrected. The
procedure blanks are low, between 0.1 to 1 /*g/kg for pesticides (Table 12).
The total PCBs are reported with blank correction because blank correction
lowers the PCS concentration by as much as about 40%. The PCB blank is 23
^g/kg (Table 12). The blank corrected PCB data are used in the discussion.
The levels of total PCBs in muscle range from 257 pg/kg in Gig Harbor English
sole to 29 /tg/kg in Skagit Bay starry flounder. Generally there is a
parallel trend between the level of PCBs in fish muscle and the level of PCBs
in sediments of the four non-urban bays. Gig Harbor had both the highest
levels of PCBs in sediments and tissue, whereas Port Angeles concentrations
were the lowest of the four non-urban bays. Different species of flatfish
may have different abilities to bioaccumulate contaminants; therefore,
comparison between species may not be meaningful. Other factors confound the
interpretation of the tissue results. For example, the fish were not
necessarily collected from specific sediment stations, and the fish may
migrate between bays.
64
-------
TABLE 11. CONCENTRATIONS, /tg/kg (PPB) MET HEIGHT, OF CHLORINATED ANALYTES
IN ONE FISH COMPOSITE FROM EACH AREA(a), (b) t(c)
en
en
Si to, Species, and Sample Nuibtr
Conpound
H«xach 1 orobeniene . ,,
Lindane (gam - BHC)1 '
Heptacblof
AIdrinw
Aiphi-ehlordane
Oieidrintf)
p.p'-DDE
p,p'-DDO
p.p'-OOT
Tr i eh I orob i pheny 1 s
Tetrachlorobiphenyls
Pentach 1 orob i pbeny 1 s
Hexach lorob i pheny 1 s
Heptach I o rob i pheny 1 s
Oc tic h 1 o rob i phen y 1 s
Nonach lorob i pheny Is
Deeach lorob i pheny 1 s
Sun of PCBs
Sum of PCBs (blink corrected)
X recovery of surrogate
standards:
4 , 4 ! d i broiiooctaf I uorob i pheny 1
1,2,3-tribroiobenzene
Smpte weight, g
I dry weight
Gig Harbor
Eng 1 i sh So 1 e
0.7
<0,8
<0.1
<1
D.8
1
2
2
D.8
10
38
82
9?
45
8
0.2
0.8
280
257
99
120
3.19
13.6
Dyes Inlet
Engl ish Sole
0.8
<1
(0.1
a
0.6
O.i
0.7
2.0
0.3
12
22
39
34
12
3
1
1
120
97
110
120
3.03
19.0
Port Angeles
Sanddab
0.6
<0.8
<0.1
<1
0.4
S.8
0.5
1
0.2
S
13
18
IS
S
I
0.3
0.2
SB
as
110
130
3.08
18.6
Oak Harbor
Starry Flounder
0.9
<1
<0.2
<2
0.7
0.5
0.7
1
<0.2
12
20
28
14
4
fl.fl
O.S
0,4
78
IS
100
120
3.08
16.7
Lake Washington
Ship Canal
Engl ish Sole
0.7
<0.8
<0.1
<0,8
2
1
7
5
1
S
21
58
62
27
5
1
I
180
1S7
100
120
3,07
17.02
(a) Concentrations and initial identifications were det«™in«d using gas chro»atography (GC) *ith electron capture detection ECO.
(b) The 'less thin* symbol (() indicates that the analfte *as not detected in concentrations above the stated value.
(c) The concentrations of arnlytes and the percent recoveries of the surrogate standards were calculated using tetraehloro-i-xylen* as th* GC internal
standard.
(d) Lindane »as present in both blanks (1 ppb ftg/kg, wet weight), therefore the concentration of lindane is reported as less than the stated value.
(e) Atdrin coelutes with an unknown conpound. The concentration would not be higher than the stated value.
(f) Dieldrin coelutes with a pentachlorobiphenylisoiier. The percentages of each analyte in a peak were estimated by analyzing selected samples of
CC/MS.
-------
TABLE 11. CONTINUED
cr>
cr>
Site, Species and Sample Number
(uartemaster Harbor
Compound
Hexachlorobenzene ,,.,
Lindane (gamma - BHC)W
Heptachlqr
Aldrin1*'
Alpha-chlordane
Die1drinU;
p,p'-DDE
p,p'-DDD
p,p'-DDT
Trichlorobipheny Is
Tetrach 1 orob i pheny 1 s
Pentach lorob i pheny Is
Hexachlorobipheny Is
Heptach 1 orob i pheny Is
Detach 1 o rob i pheny 1 s
Nonach 1 orob i pheny 1 s
Decachl orob i pheny Is
Sun of PCBs
Sun of PCBs (blank corrected)
I recovery of surrogate
standards:
4 , 4 'd i bronooctaf 1 uorob i pheny 1
1 , 2, 3-tr i bronobenzene
Sample weight, g
X dry weight
Rep. 1
0.8
«J,8
<0.3
<1
0.4
0.5
1
1
-------
TABLE 11. CONTINUED
01
•-J
Compound
Hexachlorobenzene ,.•,
Lindane (gamma - BHC) w
Heptacblor
Aldrinw
Alpha-chlordane
Dieldrinlr>
p.p'-DDE
p.p'-DDD
p.p'-ODT
Tr i ch 1 orob i pheny Is
Tetrich 1 orob i pheny I s
Pentach 1 orob i pheny 1 s
Hexach I orob i pheny 1 s
Heptach lorobiphenyls
Detach 1 orob i pheny Is
Nonach lo rob i pheny Is
Decachl orob i pheny Is
Sun of PCBs
SIM of PCBs (blank corrected)
X recovery of surrogate
standards:
4,4'dibroiooctaf luorobi pheny!
1,2,3-tribromobenzene
Sanple weight, g
X dry weight
Port Townsend
Rock Sole
1
<1
<0.2
<2
0.5
0.4
0.5
1
<0.1
14
ie
24
14
4
0.5
0.4
0.7
76
S3
100
130
3.10
18.0
Site, Species
Skagit Bay
Starry Flounder
0.9
<1
<0.1
<0,9
0.8
0.4
0.6
1
0.2
5
13
17
13
3
0.5
0.5
0.4
52
29
110
120
3.05
16.7
and Saiple Nuiber
Port Susan
Engl ish Sole
o.a
-------
_
\
o>
0.
cr>
Co
260
240 -
220 -
200 -
180
160 -
140 -
120 -
100 -
80 -
60 -
40 -
20 -
0
I
Dl
FIGURE 30.
i i I I I
GH PA OH LWSC QH
SI
LB
PG
i
PT
SkB
l
PS
l
RB
Concentrations of PCB (/*g/kg wet wt) in Flatfish Muscle Tissue Collected
from 13 Locations in Puget Sound: Dyes Inlet = 01, Gig Harbor = GH,
Port Angeles = PA, Oak Harbor = OH, Lake Washington Ship Canal = LWSC,
Quartermaster Harbor = QH, Sinclair Inlet = SI, Liberty Bay = LB,
Port Gamble = PG, Port Townsend = PT, Skagit Bay = SKB, Port Susan - PS,
Richmond Beach = RB.
-------
TABLE 12. CONCENTRATIONS, M9/9 (PPB) WET HEIGHT, OF
CHLORINATED CHEMICALS IN METHOD BLANKS
FOR FISH MUSCLE SAMPLES (a),(b),(c)
Compound
% recovery of surrogate
standards:
4,4'd i bromooctaf1uorob ipheny1
1,2,3-tribromobenzene
Rep. 1
96
110
Blanks
Rep. 2
Hexachlorobenzene
Lindane (gamma - BHC)
Heptacblor
Aldrin^ '
Alpha-chlordane
Dieldrin1 }
p,P'-DDE
p.p'-DDD
p.p'-DDT
Trichl orobi pheny Is
Tetrachl orobi pheny 1 s
Pentachl orobi pheny Is
Hexachl orobi pheny Is
Heptachl orobi pheny Is
Detach! orobi pheny Is
Nonachl orobi pheny 1 s
Decachl orobi pheny 1 s
Sum of PCBs
0.2
1
0.8
<1
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.2
<0.1
3
5
8
6
1
<0.08
<0.08
O.I
23
<0.2
0.9
<0.3
<0.3
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.3
<0.3
3
9
8
2
0.2
<0.2
O.I
<0.2
22
100
120
(a) Concentrations and initial identifications were determined using gas
chromatography (GC) with electron capture delection ECD.
(b) The "less than" symbol (<} indicates that the analyte was not detected
in concentrations above the stated value.
(c) The concentrations of analytes and the percent recoveries of the
surrogate standards were calculated using tetrachloro-m-xylene as the GC
internal standard.
(d) Aldrin coelutes with an unknown compound. The concentration would not
be higher than the state value.
(e) Dieldrin coelutes with a pentachlorobiphenylisomer. The percentages of
each analyte in a peak were estimated by analyzing selected samples on
GC/MS.
69
-------
However, the general pattern throughout the 13 areas indicates relatively
low levels of PCBs with a range of about a factor of five between lowest and
highest.
The concentrations of pesticides in fish muscle tissue were often
near or below the procedural blank. Alpha-chlordane, dieldrin, DDE, ODD, and
DDT were usually detected at levels of 0.3 to 1 fig/kg. The highest level was
for 7 ng/kg of DDE in English sole from the Lake Washington Ship Canal.
PCBs and Priority Pollutant Pesticides in Flatfish Liver
The concentrations of PCBs and chlorinated pesticides determined in
13 composites of flatfish liver are presented in Table 13. The screening
method of quantification was proposed by NOAA as a cost-effective procedure
for surveying the liver samples. Because the chlorinated organics data for
livers are not intended for use in health risk assessment, the data were only
quantified in a semiquantitative manner and are useful in making comparisons
between areas. The screening results were arbitrarily divided into low (less
than 5 pg/kg}, medium (5 to 25) and high (greater than 25) concentrations for
the pesticides and low (40 to 200 fig/kg) and high (201 to 2000 pg/kg) for
total PCBs. Results are reported in units of fig/kg wet weight and are not
corrected for either procedural blanks or recoveries. The procedural blanks
are approximately 1 /ig/kg for pesticides and 23 fig/kg for total PCBs.
Recovery of surrogate standards was usually very good, in the range of 70% to
100%, 50% to 150% is acceptable.
The PCS levels in livers were in the higher range (201 to 2000
//g/kg) for fish caught in the four non-urban bays and in the main basin of
Puget Sound and Port Angeles. Fish from areas outside the main basin (except
for Port Angeles), such as Port Townsend, Port Gamble, Port Susan, and Skagit
Bay, contained lower levels of PCBs in liver (40 to 200 fig/kg).
The pesticide levels in livers were generally in the ranges of
either less than 5 or 5 to 25 /ig/kg. The most abundant compound was DDE,
with five areas in the range 5 to 25 fig/kg and the other eight areas
containing greater than 25 fig/kg. The areas which had the highest levels of
pesticides were Port Angeles, Gig Harbor, and Lake Washington Ship Canal, and
70
-------
TABLE 13. SCREENING LEVEL CONCENTRATIONS, ug/kg (PPB) WET WEIGHT, OF CHLORINATED
ANALYTES IN FISH LIVER SAMPLES (aJ, (b)
Compound
Hexaehlorobenzene
Lindane (gamma - BHC)
Heptachlor
Aldrin
Alpha-chlordane
Dieldrin
p,p'-DDE
p.p'-DDO
p,p'-DDT
Total PCBs^c^
% recovery of surrogate
standards:
4 , 4 ' d i bromooctaf 1 uorob i pheny 1
1,2,3-tribronobenzene
Saiple weight, g
% dry weight
Gig Harbor
Engl ish Sole
5-25
<5
<5
(5
<5
5-25
>25
5-25
5-25
201-2000
100
130
3.16
16.7
Site
Dyes Inlet
Engl ish Sole
<5
<5
<5
25
5-25
5-25
201-2000
42
53
3<1?«
52, 7W
Oak Harbor
Starry Flounder
<5
<5
<5
25
<5
<5
201-2000
78
60
3.17
20.3
Lake Washington
Ship Canal
Engl ish Sole
<5
<5
<5
<5
5-25
<5
>25
5-25
<5
201-2000
60
60
3.07
20.3
(a) Concentration ranges were agreed upon prior to analysis. Concentrations were calculated based on average response factors of standards. The range
of concentrations of pesticides (<5, low; 5 to 25, itd-range; >25, high) and PCBs (<40, low; 40 to 200, nid-range; 201 to 2000, high) were
calculated using tetrachloro-m-xylene as the GC internal standard.
(b) The percent recoveries of the surrogate standards were calculated using tetrachloro-n-xylene as the GC internal standard.
(c) The dichlorobiphenyls were not included among the total PCBs.
(d) Percent dry weight verified upon re-analysis.
-------
TABLE 13. CONTINUED
Compound
Hexachloroberuene
Lindane (gamma - BIIC)
Heptachlor
Aldrin
Alpha-chlordane
Dieldrin
p,p'-DDE
p,p'-DDO
p,p'-DOT
Total PCBs^
I recovery of surrogate
standards:
4 ,4 'd i bronooctaf 1 uorob i pheny 1
1,2,3-tribronobenzene
Sample weight, g
% dry weight
Quartenaster
Harbor
Eng! ish Sole
5-25
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
5-25
5-25
25
5-25
<5
201-2000
78
eo
2.87
18.3
. Spec its, and Sanple Nutber
Liberty Bay
Rock sole
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
>25
<5
<5
201-2000
86
8?
3.42
20.0
Port Ga»bl«
Engl ish sole
(5
-------
TABLE 13. CONTINUED
CO
Compound
Hexachlorobenzene
Lindane (gamma - BUG)
Heptachlor
Aldrin
Alpha-chlordane
Oieldrin
p.p'-DDE
p.p'-DDD
p,p'-DDT
Total PCBs(c)
X recovery of surrogate
standards:
4,4'dibromooctaf luorobiphenyl
1,2,3-tribromobenzene
Sample weight, g
2.86
X dry weight
Skagit Bay
Starry flounder
<5
<5
<5
<5
5-25
<5
>25
<5
<5
40-200
97
96
2.94
22.2
Site, Species, and Sample Numbers
Port Susan
Engl ish sole
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
5-25
<5
<5
40-200
92
92
2.83
17.7
Richnond Beach
Engl ish sole
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
>25
5-25
<5
201-2000
96
96
17.0
(a) Concentration ranges were agreed upon prior to analysis. Concentrations were calculated based on average response factors of standards. The range
of concentrations of pesticides «5, low; 5 to 25, mid-range; >25, high) and PCBs «40, low; 40 to 200, mid-range; 201 to 2000, high) were
calculated using tetrachloro-«-xylene as the GC internal standard.
(b) The percent recoveries of the surrogate standards were calculated using tetrachloro-ii-xylene as the GC internal standard.
(c) The dichlorobiphenyls were not included among the total PCBs.
-------
the areas having the lowest levels were Dyes Inlet, Port Susan, Port Gamble,
and Port Townsend. Fish which contained higher levels of chlorinated
compounds in muscle tissue also had higher levels in liver tissue.
Comparison of the total PCBs and total DDT levels in muscle tissue
from the present study with previous studies in urban and non-urban areas of
Puget Sound indicates similar ranges (i.e., several hundred fig/kg PCBs and a
few fig/kg DDT, as reported by Galvin et al. (1984), Romberg et al. (1984),
Mai ins et al. (1982), Gahler et al. (1982), Ginn and Barrick (1988), and PTI
and Tetra Tech, Inc. (1988a,b). Detailed comparisons are not meaningful
because of differences in sampling locations and analytical methods. The
concentrations of PCBs in livers of English sole have been reported for
several locations in Puget Sound by Mai ins et al. (1984) and Hal ins et al.
(1985). Their results are similar to those of this survey with levels in
liver about ten times higher than in muscle. Sole from urban bays contained
higher levels than sole from non-urban areas.
Fluorescent Aromatic Compounds (FACs) in Fish Bile
Fish rapidly metabolize PAH compounds and temporarily store these
metabolites in bile. Analysis of FACs in fish bile is an effective method of
assessing exposure of fish to PAH, Fish from several sites in Puget Sound—
Port Susan, the Lake Washington Ship Canal, Liberty Bay and Oak Harbor--
exhibit concentrations of FACs (at 380/430 nm and 290/335 nm) in bile that
were comparable to those previously found at relatively uncontaminated
(reference) sites (Table 14) (Krahn et al., 1986b). Bile of fish from
several other sites--Dyes Inlet, Gig Harbor, Quartermaster Harbor, Richmond
Beach, Sinclair Inlet, Port Townsend, and Skagit Bay—have bile FACs (BaP)
levels similar to those found previously in sites with low to moderate
contamination. This pattern suggests low to moderate pollution from higher
molecular weight PAHs generated as combustion products.
Fish from two sites had relatively high levels of FACs in bile.
English sole from Port Gamble showed concentrations of FACs (BaP) of about
2,000 ng/g, whereas Pacific sanddab from Port Angeles indicated FACs (NPH) of
approximately 185,000 ng/g. The FACs pattern in the Port Gamble fish bile is
74
-------
TABLE 14. FLUORESCENT AROMATIC COMPOUNDS IN FISH BILE FROM SELECTED PUGET SOUND SITESU)
Species
English sole
(Parophrys vetulus)
Pacific sanddab
(Citharichthys sordidus)
Rock sole
(Lepidopsetta bilineata)
Starry flounder
(Platichys stellatus)
Site
Dyes Inlet
Gig Harbor
Lake Washington Ship Canal
Port Gamble Rep. 1
Rep. 2
Port Susan Rep. 1
Rep. 2
Quartermaster Harbor Rep. 1
Rep. 2
Richmond Beach
Sinclair Inlet
Port Angeles Rep. 1
Rep. 2
Liberty Bay Rep. 1
Rep. 2
Port Town send Rep. 1
Rep. 2
Oak Harbor Rep. 1
Rep. 2
Skagit Bay Rep. 1
Rep. 2
BaP* ^(/ig/kg)
98
160
46
2,200
1,700
31
27
130
140
74
420
210
260
13
16
170
140
39
34
69
68
NPH(c) (/tg/kg)
11,000
17,000
11,000
7,500
7,100
20,000
17,000
25,000
22,000
23,000
44,000
200,000
170,000
13,000
17,000
42,000
35,000
5,800
5,800
25,000
27,000
(a) Bile (20 fil) was pooled from each of 5 fish (4 fish when insufficient bile was available).
(b) BaP = Benzo[a]pyrene.
(c) HPH = Naphthalene.
-------
unusual, with several large peaks in the chromatogram, which may be
attributable to metabolites of fluoranthene, pyrene, and BaP (Krahn et al.,
1987). The high levels of FACs (NPH) in the bile of the Port Angeles fish
are likely due to uptake of lower molecular weight PAHs, possibly from a
petroleum source. However, without a reference site for Pacific sanddab,
proper comparisons of bile values from Port Angeles fish cannot be made.
English sole from the Lake Washington Ship Canal contained lower levels of
FACs than fish from very rural or "reference areas", such as Skagit Bay and
Port Susan.
Trace Metals in Flatfish Muscle
The concentrations of 10 trace metals in muscle tissue collected
from 13 areas are presented in Table 15 in units of /*g/g dry weight. These
data have been corrected for procedural blanks. Most of these results
indicate little or no significant differences among these areas. There are
several trends that may be related to contamination of water, sediment and/or
food. Lead was elevated in English sole from Gig Harbor and Sinclair Inlet
in relation to the other samples. Mercury was elevated in sanddab from Port
Angeles, flounder from Oak Harbor and English sole from Quartermaster Harbor
compared to the other samples. Arsenic was elevated by a factor of two in
English sole from Gig Harbor and Quartermaster Harbor compared to the other
samples. These two areas have received input of arsenic from the ASARCO
smelter in Tacoma. Because of relatively limited data for different species
of fish, interpretation of these data are limited. However, similar
concentrations of metals have been reported for flatfish muscle tissue in
Puget Sound (Tetra Tech 1988a; Ginn and Barrick 1988) and Southern California
(Schafer et al., 1982).
Public Health Considerations
It is important to assess the potential risk to human health
associated with the contamination of Puget Sound fish. Both sport and
commercial fisheries harvest flatfish from some of the areas sampled in this
76
-------
TABLE 15. THE CONCENTRATIONS OF METALS IN ONE FISH TISSUE
COMPOSITE FROM EACH AREA OF PUGET SOUND
/jg/g, Dry Wt
Location
Gig Harbor
Dyes Inlet
Port Angeles
Oak Harbor
Lake Washington
Ship Canal
Quarter* aster
Harbor
Sinclair Inlet
Liberty Bay
Port Gaible
Port Townsend
Skagit Bay
Port Susan
Richmond Beach
Spec i es
English sole
Engl ish sole
Sanddab
Starry flounder
Engl ish sole
Engl ish sole
Engl ish sole
Rock sole
Engl ish sole
Rock sole
Starry flounder
Eng! ish sole
Engl ish sole
Cu
0.84
0.08
0.74
1.46
1.61
1.75
1.45
0.73
2.13
1.09
1.44
1.26
0.89
Zn
12
11
16
22
14
13
IB
22
21
IB
20
16
16
Cd
0.27
0.17
0.18
0.24
0.19
0.24
0.21
0.15
0.21
0.15
0.19
0.19
0.24
Ag
0.007
0.005
0.004
0.014
(0.004
0.049
0.039
(0.004
D.01
(0.004
(0.004
(0.004
(0,004
Ni
0.54
0.74
0.35
0.41
0.34
0.33
0.45
0.42
0.39
0.37
0.28
0.33
0,46
Pb
3.16
1.47
0.91
1.27
1.77
1.13
2.75
0.71
O.BB
0.88
0.9B
1.03
1.38
Cr
2.23
0.88
0.74
1.33
0.82
1.01
0.88
0.46
0.45
0.41
0.94
1.56
0.89
Sb
1.6
3.8
10.4
2.2
3.5
3.7
2.9
1.5
2.4
2.6
2.9
3.4
3.3
As
50.6
25.8
17.7
12.5
17.1
47.2
33.6
22.6
16.1
15.4
9.98
14.9
18.1
Hg
0.36
(0.02
0.95
0.62
0.19
0.61
0.43
0.41
0.18
(0.02
0.19
0.26
0.23
77
-------
survey. The range of concentrations of contaminants in muscle tissue of
flatfish sampled from 13 areas in Puget Sound are compared with Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) action levels in Table 16 (FDA, 1984). The
concentrations of these chemicals in the fish sampled in this survey are well
below the FDA action levels. It should be noted, however, that FDA
tolerances or action levels are aimed at controlling fish and shellfish in
interstate commerce for which a national market exists and for which it is
appropriate to use a national average consumption figure. FDA limits are
not designed for the protection of local consumers of recreationally
harvested fish who may ingest substantial quantities of seafood collected
from a limited geographic area over extended portions of their lives. For
this reason, conducting site specific human health risk assessment is
important.
An evaluation of human health risk associated with chemical
contamination in Puget Sound fish was recently conducted for the Office of
Puget Sound, EPA Region 10 (Tetra Tech, 1988a). The report based on this
evaluation focused on PCBs, PAHs, pesticides, and metals in recreationally
harvested Puget Sound seafood. The report provides graphs for estimating
health risks for a wide range of exposure conditions and presents limited
information on risk associated with the consumption of other foods (i.e.,
peanut butter and charcoal-broiled steak).
The average concentrations for each of six chemicals (As, Cd, Hg,
Pb, DDT, and PCBs) measured in flatfish muscle tissue collected from the 13
areas sampled in this survey are used to estimate either a lifetime (70
years) cancer risk or a noncarcinogenic risk index using the graphs in the
report (Tetra Tech, 1988a). The assumption was made that 30 servings per
year (150 g/serving) of fish comparable in concentration to the fish
composite (mean for 13 areas) collected in this present reconnaissance survey
are eaten for a lifetime. Based on this risk assessment, the greatest risk
is associated with exposure to PCBs, which average 182 /ig/kg for the 13
areas. PCBs are suspected human carcinogens. Risk estimates based on PCBs
in fish caught in this survey indicated that two individuals in a population
of 10,000 consumers may develop cancer during a lifetime of exposure or a
-4
risk of 2 X 10 . The cancer risk for As and DDT are 10 to 100 times less
78
-------
TABLE 16. A COMPARISOH OF MEAN CONTAMINANT CONCENTRATIONS FROM
FLATFISH TISSUE (COLLECTED FROM 13 AREAS OR NON-URBAN
BAYS IN PU6ET SOUND) WITH AVAILABLE HUMAN HEALTH
CRITERIA OR LIFETIME CANCER RISK
Range
of
Concentration
Contaminant
As
Cd
Hg
Pb
Total DDT
Hexachlorobenzene
Total PCB
Peanut butter^
fel
Charcoal -broiled1 ;
steak
in Muscle
mg/kg Wet
1 -
0.01 -
<0.01 -
0.2 -
0.002 -
0.006 -
0.03 -
>_ _
--
Tissue
Ht(a)
5
0.03
0.2
0.6
0.013
0.001
0.280
FDA Action Level
mg/kg Wet Wt
None
None
1.0
None
5.0
0.5
2.0
..
--
/ L \
Lifetime*0'
Cancer Risk
2 X 10"5
0.02^
0.2(C)
0.06(c)
5 X 10"6
No data
2 X 10"4
6 X 10"4
f-
7 X 10"D
(a) Range of composites of flatfish collected from 13 areas of Puget Sound.
(b) Assumption of 30 servings per year (150 g/day) of fish muscle tissue
containing the average concentration of chemical observed in this survey,
(c) Noncarcinogenic risk index. Values less than 1.0 indicate no potential
adverse health effect.
(d) Aflatoxin B, four tablespoons per day.
(e) Benzo(a)pyrene, 100 steaks per year.
79
-------
than for PCBs (Table 16). The cancer risks estimated for this survey are
about the same risks for fish collected throughout Puget Sound (Tetra Tech,
1988a). The risk associated with exposure to the noncarcinogenic metals, Cd,
Hg, and Pb are low and similar to those estimated for other areas of Puget
Sound (Tetra Tech, 1988a) and do not appear to be of concern for a variety of
toxicological end points. Noncarcinogenic risk factors of less than 1.0
(Table 16) indicate that potential health risk is below a generalized level
of concern for a range of toxicological end points.
FISH HISTOPATHOLOGY
A total of 151 English sole (Parophrys vetulus) were collected and
examined from Gig Harbor (31), Dyes Inlet (60), and the Lake Washington Ship
Canal (60). A sample of 29 rock sole (Lepidopsetta bi1 ineata) in addition to
the 31 English sole was obtained and examined from Gig Harbor because of
difficulties encountered in capturing the targeted sample size (60) of adult
English sole. A broad spectrum of pathologic conditions was observed in the
liver of each species. Because the results of previously conducted studies
(Maiins et al., 1982, 1984; Krahn et al., 1986; Myers et al., 1987) have
demonstrated that the liver is the organ most often affected with lesions of
an idiopathic (lesions having no apparent association with an infectious
agent) and potentially toxicopathic nature, the focus of the present study
was on idiopathic conditions in this organ.
Idiopathic lesions of the liver in both species were categorized
into five broad classifications based on histopathologic features. These
classifications were: (1) nonspecific degenerative/necrotic conditions,
which include a variety of lesions including hepatocellular necrosis,
hyalinization, hydropic degeneration, hepatocellular necrosis, and spongiosis
hepatis; (2) specific or unique degenerative/necrotic conditions, which
include megalocytic hepatosis and hepatocellular nuclear pleomorphism, the
latter of which is interpreted as a precursor of the former lesion type; (3)
hepatocellular storage disorders, including hemosiderosis and fatty
change/steatosis; (4) preneoplastic focal lesions, including basophilic,
eosinophilic, and clear cell foci, and, rarely, hyperplastic regenerative
80
-------
foci; and (5) hepatic neoplasms, including liver cell adenoma, hepatocellular
carcinoma, cholangioma, cholangiocellular carcinoma, mixed hepatobiliary
carcinoma, and various types of rarely detected mesenchymal neoplasms. While
lesions may be caused by exposure to chemical contaminants, they can also be
caused by nutritional imbalances, genetic disorders, microorganisms (not
distinguishable at the light microscope level), trauma, or as yet undefined
environmental factors.
General Patterns of Lesion Prevalences
English Sole
The prevalences of hepatic lesions in English sole are shown by
area in Table 17. Thirteen distinct lesion types were detected, representing
several types of degenerative/necrotic lesions including nonspecific
hepatocellular degeneration/necrosis (hepatocellular necrosis and spongiosis
hepatis) and specific or unique hepatocellular degeneration/necrosis (nuclear
pleomorphism and megalocytic hepatosis), storage disorders (hemosiderosis and
fatty change or steatosis), non-neoplastic proliferative lesions
(hepatocellular regeneration), preneoplastic focal lesions (eosinophilic
focus, basophilic focus, clear cell focus), hepatocellular neoplasms (liver
cell adenoma, hepatocellular carcinoma), and congestion. These types of
lesions are described in detail by Myers et al, (1987).
Rock Sole
In response to the difficulty in capturing the targeted sample
sizes (60) of adult English sole at Gig Harbor, an additional sample of 29
adult rock sole was obtained and examined. A summary of the histopathology
results in rock sole from this site is presented in Table 18. In general,
lesion types similar to those in English sole were observed in this species;
however, hemosiderosis, fatty change, nuclear pleomorphism/megalocytic
hepatosis, spongiosis hepatis, eosinophilic focus, hepatocellular carcinoma,
and congestion were not observed, and parenchyma! fibrosis was detected.
81
-------
TABLE 17. PREVALENCES (% AFFECTED) OF HEPATIC LESIONS
IN ADULT ENGLISH SOLE FROM GIG HARBOR, DYES
INLET AND LAKE WASHINGTON SHIP CANAL APRIL 20
- MAY 4, 1988.
Hepatic Lesion
Hepatocellular
storage disorders
Fatty change
Non-specific degen./necrotic
(hep. necrosis)
Nuclear pleomorphism
Megalocytic hepatosis
Specific degenerative/
necrotic (MH/NP)
Spongiosis hepatis
Hepatocellular regeneration
Eosinophilic focus (EF)
Basophilic focus (BF)
Clear cell focus (CCF)
Preneoplastic/foeal lesions
(EF/BF/CCF)W
Liver cell adenoma (LCA)
Hepatocellular carcinoma
(HC)
Hepatic neoplasms (LCA/HC)
Congestion
Any idiopathic lesion
Gig Harbor
(n = 31)
12.9
0,0
6.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
3.2
0.0
3.2
3.2
0.0
3.2
0.0
19.4
Dyes Inlet
(n = 60)
1.7
0.0
3.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.7
0.0
1.7
0.0
0.0
0,0
0.0
5.0
Lake Washington
Ship Canal
(n = 60)
8.3
1.7
15.0
3.3
5.0
6.7
3.3
5.0
3.3
11.7
5.0
13.3
6.7
3.3
8.3
0.7
36.7
^ ' Some fish had more than one kind of hepatic lesion.
82
-------
TABLE 18. PREVALENCES (% AFFECTED) OF HEPATIC LESIONS IN ADULT
ROCK SOLE FROM GIG HARBOR, APRIL 20, 1988.
Gig Harbor
Hepatic Lesion (n = 29)
Hepatocelular storage disorders 0.0
Fatty change 0.0
Non-specific degen./necrotic 3.4
(hep. necrosis)
Nuclear pleomorphism 0.0
Megalocytic hepatosis 0.0
Specific degenerative/ 0.0
necrotic (MH/NP)
Spongiosis hepatis 0.0
Hepatocellular regeneration 3.4
Eosinophilic focus (EF) 0.0
Basophilic focus (BF) 3.4
Clear cell focus (CCF) 3.4
Preneoplastic focal lesions 6.9
(EF/BF/CCF)(a)
Liver cell adenoma (LCA) 3.4
Hepatocellular carcinoma (HC) 0.0
Hepatic neoplasms (LCA/HC) 3.4
Congestion 0.0
Parenchyma! fibrosis 3.4
Any idiopathic lesion 10.3
^&* Some fish had more than one kind of hepatic
lesion.
83
-------
These lesions have, however, been observed and described in rock sole
primarily from urban areas of Puget Sound (Maiins et al., 1984; Myers and
Rhodes, 1988). The prevalences of other lesions were similar to those seen
in English sole from this site (Table 17) in this study.
Comparisons of Lesion Prevalences Among Study Areas
Idiopathic lesions were most frequently encountered in English sole
from Lake Washington Ship Canal, at prevalences ranging from 0.7%
(congestion) to 15.0% (hepatocellular necrosis). Of particular interest at
Lake Washington Ship Canal were the prevalences of hepatocellular necrosis,
nuclear pleomorphism/megalocytic hepatosis (6.7%), preneoplastic focal
lesions (13.3%), and hepatic neoplasms (8.3%). Prevalences of specific
Idiopathic liver lesions were considerably lower in English sole from Gig
Harbor and were even lower or absent at Dyes Inlet. Both preneoplastic
focal lesions and hepatic neoplasms were, however, detected at low
prevalences in Gig Harbor (3.2% and 3.2%, respectively). At Dyes Inlet,
idiopathic lesions were rare or absent, with detection of only hemosiderosis
(1.7%), hepatocellular necrosis (3.3%), and basophilic focus (1.7%).
Relationships Between Hepatic Lesions
and Mean Ages and Gender of Fish Sampled
Mean ages and age ranges for English sole affected with specific
idiopathic liver lesions from all the sites sampled are presented in
Table 19. These results are consistent with previous lesion-age data
analysis (Rhodes et al., 1987), with degenerative lesions (hepatoeellular
necrosis, nuclear pleomorphism/megalocytic hepatosis, spongiosis hepatis)
first appearing in relatively young fish (3 to 5 years). The youngest fish
affected by preneoplastic and neoplastic lesions are generally older
(6 to 11 years).
Fish from Gig Harbor ranged in age from 3 to 14 years (mean
age 6.17 ±2.35) and 231 to 475 mm in length (mean length 326.3 ±59.6). Lake
84
-------
TABLE 19. MEAN AGENTS AND AGE RANGES FOR ENGLISH SOLE
(ALL FISH) FROM GIG HARBOR, DYES INLET, AND
LAKE WASHINGTON SHIP CANAL AFFECTED WITH
SPECIFIC IDIOPATHIC LIVER LESIONS. FISH WERE
CAPTURED BETWEEN APRIL 20 AND MAY 4, 1988.
Hepatic Lesion
Hepatocellular storage
disorders
Fatty change
Non-specific degen./
necrotic
(hep. necrosis)
Nuclear pleomorphism (NP)
Megalocytic hepatosis (MH)
NP/MH
Spongiosis hepatis
Hepatocellular regeneration
Eosinophilic focus (EF)
Basophilic focus (BF)
Clear cell focus (CCF)
Preneoplastic focal
lesions (EF/BF/CCF)
Liver cell adenoma (LCA)
Hepatocellular carcinoma
(HC)
Hepatic neoplasms (LCA/HC)
Congestion
Any idiopathic lesion
Mean Ages
* S.D.
7.60 ±2.27
7.00
6.85 ±2.79
9.50 ±6.36
5.33 ±1.53
7.50 ±4.51
6.00 ±2.83
5.33 ±1.53
12.50 ±2.12
9.44 ±2.79
11.33 ±2.31
9.50 ±2.64
10.60 ±2.51
8.00 ±2.83
9.83 ±2.93
6.00
7.48 ±2.97
Age Range
4-12 10
7
3-14
5-14
4-7
4-14
4-8
4.7
11-14
6-14
10-14
6-14
7-14
6-10
6-14
6
3-14
Number
Affected
1
13
2
3
4
2
3
2
9
3
10
5
2
6
1
31
85
-------
Washington Ship Canal English sole ranged from 3 to 14 years (mean age 6.37
±2.39) and 230 to 416 mm in length (mean length 311.7 ±42.6). English sole
from Dyes Inlet ranged from 2 to 11 years (mean age 4.98 ±1.68), and 235 to
420 mm in length (mean length 301.5 ±41.7). Calculations using ANOVA
revealed significant differences among the three sites in age distribution
(F-test = 6.914, p = 0.0014), and intersite differences in length (F-test =
2.956, p = 0.0551). A multiple comparison test (Fisher's Least Significant
Difference Test, Zar, 1974) revealed significantly lower ages (p <0.05) in
sole from Dyes Inlet relative to both Gig Harbor and Lake Washington Ship
Canal. The age distributions at Gig Harbor and Lake Washington Ship Canal
were not distinguishable. Consequently, the younger age distribution of sole
from Dyes Inlet relative to the other two sites may partially explain the
lower prevalences of idiopathic liver lesions detected at this site, because
the prevalence of many of these lesion types is known to increase directly
with age (Rhodes et al., 1987). It should be noted that, although sole from
Dyes Inlet were significantly younger than sole from the other sites, this
difference was not particularly dramatic. Previous findings have shown that
the most dramatic differences in prevalences of many idiopathic liver lesions
are between sole less than 2 years in age and sole more than 2 years old
(Rhodes et al., 1987). Because these younger age classes were not
represented in our samples, the histopathology data remain essentially
comparable across all study sites. ANOVA calculations of the distribution of
each gender among the sites revealed no significant intersite differences
(F-ratio = 0.855, p = 0.427).
Comparisons of Histopathological Analyses with Recent Historical Data
Results of the present study for prevalences of hepatic lesions in
English sole from the Lake Washington Ship Canal are in general agreement
with the previous findings of McCain et al. (1982) at this site, which showed
low to moderate prevalences of lesions. No historical data are available for
Gig Harbor or Dyes Inlet.
In general, results of the present survey conducted in Dyes Inlet
most closely resemble findings of recent surveys conducted at Point Fully and
86
-------
Port Susan (Table 20). Apparently because these sites are not highly
industrialized and/or do not receive a high level of chemical pollution,
their fish fauna do not generally exhibit a high prevalence of idiopathic
hepatic lesions. In fact, Point Pully and Port Susan have served as
reference sites for surveys conducted in Elliott Bay and Everett Harbor,
respectively, two of the more polluted embayments in Puget Sound (PTI
Environmental Services and Tetra Tech, Inc., 1988a,b). Similarly, results
of surveys conducted in Gig Harbor indicate prevalences for hepatic lesions
that are comparable to data collected in Case Inlet (Table 20), a relatively
undeveloped embayment in South Puget Sound. Although Case Inlet served as a
reference bay in the 1983-1984 Eight Bay Study (Pacific Northwest
Laboratory, 1986), results of bioassays and histopathologic surveys detected
some evidence of sediment toxicity. This finding was thought to be
attributed to circulation of pollutants from Commencement Bay and/or the main
basin of Puget Sound. Finally, prevalences of hepatic lesions found in fish
from the Lake Washington Ship Canal are slightly greater than observed in Gig
Harbor and Dyes Inlet in the present survey, but lower than those found in
Elliott Bay, Everett Harbor, Clinton, and Mukilteo. With the exception of
Clinton, these survey sites are all known to exhibit moderate to high levels
of aromatic and chlorinated hydrocarbons in their sediments
(Krahn et a!., 1986b). However, prevalences of hepatic lesions encountered
in the Lake Washington Ship Canal during the present study do not reach the
levels found in fish taken from the Duwamish Waterway, one of the most
polluted water bodies in Puget Sound and the most contaminated part of
Elliott Bay. These levels in the Ship Canal were also much lower than in
Eagle Harbor (Table 20).
87
-------
TABLE 20. COMPARISONS OF PREVALENCES OF HEPATIC LESIONS IN
ENGLISH SOLE FROM DIFFERENT LOCATIONS IN PUGET SOUND
co
oo
General
Gig Harbor
Dyes Inlet
Lake Washington
Ship Canal
Sinclair Inlet
Elliott Bay
(3 waterfront sites)
Elliott Bay
(3 waterfront site)
Point Fully
Everett Harbor
Everett East
Waterway (EK-91)
Port Susan
Connencement Bay
City laterway
Mukilteo
Eagle Harbor
Carkeek Inlet
Case Inlet
Cl inton
President Point
Richmond Beach
Duwarnish faterway
Data Source
1
1
1
2
3
4
3
5
9
5
4
6
7
8
8
2
9
9
9
9
Specific
Degenerative/
Necrotic
Conditions
0.0
0.0
6.7
5.0
41.0
19.9
3.3
2.4
40.0
14.3
0.0
9.1
40.9
72.0
11.1
0.0
43.8
20.0
19.0
44.8
Hepatocel lular
Storage
Disorders
12.9
1,7
8.3
50.0
N.A.
6,2
N.A.
N.A.
10.0
N.A.
12.1
9.1
10.6
49.3
16.7
6.7
6.2
30.0
23.8
41.4
Preneoplastic
Focal Lesions
3.2
1.7
13.3
20.0
16.3
8.1
6.7
10.8
20.0
10.2
0.0
14.3
16.7
44.0
5.6
3.3
25.0
0.0
28.6
32.8
Hepatic
Neoplasms
3.2
0.0
8.3
3.3
2.7
1.2
0.0
2.4
5.0
2.0
0.0
1.3
7.5
26.7
0.0
3,3
12.5
0.0
0.0
20.7
iRresent study.
2pacific Northwest Laboratory, 1986.
3PTI Environmental Services and Tetra Tech, Inc., 1988.
4Malins et al., 1984.
5PTI EnvironnentaI Services and Tetra Tech, Inc., 1988.
BTetra Tech, Inc., 1985.
7Malins, D. C., et al., 1985a.
SMalins, D. G., et al., 1985b.
9Krahn, M. M., et al. 1986.
N.A. = Not Analyzed.
-------
USEFULNESS OF THE RECONNAISSANCE SURVEY CONCEPT
This reconnaissance survey of non-urban bays and shorelines of
Puget Sound provides information on the environmental condition of the areas
surveyed and an opportunity to compare different methods of evaluating the
environmental conditions in areas with moderate to low levels of pollution.
The survey results indicate that, of the four non-urban bays, the
concentrations of chemicals in sediments are generally below currently
available sediment quality values and the sources of the chemicals are from
activities within the bays or, in the case of Dyes Inlet, probably in the
adjoining inlet. The pesticide reconnaissance survey detected low
concentrations of seven contemporary pesticides in only a few sediments from
several river mouths or lakes. Pentachlorophenol was detected in all 17
sediments that were collected. However, the pentachlorophenol and some of
the other pesticide data were qualified as not reliable because of either low
matrix spike or low surrogate recoveries.
In this survey, the amphipod bioassay test was not a useful method
for comparing sediment quality in areas of low contamination because the
tests result in uniformly high survival. Longer-term chronic or sublethal
sediment bioassays are needed to differentiate between these sediments for
potential sublethal effects. Perhaps benthic infauna analysis would be
useful in evaluating sediment quality in bays with low to moderate sediment
contaminants. The problem with the benthic infauna method will be in
obtaining suitable reference sites that match the water depth, sediment grain
size and TOC, time of year, and water mass properties of the sediments in
each bay. Also, benthic infaunal methods suffer somewhat from the patchiness
of community assemblages.
The fish chemistry data from this study provide a range of
concentrations of PAH metabolites and PCBs, which appear to be correlated to
the sediment chemistry and our knowledge of pollutant sources. The trace
metal data for fish muscle tissue were almost uniform and did not appear to
be correlated with sediment chemistry.
The results from the fish histopathology study are consistent with
previous studies that have shown the prevalences of well-documented
89
-------
pollution-associated liver lesions were generally proportional to the levels
of environmental contamination at the sites. Highest prevalences tended to
be found in English sole from the Lake Washington Ship Canal; clearly lower
prevalences were found in sole from Gig Harbor and the lowest prevalences
were in sole from Dyes Inlet.
The findings of this survey may be summarized as follows:
(1) Sediments in the four non-urban bays have low levels of contaminants
associated with local sources. (2) None of the sediment collected gave a
toxic response when subjected to the 10-day amphipod test. (3) Very few of
these sediments exceeded AET values for specific chemicals. (4) A consistent
pattern exists between low levels of PCBs in fish tissue and sediments. (5)
The concentrations of metals in fish are low and fairly uniform. (6) Levels
of contaminants in fish muscle tissue are not a public health concern based
on health risk assessment techniques used by Tetra Tech (1988a). (7) Except
for the Lake Washington Ship Canal, fish histopathology results indicate low
prevalence of liver disorders, similar to prevalence in reference areas.
The overall conclusion from this reconnaissance survey was that
these 13 areas of Puget Sound were generally in good health. The sediments
were nontoxic, the fish had fairly low levels of chemicals in their muscle
tissue and the prevalence of fish liver disorders was low. Twenty pesticides
in current use were infrequently detected in 17 sediment samples collected
near usage areas.
90
-------
REFERENCES
Anderson, J. W, and Crecelius, E. A. Analysis of Sediments and Soils for
Chemical Contamination for the Design of U.S. Navy Homeport Facility at
East Waterway of Everett Harbor, Washington. PNL-5383, Pacific Northwest
Laboratory, Rich land, Washington, 1985.
Barrick, R., Becker, S., Brown, L., Seller, H., and Pastorok, R. Sediment
Quality Values Refinement: 1988 Update and Evaluation of Puget Sound AET,
Volume I. Puget Sound Estuary Program, Office of Puget Sound, Region 10,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1988.
Bloom, N. S. and Crecelius, E. A. Distribution of Silver, Mercury, Lead,
Copper and Cadmium in Central Puget Sound Sediments. Marine Chemistry
21:377-390, 1987.
Chilton, D. E. and Beamish, R. J. Age Determination Methods for Fishes
Studied by the Groundfish Program at the Pacific Biological Station. Can.
Spec. Publ. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 60:1-54, 1982.
Crecelius, E. A. and Bloom, N.
Sound. In: Oceanic Processes
Wolfe and T. P. O'Connor, pp.
Company, Malabar, Florida, pp,
Temporal Trends of Contamination in Puget
in Marine Pollution, Volume 5, eds. D. A.
149-156. Robert E. Krieger Publishing
149-156, 1988.
Gahler, A. R., Cummins, J. M.,
Gangmark, C. E., Pope, S. V,
Edible Nonsalmonid Fish and
Report No. EPA 910/9-82-093,
Washington, 1982, 117 pp.
Blazevich, J. N.( Rieck, R. H., Arp, R. L.,
W., and Filip, S. Chemical Contaminants in
Crabs from Commencement Bay. Washington
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Seattle,
Galvin, D. H., Romberg, G. P., Houck, D. R., and Lesniak, J. H. Toxicant
Pretreatment Planning Study Summary Report. Municipality of Metropolitan
Seattle, Seattle, Washington, 1984, 202 pp.
Ginn, T. C. and Barrick, R. C. Bioaccumulation of Toxic Substances in Puget
Sound. In: Oceanic Processes in Marine Pollution, Volume 5, eds. D. A.
Wolfe and T. P. O'Connor, pp. 157-168. Robert E. Krieger Publishing
Company, Malabar, JJorida,. pp._ 149.-156, 1988.
Krahn, M. M., Moore, L. K.( and MacLeod, W. D., Jr. Standard Analytical
Procedures for the NOAA National Analytical Facility, 1986: Metabolites of
Aromatic Compounds in Fish Bile. NOAA Tech. Memo NMFS/NWC-102, 1986a,
25 pp.
Krahn, M. M., Rhodes, L. D., Myers, M. S., Moore, L. K., MacLeod, W. D., Jr.,
and Mai ins, D. C. Associations between Metabolites of Aromatic Compounds
in Bile and Occurrence of Hepatic Lesions in English Sole (Parophrys
vetulus) from Puget Sound, Washington. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol.
15:61-67, 1986b.
91
-------
Krahn, M. M., Burrows, D. G., MacLeod, W. D., Jr., and Malins, D.C.
Determination of Individual Metabolites of Aromatic Compounds in
Hydrolyzed Bile of English sole (Parophrys vetulus) from Polluted Sites in
Puget Sound, Washington. Arch. Environ. Contain. Toxicol. 16:511-522, 1987.
Krahn, M. M., Moore, L. K., Bogar, R. 6., Wigren, C. A., Chan, S-L., and
Brown, D. W. A Rapid High-Performance Liquid Chromatographic Method for
Isolating Organic Contaminants from Tissue and Sediment Extracts. J^
Chromatogr. 437, 1988, 161 pp.
Malins, D. C., et al. Toxic Chemicals in Marine Sediments and Biota from
Mukilteo, Washington: Relationships with Hepatic Neoplasms and Other
Hepatic Lesions in English Sole (Parophyrs vetulus). JNCL 74:487-494,
1985a.
Malins, D.C., Krahn, M. M., Myers, M. $., Rhodes, L. D., Brown, D. W., Krone,
C. A., McCain, B. B., and Chan S-L. Toxic chemicals in Sediments and Biota
from a Creosote-polluted Harbor: Relationships with Hepatic Neoplasms and
Other Hepatic Lesions in English Sole (Parophrys vetulus) Carcinogenesis
6:1462-1469, 1985b.
Malins, D. C., McCain, B. B., Brown, D. W., Sparks, A. K., Hodgins, H. 0. and
Chan, S.-L. Chemical Contaminants and Abnormalities in Fish and
Invertebrates from Puget Sound. NOAA Technical Memorandum, OMPA-19, NOAA,
Boulder, Colorado, 1982.
Malins, D. C., McCain, B. B., Brown, D. W., Chan, S-L., Myers, M. S.,
Landahl, J. T., Prohaska, P. G., Friedman, A. J., Rhodes, L. D., Burrows,
D. G., Gronlund, W. D. and Hodgins, H. 0. Chemical Pollutants in
Sediments and Diseases in Bottom-Dwelling Fish in Puget Sound, Washington.
Environ. Sci. Techno!. 18:709-713, 1984.
McCain, B, B., Myers, M. S., Varanasi, U.t Brown, D. W., Rhodes, L. D.,
Gronlund, W. D., Elliott, D. G., Palsson, W. A., Hodgins, H. 0. and
Malins, D. C. Pathology of Two Species of Flatfish from Urban Estuaries
in Puget Sound. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Final Report. EPA-A-
600/7-82-001, 1982.
MacLeod, W. D., Jr., Brown, D. W., Friedman, A. J., Burrows, D. G., Maynes,
0., Pearce, R. W., Wigren, C. A. and Bogar, R. G. NOAA Technical
Memorandum NMFS F/NWC-92, 121 pp. (Available from the National Technical
Information Service of the U.S. Department of Commerce, 5285 Port Royal
Rd., Springfield, VA 22161; PB86-147873), 1985.
Mearns, A. J. and Allen, M. J. Use of Small Otter Trawls in Coastal
Biological Surveys. EPA-600/3-78-083, 1978.
92
-------
Myers, M.S., Rhodes, L. D., and McCain, B. B. Pathologic Anatomy and
Patterns of Occurrence of Hepatic Neoplasms, Putative Preneoplastic
Lesions, and Other Idiopathic Hepatic Conditions in English sole (Parophrys
vetulus) from Puget Sound, Washington. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 78:333-363,
1987.
Myers, M.S. and Rhodes, L. D. Morphologic Similarities and Parallels in
Geographic Distribution of Suspected Toxicopathic Liver Lesions in Rock
Sole (Lepidopsetta bilineata), Starry Flounder (Platichthys stellatus),
Pacific Staghorn Sculpin (Leptocottus armatus), and Dover Sole
(Microstomus pacificus) as Compared to English sole (Parophrys etui us) from
Urban and Non-urban Embayments in Puget Sound, Washington. Aquatic
Toxicology 11:410-411, Abstract; 1988.
Nielson, K. K. and Sanders, R. W. Multielement Analysis of Unweighed
Biological and Geological Samples Using Backscatter and Fundamental
Parameters. Adv. X-Ray Anal. 26:385-390, 1983.
Oikari, A. and Anas, E. Chlorinated Phenolics and Their Conjugates in the
Bile of Trout (Salmo gairdneri) Exposed to Contaminated Waters. Bull.
Environ. Contain. Toxicol. 35:802-809, 1985.
Pacific Northwest Laboratory. Reconnaissance of Eight Bays in Puget Sound,
Volumes I and II. Prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region X by Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Battelle Marine Research
Laboratory, Sequim, Washington, 1986.
Plumb, R. H. Procedures for Handling and Chemical Analysis of Sediment and
Water Samples. Technical Report EPA/CE-81-1, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
Vicksburg, Mississippi, 1981.
PTI Environmental Services. Puget Sound Dredged Disposal Analysis Baseline
Survey of Phase I Disposal Sites. Draft Report. Prepared for Washington
Department of Ecology, Olympia, Washington, 1988.
PTI Environmental Services and Tetra Tech, Inc. Elliott Bay Action Program:
Analysis of Toxic Problem Areas. Draft Report. Prepared for the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency Region X by PTI Environmental Services and
Tetra Tech, Inc., Bellevue, Washington, 1988a.
PTI Environmental Services and Tetra Tech, Inc. Everett Harbor Action
Program: Analysis of Toxic Problem Areas. Draft Report. Prepared for the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region X by PTI Environmental
Services and Tetra Tech, Inc., Bellevue, Washington, 1988b.
Rantala, R. T. T. and Loring, D. H. Multi-Element Analysis of Silicate Rocks
and Marine Sediments by Atomic Absorption Spectrophotometry. At. Absorpt.
News!. 14(5):l-4, 1975.
93
-------
Rhodes, L. D., Myers, M. S.( Gronlund, W. D., and McCain, B. B. Epizootic
Characteristic of Hepatic and Renal Lesions in English Sole, Parophrys
vetulus, from Puget Sound. J. Fish. Biol. 31:395-407, 1987.
Romberg, G. P., Pavlou, S. P., Shokes, R. F., Horn, W.( Crecelius, E. A.,
Hamilton, P., Gunn, J. T., Muench, R. D., and Vinelli, J. Toxicant
Pretreatment Planning Study Technical Report Cl: Presence, Distribution
and Fate of Toxicants in Puget Sound and Lake Washington. Technical
Report, Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle (METRO), Seattle, Washington,
231 pp., 1984
Schafer, H. A., Hershelman, D. G., Young, P. R., and Mearns, A. J.
Contaminants in Ocean Food Webs. In: Coastal Water Research Project
Biennial Report for the Years 1981-1982, ed. W. Bascom, Southern California
Coastal Water Research Project, 1982.
Swartz, R. C., DeBen, W. A., Jones, J. K. P., Lamberson, J. 0., and Cole.
F. A. Phoxocephalid Amphipod Bioassay for Marine Sediment Toxicity, pp.
284-307. In: Aquatic Toxicology and Hazard Assessment: Seventh
Symposium. R. D. Cardwell, R. Purdy, and R. C. Bahner (eds). ASTM STP
854. American Society of Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, PA, 1985.
Tetra Tech, Inc. Commencement Bay Nearshore/Tideflats Remedial
Investigation, Volume I. Tetra Tech, Inc., Bellevue, Washington, 1985.
Tetra Tech, Inc. Recommended Protocols for Measuring Selected Environmental
Variables in Puget Sound. Final Report. Prepared for the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Tetra
Tech, Inc., Bellevue, Washington, 1986.
Tetra Tech, Inc. Recommended Protocols for Fish Pathology Studies in Puget
Sound. Final Report. Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 10. Tetra Tech, Inc., Bellevue, Washington, 1987.
Tetra Tech, Inc. Health Risk Assessment of Chemical Contamination in Puget
Sound Seafood. TC-3338-28 Final Report. Prepared for U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region X - Office of Puget Sound, Seattle, Washington,
1988a.
Tetra Tech, Inc. Pesticides of Concern in the Puget Sound Basin: A Review
of Contemporary Pesticide Usage, 1988b.
Tetra Tech, Inc. Recommended Protocols for Measuring Organic Compounds in
Puget Sound Sediment and Tissue Samples. Draft Final Report TC-3338-14.
Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10, 1988c.
Unger, M. A., Maclntyre, W. G., Greaves J., and Huggett, R. J. GC
Determination of Butyltins in Natural Waters by Flame Photometric Detection
of Hexyl Derivatives with Mass Spectrometric Confirmation. Chemosphere
15(4):461-470, 1986.
94
-------
U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Levels for Poisonous or
Deleterious Substances in Human Food and Animal Feed. U.S. FDA,
Washington, D.C., 13 pp., 1984.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). Test Methods for Evaluating
Solid Waste: Physical/Chemical Methods. 3rd ed. SW-846, USEPA,
Washington, D.C., 1986.
Varanasi, U., Krone, C. A., Brown, D. W., Burrows, D. G., and Chan, S-L.
Analysis of Butyltins in Puget Sound Sediments Initial Survey. Prepared
for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District, by National Marine
Fisheries Center, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Seattle,
Washington, 1988.
Zar, J. H. Biostatistical Analysis. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New
Jersey, 620 pp., 1974.
95
-------
APPENDIK A
SURVEY REPORT
SUMMARY OF ACTIVITIES
-------
TABLE 1. SUMMARY OF DAILY ACTIVITIES ON THE PUGET SOUND RECONNAISSANCE
SURVEY CRUISE, APRIL-MAY 1988
Personnel Aboard
Station
Activities
4/18/88
Scott Becker (PT!)
Catherine Krueger (EPA)
Paul Plesha (NOAA)
Doug Weber (NOAA)
4/19/88
Scott Becker (PTI)
Catherine Krueger (EPA)
Paul Plesha (NOAA)
Ann Schaefer (COE)
Doug Weber (NOAA)
4/20/88
Jeff Anderson (Battelle)
John Armstrong (EPA)
Donna Baker (EPA)
Eric Crecelius (Battelle)
Chris Dunagan (Bremerton Sun)
Paul Plesha (NOAA)
Clare Ryan (EPA)
Carl a Stehr (NOAA)
Doug Weber (NOAA)
Eagle Harbor
(EH)
Elliot Bay
(EB-A.B)
East Passage
(EB-R, EH-R)
Commencement Bay
(CB-A,B,C)
East Passage
(CB-R)
Quartermaster
Harbor (F-6)
Gig Harbor
(Stations 1-4)
Van Veen sediment grab - 1 site
for Bioassay Comparison Task
Van Veen sediment grab - 2 sites
for Bioassay Comparison Task
Van Veen grabs - 2 sites (reference)
for Bioassay Comparison Task
Van Veen sediment grab - 3 sites
for Bioassay Comparison Task
Van Veen grabs - 1 site (reference)
for Bioassay Comparison Task
Trawls (2) for English Sole
(fish tissue chemistry)
Trawls (8) for English and Rock
sole (histopathology and fish
tissue chemistry)
Sta. 1 - Van Veen grabs
for bioassay, benthos, chemistry,
and conventionals
Sta, 2 - Van Veen grabs
for bioassay, benthos, chemistry,
and conventional
Sta, 3- Van Veen grabs
for bioassay, benthos, chemistry,
and conventionals
Sta. 4 - Van Veen grabs
for bioassay, benthos, chemistry,
and conventional
A.I
-------
TABLE 1 (Continued)
Personnel Aboard
Station
Activities
4/21/88
Jeff Anderson (Battelle)
Eric Crecelius (Battelle)
Paul Plesha (NOAA)
Carl a Stehr (NOAA)
Doug Weber (NOAA)
Gig Harbor
(Stations 5,6)
Liberty Bay
(F-l)
Dyes Inlet
DI (Sta. 1)
Sinclair
(F-8)
Sinclair
(S-11E)
Inlet
Inlet
4/22/88
Jeff Anderson (Battelle)
John Armstrong (EPA)
Eric Crecelius (Battelle)
Jack Gackstader (EPA)
Paul Plesha (NOAA)
Carl a Stehr (NOAA)
Doug Weber (NOAA)
Martin Westerman (guest of EPA)
Hike Rylco (EPA)
Dyes Inlet
DI (Sta. 2-6)
Sta. 6 - Van Veen grabs
for bioassay, benthos, chemistry,
and conventionals
Sta. 5 - Van Veen grabs
for bioassay, benthos, chemistry,
and conventionals
Sta. 6 - Van Veen grabs
for bioassay, benthos, chemistry,
and conventionals
Trawls (3) for Rock sole
(fish tissue chemistry)
Sta. 1 - Van Veen grabs
for bioassay, benthos, chemistry,
and conventionals
Trawls (4) for English sole
(histopathology and tissue chemistry
Trawls (1) for English sole
(fish tissue chemistry)
Van Veen grabs for PSWQA
(sediment grain size)
Sta. 2 - Van Veen grabs
for bioassay, benthos, chemistry,
and conventionals
Sta. 3 - Van Veen grabs
for bioassay, benthos, chemistry,
and conventionals
Sta. 4 - Van Veen grabs
for bioassay, benthos, chemistry,
and conventionals
Sta. 5 - Van Veen grabs
for bioassay, benthos, chemistry,
and conventionals
A.2
-------
TABLE 1 (Continued)
Personnel Aboard
Station
Activities
4/22/88
4/25/88
Jeff Anderson (Battelle)
Paul Plesha (NOAA)
Lindle Johnson (NOAA)
Doug Weber (NOAA)
4/26/88
Jeff Anderson (Battelle)
Eric Crecelius (Battelle)
Lindle Johnson (NOAA)
Paul Plesha (NOAA)
Doug Weber (NOAA)
Dana Woodruff (Battelle)
Sta. 6 - Van Veen grabs
for bioassay, benthos, chemistry,
and conventionals
Trawls (4) for English sole
(histopathology and tissue chemistry
Van Veen grabs for PSWQA
(sediment grain size)
Trawls (3) for English sole
(fish tissue chemistry)
Van Veen grabs for PSWQA
(sediment grain size)
Trawls (6) for Rock Sole
(fish tissue chemistry)
Van Veen grabs for PSWQA
(sediment grain size)
Dyes Inlet
Northern Hood Canal
(S-8E)
Northern Hood Canal
(S-8W)
Port Gamble
(F-7)
Port Townsend
(S-2)
Port Townsend
(F-4)
Mouth Admiralty
Inlet (S-3E)
Mouth Admiralty
Inlet (S-3W)
Discovery Bay
(S-l)
Port Angeles Harbor Sta. 5 - Van Veen grabs
(Station 5) for bioassay, benthos, chemistry,
and conventionals
Trawls (10) for Sand Dab
(fish tissue chemistry)
A.3
-------
TABLE 1 (Continued)
Personnel Aboard
Station
Activities
4/27/88
Jeff Anderson (Battelle)
Eric Crecelius (Battelle)
J.R. Davila (guest of EPA)
Michael Jacobson (PSWQA)
Lindle Johnson (NOAA)
Paul Plesha (NOAA)
Doug Weber (NOAA)
Port Angeles Harbor Sta. 1 - Van Veen grabs
(Sta. 1-4, 6) for bioassay, benthos, chemistry,
and conventional
Sta. 2 - Van Veen grabs
for bioassay, benthos, chemistry,
and conventionals
4/27/88
4/28/88
Jeff Anderson (Battelle)
Eric Crecelius (Battelle)
Lindle Johnson (NOAA)
Paul Plesha (NOAA)
Steve Quinell (WDF)
Pete Strip!and (W. DOE)
Doug Weber (NOAA)
Port Angeles Harbor Sta. 3 - Van Veen grabs
for bioassay, benthos, chemistry,
and conventionals
Sta. 4 - Van Veen grabs for bioassay
triplicate samples for benthos,
chemistry, and conventional
Sta. 6 - Van Veen grabs
for bioassay, benthos, chemistry,
and conventionals
Oak Harbor
(Sta. 1-6)
Trawls for Starry flounder
(fish tissue chemistry)
Sta. 1- Van Veen grabs
for bioassay, benthos, chemistry,
and conventionals
Sta. 2 - Van Veen grabs
for bioassay, benthos, chemistry,
and conventionals
Sta. 3 - Van Veen grabs
for bioassay, benthos, chemistry,
and conventionals
Sta. 4 - Van Veen grabs
for bioassay, benthos, chemistry,
and conventionals
Sta. 5 - Van Veen grabs
for bioassay, benthos, chemistry,
and conventionals
A.4
-------
TABLE 1 (Continued)
Personnel Aboard
Station
Activities
4/29/88
Lindle Johnson (NOAA)
Paul Plesha (NOAA)
Doug Weber (NOAA)
Canadians
5/2/88
Paul Plesha (NOAA)
Doug Weber (NOAA)
Dana Woodruff (Battelle)
5/3/88
Paul Plesha (NOAA)
Doug Weber (NOAA)
Dana Woodruff (Battelle)
Skagit Bay
Saratoga Passage
South (S-5)
Saratoga Passage
North (S-4E)
Saratoga Passage
(F-3)
Saratoga Passage
North (S-4W)
Port Susan
North (S-6)
Port Susan
(F-2)
Port Susan
South (S-7W)
Port Susan
South (S-7E)
Richmond Beach
(F-9)
Sta. 6 - Van Veen grabs
for bioassay, benthos, chemistry,
and conventional
Trawl (1) for Starry flounder
(fish tissue chemistry)
Training of Canadian guests
Van Veen grab for PSWQA
(sediment grain size)
Trawls (2) for English sole
(fish tissue chemistry)
Van Veen grab for PSWQA
(sediment grain size)
Trawls (1) for English sole
(fish tissue chemistry)
Van Veen grab for PSWQA
(sediment grain size)
Trawl (1) for English sole
(fish tissue chemistry)
A.5
-------
TABLE 1 (Continued)
Personnel Aboard
Station
Activities
Presidents Point
(S-10E)
Presidents Point
(S-10W)
Port Madison
(S-9)
Port Madison
(F-5)
Van Veen grab (3) for PSWQA
(sediment grain size)
Trawls (2) for English sole
(fish tissue chemistry)
5/4/88
Mark Meyers (NOAA)
Paul Plesha (NOAA)
Doug Weber (NOAA)
Dana Woodruff (Battelle)
Shilshole Bay
Trawls (4) for English sole
(histopathology)
Van Veen grabs (3) for PSWQA
(sediment grain size)
A.6
-------
TABLE 2. STATION POSITIONS OF BENTHIC STATIONS AND TRAWLS FOR
CHARACTERIZATION OF NON-URBAN BAYS
Benthic Stations Latitude Longitude
Time
Delay
Time
Delay
Depth
(MLLW)
Date
Time
Gig Harbor
Sta. 1
Sta. 2
Sta. 3
Sta. 4
Sta. 5
Sta. 6
Dyes Inlet
Sta. 1
Sta. 2
Sta. 3
Sta. 4
Sta. 5
Sta. 6
Port Angeles
Sta. 1
Sta. 2
Sta. 3
Sta. 4
Sta. 5
Sta. 6
47
47
47
47
47
47
47
47
47
47
47
47
48
48
48
48
48
48
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
0
o
0
o
o
o
o
o
19
20
20
20
20
20
35
35
35
36
38
38
07
07
07
07
07
08
.86'
.05'
.12'
.14'
.17'
.30'
.04'
.37'
.67'
.87'
.48'
.56'
.75'
.47'
.56'
.67'
.80'
.13'
122
122
122
122
122
122
122
122
122
122
122
122
123
123
123
123
123
123
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
0
o
o
o
o
o
o
34
34
34
35
35
35
39
40
40
41
41
40
23
24
25
26
27
27
.56'
.80'
.90'
.03'
.15'
.14'
.35'
.80'
.75'
.71'
.46'
.84'
.97'
.73'
.79'
.38'
.10'
.44'
27930
27930
27931
27932
27933
27933
28059
28066
28070
28081
28093
28091
28480
28480
28484
28487
28491
28494
.2
.5
.2
.1
.0
.9
.7
.6
.9
.7
.0
.3
.6
.4
.6
.7
.1
.7
42231
42231
42231
42231
42230
42230
42241
42238
42239
42237
42241
42243
42150
42146
42143
42141
42138
42138
.9
.5
.4
.2
.7
.9
.9
.1
.3
.9
.5
.5
.2
.8
.3
.3
.9
.2
25 ft
26 ft
22 ft
17 ft
20 ft
18 ft
19 ft
22 ft
30 ft
37 ft
30 ft
30 ft
68 ft
43 ft
36 ft
44 ft
41 ft
54 ft
4/20/88
4/20/88
4/20/88
4/20/88
4/21/88
4/21/88
4/21/88
4/21/88
4/22/88
4/22/88
4/22/88
4/22/88
4/27/88
4/27/88
4/27/88
4/27/88
4/26/88
4/27/88
1730
1500
1400
1215
1055
900
915
1130
1205
1300
1545
835
-------
TABLE 2 (Continued)
00
Benthic Stations
Latitude
Oak Harbor
Sta. 1
Sta. 2
Sta. 3
Sta. 4
Sta. 5
Sta. 6
Fisheries
Stations
48°
48°
48°
48°
48°
48°
16
16
17
16
17
17
.33'
.67'
.04'
.99'
.02'
.13'
Longitude
122°
122°
122°
122°
122°
122°
38
38
38
38
38
38
.66'
.98'
.73'
.42'
.16'
.25'
Time Time Depth
Delay Delay (HLLW)
28409.1 42326.5 45 ft
28412.8 42326.2 12 ft
28415.0 42327.8 15 ft
28414.2 42328.8 12 ft
28413.3 42329.8 13 ft
28414.9 42330.0 17 ft
Date
4/28/88
4/28/88
4/28/88
4/28/88
4/28/88
4/28/88
Time
1040
1045
1430
1255
0830
1530
Gig Harbor
Trawl
Trawl
Trawl
Trawl
Trawl
Trawl
Trawl
Trawl
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
S
E
S
E
S
E
S
E
S
E
S
E
S
E
S
E
47°
47°
47°
47°
47°
47°
47°
47°
47°
47°
47°
47°
47°
47°
47°
47°
19
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
19
19
19
20
.82'
.07'
.08'
.23'
.01'
.20'
.20'
.01'
.or
.20'
.12'
.09'
.78'
.87'
.88'
.20'
122°
122°
122°
122°
122°
122°
122°
122°
122°
122°
122°
122°
122°
122°
122°
122°
34
34
34
35
34
35
35
34
34
35
35
34
34
34
34
34
.54'
.87'
.77'
.04'
.63'
.08'
.08'
.63'
.63'
.08'
.02'
.93'
.49'
.56'
.62'
.73'
Loran down 22-42 ft
ditto 23-43 ft
23-43 ft
29-49 ft
" 29-49 ft
28-48 ft
26-46 ft
25-45 ft
4/20/88
4/20/88
4/20/88
4/20/88
4/20/88
4/20/88
4/20/88
4/20/88
815
825
855
1210
1500
1540
1800
1830
-------
TABLE 2 (Continued)
Benthic Stations
Latitude
Dyes Inlet
Trawl
Trawl
Trawl
Trawl
Trawl
Trawl
Trawl
Trawl
Port Angel
Trawl
Trawl
Trawl
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
es
1
2
3
S
E
S
E
S
E
S
E
S
E
S
E
S
E
S
E
S
E
S
E
S
E
47°
47°
47°
47°
47°
47°
47°
47°
47°
47°
47°
47°
47°
47°
47°
47°
48°
48°
48°
48°
48°
48°
36
37
37
38
37
37
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
37
36
37
07
07
08
08
08
08
.77'
.08'
.95'
.25'
.33'
.00'
.87'
.62'
.50'
.74'
.50'
.74'
.81'
.06'
.80'
.13'
.98'
.92'
.08'
.03'
.25'
.26'
Longitude
122°
122°
122°
122°
122°
122°
122°
122°
122°
122°
122°
122°
122°
122°
122°
122°
123°
123°
123°
123°
123°
123°
39.87'
40.44'
41.69'
41.68'
41.34'
41.05'
41.28'
40.98'
40.95'
41.23'
40.95'
41.23'
41.10'
41.14'
41.18'
41.28'
26.72'
26.37'
25.43'
24.79'
24.06'
24.85'
Time Time Depth
Delay Delay (MLLW)
45
54
Loran down 123
ditto 122
113
124
114
97
Loran down 103
ditto 118
168
ft
ft
ft
ft
ft
ft
ft
ft
ft
ft
ft
Date
4/21/88
4/21/88
4/21/88
4/22/88
4/22/88
4/22/88
4/22/88
4/22/88
4/26/88
4/26/88
4/26/88
Time
1845
1910
1953
945
1015
1105
1300
1340
1645
1710
1735
-------
TABLE 2 (Continued)
Benthic Stations
Port
Oak
Latitude
Time Time
Longitude Delay Delay
Depth
(MLLW)
Date
Time
Angeles (Continued)
Trawl 4
Trawl 5
Trawl 6
Trawl 7
Trawl 8
Trawl 9
Harbor
Trawl 1
Trawl 2
Trawl 3
Trawl 4
Trawl 5
Trawl 6
S
E
S
E
S
E
S
E
S
E
S
E
S
E
S
E
S
E
S
E
S
E
S
E
48° 07.54'
48° 07.53'
48° 07.71'
48° 07.74'
48° 07.47'
48° 07.70'
48° 08.09'
48° 08.10'
48° 07.90'
48° 07.74'
48° 07.98'
48° 07.92'
48° 17.07'
48° 17.01'
48° 16.94'
48° 16.73'
48° 16.63'
48° 16.42'
48° 16.20'
48° 16.01'
48° 15.53'
48° 15.32'
48° 16.28'
48° 16.52'
123° 24.37'
123° 24.51'
123° 24.36'
123° 25.13'
123° 25.50' Loran down
123° 26.21'
123° 25.54' ditto
123° 26.31'
123° 26.84'
123° 26.15'
123° 26.72'
123° 26.37'
122° 38.05'
122° 38.54'
122° 38.70'
122° 39.06'
122° 38.95'
122° 38.78'
122° 38.50'
122° 38.41'
122° 38.29'
122° 38.49'
122° 38.57'
122° 38.81'
52 ft
52 ft
47 ft
56 ft
66 ft
75 ft
11 ft
11 ft
32 ft
25 ft
55 ft
35 ft
4/26/88
4/26/88
4/26/88
4/26/88
4/26/88
4/26/88
4/28/88
4/28/88
4/28/88
4/28/88
4/28/88
4/28/88
1805
1830
1858
1925
1950
2015
915
945
1020
1155
1200
1230
-------
TABLE 3. STATION POSITIONS OF TRAWLS FOR FISH TISSUE CONTAMINATION
Station
Time Time Depth
Latitude Longitude Delay Delay (MLLW)
Date
Time
F-l Liberty Bay
F-2 Port Susan
F-3 Saratoga Passage
F-4 Port Townsend
F-5 Port Madison
F-6 Quartermaster
Harbor
F-7 Port Gamble
F-8 Sinclair Inlet
F-9 Richmond Beach
F-10 Shilshole Bay
F-ll Skagit Bay
Start 47° 42.88' 122° 37.85' 28113.9 42260.6
End 47° 43.26' 122° 38.20' 28116.9 42260.4
Start 48° 09.95' 122° 25.12'
End 48° 09.28' 122° 24.74'
Start 48° 12.57' 122° 34.61'
End 48° 13.60' 122° 35.48'
Start 47° 05.30' 122° 45.50'
Start 47° 44.10' 122° 31.72'
End 47° 43.16' 122° 31.22'
Start 47° 22,55' 122° 27.41'
Start 48° 50.83' 122° 34.30'
Start
Loran not accurate 140 ft
ditto
28037.9 42247.2
Start 47° 40.47' 122° 24.60'
Start 47° 16.50' 122° 29.30'
ditto
33 ft 4/21/88 1515
5/2/88 1950
215 ft 5/2/88 1430
End 47° 33.84' 122° 36.95' 28039.9 42247.3
Start 47° 45.99' 122° 23.51' Loran not accurate 81 ft
End 47° 45.35' 122° 23.33'
84 ft
121 ft
54 ft
55 ft
59 ft
81 ft
44 ft
30 ft
4/25/88
5/3/88
4/19/88
4/25/88
4/21/88
5/3/88
5/4/88
4/29/88
1700
1412
1950
1405
1315
1100
845
1130
-------
TABLE 4. STATION POSITIONS OF VAN VEEN SEDIMENT GRAB SAMPLES COLLECTED FOR PUGET SOUND HATER
QUALITY AUTHORITY MONITORING PROGRAM
Sediment Stations
S-l
S-2
S-3E
S-3W
S-4W
S-4E
Discovery Bay
Rep 1
Rep 2
Rep 3
Port Townsend
Rep 1
Rep 2
Rep 3
Mouth of Straits
Rep 1 8 2
Mouth of Straits
Rep 1
Rep 2
Rep 3
Saratoga Passage
Rep 1
Rep 2
Rep 3
Saratoga Passage
Rep 1
Rep 2
Rep 3
Latitude
48°
48°
48°
48°
48°
48°
48°
48°
48°
48°
North
48°
48°
48°
North
48°
48°
48°
02.22'
02.13'
02.04'
04.96'
04.94'
04.86'
13.12'
08.86'
08.87'
08.85'
12.50'
12.55'
12.55'
14.32'
14.27'
14.22'
Longitude
122°
122°
122°
122°
122°
122°
122°
122°
122°
122°
122°
122°
122°
122°
122°
122°
50.08'
50.10'
50.12'
45.28'
45.31'
45.38'
46.79'
49.99'
50.07'
50.23'
35.98'
36.00'
36.00'
32.23'
32.23'
32.20'
Time
Delay
28320.6
28319.7
28319.2
28327.6
28327.6
28327.1
28406.0
28378.6
28378.0
28379.3
28363.6
28364.4
28364.4
28367.5
28367.0
28366.4
Time
Delay
42257.
42257.
42257.
42279.
42279.
42278.
42291.
42271.
42270.
42270.
42326.
42326.
42326
42343
42343
42343
7
4
2
5
2
7
4
5
9
6
6
6
.6
.2
.1
.0
Depth
(MLLW)
102 ft
104 ft
104 ft
122 ft*
115 ft*
110 ft*
57 ft
63 ft
63 ft
64 ft
53 ft
49 ft
62 ft
72 ft
67 ft
64 ft
Date
4/28/88
4/28/88
4/28/88
4/25/88
4/25/88
4/25/88
4/26/88
4/26/88
4/26/88
4/26/88
5/2/88
5/2/88
5/2/88
5/2/88
5/2/88
5/2/88
Time
1045
1100
1110
800
930
930
930
1600
1600
1600
1330
1330
1330
-------
TABLE 4 (Continued)
Sediment Stations
Time Time Depth
Latitude Longitude Delay Delay (MLLW)
Date
Time
S-5 Saratoga Passage South
Rep 1 48° 07.28' 122° 31.56'
Rep 2 - 48° 07.21' 122° 31.67'
Rep 3 48° 07.25' 122° 31.63'
28300.3 42329.7 350 ft 5/2/88 1101
28300.2 42329.2 381 ft 5/2/88 1101
28300.4 42329.4 381 ft 5/2/88 1101
S-6 Port Susan North
S-7W
S-7E
S-8W
S-8E
Rep 1
Rep 2
Rep 3
48°
48°
48°
09
09
09
.91'
.95'
.91'
122°
122°
122°
25
25
25
.03'
.12'
.23'
28301
28302
28302
.4
.1
.9
42356
42356
47356
.9
.7
.4
Port Susan South
Rep 1
Rep 2
Rep 3
48°
48°
48°
03
03
03
.63'
.68'
.73'
122°
122°
122°
21
21
21
.25'
.25'
.24'
28229
28230
28230
.7
.1
.9
42354
42355
42355
.9
.0
.2
Port Susan South
Rep 1
Rep 2
Rep 3
Northern
Rep 1
Rep 2
Rep 3
Northern
Rep 1
Rep 2
Rep 3
48°
48°
48°
Hood Canal
47°
47°
47°
Hood Canal
47°
47°
47°
04
04
04
49
49
49
50
50
50
.79'
.84'
.88'
.47'
.43'
.40'
.30'
.26'
.20'
122°
122°
122°
122°
122°
122°
122°
122°
122°
19
19
19
39
39
39
40
40
40
.32'
.36'
.40'
.23'
.28'
.34'
.71'
.82'
.92'
28233
28234
28234
28172
28172
28172
28185
28185
28185
.5
.0
.7
.9
.9
.8
.6
.5
.3
42363
42363
42363
42268
42268
42268
42265
42264
42264
.7
.5
.6
.5
.3
.1
.3
.8
.5
140 ft
147 ft
140 ft
65 ft
53 ft
64 ft
53 ft
61 ft
53 ft
51 ft
54 ft
54 ft
52 ft
54 ft
50 ft
5/2/88
5/2/88
5/2/88
5/2/88
5/2/88
5/2/88
5/2/88
5/2/88
5/2/88
4/25/88
4/25/88
4/25/88
4/25/88
4/25/88
4/25/88
1930
1930
1930
1824
1824
1824
2120
2120
2120
1300
1300
1300
1235
1235
1235
-------
TABLE 4 (Continued)
Sediment Stations
S-9
S-10W
S-10E
S-11E
S-11W
S-12
Port Madison
Rep 1
Rep 2
Rep 3
Presidents Point
Rep 1
Rep 2
Rep 3
Presidents Point
Rep 1
Rep 2
Rep 3
Sinclair Inlet
Rep 1
Rep 2
Sinclair Inlet
Rep 1
Rep 2
Rep 3
Shilshole Bay
Rep 1
Rep 2
Rep 3
Latitude
47=
47°
47°
47°
47°
47°
47°
47°
47°
47°
47°
47°
47°
47°
47°
47°
47°
43.92'
43.99'
44.06'
46.28'
46.33'
46.39'
46.71'
46.76'
46.79'
33.83'
33.81'
32.77'
32.77'
32.77'
40.55'
40.50'
40.44'
Longitude
122°
122°
122°
122°
122°
122°
122°
122°
122°
122°
122°
122°
122°
122°
122°
122°
122°
31.79'
31.76'
31.66'
28.28'
28.27'
28.29'
23.96'
23.94'
23.79'
36.87'
36.73'
39.28'
39.22'
39.14'
24.50'
24.43'
24.38'
Time
Delay
28099.1
28099.5
28099.7
28105.0
28105.2
28105.8
28091.9
28092.3
28092.4
28039.3
38038.5
28040.8
28040.6
28040.4
Loran not
Time
Delay
42281.3
42281.5
42282.0
42296.7
42296.9
42296.9
42310.9
42311.1
42311.0
42274.6
42248.0
42238.4
42238.5
42238.7
accurate
ditto
II
Depth
(MLLW)
128
98
97
62
68
65
68
68
70
66
66
24
25
26
35
34
35
ft
ft
ft
ft
ft
ft
ft
ft
ft
ft
ft
ft
ft
ft
ft
ft
ft
Date
5/3/88
5/3/88
5/3/88
5/3/88
5/3/88
5/3/88
5/3/88
5/3/88
5/3/88
4/21/88
4/21/88
4/22/88
4/22/88
4/22/88
5/4/88
5/4/88
5/4/88
Time
1345
1345
1345
1245
1245
1245
1130
1130
1130
1350
1350
720
725
730
1104
1104
1104
Uncorrected Depth
-------
TABLE 5. LOCATIONS OF THE SEDIMENT STATION FOR THE PESTICIDE
RECONNAISSANCE SURVEY, JULY 1988
Site Center
Latitude N
Longitude W
Snohomish 1
Snohomish 2
Stillaguamish
Dugualla
Skagit 1
Skagit 2
Skagit 3
Skagit 4
Nisqually
Nisqually
1
Sequalitchew Creek
Lake Washington 1
Lake Washington 2
Lake Washington 3
Lake Washington 4
Lake Washington 5
Lake Washington 6
48°
48°
48° 01.88'
47° 59.82'
48° 14.43'
21.47'
19.30'
48° 21,45'
48° 18.90'
48° 16.88'
47° 05.60'
47° 05.96'
47° 07.05'
47° 34.82'
47° 38.55'
47° 39.40'
47° 45.35'
47° 45.32'
47° 41.72'
122°
122°
122°
122°
122°
122°
122°
122°
123°
123°
123°
122°
122°
122°
122°
122°
122°
12.20'
08.98'
22.97'
35.57'
22.71'
21.47'
22.68'
22.46'
40.98'
41.61'
39.90'
11.17'
18.53'
17.05'
14.89'
15.06'
16.23'
A.15
-------
APPENDIX B
QA/QC APPENDIX
-------
TABLE 1. QUALITY ASSURANCE REVIEW - CONVENTIQNALS
Grain Size
1. Sample collection, preparation, and storage - Acceptable
Samples were collected between 4/28/88 and 5/4/88 using methods recommended
in QA Project Plan and PSEP protocols.
3.
4.
Recommended Procedure
surface collection (0-2 cm)
clean plastic jars
on ice (4 °C)
max,, holding time - 6 months
Detection limits - Acceptable
Recommended
0.1%
Procedural blanks - Not Required
Replicate Analysis - Acceptable
Field Replicates
Gig Harbor
Gravel
Pt. Angeles
Sand
Actual Procedure Used
same
same
same
4 weeks
Actual
0.01%
Silt
Cla\
Sta
Sta
Sta
mean
S.D.
3
3
3
(a)
(b)
(c)
0
0
0
0
0
.05 %
.00
.00
.02
.03
52
50
59
54
4
.68 %
.69
.72
.36
.74
27
28
22
26
3
.49 %
.30
.74
.18
.00
19
21
17
19
1
.79
.01
.55
.45
.75
Sta 4 (a)
Sta 4 (b)
Sta 4 (c)
mean
S.D.
0.74
1.07
1.28
1.03
0.27
12.26
18.96
15.67
15.63
3.35
52.18
43.47
45.07
46.90
4.63
34.82
36.50
37.98
36.43
1.58
B.I
-------
TABLE 1. CONTINUED
Laboratory
Sample ID 1
OMEP-113-1
OMEP-113-1
mean
S.D.
Laboratory
Sample ID #
OMEP-113-2
OMEP-113-2
mean
S.D.
OMEP-113-4
OMEP-113-4
mean
S.D.
Procedural Repl
% Gravel
0.16
0.01
0.09
0.11
Procedural Repl
% Gravel
0.01
0.00
0.005
0.007
0.02
0.14
0.08
0.08
icates
% Sand
6.67
6.49
6.58
0.13
icates (Continued)
% Sand
2.47
1.87
2.17
0.42
71.25
70.44
70.84
0.57
% Silt
32.24
46.49
39.36
10.08
% Silt
51.37
41.38
46.37
7.06
15.43
15.30
15.36
0.09
% Clay
60.93
47.01
53.97
9.84
% Clay
46.15
56.75
51.45
7.50
13.30
14.12
13.71
0.58
B.2
-------
TABLE 2. QUALITY ASSURANCE REVIEW - CONVENTIONALS
Total Solids
1. Sample collection, preparation and storage - Acceptable
Samples were collected between 4/28/88 and 5/4/88 using methods recommended
in QA Project Plan and PSEP protocols.
Recommended procedure
surface collection (0-2 cm)
clean plastic jars
on ice (4 °C),
max. holding time - 6 months
2. Detection limits - Acceptable
Recommended
0.1%
3. Procedural blanks - Not Required
4. Replicate Analysis - Acceptable
Field Replicates
Gig Harbor
Sta 3 (a)
Sta 3 (b)
Sta 3 (c)
Pt. Angeles
Sta 4 (a)
Sta 4 (b)
Sta 4 (c)
% Total Solids
51.20
50.16
55.57
42.49
38.42
40.55
Actual procedure used
same
same
same
4 weeks
Actua}
0.01%
Mean
52.31
40.49
S.D.
2.87
2.03
Laboratory Procedural Replicates
Sample ID # % Total Solids
OMEP-113-1
OMEP-113-1
OMEP-113-2
OMEP-113-2
31.63
31.63
28.22
28.22
Mean
31.63
28.22
S.D.
0.00
0.00
B.3
-------
TABLE 2. CONTINUED
Sample ID # % Total Solids Mean S.D.
OMEP-113-4 58.72 58.72 0.00
OMEP-113-4 58.72
B.4
-------
TABLE 3. QUALITY ASSURANCE REVIEW - CONVENTIONALS
Total Organic Carbon
1. Sample collection, preparation and storage - Acceptable
Samples were collected between 4/28/88 and 5/4/88 using methods recommended
in QA Project Plan and PSEP protocols.
Recommended procedure Actual procedure used
surface collection (0-2 cm) same
clean plastic jars same
frozen same
max. holding time - 6 months 4-5 weeks
2. Detection limits - Acceptable
Recommended Actual
0.1% 0.01%
3. Procedural blanks - Not Required
4. Analysis of Standard Reference Material (SRM) - Acceptable
Sample ID % Total Carbon Mean S.D.
MESS-1-REP A 2.27 2.36 0.12
2.44
MESS-1-REP B 2.08 2.13 0.06
2.17
5. Replicate Analysis - Acceptable
Field Replicates
Gig Harbor % TOC (dry wt) Mean S.D.
1.58 0.10
Sta 3 (a)
Sta 3 (b)
Sta 3 (c)
Pt. Angeles
Sta 4 (a)
Sta 4 (b)
Sta 4 (c)
1.63
1.64
1.46
4.71
5.89
4.95
5.18 0.62
B.5
-------
TABLE 3. CONTINUED
Laboratory Procedural
Sample ID #
OMEP-113-1
OMEP-113-1
OMEP-113-10
OMEP-113-10
OMEP-113-20
OMEP-113-20
Replicates
% TOC (dry wt)
3.19
3.14
1.26
1.23
4.94
4.77
Mean
3.16
1.25
4.86
S.D.
0.04
0.02
0.12
B.6
-------
Al
Ag
As
Cd
Cr
Cu
Fe
Hg
Mn
Ni
Pb
Sb
Butyltin
In
100.00
0.1
2.0
0.1
10.0
10.0
100.0
0.02
10.0
5.0
2.0
0.5
0.02
10.0
TABLE 4. QUALITY ASSURANCE REVIEW - METALS ANALYSIS
AND BUTYLTINS
1. Sample collection, preparation and storage - Acceptable
Samples were collected between 4/28/88 and 5/4/88 using methods recommended
in QA Project Plan and PSEP protocols.
Recommended procedure Actual procedure used
surface collection (0-2 cm) same
acid clean plastic jars same
frozen same
max, holding time - 6 months 4-8 weeks
2. Detection limits - Acceptable
All analyses achieved level of detection required.
Detection limit required (^g/g) Detection limit Obtained
1500
0.01
2.1
0,02
6.0
2.4
30
0.01
6.0
2.1
2.2
0.05
0.002
2.4
3. Procedural (preparation) blanks
Procedural blanks were analyzed where appropriate.
Graphite AA and Cold Vapor method
(jug/q dry wt)
Rep.
Rep.
Rep.
1
2
3
AS
<0
<0
<0
.01
.01
.01
Cd
0.
0.
0.
04
04
04
Ma
0.
0.
0.
176
170
173
Sb
<0
<0
<0
.07
.07
.07
1.7
-------
TABLE 4. CONTINUED
ExtractJon-Derivatization for Butyltins
Tri-butyl
tin
24 ng
18
Di -butyl
tin
15.9 ng
9.1
Mono-butyl
tin
33.4 ng
5.4
Rep. 1
Rep. 2
4. Analysis of Standard Reference Materials (SRM's)
Graphite AA or Cold Vapor Method
dry wt)
Standard Aj Cd H^ Sb
MESS-1-STD
Rep-1 0.12 0.60 0.176 0.74
Rep-2 0.10 0.67 0.170 0.69
Rep-3 0.11 0.69 0.173 0.55
MESS-1 (cert, none 0.59 0.171 0.74
values) ±0.19 ±0.014 ±0.08
The percent difference between actual recovery and certified values is given
below. Recovery is required to be within 20%.
Percent Difference
Rep 1
Rep 2
Rep 3
Cd
1.69
13.55
16.95
Ma
2.92
0.58
1.17
Sb
0.00
6.76
25.68*
*Recovery is within 20 % when the S.D. of ±0.08 is considered.
X-ray Fluorescence Method
Cone, in ^g/g dry wt (except A1, Fe given in %)
Standard AT_ As CrCuFe Mn Ni_ Pb Zn
NBS 1646 STD
Rep 1 6.24 11.6 76 17 3.44 356 32 28.2 124
Rep 2 6.22 11.2 70 20 3.47 352 36 26.4 120
Rep 3 6.24 11.6 76 17 3.44 356 32 28.2 124
B.8
-------
TABLE 4. CONTINUED
NBS 1646 Cert. 6.25 11.6 76 18 3.35 375 32 28.2 138
Values ±0.20 ±1.3 ±3 ±3 ±0.10 ±20 ±3 ±1.8 ±6
Percent difference
Rep
Rep
Rep
1
2
3
0
0
0
.16
.48
.16
0.0
3.4
0.0
0
7
0
5
11
5
2.69
3.58
2.69
5
6
5
0
12
0
0.0
6.4
0.0
10
13
10
Extraction-Derivatization Method for Butyltins
Tri-butyl Di-butyl Mono-butyl
Standard Tin Tin Tin
Sequim-1 (/*g/g as Sn dry wt)
Rep 1 58.2 <2.9 <2.8
Rep 2 61.1 <3.0 <3.0
Sequim-1 (value 30 N.S. N.S.
analyzed by
NOAA)
Surrogate Recovery for Butyl tins
A surrogate, tripropyltin, was added to each sample at the time of solvent
extraction. The surrogate recoveries were in the acceptable range of 51% to
110% (Table 12, page B.21)
5. Matrix spikes
Matrix spikes for heavy metals were acceptable (between 70% and 130%) in
samples where digestion procedures were used. Matrix spike recoveries for
TBT, DBT, and MBT were 94%, 96%, and 36%, respectively.
Concentration in /tg/g
Description Ag Cd Hg Sb
Dyes Inlet Sta.4
+ Spike Rep-1
+ Spike Rep-2
1.18
2.11
2.21
0.97
6.07
6.32
0.717
1.594
1,657
1.29
10.6
9.27
Spike Concentration 1.0 5.0 1.0 10.0
Percent recovery
Spike Rep-1 93% 102% 88% 94%
Spike Rep-2 103 107 94 80
B.9
-------
TABLE 4. CONTINUED
6. Replicate Analysis
Field Replicates
Graphite AA and Col
Gig Harbor
Sta. 3 (a)
Sta. 3 (b)
Sta. 3 (c)
mean
S.D.
Pt. Angeles
Sta. 4 (a)
Sta, 4 (b)
Sta. 4 (c)
mean
S.D.
X-ray Fluorescence
Gig Harbor
Sta. 3 (a) 6
Sta. 3 (b) 6
Sta. 3 (c) 6
mean 6
S.D. 0
Pt. Anqeles
Sta. 4 (a) 6
Sta. 4 (b) 5
Sta. 4 (c) 6
mean 6
S.D. 0
d Vapor Method
Ag
0.41
0.43
0.36
0.40
0.03
Ag
0.12
0.10
0.13
0.12
0.01
Method
Al_ As Cr
.65 9.3 95
.13 9.6 118
.50 8.5 91
.43 9.1 101
.22 0.5 11.9
.47 9.9 86
.59 8.8 89
.48 7.8 82
.18 8.9 86
.42 0.8 2.9
Cd
0.36
0.30
0.31
0.32
0.03
Cd
0.68
0.70
0.59
0.66
0.05
CM E§
48 2.49
52 2.63
47 2.45
49 2.52
2.2 0.077
40 3.49
33 3.11
36 3.20
37 3.27
3.1 0.162
Hg
0.228
0.227
0.184
0.213
0.021
Hg
0.198
0.260
0.213
0.224
0.0264
Mn
410
464
437
437
22.0 1
380
296
323
333
35.0 3
Mi
31
35
34
33
.6
39
30
33
34
.8
Sb
0.88
0.89
1.02
0.93
0.063
Sb
0.27
0.27
0.34
0.29
0.032
Pb
41.2
34.4
29.7
35.1
4.72
17.7
20.1
19.5
19.1
1.02
Zn
78
79
74
77
2.3
100
94
93
96
3.4
B.10
-------
TABLE 4. CONTINUED
Extraction-Derivatization Method
Gig Harbor
Tri-butyl Di-butyl Mono-butyl
Tin Tin Tin
Sta. 3 (a) 18.1 9.4 6.7
Sta. 3 (b) 15.3 8.3 5.0
Sta. 3 (c) 7.7 5.3 1.4
mean 13.7 7.7 4.4
S.D. 5.4 2.1 2.7
Pt. Angeles
Sta. 4 (a) 19.3 3.8 <1.2
Sta. 4 (b) 17.0 3.9 2.9
Sta. 4 (c) 16.1 5.4 2.7
Pt. Angeles (Continued)
mean 17.5 4.4 2.3
S.D. 1.7 0.9 0.9
B.ll
-------
TABLE 5. QUALITY ASSURANCE REVIEW - GUAIACOLS
1. Sample collection, preparation and storage - Acceptable
Samples were collected on 4/26/88 using methods recommended in the QA
Project Plan.
Recommended procedure Actual procedure used
surface collection (0-2 cm) same
acid clean glass same
frozen same
recommended holding time - 6-8 weeks
2 months
2, Detection limits - Acceptable
All analyses achieved level of detection requested - 20 ^9/Kg dry wt.
3. Procedural (preparation) blanks
One methods blank was extracted and analyzed as requested. No target
compounds were detected.
4. Matrix spikes - Acceptable (/*g added to sample)
Spike MS %
Compound Added Result Recovery
Guaiacol 20 ^9 14.1 A»g 70.5
3,4,5-trichloroguaiacol 20 20.0 100.0
4,5,6-tnehloroguaiacol 20 20.6 103.0
tetrachloroguaiacol 20 18.5 92.5
5. Surrogate Recoveries - Acceptable (50 fig added to sample)
Target Target %
Compound/Sample Added Recovered Recovery
(MO) (MO)
4-Bromo-2-chlorophenol
Sample II 50.0 47.7 95.4
Sample 12 50.0 37.5 75.0
Sample #3 50.0 49.4 98.8
Sample #4 . 50.0 41.4 82.8
Sample #5 50.0 47.8 95.6
Sample #6 50.0 51.2 102.3
B.12
-------
TABLE 6. QUALITY ASSURANCE REVIEW - ORGANICS ANALYSIS
QUALITY ASSURANCE REVIEW - METALS ANALYSIS
1. Sample collection, preparation and storage - Acceptable
Samples were collected between 4/28/88 and 5/4/88 using methods recommended
in QA Project Plan and PSEP protocols.
Recommended procedure
surface collection (0-2 cm)
glass with teflon lined lid
frozen (-20 °C),
max, holding time - 2 months
2. Detection limits - Acceptable
Actual procedure used
same
same
same
2 months
All analyses achieved level of detection required.
Level of detection (/*g/Kg) Required
Phenols
phenol
2-methylphenol
4-methylphenol
2,4-dimethylphenol
pentachlorophenol
Aromatic Hydrocarbons
naphthalene
2-methylnaphthalene
acenaphthylene
fluorene
phenanthrene
anthracene
fluoranthene
pyrene
benzo(a)anthracene
chrysene
benzof1uoranthenes
benzo(a)pyrene
indeno(l,2,3-c,d)pyrene
dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
benzo(g,h,i)perylene
Chlorinated Hydrocarbons
1,2-dichlorobenzene
1,3-dichlorobenzene
1,4-dichlorobenzene
1,2,4-trichlorobenzene
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
200
200
200
100
100
100
100
Achieved
75
75
73
83
210
51
52
45
44
46
46
46
49
52
53
41
41
43
44
44
51
52
52
53
B.13
-------
TABLE 6. CONTINUED
hexachlorobenzene (HCB) 100 71
hexachlorobutadiene 100 53
Phthalates
bis(2-ethy1hexyl)phtha1ate 100 52
Pesticides
p,p'-DDE 2 0.5
p,p'-DDD 2 0.5
p.p'-DDT 2 0.5
aldrin 2 0.5
dieldrin 2 0.5
chlordane 10 0.5
heptachlor 2 0.5
gamma-HCH (lindane) 2 0.5
Total PCBs 10 8
3. Procedural (preparation) blanks - Acceptable
As requested, 2 procedural blanks were run. For all compounds listed above
the results were ND (not detectable) (page B.15).
4. Matrix spikes, acceptable except for DDT and dieldrin (pages B.18 and
B.19).
5. Surrogate Recoveries (pages B.20 and B.21),
6, Replicate Analysis, acceptable (pages C.4 and C.5).
1.14
-------
TABLE 7. BASE/NEUTRAL PROCEDURAL BLANK RESULTS
FV-18 FV-20
Base/Neutral Analytes
naphthalene
2-methyl naphthalene
acenaphthylene
fluorene
pyrene
benzo( a) anthracene
chrysene
benzofluroanthene
benzo(a)pyrene
indeno(l, 2, 3-c,d) pyrene
dibenzo(a,HOanthracene
benzo(g,H,i)perylene
1,2-dichlorobenzene
1 ,3-dichlorobenzene
1,4-dichlorobenzene
1,2,4-trichlorobenzene
hexachlorobenzene
hexachlorobutadiene
bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Acid Analytes
phenol
2-methyl phenol
4-methyl phenol
2,4-dimethylphenol
pentachlorophenol
Pesticide/PCB Analytes
p.p'-DDE
p,p'-DDT
p,p'-DDT
Aldrin
Dieldrin
Chlordane
Heptachlor
Gamma-BHC
Total PCB
< 39
< 39
< 39
< 39
< 39
< 39
< 39
< 39
< 39
< 39
< 39
< 39
< 39
< 39
< 39
< 39
< 39
< 39
< 39
< 78
< 78
< 78
< 78
< 78
< 0.3
< 0.3
< 0.3
< 0.3
< 0.3
< 0.3
< 0.3
< 0.3
< 0.3
< 39
< 39
< 39
< 39
< 39
< 39
< 39
< 39
< 39
< 39
< 39
< 39
< 39
< 39
< 39
< 39
< 39
< 39
< 39
< 78
< 78
< 78
< 78
< 78
< 0.3
< 0.3
< 0.3
< 0.3
< 0.3
< 0.3
< 0.3
< 0.3
< 0.3
B.15
-------
TABLE 8. BASE/NEUTRAL INSTRUMENT DETECTION LIMITS (IDL)
Base/Neutral Analytes IDL (ng)
naphthalene 3.8
2-methylnaphthalene 3.9
acenaphthylene 3.4
fluorene 3.3
pyrene 3.7
benzo(a)anthracene 3.9
chrysene 4.0
benzofluroanthene 3.1
benzo(a)pyrene 3.1
indeno(l,2,3-c,d)pyrene 3.2
dibenzo(a,h)anthracene 3.3
benzo(g,h,i)perylene 3.3
1,2-dichlorobenzene 3.8
1,3-dichlorobenzene 3.9
1,4-dichlorobenzene 3.9
1,2,4-trichlorobenzene 4.0
hexachlorobenzene 5.3
hexachlorobutadiene 4.0
bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate 3.9
Acid Analytes
phenol 5.6
2-methylphenol 5.6
4-methylphenol 5.5
2,4-dimethylphenol 6.2
pentachlorophenol 15.5
Pesticide/PCB Analytes
p,p'-DDE 0.0037
p.p'-DDT 0.0037
p,p'-DDT 0.0037
Aldrin 0.0037
Dieldrin 0.0037
Chlordane 0.0037
Heptachlor 0.0037
Gamma-BHC 0.0037
Total PCB ' 0.0675
B.16
-------
TABLE 9. SEDIMENT SAMPLE EXTRACTION AND ANALYSIS DATES
ANALYSIS
Sample
DI-5
DI-6
GH-1
GH-2
GH-5
GH-6
DI-3
DI-4
OH-3
OH-4
PAH-3
PAH-4, Rep. 1
GH-3, Rep. 2
GH-3, Rep. 3
OH-5
OH-6
PAH-4, Rep. 2
PAH-4, Rep. 3
OH-1
OH-2
PAH-5
PAH-6
GH-3
GH-4
PAH-1
PAH-2
DI-1
DI-2
113-8-MS-l
113-8-MSD-l
Extraction
6/21/88
6/21/88
6/21/88
6/21/88
6/21/88
6/21/88
6/21/88
6/21/88
6/24/88
6/24/88
6/24/88
6/24/88
6/24/88
6/24/88
6/24/88
6/24/88
6/24/88
6/24/88
6/24/88
6/24/88
6/24/88
6/24/88
6/24/88
6/24/88
6/24/88
6/24/88
6/24/88
6/24/88
7/06/88
7/06/88
GC/EC
7/08/88
7/08/88
7/08/88
7/08/88
7/08/88
7/08/88
7/08/88
7/08/88
7/06/88
7/06/88
7/06/88
7/06/88
7/06/88
7/06/88
7/07/88
7/07/88
7/07/88
7/07/88
7/08/88
7/09/88
7/09/88
7/13/88
7/11/88
7/11/88
7/12/88
7/12/88
7/12/88
7/12/88
7/12/88
7/12/88
GC/MS
7/19/88
7/19/88
7/19/88
7/13/88
7/13/88
7/13/88
7/19/88
7/19/88
7/19/88
7/19/88
7/13/88
7/13/88
7/13/88
7/13/88
7/13/88
7/13/88
7/13/88
7/13/88
7/13/88
7/13/88
7/13/88
7/14/88
7/14/88
7/14/88
7/14/88
7/19/88
7/19/88
7/19/88
7/12/88
7/13/88
B.17
-------
TABLE 10. BASE/NEUTRAL AND ACID MATRIX SPIKE RECOVERIES FOR SEDIMENTS
DO
O3
Amount in
Analyte Unspiked Sample Spike
Ug) (113-8) Level (|»g)
phenol
2-methyl phenol
4-methyl phenol
2,4-dimethylphenol
pentachlorophenol
1,3-dichlorobenzene
1,4-dichlorobenzene
1 ,2-dichlorobenzene
1 ,2,4-trichlorobenzene
naphthalene
hexachlorobutadiene
2-methylnaphalene
acenaphthylene
fluorene
hexachlorobenzene
phenanthrene
anthracene
f luoranthene
pyrene
benzo(a) anthracene
bis(2-ethylhexyl)
phthalate
chrysene
benzo(b)f luoranthene
benzo(k)f luoranthene
benzo(a)pyrene
indeno(l ,2.3-cd)pyrene
d i benz( a, h) anthracene
benzo(g,h, i)perylene
ND
ND
0.178
ND
ND
ND
0.054
ND
ND
1.14
ND
0.481
1.23
0.531
ND
2.32
1.62
4.57
5.92
3.19
2.86
4.15
3.29
2.59
3.45
2.33
0.656
2.72
46.56
43.36
120.32
50.37
122.88
40.32
40.32
40.32
40.32
40.32
40.32
39.94
40.32
40.32
40.32
40.32
40.32
40.32
40.32
40.32
51.78
40.32
40.32
40.32
40.32
40.32
40.32
40.32
Matrix
Spike
113-8MS1
35.4
36.6
83.0
43.5
118.4
29.1
29.2
30.4
36.5
38.5
37.4
20.7
49.5
43.0
42.5
46.5
45.7
56.9
53.8
45.3
70.2
47.4
39.6
44.5
42.2
38.8
46.3
44.8
Percent
Recovery
76%
84%
69%
86%
96%
72%
72%
75%
90%
95%
93%
52%
123%
107%
105%
115%
113%
141%
133%
112%
136%
118%
98%
110%
105%
96%
115%
111%
Recovery
Matrix Spike
Duplicate
113-8MSD
42.1
43.2
96.4
48.7
137.8
32.8
33.2
35.5
42.0
42.9
40.5
23.4
58.7
48.2
45.7
52.2
53.3
61.9
58.7
51.7
69.1
53.0
52.5
40.4
45.1
44.7
51.2
48.4
Percent
Recovery
90%
100%
80%
97%
112%
81%
82%
88%
104%
106%
100%
59%
146%
120%
113%
130%
132%
154%
146%
128%
133%
131%
130%
100%
112%
111%
127%
120%
-------
03
in
TABLE 10. CONTINUED
PESTICIDE MATRIX AND MATRIX SPIKE DUPLICATE RECOVERIES
Recovery
Analyte
p,p'-DDT
p.p'-DDE
p,p'-DDD
Aldrin
Dieldrin
Chlordane
Heptachlor
Lindane
Amount in
Unspiked Sample
(ng) (113-8)
ND
2.63
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Spike
Level (ng)
195.7
198
197.2
197.1
197.1
197.2
198
197.4
Matrix
Spike
113-8MS1
73.88
149.3
195.4
125.4
81.4
157.1
224.5
279.6
Percent
Recovery
37.8
75.3
99.1
63.6
41.3
79.7
113.4
141.7
Matrix Spike
Duplicate
113-8MSD
65.3
115.3
151.2
108.7
66.4
122.4
105.7
216.4
Percent
Recovery
33.4
58.2
76.7
55.2
33.7
62.1
53.4
109.6
-------
TABLE 11. ACID AND BASE/NEUTRAL SURROGATE RECOVERY FOR SEDIMENTS
r "imn 1 r*
Ouitlp i c
ID A
DI-5 31
DI-6 5
6H-1 41
GH-2 34
GH-5 14
GH-6 34
DI-3 28
DI-4 39
OH-3 24
OH-4 26
PAH-3 30
PAH-4, Rep. 1 53
GH-3, Rep. 2 60
GH-3, Rep. 3 48
OH-5 34
OH-6 83
PAH-4, Rep. 2 57
PAH-4, Rep. 3 82
OH-1 63
OH-2 52
PAH-5 47
PAH-6 45
GH-3 42
GH-4 40
PAH-1 49
PAH-2 45
DI-1 38
DI-2 41
113-8-MS-l 54
113-8-MSD-l 64
(a) Percent recovery of
A. 2-fluorophenol
B. phenol-d6
C. 2,4,6-triburomophenol
D. 2-fluorobiphenyl
E. nitrobenzene-d5
F. 4-terpheny1-dl4.
Percent Recovery(a)
B
43
25
89
61
39
60
65
77
53
60
51
69
79
71
55
98
77
108
86
78
76
75
67
76
71
90
68
68
66
78
the following
C
92
48
97
60
5
4
77
110
71
91
79
92
79
79
83
7
5
7
79
83
82
87
65
82
73
123
95
90
96
98
surrogates
D
128
109
139
115
111
104
127
135
117
110
97
113
110
98
105
110
94
118
125
111
108
110
110
124
117
121
115
122
98
106
*
E
104
54
134
92
78
71
109
123
99
84
63
80
79
72
81
106
84
117
114
90
89
82
86
96
90
138
115
117
78
83
F
92
82
96
97
97
87
88
94
93
88
89
101
96
106
111
106
98
116
109
109
128
143
111
121
104
101
99
109
125
133
B.20
-------
TABLE 12. SURROGATE RECOVERIES FOR PESTICIDE/PCB AND BUTYLTINS
Sample
ID
DI-5
DI-6
GH-1
GH-2
GH-5
GH-6
DI-3
DI-4
OH-3
OH-4
PAH-3
PAH-4, Rep. 1
GH-3, Rep. 2
GH-3, Rep. 3
OH-5
OH-6
PAH-4, Rep. 2
PAH-4, Rep. 3
OH-1
OH-2
PAH-5
PAH-6
GH-3
GH-4
PAH-1
PAH-2
DI-1
DI-2
113-8-MS-l
113-8-MSD-l
Percent Recovery
DBOFB
25
14
11
13
52
14
14
10
25
21
27
20
15
12
26
11
18
23
18
14
14
86
14
17
15
14
11
15
94
81
Percent Recovery
Tripropyltin
63
101
51
99
52
90
110
80
64
62
98
65
80
59
82
63
76
80
73
64
79
60
73
80
52
84
110
80
67
63
-------
TABLE 13. DETECTION LIMITS, PROCEDURAL BLANKS, BLANKS,
SPIKE BLANK MATRIX AND MATRIX SPIKE DUPLICATE
RECOVERIES FOR PESTICIDE RECONNAISSANCE SURVEY
Detection Limit
Pesticides (M9/kg dry wt)
Atrazine
Butyl ate
Diazinon(a)
Disulfoton
Ethyl Parathion
Methyl Parathion
Phorate
Prometon
Pronamide
Simazine
Trif lural in
Vernolate,,\
Chlordanew
Chlorpyrifos
Dicatnba
Dichobenil
2,4-D
Fenvalerate
Lindane
Pentachlorophenol
1
1.59
__
2.99
1.61
2.59
1.32
1.3
4.82
2.41
2.21
1.41
55
2.13
0.02
1.44
0.06
13.2
2.09
0.01
Procedural Blanks (ng)
No. 1
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
No. 2
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Spike Blank
Recovery %
76
41
--
46
152
87
15 Q
91
52
85
61
41
141
43
65
55
99
71
19 Q
(a) Diazinon and disulfoton co-elute. The detection limit and recovery were
only determined for disulfoton.
(b) Chlordane was not added because it causes interferences with other
compounds.
ND = Not Detected at reported detection limit, column 2.
Q = Qualified as unreliable data because of low spike blank and matrix
recoveries.
B.22
-------
TABLE 13, CONTINUED
Pesticide
Atrazine
Butylate / v
Diazinon/Disulfoton*1 '
Ethyl Parathion
Methyl Parathion
Phorate
Prometon(b)
Pronamide
Simazine(b)
Triflural in
Vernolate
Chlordane(c)
Chlorpyrifos(b)
Dicamba
Dichobenil
2,4-D
Fenvalerate
Lindane
Pentachlorophenol
Surrogates
DMNB (d)
DBOFB(e)
2,4DCPA(f)
Matrix BKGD
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
57
92
110
% Recovery
Matrix SPK
59
109
101
158
140
125
27 Q
--
108
100
--
25 Q
38
20 Q
20 Q
79
2 Q
48
103
68
Matrix SPK DUP
57
106
96
153
135
119
19 Q
106
95
--
33 Q
50
46 Q
23 Q
81
2 Q
43
107
53
(a) Diazinon and disulfoton co-elute. The detection limit and recovery
were only determined for disulfoton.
(b) Matrix interference precluded accurate quantification,
(c) Chlordane was not added because it causes interferences with other
compounds.
(d) 1,3 dimethyl-2-nitrobenzene.
(e) 4,4 dibromo-octafluorobiphenyl.
(f) 2,4 dichlorophenylacetic acid.
Q = Qualified as unreliable data because of low matrix recoveries.
B.23
-------
TABLE 14. RECOVERY OF SURROGATE COMPOUNDS ADDED TO
SEDIMENT SAMPLES AT TIME OF EXTRACTION
Sample No.
L. Wash. 1
L. Wash. 2
L. Wash. 3
L. Wash. 4
L. Wash. 5
L. Wash. 6
Stillaguamish
Nisqually 1
Nisqually 2
Snohomish 1
Snohomish 2
Dugualla Bay
Skagit 1
Skagit 2
Skagit 3
Skagit 4
Sequalitchew
Spike Blank
Procedural Blank 1
Procedural Blank 2
1,3 dimethyl -2-
nitrobenzene
50
22
62
37
38
34
41
10
36
37
30
33
34
22
26
32
15
45
49
96
% Recovery
4,4-dibromoocta-
fluorobiphenyl
23
29
38
31
69
81
53
45
70
75
47
57
84
62
108
187
40
72
52
55
2,4 dichloro-
phenyl acetic acid(a)
87
149
220
189
102
115
214
243
514
298
320
216
382
136
453
412
194
76
90
__
(a) Recovery of this surrogate was high in field samples, not in spike blank
or procedural blank, because of co-eluting peak.
B.24
-------
ro
en
TABLE 15. CONCENTRATIONS, NG/G (PPB) WET WEIGHT, OF CHLORINATED
ANALYTES IN QUALITY ASSURANCE SAHPLES (REFERENCE TISSUE)
FOR EPA 1988 PUGET SOUND FISH MUSCLE SAMPLES(a),(b),(c),(d)
Mussel II
Sanple Number 63-11
hexachlorobenzene 13
lindane(gaiwa-BHC) 98
heptachlor 5
aldrin1^ 4
alpha-chlordane 7
dieldrinlfj 5
p,p'-DOE 2
p,p'-DDO 21
p,p'-ODT 4
trichlorobipheny Is 11
tetrachlorobiphenyls 82
pentachlorobiphenyls 200
hexachlorobiphenyls 110
heptachlorobiphenyls 22
octachlorobiphenyls 0.8
nonachlorobiphenyls <0.1
decachlorobiphenyls <0.1
SIM of PCBS 430
% recovery of surrogate
standards:
4,4'-dibrouooctaf luoro- 95
bipheny 1
1,2,3-tribromobenzene 100
sample weight, g 3.03
% dry weight 16.1
Mussel II
63-28
13
100
5
4
7
4
2
19
4
11
99
200
95
18
1
<0.1
<0.1
420
110
120
2.97
14.6
(a) The concentrations of the analytes were calculated using 4
as the internal standard.
(b) The 'less than1 symbol (<) indicates that the
above the stated value.
analyte was
(c) Concentrations and initial identifications were determined
(GC) with electron capture detection ECD.
n
39
39
39
31
39
30
37
39
36
39
39
39
39
39
18
4
-
39
37
-
-
-
Mussel II
*
9
170
3
3
4
3
1
15
2
11
51
140
64
13
1
1
-
280
91
-
-
-
RSD(JE)
38
110
3S
63
35
45
74
31
46
63
53
33
37
44
40
61
-
36
18
-
-
-
,4'-dibromooctaf luorobiphenyl
not detected in concentrations
using gas chromatography
(d) The percent recoveries of the surrogate standards were calculated using tetrachloro-
i-xylene as the GC internal standard.
(e) Aldrin coelutes within unknown compound. The
the stated value.
concentration would not be higher than
(f) Dieldrin coelutes with a pentachlorobiphenyl isomer. The
in a peak were estimated by analyzing selected
samples on
percentage of each
GC/MS.
analyte
-------
TABLE 16. PERCENT RECOVERIES OF CHLORINATED ANALYTES IN QUALITY ASSURANCE SAMPLES
(MATRIX SPIKES) FOR EPA 1988 PUGET SOUND FISH LIVER SAMPLES(a),(b)
rv>
CTv
ng/g
spiked
hexachlorobenzene
lindane (gamma-BHC)
heptachlor
aldrin
alpha-chlordane
dieldrin
p,p'-DDE
p,p'-DDD
p.p'-DDT
trichlorobiphenyl (128)
tetrachlorobiphenyl (#52)
pentachlorobiphenyl (1101)
hexachlorobiphenyl (#153)
heptachlorobiphenyl (#170)
octachlorobiphenyl (1195)
nonachlorobiphenyl (#206)
decachlorobiphenyl (#209)
% recovery of surrogate
standards:
4,4' -dibromooctaf luorobiphenyl
1,2,3-tribromobenzene
33
33
33
33
33
33
33
33
33
33
33
33
33
33
33
30
33
33
24
(a) Percent recoveries were determined
(b) Percent recoveries of analytes
as the GC internal standard.
(c) Amount spiked is based on 3 g
(d) Percent recovery could not be
and
wet
Quartermaster Harbor
(c) 63'97
x ' % recovery
87
100
120
140
97
120
(d)
94
130
110
110
61
100
92
100
100
100
95
94
using gas chromatography (GC) with
the surrogate standards were calcul
tissue sample.
Quartermaster Harbor
63-98
% recovery
87
100
120
140
110
130
(d)
110
140
110
150
71
160
110
110
120
110
99
100
electron capture detection ECD.
ated using tetrachloro-m-xylene
determined due to an interfering peak.
-------
TABLE 17. CONCENTRATIONS, NG/G (PPB) WET WEIGHT, OF CHLORINATED
ANALYTES IN QUALITY ASSURANCE SAMPLES (METHOD BLANKS)
FOR EPA 1988 PUGET SOUND FISH MUSCLE SAMPLES W* (b),(c)
Sample Number
Blank
63-12
Blank
63-27
hexachlorobenzene 0.2 < 0.2
lindane (gamma-BHC) 1 0.9
heptachlor 0.8 < 0.3
aldrin(d) < 1 < 0.3
alpha-chlordane 0.1 < 0.2
dieldrin(e) 0.1 < 0.2
p,p'-DDE 0.2 < 0.2
p,p'-DDD 0.2 < 0.3
p,p'-DDT < 0.1 < 0.3
trichlorobiphenyls 3 3
tetrachlorobiphenyls 5 9
pentachlorobiphenyls 8 8
hexachlorobiphenyls 6 2
heptachlorobiphenyls 1 0.2
octaehlorobiphenyls < 0.08 < 0.2
nonachlorobiphenyls < 0.08 < 0.1
decachlorobiphenyls < 0.1 < 0.2
Sum of PCBs 23 22
% recovery of surrogate
standards:
4,4'-dibromooctafluorobiphenyl 96 100
1,2,3-tribromobenzene 110 120
(a) Concentrations and initial identifications were determined using gas
chromatography (GC) with electron capture detection ECD.
(b) The "less than" symbol (<) indicates that the analyte was not detected
in concentrations above the stated value.
(c) The concentrations of analytes and the percent recoveries of the surrogate
standards were calculated using tetrachloro-m-xylene as the GC internal
standard.
(d) Aldrin coelutes with an unknown compound. The concentration would not be
higher than the stated value.
(e) Dieldrin coelutes with a pentachlorobiphenyl isomer. The percentage of
each analyte in a peak were estimated by analyzing selected samples on
GC/MS.
B.27
-------
TABLE 18. SCREENING LEVEL CONCENTRATIONS, NG/G (PPB) WET HEIGHT,
OF CHLORINATED ANALYTES IN QUALITY ASSURANCE SAMPLES
(METHOD BLANKS) FOR EPA 1988 PUGET SOUND FISH LIVER
SAMPLESW, (b)
Blank Blank
Sample Number 63-27 63-100
hexachlorobenzene < 5 < 5
lindane (gamma-BHC) < 5 < 5
heptachlor < 5 < 5
aldrin < 5 < 5
alpha-chlordane < 5 < 5
dieldrin < 5 < 5
p,p'-DDE < 5 < 5
p.p'-DDD < 5 < 5
p,p'-DDT < 5 < 5
(r}
total PCBs^ ; < 40 < 40
% recovery of surrogate
standards:
4,4'-dibromooctafluorobiphenyl 100 80
1,2,3-tribromobenzene 120 82
(a) Concentration ranges were agreed upon prior to analysis. Concentrations
were calculated based on average response factors of standards. The range
of concentrations of pesticides (< 5, low; 5 to 25, mid range; > 25, high)
and PCBs (< 40, low; 40 to 200, mid range; 201-2000, high) were calculated
using tetrachloro-m-xylene as the GC internal standard.
(b) The percent recoveries of the surrogate standards were calculated using
tetrachloro-m-xylene as the GC internal standard.
(c) The dichlorobiphenyls were not included among the total PCBs.
B.28
-------
TABLE 19. RATIO OF GC RESPONSE OF CHLORINATED ANALYTES TO RESPONSE OF GC INTERNAL
STANDARD TETRACHLORO-M-XYLENE
Compound Level 1
hexachlorobenzene
lindane (gamma-BHC)
heptachlor
aldrin
alpha-chlordane
dieldrin
p.p'-DDE
p,p'-DDD
p,p'-DDT
trichlorobiphenyl (#28)
tetrachlorobiphenyl (#52)
pentachlorobiphenyl (#101)
hexachlorobiphenyl (#153)
heptachlorobiphenyl (#170)
octaehlorobiphenyl (#195)
nonachlorobiphenyl (#206)
decachlorobiphenyl (#209)
4,4' -dibromooctaf luorobiphenyl
tribromobenzene
0.32
0.62
0.47
0.46
0.44
0.57
0.45
0.70
0.66
0.78
1.02
0.73
0.50
0.29
0.26
0.24
0.27
0.50
0.62
2
0.42
0.53
0.53
0.58
0.46
0.53
0.45
0.65
0.60
1.11
1.63
0.98
0.67
0.37
0.32
0.32
0.39
0.59
0.68
3
0.46
0.55
0.57
0.60
0.48
0.54
0.46
0.65
0.58
1.27
1.84
1.07
0.72
0.38
0.33
0.33
0.41
0.65
0.75
4
0.55
0.59
0.64
0.67
0.54
0.60
0.52
0.72
0.62
1.57
2.32
1.32
0.88
0.45
0.40
0.39
0.50
0.76
0.88
5
0.65
0.67
0.74
0.76
0.63
0.67
0.60
0.76
0.70
1.91
2.83
1.58
1.04
0.53
0.47
0.46
0.58
0.87
1.00
X
0.48
0.59
0.59
0.61
0.51
0.58
0.50
0.69
0.63
1.33
1.92
1.14
0.76
0.41
0.36
0.35
0.43
0.67
0.79
RSD(%)
26
9
17
18
15
10
13
7
7
33
36
29
27
22
23
24
27
22
20
-------
TABLE 20. QUALITY ASSURANCE FOR FLUORESCENT AROMATIC COMPOUNDS IN BILE
Compound Area
Mean
Std. Deviation
RSD
BaP
NPH
107534
105318
106968
106029
110062
19980
21010
22347
22129
22146
107182
21522
1821
1.70
1010
4.69
B.30
-------
TABLE 21. QUALITY ASSURANCE FOR FLUORESCENT AROMATIC COMPOUNDS IN BILE
BaP (ng/g) NPH (ng/g)
Bile pool 670 110,000
620 100,000
Count for Bile pool: 2 2
Average for Bile pool; 645 105,000
Standard Deviation for 35 7,071
Bile pool:
-------
TABLE 22. QUALITY ASSURANCE DATA FOR TISSUES |*g/g, DRY HT
Referenet Materials
NBS 11586 (Oyster tissue)
Mean found
±STD
n
Certified
¥alue ± TL
NBS |1577a (Bovine liver)
Mean found
±STD
n
Certified
value ± TL
DORM - 1 (Dogfish ituscle)
Mean found
±STD
n
Certified
value ± IL
OQLT-1 CDogfish Hv*r)
Mean found
±STD
n
Certified
value ± TL
TORT-1 (Lobster hepatopancreas)
Mean found
±STO
n
Certified
value ± TL
Co
56.8
4.2
2
63
3.5
N.A.
-
_
158
7
4.88
0.6S
4
5.22
0,33
21,3
1.1
3
20.8
1.2
459.7
-
1
439
22
Zn
973
5
2
852
14
133
3
3
123
8
17.3
2.S
3
21.3
1
95.9
0,9
4
92.5
2.3
185
6
4
177
10
Cd
3.07
0.25
2
3.5
0.4
0.35
0.086
3
0.44
0.08
N.A.
-
-
0.08B
0.012
3.54
D.12
4
4.18
0,28
N.A.
.
-
26.3
2.1
Ag
0.71
0.09
2
0.69
0.09
0.04
0,04
3
0.04
0.01
0.2
0.1
4
N.A.
-
0.81
0.08
4
N.A.
-
2.67
1.34
4
N.A.
-
Ni
0.79
.
1
1.03
0.04
Q.9S
0.19
3
N.A.
-
1.2
0.13
4
1.2
0.3
0.32
0.06
4
0.26
0.06
2.7S
0.83
4
2,3
0.3
Pb
0.63
0.13
2
0.48
0.27
0.16
D.07
3
0,14
0,02
0.32
0,05
4
0.4
0.12
1.4
0.5
4
1.36
0.29
10.5
3.6
4
10.4
2
Cr
0.59
0.01
2
0.69
0.27
0.65
0.11
3
N.A.
-
2.7
0.3
4
3.6
0.4
0.69
0.09
4
0.4
0.07
2.29
0.81
4
2.4
o.«
Sb
2
0.04
2
N.A,
-
2
1.3
3
N.A.
-
2.6
0.9
4
N.A.
-
2.2
0.5
4
N.A.
.
4,3
0.3
4
N.A.
_
As
16
1
2
13.4
1.9
N.A.
-
-
0.047
0.006
13
2
4
17.7
2.1
14
1
4
10.1
1.4
24.8
4
4
24.6
2.2
Kg
N.A.
-
-
0.057
0.015
<0.02
-
-
0.004
0.002
0.9
0.24
7
0.798
0.074
0.3
0.06
2
0.225
0.037
0.22
0.02
2
0.33
0,06
-------
STATEMENT BY NOAA-NMFS ON THE QA/QC FOR METALS IN
EPA PUGET SOUND FISH TISSUE
The quality assurance program for trace metals analyses follows the
"WORK/QUALITY ASSURANCE PROJECT PLAN for the National Status and Trends
Program's Benthic Surveillance Study of Long Island Sound prepared by NOAA
(National Ocean Service, Office of Oceanography and Marine Assessment, Ocean
Assessment Division, Rockville, MD) for the US Environmental Protection
Agency Regions I and II Long Island Sound Project", dated March 15, 1987,
The CRMs used in rotation of analyses included National Bureau of
Standard's, Standard Reference Materials 11566 Oyster Tissue and I1577a
Bovine Liver, the National Research Council of Canada's (NRCC) Certified
Reference Materials DORM-1 Dogfish Muscle, DOLT-1 Dogfish Liver, and TORT-1
Lobster Hepato- pancreas, and US EPA Trace Metals in Fish-Water Pollution
Quality Control Sample (Table 2). Not all CRMs were certified for all
elements and no CRM was certified for antimony; the Sb values reported are
the best estimate based on a continuing NOAA National Status and Trends
network of 6 NOAA and contractor labs working in conjunction with the NBS and
NRCC,
B,33
-------
APPENDIX C
DATA APPENDIX
-------
TABLE 1. DETAILED RESULTS FOR SEDIMENT GRAIN SIZE AND % MOISTURE IN
SEDIMENTS COLLECTED FOR THE PUGET SOUND WATER QUALITY
Grave I («5 (phi)
Station
Repl icite
(-2
-1
0
Sand(b) (phi)
1
2
3
4
MudW
>4
I
Moisture
S-l
S-l
S-2
S-2
S-2
S-3E
S-31
S-4E
S-4E
S-4E
S-4E
S-4f
S-4I
S-4*
S-5
S-5
S-5
S-6
S-6
S-7E
S-7E
S-7E
S-7W
S-7I
S-7I
S-8E
S-8E
S-BE
S-8W
S-8I
S-8*
S-9
S-9
S-9
S-10E
S-1DE
S-1DE
S-1DW
S-101
S-l 01
S-lOf
S-11E
1
2
1
2
3
2
2
1
2
2*
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
3
1
2
3
I
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
3*
1
-------
TABLE 1. (Continued)
Grave I (») (phi)
Station
Repl icato
<-2
-1
0
Sand(b) (phi)
1
2
3
4
Uud(c)
>4
I
Moisture
S-11E
S-11E
S-11I
S-lli
S-llf
S-12
S-12
S-12
S-12
Poverty
Poverty
2
2*
1
2
3
1
2
2*
3
Bay 1
Bay 1*
63.14
53.90
0.18
2.31
<0.22
6.22
3.47
2.41
0.47
0.40
0.45
2.77
3.31
D.96
1.26
0.88
0.44
1.47
0.70
0.38
1.81
1.51
3.27
4.89
0.39
0.84
0.22
0.59
1.05
0.80
0.47
1.81
1.89
9.17
6.12
5.02
1.89
2.87
0.44
1.79
1.11
0.47
2.81
3.21
12.83
13.38
5.98
5.88
6.40
1.92
14.32
3.32
1.42
10.64
10.76
S.S5
6.32
2.70
3.15
3.76
33.48
24.42
23.54
12.63
5.62
6.04
1.69
1.78
6.76
8.40
5.74
26.52
38.74
26.24
42.83
10.84
11.32
1.58
10.30
78.01
76.27
60.26
30.39
14.74
41.91
41.33
86.07
62.83
18.12
18.12
71.68
72.32
73.82
37.69
41.44
41.44
41.89
64.46
64.46
* Duplicate of replicate.
(a) Gravel: >2 mm, coarser than 0 phi.
(b) Sand: 0.063 - 2 urn, 0 to 4 phi,
(c) Mud or silt plus clay: <0.063 mm, finer than 4 phi.
C.2
-------
TABLE 2. ORGANIC COMPOUNDS IN PUGET SOUND SEDIMENTS
DYES INLET
Compound
Phenol
2-iethyl phenol
4-»ethy 1 pheno 1
2 , 4-d iiethy 1 pheno 1
pentachlorophenol
1,3-dichlorobefUine
1 , 4-d i ch 1 orobenzene
1,2-dichlorobenzene
1 , 2, 4-trichl orobenzene
Naphthalene
Hexieh 1 o robytsd i ene
2-isethy Inaphalene
Acenaphthy 1 ene
Fluorene
Hexachi orobenzene
Pheninthrene
Anthracene
Fluoranthene
Pyrene
Benzo [a] anthracene
b is [2-ethy 1 hexy 1 ] phtha I ate
Chrysene
Benzo [b] f 1 uoranthene
Benzo [k] f i uoranthene
Benzo[a]pyrene
Indeno [1 , 2 , 3-cd] py rene
Di benz [a , hjanthracene
6enze[g,h, i]perytene
p,p'-DDT
P,p'-OD£
p,p'-DDO
Aldrin
Dieldrin
Chlordane
Heptachlor
Lindane
Total PCB
Sta. 1
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
22
nd
8
29
13
nd
50
44
166
199
106
239
183
146
93
105
86
15
93
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
, nd
o.e a
Sta, 2
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
13
nd
6
34
8
nd
43
50
159
239
114
50
146
72
81
88
SB
20
72
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
rid
nd
6.0 Q
M/kB
Sta. 3
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
25
nd
12
28
13
nd
43
32
119
142
63
131
103
68
79
67
60
16
73
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
1.7 «
dry »t
Sta. 4
nd
nd
12
nd
nd
nd
4
nd
nd
78
nd
33
87
31
nd
158
111
312
404
218
we
284
225
17?
235
1S9
46
186
nd
0.5 |
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
7.S |
Sta. S
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
33
nd
14
35
16
nd
81
64
175
234
90
111
118
111
101
93
94
14
126
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
no
nd
4,5 Q
Sta. 8
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
32
nd
nd
26
nd
nd
76
40
153
222
104
1S3
124
131
122
129
123
nd
161
nd
0.7 |
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
9.0 8
nd = Not detected at the detection limit (Appendix 8, Table 6), Detection limits for base/neytrals *ere usually
in the range of 41 to 83 £sg/kg. For pesticides and PCBs the detection limits *ere 0.5 and 8, respectively.
5 ~ Hyalified as ynreliable because of lo* surrogate recoveries.
C.3
-------
TABLE 2, CONTINUED
GIG HARBOR
Phenol
2-iethy 1 phenol
4 -methyl phenol
2 , 4-d i methyl phenol
pentachlorophenol
1 ,3-d i ch 1 orobenzene
1 , 4-d ieh lorobeniene
1,2-dichl orobenzene
1,2, 4-trichl orobenzene
Naphthalene
Hexach 1 orobutad iene
2-iethy Inaphalene
Acenaphthy lene
Fluorene
Hexach 1 orobenzene
Phenanthrene
Anthracene
Fluoranthene
Pyrene
Benzo [a] anthracene
b is [2-ethy 1 hexy 1 ] phtha 1 ate
Chrysene
Benzo [b] f iuoranthene
Benzo [k] f 1 uoranthene
Benzo[a]pyrene
Indeno [1,2, 3-cd] py rene
Di benz [a , h] anth racene
Benzo [g,h, i]perylene
p.p'-DDT
p,p'-DDE
p,p'-DDD
Aldrin
Dieldrin
Chlordane
Heptachlor
Lindane
Total PCB
Sta. 1
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
11
nd
nd
40
nd
21
138
71
nd
411
373
753
756
365
544
444
207
222
227
126
34
137
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
4.0 H
Sta. 2
nd
nd
4
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
26
nd
9
80
32
nd
265
110
488
545
212
293
347
223
151
195
142
nd
161
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
5.0 Q
Sta, 3
Rep. 1
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
42
nd
14
173
41
nd
418
213
854
970
420
99
625
801
432
338
446
138
446
nd
0.4 d
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
18.8 5
U
Sta. 3
Rep. 2
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
40
nd
14
145
61
nd
445
213
830
976
369
122
576
288
329
325
219
77
242
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
17.8
g/kg dry wt
Sta. 3
Rep. 3
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
53
nd
11
140
87
nd
586
256
1266
1475
577
123
723
415
406
551
317
90
343
nd
0.7 Q.
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
R 40.2 Q
Sta. 4
nd
6
47
18
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
251
nd
99
1550
955
nd
4389
2216
5518
6698
5270
93
3709
51D4
850
3629
2198
703
2253
nd
0.7 5
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
18.5 5
Sta. 5
nd
nd
B
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
57
nd
18
199
79
nd
487
281
1107
1293
467
202
710
449
276
418
254
nd
297
nd
1.3 q
1.5 5
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
97.3 5
Sta. 6
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
22
nd
9
59
20
nd
151
69
360
408
153
96
249
142
128
149
IDS
nd
121
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
6.0 Q
nd = Not detected at the detection Unit (Appendix B, Table 6). Detection limits for base/neutrals were usually
in the range of 41 to 83 £ig/kg. For pesticides and PCBs the detection limits were 0,5 and 8, respectively.
Q = Qualified as unreliable because of low surrogate recoveries.
C.4
-------
TABLE 2. CONTINUED
PORT ANGELES HARBOR
^jg/kg dry wt
Phenol
2-i«thy 1 phenol
4-»ethy I phenol
2,4-diaethylphenol
pentaehlorophenol
1,3-dichlorobenzene
1 , 4-d i eh 1 orobenzene
1 , 2-d i ch 1 orobenzene
1, 2, 4-t rich I orobenzene
Naphthalene
Hexaeh i orobutad i ene
2-methylnaphalene
Acenaphthylene
Fluorene
Hexachlorobenzent
Phenanthrene
Anthracene
f luoranthene
Pyrene
Benzo [a] anthracene
b i s [2-ethy 1 hexy i J phtha late
Chrysene
Benzo[b]f luoranthene
Benzo[k]f looranthene
Benzo[a]pyrene
!ndeno[l,2,3-ed]pyrene
Dibenz [a, h] anthracene
Benzo[g,h, IJpery lene
p.p'-DOT
p.p'-DDE
p,p'-DDD
Aldrin
Dieidrin
Chlordane
Heptaehlor
Lindane
Total PCB
Sta. 1
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
75
nd
35
12
14
nd
61
13
37
40
14
22
27
IS
8
10
3
nd
7
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
n«J
nc
nd
nd
Sta, 2
nd
nd
19
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
360
nd
51
71
34
nd
186
62
267
237
66
50
106
43
39
29
15
3
25
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
rid
i.o q
Rep. 3
nd
nd
8
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
407
nd
62
125
103
nd
453
242
710
S70
224
99
380
228
115
141
77
34
100
nd
nd
4,9 q
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
5,4 q
Sta. 4
Rep. 1
nd
nd
16
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
441
nd
75
168
148
nd
527
267
709
B09
301
96
529
461
522
226
115
S2
114
nd
nd
0.9 q
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
7.1 5
Sta. 4
Rep. 2
nd
nd
131
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
940
nd
100
267
134
nd
506
264
778
662
236
135
448
350
403
144
85
28
1D3
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
3.6 q
Sta. 4
Rep. 3
nd
nd
52
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
680
nd
100
181
119
nd
429
237
586
599
208
133
381
326
nd
148
76
nd
78
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
9.2 Q
Sta. S
nd
nd
146
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
314
nd
87
477
94
nd
298
193
545
721
175
155
389
201
61
109
57
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
8.4 [}
Sta. 8
nd
nd
240
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
518
nd
160
112
120
nd
381
202
798
7S8
287
234
648
296
16S
1S7
79
nd
119
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd = Not detected at the detection limit (Appendix B, Table 6). Detection I Suits fop base/neutrals were usually
in the range of 41 to 83 ^g/kg. For pesticides and PCBs the detection limits were 0.5 and 8, respectively.
5 = Qualified as unreliable because of to* surrogate recoveries.
C.5
-------
TABLE 2. CONTINUED
OAK HARBOR
Compound
Phenol
2-methy I phenol
4-nethyl phenol
2,4-dimethylphenol
pentachlorophenol
1,3-dichlorobenzene
1 , 4-d i ch 1 orobenzene
1,2-dichl orobenzene
1, 2 ,4-trichl orobenzene
Naphthalene
Hexach 1 orobutad tene
2-methy Inaphalene
Acenaphthylene
Fluorene
Hexaehlorobsnzene
Phenanthrene
Anthracene
F luoranthene
Pyrene
Benzo [a] anth racene
b is [2-ethy 1 hexy 1 ] phtha 1 ate
Chrysene
Benzo[b]f luoranthene
Benzo [k]f luoranthene
Benzo[a]pyrene
Indeno[l,2,3-cd]pyrene
Di benz [a , h] anthracene
Benzo[g,h, ijperylene
p,p'-DDT
P.p'-DDE
p.p'-DDD
A 1 d r i n
Dieldr'rn
Chlordane
Heptachlor
Lindane
Total PCB
Sta. 1
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
10
nd
5
2
nd
nd
16
nd
nd
27
13
61
17
11
8
6
5
nd
8
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
, nd
nd
nd
Sta. 2
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
17
nd
3
4
5
nd
18
8
36
31
13
49
22
15
11
10
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
w/kg
Sta. 3
nd
nd
12
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
11
nd
5
5
S
nd
20
13
62
54
22
71
37
26
16
15
10
nd
13
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
dry wt
Sta. 4
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
15
nd
4
4
7
nd
20
13
61
57
22
76
37
27
21
17
8
nd
9
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
8.8 Q
Sta. B
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
15
nd
nd
6
9
nd
32
21
93
81
31
67
43
55
nd
21
13
nd
17
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
6.1 H
Sta. 8
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
22
nd
4
nd
6
nd
21
ID
37
37
17
37
21
14
13
9
nd
nd
6
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd
nd = Not detected at the detection limit (Appendix B, Table 6), Detection limits for base/neutrals were usually
in the range of 41 to 83 ^g/kg. For pesticides and PCBs the detection limits were 0.5 and 8, respectively.
5 = Qualified as unreliable because of low surrogate recoveries.
C.6
-------
TABLE 3. CONTAMINANT CONCENTRATIONS IN SEDIMENTS OF FOUR NON-URBAN BAYS
AND OTHER AREAS OF PUGET SOUND THAT ARE USED FOR COMPARISON
Station I.D,
Dyes
Gig
Port
Oak
Elli
Inlet
Sta. 2
Sta, 3
Sta. 4
Sta. 5
Sta. 6
MEAN
Harbor
Sta. 3 *
Sta. 4
Sta. 5
Sta. 6
MEAN
Angeles
Sta. 3
Sta. 4 *
Sta. 5
Sta. 6
MEAN
Harbor
Sta. 1
Sta. 2
Sta. 3
Sta. 4
Sta. 5
Sta. 6
MEAN
ott Bay
SS-01
SS-03
SS-04
SS-05 *
SS-06
SS-07
SS-08
SS-09
SS-10
SS-11
SS-12
MEAN
Ag
0.5
0.4
1.2
0.9
1.0
0.8
0.4
0.7
0.5
0.3
0.5
0.2
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.1
2.7
3.0
5.9
4.7
5.9
2.0
2.0
2.2
4.3
5.0
3.4
As
8.9
9.9
17.7
18.8
19.3
14.9
9.1
12.1
15.4
6.9
10.9
11.2
8.9
14.8
12.2
11.8
8.6
9.0
11.1
10.5
10.4
7.5
9.5
3.9
584.0
28.5
23.8
35.2
37.9
23.4
81.0
27.7
34.4
15.9
81.4
Cd
1.1
0.7
1.0
1.4
1.1
1.0
0.3
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.4
0.7
1.8
4.6
1.9
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.6
0,5
0.6
0.2
7.2
2.8
3.0
3.7
2.2
2.0
17.2
1.9
2.6
2.3
4.1
Cu
51.0
43.5
89.6
72.4
81.2
67.5
49.0
68.9
61.9
37.1
54.2
42.2
36.5
47.8
54.6
45.3
34.2
39.9
43.3
47.3
48.1
32.1
40.8
46.5
1040.0
226.0
185.0
214.0
525.0
138.0
350.0
187.0
175.0
112.0
290.8
Hg
0.4
0.3
0.7
0.7
0.8
0.6
0.2
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.5
1.3
0.6
0.3
0.3
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.9
1.9
1.7
1.9
2.1
1.7
3.9
1.3
1.3
1.4
1.6
Pb
46.6
34.5
79.2
57.4
74.0
58.3
35.1
58.4
41.1
27.1
40.4
25.1
19.1
27.1
37.2
27.1
21.4
21.4
15.3
13.7
15.1
12.1
16.5
21.9
646.0
395.0
316.0
306.0
445.0
282.0
71100.0
293.0
299.0
194.0
6754.4
Zn
100.3
92.8
168.4
142,8
149.7
130.8
77.1
92.7
91.1
63.4
81.1
104.0
95.6
162.9
482.0
211.1
92.2
95.9
98.5
111.8
94.6
74.1
94.5
65.3
4830.0
371.0
321.0
422.0
344.0
244.0
6010.0
348.0
281.0
201.0
1221.6
C.7
-------
TABLE 3, CONTINUED
Station I.D.
Commencement Bay
CI-11
CI-12
CI-13
CI-14
CI-15
CI-16
CI-17
CI-18
CI-19
CI-20
CI-21
CI-22
MEAN
Ag
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.4
0.4
0.2
As
21.0
25.0
30.0
33,0
33,0
20.0
28.0
30.0
28.0
29.0
11.0
8.0
24.7
Cd
4.7
6.2
6.7
6.5
6.9
5.7
5.8
6.5
5.0
5.1
2.7
1.5
5.3
Cu
155.0
203.0
185.0
176,0
188.0
158.0
168.0
166.0
156.0
158.0
71.0
40.0
152.0
Hg
0.5
0.5
1.1
0.1
0.3
0.1
0.1
1.0
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.2
0.4
Pb
725.0
595.0
450.0
388.0
453.0
240.0
300.0
291.0
204.0
211.0
88.0
49.0
332.8
Zn
325.0
282.0
247.0
234.0
270.0
254.0
227.0
236.0
164,0
165.0
72.0
44.0
210.0
Everett Harbor
MEAN
Sinclair Inlet
B-6 S-6
B-6 S-7
B-6 S-8
B-6 S-14
B-6 S-17
B-6 S-18
B-6 S-19
B-6 S-20
MEAN
0.24(a) 7.9
2.9
2.0
1.8
0.1
1.5
1.5
1.0
2,5
1.7
Puget Sound Main Basin
MEAN 0.6
9.0
67.0
14.0
14.0
39.0
15.0
25.0
14.0
24.6
10.3
1.5
3.6
1.1
0.9
1.2
1.8
1.2
2.3
2.0
1.8
0.4
97.0
205.0
807.0
231.0
299.0
240.0
170.0
293.0
198.0
305.4
39.0
0.3
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.6
0.7
0.7
2.1
1.6
1.3
0.2
57.0
132.0
233.0
151.0
175.0
194.0
131.0
360.0
163.0
192.4
40.0
* Mean of three field replicates.
(a) Mean of six stations: E-l-T, E-2-T, E-6-T, E-ll-T*, E-16-T*, E-19-T.
C.8
245.0
330.0
873.0
311.0
272.0
328.0
227.0
343.0
235.0
364.9
105.0
Pre-1900
MEAN
Sequin Bay
B-3 S-14
B-3 S-17
B-3 S-18
B-3 S-20
MEAN
0.04
0.2
0.1
o.r
0.1
0.1
6.0
5.6
7.3
6.9
6.9
6.7
0.4
0.9
0.9
1.1
0.9
1.0
23.0
43.0
48.0
48.0
44.0
45.8
0.04
0.04
0.07
0.06
0.06
0.06
5.6
6.8
9.0
8.5
9.0
8.3
80.0
76.0
88.0
85.0
83.0
83.0
-------
TABLE 4. ORGANIC CHEMICALS
Station I.D.
Total PAH
Total PCB
Total DDT
Tri Butyl Tin
Dyes Inlet
Sta. 2
Sta. 3
Sta. 4
Sta. 5
Sta. 6
MEAN
Gig Harbor
Sta. 3 *
Sta. 4
Sta. 5
Sta. 6
MEAN
Port Angeles
Sta. 3
Sta. 4 *
Sta. 5
Sta. 6
MEAN
Oak Harbor
Sta. 1
Sta. 2
Sta. 3
Sta. 4
Sta. 5
Sta. 6
MEAN
Elliott Bay
SS-01
SS-03
SS-04
SS-05 *
SS-06
SS-07
SS-08
SS-09
1358
943
2748
1399
1443
1578
6272
45392
6392
2148
15051
4071
4886
3721
4798
4369
128
193
314
322
437
217
269
2258
21690
46800
36690
98700
53970
3773300
115810
6.0
4.0
7.9
4.5
9.0
6.3
25.6
18.5
97.3
6.0
36.8
5.4
6.6
8.4
0.0
5.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
8.8
6.1
0.0
2.5
380
570
1600
590
570
460
2400
3300
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.8
0.2
0.4
0.6
3.1
0.0
1.0
4.8
0.7
0.0
0.0
1.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
16
58
270
31
48
33
137
200
60.0
57.0
60.0
50.0
57.0
56.8
53.0
50.0
45.0
40.0
47.0
76.0
72.0
79.0
100.0
81.8
100.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
70.0
100.0
45.0
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
C.9
-------
TABLE 4, CONTINUED
Station 1.0.
SS-10
SS-11
SS-12
MEAN
Commencement Bay
CI-01
CI-02
CI-03
CI-11
CI-12
CI-13
CI-14
CI-15
CI-16, ,
CI-17(a)
CI-18
CI-19
CI-20
CI-21
CI-22
HEAN
Everett Harbor
MEAN
Sinclair Inlet
B-6 S-5
B-6 S-7
B-6 S-8
B-6 S-14
B-6 S-l?
B-6 S-18
B-6 S-19
• B-6 S-20
MEAN
Puget Sound Main Basin
MEAN
Pre 1900
MEAN
Total PAH
lig/kg
52690
33560
22910
387125
22080
24210
12460
13480
20080
8970
6249
17061
6990
10963
7380
5770
6397
22730
13110
13195
54000
2450
11580
3130
4530
4420
3937
1060
31220
7791
4000
300
Total PCS
^g/kg
790
260
220
1013
232
208
94
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
178
400,0
1253
588
646
1672
830
480
700
740
864
100
0.1
Total DDT
/*g/kg
45
35
32
82
40
< 10
< 10
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
20
20.0
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
2
< .1
Tri Butyl Tin
^g/kg
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A,
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
C.10
-------
TABLE 4, CONTINUED
Total PAH Total PCB Total DDT Tri Butyl Tin
Station I.D. ^g/kg ^9/kg M9/k9 M9/k9
Sequim Bay
B-3 S-14
B-3 S-17
B-3 S-18
B-3 S-20
MEAN
< 100
< 100
< 100
< 100
< 100
< 40
< 40
< 40
< 40
< 40
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
* Mean of three field replicates,
(a) Mean of two field replicates.
NA = Not Analyzed.
C.ll
-------
TABLE 4. CONTINUED
Sources of Data Used for Comparison of Contaminants in Four
Non-urban Bays with Other Areas of Puget Sound
Pre-1900
Puget Sound Main Basin
Reconnaissance Survey of Eight Bays in Puget^Jiound VpJ. J:
Metals p_ |89( -
AnalysisofSediments_andSoilsfor_Chemica1 Contamination for the
Design of US Navy_Hojmg.pp_rt_Facility at East Waterway of Everett Harbor,
WA, March 1985:
PCB, DDT, PAH, p. 28,
Everett Harbor
Anajjsis of Sedigents_and Soilsfor Chemical Contamination for the
Design of US Navy Homeport Facj1 ftyat East Waterway of Everett Harbor,
WA, March 1985.
Ag Table A4, p. A8-9.
Other Metals from Table 8, p. 29.
PCB, DDT, PAH, p. 28.
Commencement Bay
Commencement Bay Nearshore/Tjdeflats Remedial Investigation Vol. Ill;
Metflls p> jV_5 throughiv-n, Appendix I-VA.
PCB p. V-19.
DDT p. V-17.
PAH p. V-45-48, V-51 for stations CI-11 through CI-22.
PAH p. V-5-? for stations CI-1, 2, 3.
Sinclair Inlet
Reconnaissance Survey of Eight Bays in Puget Sound Vol. II:
PCB Table B 26.
PAH Table B 23-24.
Metals p. B-13.
Elliott Bay
ElliottBayActionProgram: Analysis, of Toxic Problem Areas, April
1988:
Hetals p. A-4, -8, -12.
PCB p. A-61, -62.
DDT p. A-58, -59.
PAH p. A-28, -29, -31, -32, -34, -35.
C.12
-------
TABLE 5. PUGET SOUND RECONNAISSANCE (MAY/JUNE 1988)
TOXICITY TEST INFORMATION
ANCILLARY AMPHIPOD-SEDIMENT
Sample Number
Sediment Weight (g)
of 2-cm Layer Tested(a)
Interstitial Water
Salinity (o/oo) 0>)
DI-5
DI-6
6H-1
GH-2
6H-5
6H-6
DI-3
01-4
OH-3
OH-4
PAH -3
PAH-4, Rep. 1
GH-3, Rep. 2
GH-3, Rep. 3
OH-5
OH-6
OH-1
OH-2
PAH -5
PAH -6
GH-3, Rep, 1
GH-4
PAH-1
PAH-2
DI-1
DI-2
West Beach (Control)
Povery Bay (Control)
117
209
263
269
211
254
208
189
230
243
230
239
238
226
234
232
238
236
231
230
239
224
285
286
270
216
326
201
27
28
28
29
28
28
28
27
26
25
31
31
28
28
25
22
28
26
31
31
29
28
31
31
28
27
28
30
(a) The weight of sediment needed to form a sediment layer approximately
2 cm deep was determined in the first of the five treatment replicates.
This sediment weight was then added to each of the four remaining replicates,
(b) Salinity recorded to the nearest part per thousand (o/oo) using an American
Optical refractometer having 2 o/oo scale divisions.
C.13
-------
TABLE 6. RESPONSES OF THE MARINE AMPHIPQD, RHEPOXYNIUS ABRONIUS. TO SEDIMENTS
COLLECTED IN CONJUNCTION HITH THE PUGET SOUND RECONNAISSANCE AND TEST
4/28 - 5/8/88.
o
Amphipod Responses
Sampling
Station
West Beach
Control
DI-5
DI-6
GH-1
GH-Z
Replicate
Number
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
7/10-Day*
Amphipod
Emergence
16
1
8 x = 9.4
3 Sx « 5.1
13
3
0
0 x = 4.2
13 Sx = 5.4
5
4
0
1 x = 1.6
3 Sx = 1.8
0
6
5
11 x = 8.0
11 Sx = 2.8
7
1
4
8 x = 4.4
1 Sx = 3.5
8
10-Day Amphipod Survival
No. of Survivors
16
18
18 x = 17.0
16 Sx - 1.0
17
16
16
19 x = 16.6
15 Sx - 1.5
17
12
14
15 x = 14.2
12 Sx =2.5
18
19
19
14 x = 16.8
14 Sx = 2.6
18
19
17
16 x = 16.8
13 Sx = 2.5
19
Survivors Not
Mean % Reburying
0
0
85.0 0
0
0
0
0
83.0 0
0
0
0
0
71.0 0
0
0
0
1
84.0 0
0
0
0
1
84.0 0
0
0
-------
TABLE 6. (Continued)
o
Sampling
Station
GH-5
GH-6
DI-3
DI-4
GH-3, Rep. 2
Replicate
Number
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
I
2
3
4
5
7/10-Day*
Amph i pod Responses
10-Day Amphipod Survival
Amph i pod
Emergence No. of Survivors Mean %
4
0
5 x - 3,0
2 Sx = 2.0
4
1
2
2 x = 3,4
5 Sx = 2.5
7
1
6
3 x = 4.6
4 Sx = 3.0
9
1
1
1 x = 1.0
2 Sx = 0.7
0
7
9
4 x = 4.4
1 Sx - 3.6
1
18
19
16
17
18
18
16
20
16
19
17
18
12
16
15
14
18
18
9
12
17
12
17
14
19
x = 17,6 88.0
Sx = 1.1
x = 17.8 89.0
Sx = 1.8
x = 15.6 78.0
Sx = 2.3
x = 14.2 71.0
Sx = 3.9
x = 15.8 79.0
Sx = 2.8
Survivors Not
Reburying
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-------
TABLE 6. (Continued)
Amphipod Responses
7/ 10-Day* 10-Day Amphipod Survival
Sampling
Station
Replicate
Number
Amphipod
Emergence No. of Survivors
Survivors Not
Mean % Reburying
GH-3, Rep. 3
o
GH-3, Rep. 1
GH-4
DI-1
DI-2
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
13
2 _
8 x = 7.8
14 Sx = 5.8
2
10
8 _
3 x = 6.4
4 Sx = 2.9
7
6 x = 6.0
15 Sx = 5.4
3
1
5 _
2 x = 3.8
2 Sx = 3.3
9
1
8 _
1 x * 3.0
1 Sx = 3.1
4
16
17 _
18 x = 16.4
16 Sx = 1.1
15
17
19
19
14
14
x = 16.6
Sx = 2.5
14
20 _
20 x = 17.4
15 Sx = 2.8
18
14
19 _
15 x = 16.4
18 Sx = 2.1
16
19
18 _
17 x = 18.0
17 Sx = 1.0
19
82.0
83.0
87.0
82.0
90.0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-------
TABLE 6. (Continued)
Amphipod Responses
Sampling
Station
Poverty Bay
Control
Replicate
Number
1
2
3
4
5
7/10-Day*
Amphipod
Emergence
7
8
0 x = 4.2
0 Sx = 3.9
6
10-Day Atnphipod Survival
No. of Survivors
15
17
18 x = 16.0
17 Sx = 2.0
13
Survivors Not
Mean % Reburying
0
0
80.0 0
0
0
Seven observations made over the 10-day period,
o
-------
TABLE 7. SELECTED HATER QUALITY CHARACTERISTICS MEASURED AT THE BEGINNING (DAY 0)
AND END (DAY 10) OF THE AMPHIPOD-SEDIMENT TESTS CONDUCTED 4/28 - 5/8/88.
00
Sampling
Station
West Beach
Control
DI-5
DI-6
GH-1
GH-2
GH-5
GH-6
DI-3
DI-4
GH-3, Rep. 2
GH-3, Rep. 3
GH-3, Rep. 1
GH-4
DI-1
DI-2
Poverty Bay
Control
pH
8.02
7.97
7.95
7.95
8.00
7.93
8.06
8.00
7.92
8.01
8.04
8.01
7.98
7.98
7.93
7.98
DO
(mg/L)
6.9
6.8
6,9
7.1
6.7
6.9
6.9
6.9
6.7
6.5
7.0
6.7
6.8
6.8
6.7
6.8
Day 0
Temperature
14.7
14.9
14.8
14.9
15.2
14.9
14.7
14.6
15.2
14.7
14.6
14.9
14.9
14.8
15.2
14.8
Salinity
(V00)
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
27
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
pH
7.85
7.75
7.84
7.86
7.92
7.84
7.87
7.95
7.87
7.95
7.88
7.98
8.01
7.92
7.96
7.99
DO
(mg/L)
7.4
7.6
7.4
7.6
7.5
7.6
7.7
7.7
7.7
7.7
7.8
7.8
7.8
7.7
7.8
7.8
Day 10
Temperature
15.0
15.2
15.0
15.1
15.1
15.1
15.1
15.0
15.2
15.1
15.2
15.2
15.1
15.1
15.1
15.2
Salinity
27
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
-------
TABLE 8. OBSERVATIONS OF AMPHIPQD EHERSENCE DURING AMPHIPOD-SEDIMENT TESTS 4/28 - 5/8/88
o
-------
TABLE 8. (Continued)
r-o
o
No. of
(Floating^
Treatment
GH-5
GH-6
DI-3
DI-4
GH-3, Rep. 2
Replicate
No. I
. 1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
3
0
2
0
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
0
2
1
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
2
0
0
0
2
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
3
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
2
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
Amphipods
Swimming,
4
1
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
1
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
Out of Sediment
or On Sediment Surface)
Days
56789
1
0
2
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
2
2
0
0
0
1
0
1
3
0
1
1
1
0
1 ...
0
1
o
0
o
0
J, *™ "™ """
o
1
0
2
2
1 ...
o
o
0
o ...
3
1
0
o
0
10
1
0
0
1
1
1
1
0
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
Total
Emergence
4
0
5
2
4
1
2
2
5
7
1
6
3
4
9
1
1
1
2
0
?
9
4
1
1
7/10-Day*
Treatment
Summary
X
Sx
_
Sx
X
Sx
X
Sx
X
Sx
= .5 * U
= 2.0
= 3.4
= 2.5
= 4.6
= 3.0
« 1.0
= 0.7
= 4.4
=3.6
-------
TABLE 8. (Continued)
No. of
(Floating,
Treatment
GH-3, Rep. 3
GH-3, Rep. 1
GH-4
DI-1
DI-2
Replicate
No. 1
- 1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
2
1
1
2
1
0
1
1
1
0
1
1
0
1
2
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
1
0
0
1
3
2
0
2
3
0
2
1
1
0
1
1
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
1
Amphipods
Swimming,
4
3
0
1
3
0
2
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
Out of Sediment
or On Sediment Surface)
Days
56789
3
1
1
4
0
2
2
0
2
1
0
0
1
5
0
0
1
0
1
3
0
2
0
0
1
3 ...
0
1
3
o
1
2
o
1
2
o
0 - - -
o
2
0
o
1 - - -
1
o
1
1
1
0
o
1
10
1
0
1
0
2
1
0
0
0
1
1
0
3
2
3
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
0
Total
Emergence
13
2
8
14
2
10
8
3
4
1
5
I
5
15
3
1
5
2
2
9
I
&
1
1
4
7/10-Day*
Treatment
Summary
X
Sx
X
Sx
X
Sx
X
Sx
X
Sx
= 7.8
= 5.8
= 6.4
= 2.9
= 6.0
- 5.4
= 3.8
= 3.3
= 3.0
= 3.1
-------
TABLE 8. (Continued)
No. of
(Floatingj
Replicate
Treatment
Poverty Bay
Control
No.
- 1
2
3
4
5
1
0
0
0
0
0
2
1
0
0
0
0
Amphipods
Swimming,
Out of Sediment
or On Sediment Surface)
Days
3
I
3
0
0
2
4
2
2
0
0
0
5
1
2
0
0
2
6789
1 ...
I
o ...
0
2 - - -
10
1
0
0
0
0
7/10-Day*
Total Treatment
Emergence Summary
7
8
0 x = 4.2
0 Sx = 3.9
§
o
* Seven observations made over the ten day exposure period.
-------
TABLE 9. RESPONSES OF THE MARINE AMPHIPOD, RHEPOXYNIUS ABRONIUS. TO SEDIMENTS COLLECTED
IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE PUGET SOUND RECONNAISSANCE AND TESTED 5/6-16/88
Sampling Replicate
Station Number
1
2
West Beach 3
Control 4
5
1
o 2
*rx» OH-3 3
w 4
5
1
2
OH-4 3
4
5
1
2
PAH-3 3
4
5
1
2
PAH-4, Rep. 1 3
4
5
10 -Day
Amphipod
Emergence
0
0
0 x = O.Q
Q Sx = 0.0
0
0
1
0 x = 0.2
0 Sx = 0.4
0
0
0
0 x = 0.0
0 Sx = 0.0
0
1
0
C x = 0.4
1 Sx = 0.5
0
0
0
0 x = 0,0
0 Sx = 0.0
0
Amphipod Responses
10-Day Amphipod Survival
No. of Survivors Mean %
20
20
20 x = 20.0 100.0
20 Sx = 0.0
20
18
18
15 x * 17.6 88.0
18 Sx = 1.5
19
19
15
18 x = 17.4 87.0
19 Sx = 1.8
15
18
17
17 x = 17.8 89.0
17 Sx = 1.3
20
20
17
19 x = 19.2 96.0
20 Sx = 1.3
20
Survivors Not
Reburying
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
-------
TABLE 9. (Continued)
Sampling Replicate
Station Number
. 1
2
OH-5 3
4
5
1
2
p QH-6 3
1^5 4
5
1
2
OH-1 3
4
5
1
2
OH-2 3
4
5
1
2
PAH-5 3
4
5
10-Day
Amphipod
Emergence
2
0
0 x = 0.4
0 Sx * 0.9
0
1
3
4 x = 1.6
0 Sx = 1.8
0
0
3
1 x « 1.2
0 Sx = 1.3
2
0
0
0 x * 0.4
2 Sx =0.9
0
3
0
1 x = 1.2
2 Sx = 1.3
0
Amphipod Responses
10-Day Amphipod Survival
No. of Survivors Mean %
19
19
14 x = 17,2 86.0
16 Sx = 2.2
18
19
19
19 x = 19.2 96.0
19 Sx = 0.45
20
18
17
14 x = 16.6 83.0
18 Sx = 1.7
16
19
14
18 x = 17.4 87.0
16 Sx = 2.4
20
19
20
19 x = 19.0 95.0
17 Sx =1.2
20
Survivors Not
Reburying
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-------
TABLE 9. (Continued)
o
ro
in
Sampling
Station
PAH-6
PAH-1
PAH- 2
Replicate
Number
. 1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
10-Day
Amp hi pod
Emergence
16
1
4 x = 5.4
4 Sx = 6.1
2
0
1
1 x = 1.0
3 Sx - 1.2
0
6
0
0 x = 2,0
3 Sx = 2.5
1
Amphipod Responses
10-Day Amphipod Survival
No. of Survivors Mean %
19
20
19 x = 19.4 97.0
19 Sx = 0.6
20
20
19
20 x = 19.8 99.0
20 Sx = 0.5
20
20
20
20 x = 19.8 99.0
20 Sx = 0.5
19
Survivors Not
Reburying
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
-------
TABLE 10. SELECTED WATER QUALITY CHARACTERISTICS MEASURED AT THE BEGINNING (DAY 0)
AND END (DAY 10) OF THE AMPHIPOD-SEDIMENT TESTS CONDUCTED 5/6-16/88
Sampling
Station
West Beach
Control
OH-3
OH-4
PAH-3
PAH-4
OH-5
OH-6
OH-1
OH-2
PAH -5
PAH-6
PAH-1
PAH -2
pH
7.87
7.97
7.96
7.89
7.94
7.86
7.87
7.94
7-89
7.91
7.94
7.93
7.98
DO
(mg/L)
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.4
8.4
8.5
8.5
8.4
8.5
8.4
8.5
8.4
Day 0
Temperature
14.4
14.6
14.7
14.8
14.5
14.7
14.5
14.6
14.8
14.8
14.5
14.6
14.6
Salinity
27
28
27
28
28
27
27
28
27
28
28
28
2?
pH
7.90
8.18
8.16
7.95
8.26
8.14
8.17
8.24
7.96
8.34
8.34
7.96
8.27
DO
(mg/L)
7.7
8.0
8.1
8.2
7.9
8.0
8.2
8.2
7.9
8.1
7.8
8.1
8.3
Day 10
Temperature
15.1
15.5
15.4
15.3
15.2
15.4
15.3
15.3
15.3
15.5
15.5
15.4
15.3
Salinity
28
28
28
28
28
28
26
28
28
28
28
28
28
-------
TABLE 11. OBSERVATIONS OF AMPHIPOD EMERGENCE DURING AMPHIPOD-SEDIMENT TESTS 5/6-16/88
o
ro
•"•4
No. of
(Floating,
Treatment
West Beach
Control
OH-3
OH-4
PAH-3
PAH-4
Replicate
No. 1
. 1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Amphipods
Swimming,
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
Out
or On
Days
B 6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
of Sediment
Sediment Surface)
7
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
8
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
9
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total
Emergence
0
0
0
0
0
0
I
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
10-Day
Treatment
2 Sumtary
X
Sx
X
Sx
X
Sx
X
Sx
X
Sx
= 0.0
= 0.0
= 0.2
= 0,4
* 0.0
= 0.0
= 0.4
= 0.5
= 0.0
= 0.0
-------
TABLE 11, (Continued)
o
as
No. of
(Floating,
Treatment
OH-5
OH-6
OH-1
OH-2
PAH-5
Replicate
No. 1
. 1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
1
i
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
Amphipods
Swimming,
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
Out
or On
Days
5 6
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
of Sediment
Sediment Surface)
7
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
8
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
9
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
1
2
0
10-Day
Total Treatment
Emergence Sunraary
2
0
0
0
0
1
3
4
0
0
0
3
1
0
2
0
0
0
2
0
3
0
1
2
0
X
Sx
X
Sx
X
Sx
X
Sx
X
Sx
= 0.4
= 0.9
= 1.6
= 1.8
= 1.2
= 1.3
= 0.4
= 0.9
= 1.2
= 1.3
-------
TABLE 11. (Continyed)
Replicate
Treatment No.
- 1
2
PAH-6 3
4
5
1
2
" PAH-1 3
rv> „
*~o 4
1
2
PAH-2 3
4
5
No. of
(Floating,
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
2
1
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
1
3
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
Amphipods Out
Swimming, or On
4
2
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
Days
5
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
6
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
of Sediment
Sediment Surface)
7
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
8
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
9
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
4
0
1
1
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total
Emergence
16
1
4
4
2
0
1
1
3
6
0
0
3
1
10-Day
Treatment
Summary
x = 5.4
Sx = 6.1
x = 1.0
Sx = 1,2
x = 2.0
Sx = 2.5
-------
TABLE 12. RESPONSES OF THE MARINE AMPHIPQD, RHEPOXYNIUS ABRONIUS. TO SEDIMENTS COLLECTED
o
U!
o
IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE PU6ET SOUND RECONNAISSANCE AND RE-TESTED 5/12-22/88
Amphipod Responses
Sampling
Station
West Beach
Control
DI-6
DI-3
DI-4
GH-3, Rep. 2
DI-2
Poverty Bay
Control
Replicate
Number
- 1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
4
10-Day
Amphipod
Emergence
0
0
0 x = 0.0
0 Sx = 0.0
0
0
2 x = 0.7
0 Sx = 1.2
2
0 x = 0,7
0 Sx = 1.2
0
3 x = 1.0
0 Sx « 1.7
16
0 x = 5.3
0 Sx = 9.2
0
0 x = 0.0
0 Sx = 0.0
2
1 x » 1.3
1 Sx = 1.0
2
10-Day Amphipod Survival
No. of Survivors
20
20
20 x = 20.0
20 Sx = 0.0
20
17
17 x = 17.0
17 Sx - 0.0
20
20 x = 19.7
19 Sx = 0.6
15
14 x = 16.0
19 Sx = 2,7
17
20 x = 19.0
20 Sx = 1.7
17
17 x = 17.3
18 Sx = 0.6
19
20 x = 18.5
16 Sx = 1.7
19
Survivors Not
Mean % Reburying
0
0
100.0 0
0
0
0
85.0 0
0
0
98.5 0
0
0
80.0 0
0
0
95.0 0
0
0
86.5 0
0
0
92.5 0
0
0
-------
TABLE 13. SELECTED WATER QUALITY CHARACTERISTICS MEASURED AT THE BEGINNING (DAY 0)
AND END (PAY 10) OF THE AMPHIPOD-SEDIMENT TESTS CONDUCTED 5/12-22/88
Sampling
Station
West Beach
Control
DI-6
DI-3
DI-4
o
£ GH-3, Rep. 2
DI-2
Poverty Bay
Control
pH
7.91
7.91
7.97
7.98
7.97
7.98
7.94
DO
(mg/L)
7.5
7.5
7.6
7.7
7.6
7.6
7.6
Day 0
Temperature
15.4
15.4
15.3
15.1
15.2
15.2
15.3
Salinity
(V00)
27
27
27
27
27
27
27
PH
7.85
7.84
7.86
7.84
7.84
7.86
7.87
DO
(mg/L)
7.3
7.3
7.4
7.6
7.5
7.5
7.6
Day 10
Temperature
15.1
15.1
15.1
15.0
15.0
15.1
15.0
Salinity
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
-------
TABLE 14. Observations of Amphipod Emergence During Amphi pod-Sediment Tests 5/12-22/88
CO
Treatment
West Beach
Control
DI-6
DI-3
DI-4
GH-3, Rep. 2
01-2
Poverty Bay
Control
Replica
No.
1
. 2
3
4
5
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
4
_J
t.e
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No. of
Floating,
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Arophipods
Swimming,
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
Out
or On
Days
5 6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
of Sediment
Sediment Surface)
7
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
8
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
9
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
Total
Emergence
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
2
0
0
0
3
0
16
0
0
0
0
0
2
1
0
2
10-Day
Treatment
Summary
X
Sx
X
Sx
_
Sx
X
Sx
_
Sx
X
Sx
X
Sx
« 0.0
= 0.0
= 0.7
= 1.2
= 0.7
= 1.2
= 1.0
= 1.7
= 5.3
= 9.2
* 0,0
= 0.0
= 1.3
» 1.0
-------
|