f a ARMY .wE DBAMO-S Cott, + oz Sediment Core Chemistry Data Summary from the MQR Mound August & December 1991 Disposal Area Monitoring System DAMOS DA|M O §$ Contribution 103 January 1996 US Army Corps of Engineers New England Division (SFA | DIF | no. 103 4 Gbhba00 TOE0 O WALA AN 10HM/18l REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE OMB No. 0704-0188 Public reporting concern for the collection of information Is estimated to average 1 hour per response including the time for reviewing Instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and measuring the data needed and correcting and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information Including suggestions for reducing this burden to Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for information Observations and Records, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Sulte 1204, Arlington VA 22202-4302 and to the Office of Management and Support, Paperwork Reduction Project (0704-0188), Washington, D.C. 20503. 1. AGENCY USE ONLY (LEAVE BLANK) 2. REPORT DATE RB. REPORT TYPE AND DATES COVERED January 1996 Final report 6. FUNDING NUMBERS 4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE Sediment Core Chemistry Data Summary from the MQR Mound, August & December 1991 6. AUTHOR(S) Peggy M. Murray . PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) Science Applications Intemational Corporation 221 Thrid Street Newport, RI 02840 B. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBER SAIC-92 & C105 3. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) i 0. SPONSORING/ MONITORING AGENCY US Army Corps of Engineers-New England Division REPORT NUMBER 424 Trapelo Road DAMOS Contribution Waltham, MA 02254-9149 Number 103 11. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES Available from DAMOS Program Manager, Regulatory Division USACE-NED, 424 Trapelo Road, Waltham, MA 02254-9149 12a. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT Approved for public release; distribution unlimited 2b. DISTRIBUTION CODE 13. ABSTRACT Biological and chemical monitoring results from the Mill-Quinnipiac River Disposal Mound (MQR) have indicated slow, and perhaps retrograde, recolonization rates relative to other mounds formed within the same time period. These results triggered a more intensive investigation of the MQR mound. In August of 1991, sediment was collected for a bioassy test, and, at the same time, six gravity cores were collected from the mound center. The cores were described, and sampled for inorganic and organic chemical analyses. Core samples were stored until completion of the bioassy test; results showed that the MQR sediment caused significant amphipod toxicity. Following the tiered approach to disposal mound monitoring, sediment samples from the coring cruise were analzyed in order to identify contaminant(s) potentially responsible for the benthic conditions at MQR. Sediment core samples were analyzed for grain size, pesticides and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB's), priority pollutant metals, polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH's), and volatile organics. Core descriptions indicated that two primary lithologies had been recovered. The top 1-1.5 meters of each core consisted of black silt clay, overlying a sandier interval with clasts and plant fragments. Physical and chemical analyses were used to construct a stratigraphy of the MQR mound in order to identify the origin of the surface sediments. Trace metal results were compared with historical data complied from the sources of the dredged material. Trace metal ratios indicated that most of the cored sediments were derived from the New Haven Harbor, the location of the capping material used to cover the MQR mound. The sandier sediments in the lower part of the cores appeared to be either Mill or Quinnipiac River sediments, or a combination of both. Both bathymetric and modelled dredged material thickness estimates were consistent with the presence of a thick (1.5m) New Haven cap on the surface of MQR. The cap sediments contained relatively high PAH concentrations, indicating that the material dredged from New Haven Harbor for the MOR cap contained these contaminants at the time of disposal. PAH’s have been included as part of the regional testing protocol since 1989, so that at the time of disposal (1982), the presence of PAH’s would have been overlooked by routine chemical testing. New Haven Harbor material has been used successfully as cap material at other CLIS capped mounds. In the case of MQR, material may have been dredged from inner New Haven Harbor, which is influenced by the input of both Mill and Quinnipiac River sediments. 14. SUBJECT TERMS MQR REMOTS CLIS DAMOS PAH's PCB's bathymetric 17. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF REPORT 18. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS 9. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF Unclassified PAGE ABSTRACT 15. NUMBER OF PAGES 0 16. PRICE CODE 20. LIMITATION OF ABSTRACT SEDIMENT CORE CHEMISTRY DATA SUMMARY FROM THE MQR MOUND AUGUST AND DECEMBER 1991 CONTRIBUTION #103 January 1996 Report No. SAIC-92&C105 Submitted to: Regulatory Branch New England Division U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 424 Trapelo Road Waltham, MA 02254-9149 Prepared by: Peggy M. Murray Submitted by: Science Applications International Corporation Admiral's Gate 221 Third Street Newport, RI 02840 (401) 847-4210 US Army Corps of Engineers New England Division — Patt = =~ Lee F iy i. ey we Ih : Dele o- ; a : : - wt yy od et VM ptt | CO ae Ae ‘ © : 7) hae ae ° fea!” hs F i | wad bahia ed rawretd iG aga ee Bnet ote Eh Pale aeC AR som vod ema) iy oil Feet a eakene, ; . | : is yohDingolitzes? Mataigy Gietos j i, a Letra — Fi abate yet 1) LS oun 4 VOL ciate att yal Ge Geb tee Fh : = er Bremen = ; oe - ’ d - - TABLE OF CONTENTS Page NTS ORS PAIGE Sg Firetree Pai es) Ae ea gaya GM A aa Bee Sand Sond ead cate ii TS ORBEMG URES tere csscnck fo cos Ge 2) eliotn pire Sot NI i eee eC ka Heat ing Ome iv EXECUMIVESWUMMARYS Sites: seats ttsloretos bayn' oeh tame owas Gaede oe vi LEO Ma oIN PROD WGION: ce pais 5 ONE GR OA aco lcee Sere es eins, Muy ae azo ai 1 1.1. Disposal Operations at the MQR Mound, 1982-1983 ............. 1 1-2) Biologicalvionitorine atMOR a aoe eee ch ne ear 9 1.3 [OOM CorinstOperations) niece a oe ae eae oe ene eran ae 15 DAO Meme VUE ODDS iipenatcsig ss ay acs) re arenas a teem eck fae ee Sieg een aaa 16 Dalioe “Sample Coleco, vy ids ae ings Take es xe cs cere Macs Oe oa en heeeeioncr Sat 16 Ded weleaboratony Amal WSeSr ake sta tues ile ey SM nent Rees cee ae oe 18 Presb hysicalwAmaly Ses: zw: ose toga ir ace ake ay ehenl nity syste vai a came 18 Dede? “i ChemicalpAmaly ses en) teey assay ini ath eset adem eee Uae teee mere 18 Deo eleshesticiderand) motalpepGByAnalySesuuesesaeae ener 18 2.2.2.2 Priority Pollutant Metal Analyses ............... 21 2.2.2.3 Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbon (PAH) PATA SES oie este tee ee Neca ee eat Mop es BC Pe een 21 Dw to N Olatiles Organic yAnalySeSs) oie te aeee eee een 22 SHO PRES WIC Wei heron ect UM aenleyos yal West J ahah loud ee matali ease ye Pee 24 3: Sediment; Core: Descriptions. 4 sos Ale an see nse a ee aces 24 BP) RAGHEVOY SFE) NTS ON, Gon tne me Rinne ae ese aNU LATS. cl elo Baal tu (der ois! 6 24 Ot SPR CHEM ASETYVGRESUIES aller ien eter eicielie aieae eirch iby ak Sate Nae ne Ce tea 24 3. 50lu Pesticides PCB eResults fea oc ein es cosa nay Sites eis yest cae 24 B32 an Metal@ Results ty carats tiscet ale cer oy ce tie toes eRe Nt ee area 313 Boe on by AI BRESUITS Ae oak h rers tte eae redo Aaetcta: culty, Dee Re mAN heed ema 3i3} 375.4. Volatile Organic Results; ins) 2 oe & ee Be ee 41 AO) © SIDI GLORSSS) (O)\ ea aes eaten nea nee Ue a a eer YN ren ee TRRT SUMMA nC reser 43 4.1 Volume Estimates of MQR Source Materials .................. 43 4.2 Metal Ratios of MQR Source Materials ...............-..--.- 45 4.3 Organic Contamination of MQR Sediments ................... 5 5" Ot CO NCICWSIONS acai hemen bs Ste nuep naen tude at incu tate cee ee ie 57 GORE RERENGESE tir cer ncon oaeeet aiming oso itr Ma cei eet ke sys aR ert ae 58 INDEX 43 i wey Ln hot thi ‘attend t. ee! * ey ‘eeetnen Toth Gnu eee rl. fs (Ha essinegnite ff. Dati vane Ca. inhi ‘ sag ne ‘ei on ines WoAltdslerny TAL ra if Na + ma a biome lt ayy: i. Ba tne. ea Mneiiy a, A TES SAE Te >) : , CO, ie tice She) WOW in eee edit ‘>? = rian we Seite ayy a's. aeehinlt aie) See ae ‘men. STM ta ant: ae ee ae Ue ving a 4) ae _ ff AVALOS LIST OF TABLES Table 1-1. Table 1-2. Table 1-3. Table 1-4. Table 1-5. Table 2-1. Table 2-2. Table 3-1. Table 3-2. ' Table 3-3. Table 3-4. Table 3-5. Page MQR Source Area Material Bulk Sediment Characteristics .......... 4 New England River Basins Commission Sediment Classifications ...... 6 Results of the June 1991 REMOTS® Survey of MQR............. 12 Trace Metals in Body Tissues of Nephtys Collected at CLIS, August 1986 13 Amphipod Bioassay Sediment Toxicity Results ................. 14 Methods Used for Analysis of MQR Core and Surface Grab Samples ... 17 Holdins Times; Summatyie's 2 sche: < fy. ee sich a eeeicls Pee ee 20 GraimiSize Wests: crn tock gest esses hs ale Bess ae ali ete ee, Gave, ele ete ee eee 28 PesticiderandsPCBy Results aay tcl htuee es oy ciety ee aR eves eyes eon nea 30 MietalvResultss ssi sx ues estates @ alee ahee aides ayes Alig Dehetre ane 34 Semivolatile Organic (PAM) yResultse 479 eee eee 37 Volatile *@OrganiceResults 3-30), 5 Cee) NE Na, Gr co tata cok ee 42 ut Sa socio) seni wher) al et i to | “, - 8M un wre na jay ap Nl nny ; s ‘f otticgerk EES preirsstle nvr ey pee ee 7 oe is a en nied sicher pa, conte ak. "yee . bay Gee TE anes RP amet feels ip Ne desert onek? : y i ; L} it 7 2 ~ ! - - Rijay 7 - Pe | - ie he : i ‘ ay < en ; Sie ee ea el ae EM vital = on, : i : = = “at ray =) ‘et ‘ 5 a in ue ae tt ee 5 ee tea inane bene ) mat ee EE Figure 1-1. Figure 1-2. Figure 1-3. Figure 1-4. Figure 1-5. Figure 3-1. Figure 3-2. Figure 3-3. Figure 3-4. Figure 3-5. Figure 3-6. Figure 3-7. Figure 3-8. Figure 3-9. Figure 4-1. Figure 4-2. Figure 4-3. LIST OF FIGURES Page Long Island Sound and the Central Long Island Sound Disposal Site .... 2 Mill and Quinnipiac Rivers with sample locations ................ 3) Black Rock Harbor, Connecticut with sample locations ............. 7 New Haven Harbor, Connecticut with sample locations ............ 8 Disposal operations schedule, Black Rock and New Haven Harbors, Spring 1983 Core descriptions compiled from field log for cores MQR1 and MQR2 .. 25 Core descriptions compiled from field log for cores MQR3 and MQR4 .. 26 Core descriptions compiled from field log for cores MQR5 and MQR6 .. 27 Sand percentage of samples from four MQR cores as a function of depth ANGTHEKCORE SRS R EE hc IR aS EN eS RS CE Ee an 29 Total PCBs as a function of depth in samples from MQR cores ...... a2 Copper as a function of depth in samples from MQR cores ......... 35 Copper normalized to the percentage fine grain size (silt and clay) in samples) from M@Ricores uth tanita clin nes cei Gaetan IN sar 36 Phenanthrene as a function of depth in samples from MQR cores ..... 39 Benzo(a)anthracene as a function of depth in samples from MQR cores .. 40 Trace metal (Zn, Cu, Cd) concentration frequency distributions of samples from the Mill and Quinnipiac Rivers.................. 46 Trace metal (Zn, Cu, Cd) concentration frequency distributions of samples from the Black Rock and New Haven Harbors............ 47 Trace metal (Zn, Cu, Cd) concentration frequency distribution of samples from the CLIS Reference Station (CLIS REF), cumulated Overthenyearsel O79 AOR 5i7 pv aeons tom, ie asec ay Oh ree eee 48 LIST OF FIGURES (cont.) Page Figure 4-4. Trace metal data from surface grabs collected from the MQR mound Gunn g (Successive stages of formations caer acne eee nee 49 Figure 4-5. Zinc and Cu concentrations of MQR sources and core samples ....... 50 Figure 4-6. Results from the first CLIS coring operations as compared to historical ata. SUNS Stace EE, SRR To POE tee lee ee a Sl Figure 4-7. Zinc and Cd concentrations normalized to Cu for (A) MQR source areas and (BB) M@R«core:samples.. 3 aj. 5 ce he ee ee ee 53 Figure 4-8. | Pyrene and fluorene concentrations of samples taken in four CLIS CappedemOuUngs, oer x pete end cea ce eerie Co Men ge or 54 Figure 4-9. Pyrene concentrations as a function of depth in sediment samples from three: €EIS\cappedsmounds }.3)5%. er a eR Serine ee See 55 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Biological and chemical monitoring results from the Mill-Quinnipiac River Disposal Mound (MQR) have indicated slow, and perhaps retrograde, recolonization rates relative to other mounds formed within the same time period. These results triggered a more intensive investigation of the MQR mound. Monitoring data have been collected as a part of the Disposal Area Monitoring System (DAMOS) Program since the formation of MQR during the 1982-1983 disposal seasons. MQR was constructed as one of several disposal mounds at the Central Long Island Sound Disposal Site (CLIS), including the two Cap Site mounds (CS-1 and CS-2) and the uncapped Field Verification Program mound (FVP). REMOTS® sediment-profile photographs obtained in 1987 first identified the anomalous species assemblages and low organism-sediment indices at MQR as compared to both Cap Site mounds and FVP. Tissue body burden trace metal data were collected at several CLIS capped mounds in 1986 and indicated elevated levels at both MQR and FVP. Although benthic conditions had improved in the 1987 survey relative to the previous year, the 1991 CLIS monitoring survey indicated retrograde benthic recolonization as documented by REMOTS® photographs. In August of 1991, sediment was collected for a bioassay test, and, at the same time, six gravity cores were collected from the mound center. The cores were described, and sampled for inorganic and organic chemical analyses. Core samples were stored until - completion of the bioassay test; results showed that the MQR sediment caused significant amphipod toxicity. Following the tiered approach to disposal mound monitoring, sediment samples from the coring cruise were analyzed in order to identify the contaminant(s) potentially responsible for the benthic conditions at MQR. Sediment core samples were analyzed for grain size, pesticides and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), priority pollutant metals, polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), and volatile organics. Core descriptions indicated that two primary lithologies had been recovered. The top 1-1.5 meters of each core consisted of black silty clay, overlying a sandier interval with clasts and plant fragments. Chemical results and core descriptions suggested that at least one core recovered ambient sediment below a depth of approximately 1.5 meters. This core was apparently recovered in the flanks of MQR, where the total thickness of dredged material was thinner. Physical and chemical analyses were used to construct a stratigraphy of the MQR mound in order to identify the origin of the surface sediments. Trace metal results were compared with historical data compiled from the sources of the dredged material. Trace metal ratios indicated that most of the cored sediments were derived from the New Haven Harbor, the location of the capping material used to cover the MQR mound. The sandier sediments in the lower part of the cores appeared to be either Mill or Quinnipiac River sediments, or a combination of both. vi EXECUTIVE SUMMARY (cont.) Both bathymetric and modelled dredged material thickness estimates were consistent with the presence of a thick (1.5 m) New Haven cap on the surface of MQR. The cap sediments contained relatively high PAH concentrations, indicating that the material dredged from New Haven Harbor for the MQR cap contained these contaminants at the time of disposal. PAHs have been included as part of the regional testing protocol since 1989, so that at the time of disposal (1982), the presence of PAHs would have been overlooked by routine chemical testing. New Haven Harbor material has been used successfully as cap material at other CLIS capped mounds. In the case of MQR, material may have been dredged from inner New Haven Harbor, which is influenced by the input of both Mill and Quinnipiac River sediments. Vil ~ 1.0 INTRODUCTION The Mill-Quinnipiac River Disposal Mound (MQR), which began receiving dredged material ten years ago, continues to be the most enigmatic capped mound monitored by the Disposal Area Monitoring System (DAMOS) Program. It is located in the southwest quadrant of the Central Long Island Sound Disposal Site (CLIS; Figure 1-1). The capped mound is actually a complex interlayered mound consisting of material from the Mill River, the Quinnipiac River, Black Rock Harbor, and New Haven Harbor. Monitoring results from MQR have indicated slower biological recolonization rates after disposal relative to other CLIS mounds. These monitoring data have included REMOTS® photographs (as recently as the 1991 CLIS survey), sediment sampling and chemical analyses, and bioassay results. The complicated disposal history at MQR, in tandem with the unusual monitoring results gathered since disposal completion, prompted a more intensive investigation of the MQR mound following the tiered monitoring protocols initiated by the US Army Corps of Engineers, New England Division (NED) to manage dredged material disposal mounds (Germano et al. 1994). According to the protocols, unacceptable benthic community response as documented by REMOTS® should be followed up by a bioassay test. If there is a toxic response, the source of contamination should be analyzed through vertical profiling, or sediment coring (Germano et al. 1994). Sediment cores were recovered from the MQR mound in the summer of 1991, described, and sampled at discrete depths representing visually distinct intervals. The objective of the coring operation was to identify sedimentary horizons within the MQR mound which represented the remnant disposed dredged material, and to use this stratigraphic reconstruction to explain the unusual postdepositional response at MQR. In order to accomplish this, core samples from the mound were visually and chemically compared with historical DAMOS data from MQR dredged material sources. 1.1 Disposal Operations at the MQR Mound, 1982-1983 During the spring of 1982, the NED initiated a capping project for sediments to be removed as part of federal maintenance dredging of areas in the Mill and Quinnipiac Rivers adjoining the northern limits of New Haven Harbor (Figure 1-2). Mill River material was characterized by high concentrations of fibrous residue or wood pulp, which limited sediment cohesion. This unique sediment texture combined with the relatively high water content percentages measured in the Mill River sediments increased the potential for sediment dispersion following disposal. In addition, chemical analysis of the Mill River sediments indicated high concentrations for most of the heavy metals tested. Cadmium (Cd), for example, was measured in concentrations up to 260 ppm (Table 1-1). Sediment Core Chemistry Data Summary from the MOR Mound, August and December 199] N aS [esodsiq punog puejs] suOT [eyju9) oY} pue puNnog puis] su0T] SUOHeIS 82URI0j;e4 SI1D ow ow Puno; fesodsig (0) ATa-SITD "T-T ound v HOOS¢ (SITD) oyIS /esodsig punos pues] 6uo7 /e4juaz 2 GNV7SI DNOT we ' XS J ~ b ¢ , 0 » ! % 1 \ : 62.5 um (sand and gravel) fraction was separated by sieving, and the <62.5um fraction (silt and clay) was separated by particle settling. Grain ‘size curves were prepared from the grain size test data. The fractional components (gravel, sand, silt, and clay) were determined and reported as percentages. 2.2.2 Chemical Analyses Chemical results were evaluated on the basis of completeness, precision, and accuracy. Samples that were considered to be of the highest priority from lithological descriptions were analyzed for the specified constituents. Precision and accuracy were evaluated by the laboratory by analyzing several QC samples with each method. Data were assessed using protocols developed by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA; method-specific references are included in the discussion below). Data qualifiers were assigned to the data when necessary. No data were rejected based on quality analysis. The qualifiers "J" and "UJ" were assigned to detected and undetected results, respectively, as described below. According to the QA Review submitted by the NED laboratory, holding times were exceeded (as discussed below) because of the time delay in the decision process to determine what analyses were required, confirming a potential negative bias of the data. Data qualified due to exceeded holding times should be considered minimum values because of the potential loss/degradation of contaminant constituents. 2.2.2.1 Pesticide and Total PCB Analyses Pesticides and PCBs were analyzed using EPA protocols (EPA 1986). Twenty-three marine sediment samples were analyzed, with three accompanying QC samples: a method Sediment Core Chemistry Data Summary from the MOR Mound, August and December 1991 19 blank, a blank spike, and a blank spike duplicate sample. Sample data were evaluated using protocols developed by the EPA Contract Laboratory Program (CLP; EPA 1988a). Samples analyzed for pesticides were extracted 146 days after sample collection, and analyzed 79 days after sample extraction. Samples analyzed for total PCBs were extracted 146 days after sample collection, and analyzed 50 days after sample extraction (Table 2-2). EPA guidelines suggest maximum holding times for pesticide and PCB samples of 14 days from sampling to extraction, and 40 days from extraction to analysis. Due to these excessive holding times, the pesticide and PCB data were qualified as estimated, and given the qualifier code J for detected values and UJ for undetected values. Each sample analyzed for pesticides was spiked with two system monitoring compounds, or surrogates (dibutyl chlorendate and TCMX). Surrogate QC samples were analyzed as a check on the laboratory’s ability to extract known concentrations of compounds not found normally in the sample, and were a measure of laboratory accuracy. Three pesticide samples (MQR2-E, MQRS-A, and MQR6-A) had low TCMX recoveries, and the method blank had a very low dibutyl chlorendate recovery (9%). Since all of the pesticide samples had already been qualified, no further qualifications were necessary. Every PCB sample was also spiked with one surrogate compound (TCMX). One sample exceeded control limits for TCMX recovery (MQRS-A); since this sample had already been qualified, no further qualification was necessary. The pesticide and the PCB method blanks were both below detection for all compounds, indicating no laboratory contamination problem. A blank spike and a blank spike duplicate sample were analyzed for both total PCBs and pesticides as an indication of laboratory accuracy and precision. Accuracy was evaluated by calculating the recovery of the spiked compound in the blank. Precision was evaluated by calculating the relative percent difference (RPD) between blank spike duplicate samples. Recoveries of total PCBs for both blank spikes were within control limits. Pesticide blank duplicate samples were spiked with five pesticide compounds: lindane, heptachlor, aldrin, dieldrin, endrin, and 4,4’°-DDT. Only one recovery of aldrin (124%) in one blank spike sample was above control limits (120%). Accuracy of both pesticide and PCB data was considered acceptable. Precision of both pesticide and PCB data was good; all RPDs were less than 20%. Sample MQRS5-E resulted in a very high concentration of total PCBs (31 ppm); this result was investigated and confirmed by the NED laboratory. Except for the exceeded holding times, all pesticide and PCB data were considered acceptable. Sediment Core Chemistry Data Summary from the MQR Mound, August and December 1991 20 ‘(pauinbad s} uo}9e2}xe8 OU UaYM) sisAjeue aides pue UONDaI|OO aides uaamjaq (sAep) pasdeja aw) = (€)1H ‘sisAjeue ajdwes pue uo)oe))xa ajdwes uaamjaq (SAep) pasdeja awl) = (z) 1H ‘une Xa ajdwes pue UONDa||00 ajdwies Usamjaq (SAep) pasdeja aw) = (1)1H sishjeuy Jo 3eQ = YOU ‘uoNnoeNX; JO |eq = 300 *\26/LE/Z,, Se UAAIG Sem pazAjeue ajep ‘!pajoesxe ayep Jo) Aioyesoqe; Aq paljddns ae uaaib sajeq, b6/OE/CL b6/ZL/ZL L6/OE/ZL L6/LZLICL b6/OE/ZL L6/ZL/CL b6/OE/2L L6/ZL/ZL L6/OE/CL b6/LZLICL C6/OE/LO LBL Zé6/E0/Z0 ZB/LE/LO 9S Zé/60/L0 c6/8L/20 SHE t+é/OE/CL 26/84/€0 b6/OE/2t | 16/90/80 c6/OE/L0 18t Zé6/E0/ZO c6/9L/LO 9Sb 26/60/10 c6/8L/cO SPL t+é6/OE/CL Z6/8L/E0 L6/OE/ZL | 16/90/80 C6/OE/LO 18t Zé/E0/ZO C6/LE/LO QSL 26/60/10 c6/8t/20 S¥bL Lé6/OE/ZL c6/81/€0 L6/OE/2L | +6/90/80 c6/OE/L0 L8L cé/E0/20 C6/LE/LO SSL 26/60/10 c6é/8L/cO SH L6/OE/ZL 26/8L/€0 b6/OE/ZL | 16/90/80 c6/OE/10 18t cé/E0/c0 C6/LE/LO SSE 26/60/10 c6/8L/2O S¥L L6/OE/CL 26/81 /€0 b6/OE/2L |} 16/90/80 c6/OE/L0 b8t cé/E0/Z0 Z6/9L/LO 9SSE 26/60/10 c6/8t/20 SL +é/OE/2L 26/81/€0 L6/OE/2L | +6/90/80 c6/OE/L0 1B8t Zé6/E0/c0 Z6/E0/ZO 9SF 26/60/L0 c6/B1/20 SL +é6/OE/2L 26/81 /€0 L6/OE/2L | 16/90/80 c6/OE/LO L8t Cé6/E0/ZO C6/LE/LO SSE 26/60/10 c6/8L/ZO SPL +é6/OE/CL 26/84/€0 b6/Oe/e+ }+6/90/80 C6/OE/LO 18t Cé/E0/ZO CE/LE/LO OSE 26/60/L0 c6/BL/ZO SHEL Lé/OE/ZL c6/81/€0 L6/OE/2 |} +6/90/80 c6/OE/L0 LBL cé/E0/Z0 C6/LE/LO GPL C6/CO/L0 c6/8L/ZO S¥L L6/OE/ZL c6/81/€0 L6/OE/2t |} 6/90/80 C6/OE/LO0 1B8L Cé6/E0/ZO c6/9L/LO GL Z6/Z0/L0 C6/8L/ZO SH L6/OE/2L c6/81/€0 b6/OE/2 | +6/90/80 C6/OE/L0 18L cé/E0/2O Cé/LE/LO GHL Z6/ZO/LO c6/8L/2O S¥L L6/OE/ZL 26/81 /€0 b6/OE/e2+ }+6/90/80 c6/OE/L0 18t cé/E0/Z0 C6/LE/LO GHL Z6/ZO/LO c6/81/ZO S¥b L6/OE/CL 26/81/€0 L6/OE/2- | +6/90/80 c6/OE/L0 -B8L cé/E0/c0 C6/LE/LO GPL 26/ZO/LO c6/81/20 S¥b +6/OE/ZL 26/81 /E0 L6/OE/2- |} 16/90/80 c6/OE/L0 18 cé/E0/20 CE/SL/LO 6¥L Z26/ZO/LO c6/8t/20 SL +é6/OE/ZL c6/81/€0 b6/OE/2L | 1+6/90/80 C6/OE/L0 1LB8L Cé6/E0/Z0 C6/9L/LO GHL ZE6/ZO/LO c6/8L/2O S¥L L6/OE/ZL c6/81/€0 L6/OE/ZL | 16/90/80 C6/OE/L0 L8t cé/E0/20 C6/LE/LO QSL 26/60/10 c6/BL/ZO Sb +6/OE/ZL 26/81/€0 b6/OE/2L | +6/90/80 C6/OE/L0 +8 cé/E0/Z0 Z6/9L/tO GRE Z6/ZO/LO c6/81/20 S¥bL L6/OE/ZL c6/81/€0 L6/OE/2- | 6/90/80 C6/OE/L0 LBL cé/E0/20 C6/LE/LO GPL 26/ZO/LO c6/8L/ZO Sh +é/OE/ZL Z6/8L/€0 L6/OE/2L | 16/90/80 C6/OE/LO +8 Cé/E0/20 C6/LE/LO SSE 26/60/10 c6/8t/20 S¥bL L6/OE/eL c6/8L/€0 L6/OE/2t | +6/90/80 c6/OE/L0 18L cé/E0/20 c6/OE/LO GRE Z6/ZO/LO c6/8L/2O SPL t+é6/OE/CL 26/81 /€0 L6/OE/e | +6/90/80 C6/OE/L0 1BtL cé/E0/20 C6/OE/L0 GRE C6/ZO/LO c6/8L/ZO SPL Lé/OE/ZL c6/8L/€0 L6/OE/ZL | 16/90/80 c6/OE/L0 18t cé/E0/Z0 C6/OE/LO 6HL 26/20/10 c6/BL/ZO SPL Lé/OE/CL c6/8t/€0 L6/OE/2L | 16/90/80 (1H vod (iH vod (i)tH 30q {(2@)iH woa (IH 30a 30a aed aweN Psaejon fT saejonuas Sg eS ajdwe ajdwe Azeuruing souity, SuIpjoH] (SLA F Sediment Core Chemistry Data Summary from the MQR Mound, August and December 1991 Psd Ip 44 Priority Pollutant Metal Analyses Twenty-three marine sediment samples were analyzed for priority pollutant metals. Antimony (Sb), beryllium (Be), cadmium (Cd), chromium (Cr), copper (Cu), nickel (Ni), silver (Ag), and zinc (Zn) were analyzed by inductively coupled argon plasma emission spectrophotometry (ICP). Arsenic (As), lead (Pb), selenium (Se), and thallium (TI) were analyzed by graphite furnace atomic adsorption techniques (GFAA). Mercury (Hg) was analyzed using cold vapor atomic adsorption (CVAA); all metals were analyzed using standard EPA procedures (Table 2-1; EPA 1986). Three QC samples were analyzed with the samples: a method blank, a blank spike, and a blank spike duplicate sample. Sample data were evaluated using protocols developed by the EPA CLP (EPA 1988b). Samples analyzed for all metals except for Hg were digested 181 days after sample collection, and analysis was conducted approximately 28 days later (Table 2-2). Mercury samples were digested 177 days after sampling and analyzed the following day. EPA guidelines suggest a maximum holding time for metals analyses of 6 months, and 28 days for Hg. Due to the excessive holding time for the Hg samples, Hg results were qualified as estimated, and given the qualifier code J for detected values and UJ for undetected values. The metals sample method blank was below detection for all metals except for Zn (4.3 ppm). All samples contained zinc in concentrations greater than 5 times the concentration detected in the method blank, so no qualifications were necessary (EPA 1988b). A blank spike and a blank spike duplicate sample were analyzed for metals as an evaluation of laboratory accuracy and precision. All spike recoveries were well within control limits (84-105%) except for one duplicate spike recovery of Ag. Precision, also, was acceptable as all RPDs were <10% except for the silver duplicate RPD. Because of the low recovery of one Ag sample, all non-detects of Ag were qualified as estimated, and assigned a qualifier of UJ. The laboratory stated in the Quality Assurance Review that the low silver recovery is being investigated. The accuracy and precision of all metals data except for Ag were considered acceptable. eee 4ee) Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbon (PAH) Analyses PAHs were analyzed using EPA protocols. Twenty-three marine sediment samples were analyzed with four accompanying QC samples: a method blank, a standard reference material (SRM) sample, a blank spike, and a blank spike duplicate sample. Sample data were evaluated using protocols developed by the EPA (EPA 1988a). Samples analyzed for PAHs were extracted 149-156 days after sample collection, and analyzed 7-29 days after sample extraction. EPA guidelines suggest maximum holding times Sediment Core Chemistry Data Summary from the MQR Mound, August and December 1991 22 for PAH samples of 14 days from sampling to extraction, and 40 days from extraction to analysis (EPA 1988a). All of the PAH data were qualified as estimated (J/UJ) for exceeded extraction holding times (Table 2-2). Each sample analyzed for PAHs was spiked with three surrogate compounds (2- fluorobiphenyl, nitrobenzene-D., and terphenyl-D,,) as a measure of accuracy. All PAH surrogate recoveries were within acceptance limits except for two high recoveries of nitrobenzene-D, and terphenyl-D,, in sample MQRS-E, and one high recovery of terpheny]- D,, in sample MQR-6C. The PAH concentrations in MQRS-E were high; the high surrogate recoveries were potentially caused by matrix interference. Since all data were already qualified for holding time violations, no data were qualified based on these surrogate recoveries. The PAH method blank sample results were below the practical quantitation limit (PQL) for all compounds. Three estimated compounds were below the PQL but above the detection limit: benzo(a)anthracene (0.19 ppm), chrysene (0.063 ppm), and phenanthrene (0.075 ppm). Since the samples were already qualified for exceeded holding times, again no further qualifications were necessary. Accuracy of the PAH results was evaluated based on the results of standard reference material (SRM) and the blank spike results. The SRM data contained one high recovery of naphthalene and one low recovery of fluoranthene. Once more, no additional qualifications were necessary. The laboratory stated in the Quality Assurance Review that the cause of these results is being investigated. The other PAH compounds were recovered within acceptable ranges. A blank spike and a blank spike duplicate sample were analyzed for two PAH compounds (acenaphthene and pyrene). All recoveries were within limits, indicating acceptable data accuracy. The RPDs of the duplicate spike samples were also within acceptable ranges, indicating acceptable PAH data precision. Relatively high concentrations of PAHs detected in MQR3-F and MQR5-E were investigated by the laboratory and confirmed. These two samples were diluted to obtain results for several compounds. Other than the qualifications due to exceeded holding times, the data are considered acceptably accurate and precise. 2.2.2.4 Volatile Organic Analyses Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) were analyzed using EPA protocols (EPA 1986). Five marine sediment samples were analyzed with three accompanying QC samples: a method blank, a blank spike, and a blank spike duplicate sample. Sample data were evaluated using protocols developed by the EPA (EPA 1988a). Sediment Core Chemistry Data Summary from the MOR Mound, August and December 1991 23 Samples analyzed for VOCs were analyzed 13 days after sample collection. EPA guidelines suggest maximum holding times for VOC samples of 14 days (EPA 1988a). No data were qualified for exceeded holding times. Each sample analyzed for VOCs was spiked with three surrogate compounds (1,2- dichloroethane-d,, toluene-d,, and 4-bromofluorobenzene [BFB]) as a measure of accuracy. All BFB recoveries were within acceptance limits. Two samples and the method blank had unacceptably high recoveries of 1,2-dichloroethane-d,, and one sample had an unacceptably low recovery of toluene-dg. Because of the high recoveries of 1,2-dichloroethane-d, in two samples and the method blank, detected volatile data in samples MQR1-CTR and MQR2- CTR were qualified as estimated (J); the undetected volatile data in sample MQR4-CTR were qualified UJ. The VOC method blank sample results were below detection for all compounds; therefore, there was no concern about laboratory contamination of the samples. A blank spike and a blank spike duplicate sample were analyzed for five VOC compounds (1,1- dichloroethene [1,1-DCE], benzene, trichloroethene, toluene, and chlorobenzene). One recovery of 1,1-DCE in one blank spike sample was below control limits (54%, under a lower limit of 59%). The RPD of the 1,1-DCE analyses was also unacceptably high due to this one low recovery. No data were qualified based on the low spike recovery. Acetone was detected in every sample; concentrations were above the upper calibration limit in samples MQR1-CTR, MQR3-CTR, and MQR4-CTR and below the practical quantitation limit (PQL) in samples MQR2-CTR and MQR5-CTR. The values out of the calibration range were qualified as estimated (J); those below the PQL were already qualified by the laboratory. Sediment Core Chemistry Data Summary from the MOR Mound, August and December 1991 24 3.0 RESULTS 3.1 Sediment Core Descriptions Cores were photographed and described in the field notebook. After the cruise, core descriptions were transcribed and redrawn for interpretation (Figures 3-1, 3-2, and 3-3). The most commonly described lithology was "black silty clayey mud" which was present in the top 1-1.5 meters of every core. Discrete sandy intervals, often in thin layers, were present in all of the cores. Organic remnants (plant fragments) and small clasts (shells, pebbles) were also present in discrete intervals in all of the cores. Material which closely resembled ambient Central Long Island Sound sediment (olive grey-green with burrows) was described at the base of MQR1 and MQR6 (Figures 3-1 and 3-3). The implications of the recovery of ambient material is discussed below (Section 4.1). A strong hydrocarbon smell and spots of oil sheen were noted in the descriptions for all of the cores except MQR1. Be Grain Size Results Samples from all six MQR cores were analyzed for grain size (Table 3-1). Generally, silt was the dominant grain size, followed by clay, and then by sand. Silt content ranged from 21.9 to 87.8%, clay from 9.3 to 44.9%, and sand from 2.5 to 61.9% (Table 3- 1). Sand constituted <10% of more than half of the samples (18 out of 33). However, several samples contained relatively high sand content (>50%), generally deeper in the cores (Figure 3-4). 3.3. Chemistry Results Samples from four of the six MQR cores were analyzed for pesticides/PCBs, metals, and PAHs. All of the surface samples collected in December 1991 were analyzed for volatile organics. 3.3.1 Pesticide/PCB Results Total PCBs were detected in every sample, with concentrations ranging from 0.012 to 2.2 ppm, except for one high value (31 ppm) in sample MQRS-E (Table 3-2; Figure 3-5). The very high detection of 31 ppm was confirmed by the laboratory. Samples taken from the upper meter of all of the cores had generally the lowest total PCB concentrations (<0.35 ppm; Figure 3-5). The lowest total PCBs value, however, was measured in the deepest sample of MQR-6 (0.013 ppm). The PCB results from MQR were compared with the NERBC sediment classification (Table 1-2), and samples collected previously through the DAMOS Program. All but two sample results were lower than the NERBC highly contaminated category (>1 ppm; NERBC Sediment Core Chemistry Data Summary from the MOR Mound, August and December 1991 25 ZAOW pue THOW $2409 10} Boj pialy wosy payidusos suondisosap 10D *J-¢ BANSIY "-@ @°.@ e 122 ¢.eP ve pote hel pated mien stun fe reus woq ronphy spo bas} snBroy (Go) onpaigeed Man azn | pra Fakora ya ‘ypu-smwo840 snfio, bpwos 0g Ozwbw | haz oe TEI] WHE PAA Froya Band ™IO straw As wg, yr” Qa RS IMO peu SpewSvy yuoid } 2124S f e Paes. hyood ' pros parvo, Aypwysia Qtuw 1]:=- Iadw | a Ud opnubny, prod “ Spreus avo | Po\2 Rod ano Ti) ARO? WOR ot! oreaged roms | Sprowtas} prog ol Pros Projo umoug am Oruow 901 ob OY ot 0 es see) on VERON of +5 ser Pox rms pr lohoja Ayis >p019 sep? Mp} wee 7709 Jo dey runs} Pow Robes bus WIG 4 2E ~ 1807 T yoW Sediment Core Chemistry Data Summary from the MQR Mound, August and December 1991 26 PUOW pue EYOW S2109 10} Soy pyaty woIy payiduios suondisosap 9105 st T4 sprubory Prd muss at wus eee uous, é As Ay0p - P18 Bhan | ore c=<9 Spada prog " Qhudw oot Pap yaucs Puced “ops brpres Pai 10 e eat F t sy (rans Ov fe pn Paya unos,’ sts pros. gazes hyood “257009 ssa | Tt) oti oti on tfrb emo w/ DhYOW oot a9 4 rer) ob for ot Ly) as AMS \1) en Shyu | of sprrPory paid Paboja'hys 2g e dab a Whaow h gow sro, yopotuoy ' Yauyses 2004 Za wpsrpvjg ‘pues qs Patb'sims eS 3 yuo x yrs pra! pros ‘ peyss vod! pom] ZEyDW [= ars bps [STs Ro wmosq S aro02' pros jo valwy DEUoW Saj9q7d $ sprloy pemd Taos, A9PO WPL}MS = pT Pahoa’ Ayis 2019 *Z-€ 2INshy Sediment Core Chemistry Data Summary from the MQR Mound, August and December 1991 27 OYOW Puke SYOIN 2109 10} Bo] platy wos paytduros suondiiosap 2109 ss, oe ompiry Poss, spas} prod | hop kerb ys01g sho; yps hpros popes hyog qevettary rod Qua Aw Projo lait, 2930W | Wr ™PUIMS aang. FO arvow + sprraboy. prod pu Rahepy hys apag v2abw | 230w Pra yams voquenesphy prs 200 al 208 barb - Ry y\0) 9070} SSMS BVO) pres hyys Ira 3 w2v}9 qsadw | sero, paotusy jpur9sid pen ]oa pro Pato AMjO IS3OW | asuow 4 pr Raho)’ hus YI19 WszdW | Syow "€-€ dINSLy Sediment Core Chemistry Data Summary from the MOR Mound, August and December 1991 Table 3-1 Grain Size Results Top Bottom Silt Clay en) cn) ae 06-Aug-91 06-Aug-91 06-Aug-91 06-Aug-91 06-Aug-91 06-Aug-91 06-Aug-91 06-Aug-91 06-Aug-91 06-Aug-91 06-Aug-91 06-Aug-91 06-Aug-91 06-Aug-91 06-Aug-91 06-Aug-91 06-Aug-91 06-Aug-91 06-Aug-91 06-Aug-91 06-Aug-91 06-Aug-91 06-Aug-91 06-Aug-91 06-Aug-91 06-Aug-91 06-Aug-91 06-Aug-91 06-Aug-91 06-Aug-91 06-Aug-91 06-Aug-91 17-Dec-91 June 1991 June 1991 June 1991 Sediment Core Chemistry Data Summary from the MQR Mound, August and December 1991 29 9109 ay} UI WIdep Jo UOKOUNY eB se Sa109 YO INO} Woy sojduies Jo aseusoIed pug (%) pues 1 CS 7 © We wh 0 "p-E andi : 7 OSC (wo) ujdeq }USWIPES Sediment Core Chemistry Data Summary from the MQR Mound, August and December 1991 30 uejjnsopuq (6 eded 998) UONe[OIA ou) SUIPfoY 10} (YODA}Ep MoTeq) H-fA pue (peise1ep) H-f se perstjenb wep ITV Joyyoridey UIPIY = DHA-Pued Jojyoeide}] DHA-Beq UepUIT q-eydiy sqdd 1210, syNsoy Gd pue spionseg Cc-€ FIGeL Sediment Core Chemistry Data Summary from the MQR Mound, August and December 1991 3] (6] oded 99S) UOT[OIA ou) SUIPfOY 10} (UOTID9}0p MOTaq) H-f Pue (Pe}selep) H-f se paytyenb wep [TV “JIUNT] WOTID9}9P By) (>) UY} SSoT SB PoOdel sI UOTII}Ep MOTAq BEG cI > I> cI> Ol> LI> LI> Cl> I> yIl> Il> 91> yIl> Cl> 91> Cl> 91> 8I> £8> 81> I> vI> 91> Il> a JojyoAxompoy_uRyNsopug upuq LdG-.p'p uesINsopug Gdd-,rh Upuq uUNpId Add-.r'p ouleN (qdd) sapronseg ajdures (1009) 7-€ 9192], Sediment Core Chemistry Data Summary from the MQR Mound, August and December 1991 OFF “025s SB eo 2 ee Total PCBs (ppm) Figure 3-5. Total PCBs as a function of depth in samples from MQR cores Sediment Core Chemistry Data Summary from the MQR Mound, August and December 1991 33 1980). All of the samples taken in the upper 1 meter of the cores had PCB concentrations less than the maximum value (0.81 ppm) measured in MQR surface sediments following final disposal (SAIC 1990a). Also, PCBs (Arochlor 1254 only) were measured in Black Rock Harbor samples prior to dredging and disposal at MQR, and ranged from 0.11 to 9.17 ppm. The anomalously high value of 31 ppm was an indication of the inhomogeneity and patchiness of the source materials present in the MQR mound. All but three of the pesticide compounds were undetected in all samples. Four samples had detected values of lindane (19-63 ppb, 19 ppb at the surface), two samples had detections of 4,4’"-DDD (DDD; 19-20 ppb), and 7 samples had detections of 4,4’-DDT (DDT; 13-43 ppb). These are relatively low concentrations of pesticides as compared to recent measurements from other CLIS cores. For example, samples from CS-2, which also received sediments from Black Rock Harbor, contained up to 929 ppb DDD, and 150 ppb DDT. Original measurements of total DDT in Black Rock Harbor sediments were all below detection. 3.3.2 Metal Results The range of metals concentrations was generally small (Table 3-3). One sample had the highest value of all metals except Sb, As, and Se (MQR-6D), but was only higher by approximately a factor of 2-3 over the lowest detected values. For example, Cu ranged from 80 to 610 ppm, with no obvious down-core pattern (Figure 3-6). Several samples were below detection in Se and TI, and only four samples contained detectable amounts of Ag. Chromium and Hg were below detection in one sample, Cd was below detection in 2 samples, and Be was below detection in 5 samples. Normalizing the trace metal data to the percentage fine grain size reduced the variation between cores and showed a distinct pattern of increasing metals concentrations with depth (Figure 3-7). This increase in normalized metals concentrations is a direct function of the increase in the sand fraction (Figure 3-4). Metals previously have been analyzed for MQR source sediments, at the MQR mound, and also at other cores at CLIS. These results were compared in detail with the MQR core sample results below (Section 4.2). 3.3.3 PAH Results Although several PAH compounds were below detection limits in the core samples, no individual PAH compound was below detection in every sample. In addition, no sample was below detection in every PAH compound (Table 3-4). PAHs were relatively high in many samples. Two samples stood out as having the highest PAH compound concentrations (MQR3-F and MQRS-E); for example, phenanthrene had a concentration of 212 ppm and 322 ppm, respectively (Figure 3-8). This trend was similar for all low and high Sediment Core Chemistry Data Summary from the MQR Mound, August and December 1991 34 *AIQAO0aI oyids Jood 0] anp palyyend = S-fp ‘UoNe[oIA aw) SuIpjoy oj enp payiend = H-fnN/f WONN9}Op MOTEq SON[LA JOJ UN] UONIIap YIM pole[No[vo sUONeIAOp pIepue)s pue suLayy HIN co0> Hf 1s 0 Hf 270 Hf €70 Hf 10 HI ¢cs'0 H-f de 0 Hf Ls°0 Hf L770 Hf 90 H-f $s '0 Hf c2 0 Hf L9'0 Hf L720 UM] WonNjsa}9p aq) (>) wey) sso] se powodar st UoNoa}ap mojaq ved s}[Nsay [RIO €-€ AQeL Sediment Core Chemistry Data Summary from the MQR Mound, August and December 1991 0 eso = a = 100 | ante A | MQR-3 = 150 OR 5 | MQR-6 200 + | 250i ee ) 200 400 #£«600 Copper (ppm) Figure 3-6. Copper as a function of depth in samples from MQR cores Sediment Core Chemistry Data Summary from the MQR Mound, August and December 199] 36 pe OO! = oO t a € 1001 gene A MQR-3 § 150 | MQR-5 = | MQR-6 ® M 200 | 250 SSS 0 1 2 3 4 5 Normalized Copper Figure 3-7. Copper normalized to the percentage fine grain size (silt and clay) in samples from MQR cores Sediment Core Chemistry Data Summary from the MQR Mound, August and December 1991 37 “SUONEIOIA SUIT) SUIPfOY JOJ (H-fA/f) payewnisa se paryijenb eyep []V “WuN] UONeWUENb jeonoeId ay > Je payoojap ayAyeue ‘anjea payewns”| = f 1z0'0> 910 910 0> 9€°0 6r'0 1¢°0 tv'0 9€°0 $80 (oat L10 v0 { p80°0 f 1S0°0 j fst 0 s}[Nsoy (HWVd) WuesioQ s[Ne[OATWas b-€ AGEL £ 1800 910 0> 610 vc0 ¥c'0 £70 610 ve0 Sv'0 £9S0°0 610 910 0> 910: 0> £7900 { 8700 ‘0 auaoeyjue-(y‘e)ozuaqiq auoiAd-(e)ozuag auayjueJony-(4)ozueg auayjurJonij-(q)ozuag auasA1yD auadeiyjue-(e)OZUsg aualkg auayjuesony-] auadeIWUY aualyjuReusyd auaiony-y auatydeussy Sediment Core Chemistry Data Summary from the MOR Mound, August and December 1991 38 *SUOIJE[OIA SUI} SUIP[OY 10; (H-fA/f) payeuitysa se paryijenb eyep [Ty “WUT UONeQUEND [eoOeId ay) > ye pajoajap aAyeuR ‘anjea payeuUNs| = f¢ (qU09) p-€ a1qeL c10'0> ST 0 s10'0> ve0 0) ¥sS'°0 Sa) 10) £8°0 I 610 670 610 f 1400 fero ¥c0'0> yc0'0> £L°0 L6°0 660 60 89°0 LG (M6 ve 0 9°°0 fero auaaeIyjUe-(Y“e)OZUaqIq auaiXd-(e)ozuag auayjueJOnyj-(4)0ZUag auayjueJONJ-(q)ozuag| auaskiyD} auadeiyjue-(2)0zZUag Sediment Core Chemistry Data Summary from the MQR Mound, August and December 1991 39 Sediment Depth (cm) PXS\0) et tt oO 8 IO We 2e 2s ao Phenanthrene (ppm) Figure 3-8. Phenanthrene as a function of depth in samples from MQR cores Sediment Core Chemistry Data Summary from the MQR Mound, August and December 1991 40 Sediment Depth (cm) ORS) FON eS 15.5 20) 25 SO Benzo(a)anthracene (ppm) Figure 3-9. Benzo(a)anthracene as a function of depth in samples from MQR cores Sediment Core Chemistry Data Summary from the MOR Mound, August and December 1991 41 molecular weight PAHs (e.g., Figure 3-9). Limited Black Rock Harbor sediment PAH data, analyzed before disposal in 1983, ranged from .017 ppm (naphthalene) to 5.0 ppm (phenanthrene) to 9.8 ppm (benzo[a]Janthracene). MQR PAH results were compared with recently analyzed data from three other capped CLIS mounds (Section 4.3). Except for the two specific samples mentioned above, all PAH concentrations are within the range of samples identified in other CLIS mounds as remnant capped material (from Stamford and Black Rock Harbors). These results are discussed further below (Section 4.3). 3.3.4 Volatile Organic Results The only detected VOCs were acetone, methylene chloride, carbon disulfide, 2- butanone, and 2-hexanone (Table 3-5). Several of these detections were actually below the practical quantitation limit and reported as estimated, including all detections of 2-butanone and 2-hexanone. The relative detections of acetone, carbon disulfide, and methylene chloride in each of the five samples are similar (volatile ratios). All of these are common laboratory reagents, yet the method blank contained no detections of these compounds, suggesting that laboratory contamination was not a factor. The possibility of field contamination for these three compounds is remote as the solvents used for cleaning sampling tools were methanol and isopropanol. The remaining possibility is that the detections of these compounds are indicative of actual sediment concentrations. Considering the volatile nature of these organic compounds, and the variation in concentration in the five adjacent surface sediments, this possibility also seems unlikely. Sediment Core Chemistry Data Summary from the MQR Mound, August and December 1991 42 Table 3-5 Volatile Organic Results Compound Methylene chloride trans-1,2-Dichloroethene 1,1-Dichloroethane cis-1,2-Dichloroethene Chloroform 1,1,1-Trichloroethane Carbon tetrachloride Benzene 1,2-Dichloroethane 1,2-Dichloropropane Bromodichloromethane 4-Methy1-2-pentanone cis-1,3-Dichloropropene trans-1,3-Dichloropropene 1,1,2-Trichloroethane 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane Samples were collected from surface grabs on 12/17/91. Qualifier codes: J = Estimated value; analyte detected at < the practical quantitation limit. U = Above the upper calibration limit. Sediment Core Chemistry Data Summary from the MQR Mound, August and December 1991 43 4.0 DISCUSSION The original hypothesis of this study was that the slow recolonization rates documented by REMOTS® photographs, and the bioassay results, were due to a surface layer remnant of the 3,000 m? of Black Rock material which was disposed of last in the MQR depositional sequence. The coring data were used to construct a stratigraphic sequence to test this hypothesis by identifying New Haven, Black Rock, Mill River, and Quinnipiac River materials. These stratigraphic units were identified by (1) estimating the thickness of each material disposed; (2) comparing the core sample metals data with historical metals data collected from each source area; and (3) evaluating the organic contaminant data on the basis of more recent sediments also collected from capped mounds at CLIS. Core descriptions indicated that the top 1-1.5 meters of each core recovered relatively homogenous material. In order to identify whether a thickness of over 1 meter of a similar material was realistic, the thicknesses of each dredged material unit were estimated using the DAMOS Capping Model. Results of the model also were compared with bathymetric depth- difference volume maps between successive depositional intervals. These volume estimates were used as a first-order prediction of thicknesses of individual units recovered in the cores (Section 4.1). Historical metals data from the source areas (Mill and Quinnipiac Rivers, Black Rock and New Haven Harbors), and from the MQR mound itself, were compared with the MQR core data in order to identify the origin of individual samples in the MQR cores (Section 4.2). If successful, these comparisons would allow a stratigraphic correlation of the cores, and potentially allow identification of the source of the surficial sediments causing the retrograde benthic faunal conditions at MQR. Finally, chemistry results indicated that several samples, specifically MQR-3F, and MQR-5E, contained distinctively elevated levels of organic contaminants. The suite of organic contaminant data from the MQR cores was compared with recent coring results from other CLIS capped mounds to further elucidate the source areas for each MQR sample (Section 4.3). These data were also analyzed in light of the current knowledge of bioaccumulation potential and resulting negative effects. 4.1 Volume Estimates of MQR Source Materials The DAMOS Capping Model, a computer program developed for NED that predicts the thicknesses of disposed dredged material, was used to estimate the volumes of each of the different source materials at MQR. These estimates do not consider postdepositional settling of the mound sediments. The model allows for a dual-phase depositional scenario; since MQR was actually completed in at least 4 phases, several runs were completed. Thicknesses were estimated over a predicted 150 m radius of operations, unless otherwise stated. The Sediment Core Chemistry Data Summary from the MOR Mound, August and December 1991 44 value used for the volume of a single barge load was 2000 m?, and the grain size distribution was kept constant at 20% sand, 40% silt, and 40% clay, with a density of 1.45 g/cc. The Capping Model predicted that 1-3 m of Quinnipiac River material (190,000 m*) would overlie a base of 0.5-2 m of Mill River material (70,000 m*). Bathymetric analyses following deposition of Mill River sediments (April 1982) generally agreed with the modelled results. Two bathymetric surveys were conducted following deposition of Quinnipiac River sediments and before New Haven/Black Rock Harbor deposition, in June 1982 and December 1982. Bathymetric results from the June 1982 survey indicated that the Quinnipiac sediment layer was thinner (<1 m) than predicted by the Capping Model, assuming no consolidation of Mill River sediments. The December survey, however, indicated that both Mill and Quinnipiac River sediments had settled approximately 0.5 m in the period between June and December, suggesting a maximum total consolidation of Mill and Quinnipiac River sediments from bathymetric estimates of approximately 2 m. Modelling the disposal of point-dumped (operational radius of 50 m) Black Rock Harbor sediments (67,000 m*) following the combined disposal of Mill and Quinnipiac River sediments (260,000 m?) resulted in a thickness of Black Rock sediments of 2-4 m. No bathymetric survey was conducted following deposition of Black Rock Harbor material. In addition, the Capping Model was used to predict the thickness of a 3,000 m® layer of Black Rock material deposited following final capping of New Haven material. The result was that the hypothetical thin layer of Black Rock was indistinguishable from the huge mound of material below it. New Haven Harbor sediments were disposed not as a taut-wired point-dumping operation, but rather as a widely distributed LORAN-C controlled disposal operation for more comprehensive coverage of cap material. Ten disposal points were concentrically arranged, one in the center, three at 80 m, and six at 120 m from the center. The Capping Model predicted a thickness range of 1.5-3.5 m of New Haven sediments (400,000 m*) overlying the cumulative sum of the other units within a 300 m radius of operations. Bathymetric observations, obtained after deposition of both Black Rock and New Haven sediments (June 1983), resulted in a minimum total post-Mill and Quinnipiac River sediment thickness of 1-2 m (again assuming no postdepositional settling). These results are consistent with a New Haven cap of 1.5 meters recovered in the cores. The recovery of ambient material below this interval in MQR-6, however, indicates that at least this core was recovered from the mound flanks, where the total thickness of dredged material is thinner than at the center of the mound. The differences in the modelled thicknesses and those measured by bathymetric volume-difference analyses are a function of sediment consolidation and the diameter of disposal operations. Much of the material is dispersed in the flanks around the mound and is Sediment Core Chemistry Data Summary from the MQR Mound, August and December 1991 45 not detectable by use of bathymetric methods. The use of different types of methods to calculate dredged material volumes are currently under investigation (Murray 1994). 4.2. Metal Ratios of MQR Source Materials Trace metal data from the four sources of dredged material present at the MQR mound, in addition to historical CLIS reference station data, were compiled. Zinc, Cu, and Cd concentrations were plotted for each source (Figure 4-1). The few samples from the Mill and Quinnipiac Rivers (n=10 and 6, respectively) reduce the statistical significance of the frequency distributions; however, some trends are worth noting. In general, higher Zn and Cu concentrations were present in Mill River sediments, while higher Cd concentrations were measured in Quinnipiac River sediments (Figure 4-1). Black Rock Harbor sediments had, overall, the highest concentrations of all three metals (Figure 4-2). New Haven Harbor sediments were generally low in all three metals relative to the other source areas; however, some of the New Haven samples still had 10 times the trace metal concentrations of CLIS reference station samples (Figure 4-3). Sediment samples were taken and analyzed for trace metals at the completion of each phase of formation of the MQR mound (Morton et al. 1984b). Results confirmed that Cd concentrations of Quinnipiac River sediments were higher than those of Mill River (Figure 4- 4). Chemistry samples taken at the surface of the MQR mound following deposition of Black Rock/New Haven Harbor sediments have indicated fairly stable and relatively low trace metal concentrations since final cap deposition (Figure 4-4). Most of the trace metal concentrations of the MQR core samples fell within upper New Haven/lower Quinnipiac Zn and Cu concentration ranges (Figure 4-5, A, B). The distribution of New Haven Harbor, Mill River, and Quinnipiac River Zn and Cu concentrations overlapped, probably since some of the sediment from the two rivers are transported to, and settle into, the New Haven Harbor. Two theoretical "mixing lines" established the separation of Black Rock Harbor from the other sources, primarily due to the excess of Cu in Black Rock Harbor sediments (Figure 4-5, A). The high Cu concentration in Black Rock sediments has been noted since the original Black Rock Harbor results were reported, and were confirmed in the recent coring operations at three other CLIS capped mounds (SAIC 1994). The three mounds cored were Stamford- New Haven North (STNH-N), Stamford-New Haven South (STNH-S), and Cap Site 2 (CS- 2). Results from these cores showed that many of the samples taken from the mounds fell into New Haven Harbor concentration ranges and were classified as being capping material (Figure 4-6). STNH-N and STNH-S received contaminated material to be capped from Stamford Harbor, whereas CS-2 received material from Black Rock Harbor at the same time as MQR. Samples from these three capped mounds reflected these two source areas when compared with the original data collected at the time of disposal (Figure 4-6). Sediment Core Chemistry Data Summary from the MQR Mound, August and December 1991 Mill River >3000 N=10 | 2500-3000 2000-2500 1500-2000 1000-1500 800-1000 600-800 400-600 400 60 An peice of Samples Concentration (ppm) ¥ —r = 80 100 (Zn ma Cu fg Cd (x100) Quinnipiac River >3000 N=6 2500-3000 2000-2500 1500-2000 1000-1500 800-1000 600-800 400-600 <400 oS eee eS — — ees 0 20 40 60 80 100 Percent of Samples Concentration (ppm) (Zn ma Cu fa Cd (x100) Figure 4-1. Trace metal (Zn, Cu, Cd) concentration frequency distributions of samples from the Mill and Quinnipiac Rivers Sediment Core Chemistry Data Summary from the MOR Mound, August and December 1991 47 Black Rock Harbor >3000 _—_ N=37 2500-3000 == 2000-2500 1500-2000 _—_-,, 1000-1500 j_—_— 800-1000 600-800 400-600 <400 Concentration (ppm) 0 20 40 60 80 100 Percent of Samples _)Zn mg Cu New Haven Harbor 73000 | N=20 (Zn,Cu) 2500-3000 | N=5 (Cd) 2000-2500 1500-2000 | 1000-1500 | 800-1000 600-800 400-600 <400 Concentration (ppm) 0 80 100 _)Zn me Cu Figure 4-2. Trace metal (Zn, Cu, Cd) concentration frequency distributions of samples from the Black Rock and New Haven Harbors Sediment Core Chemistry Data Summary from the MOR Mound, August and December 1991 CLIS REF: 1979-1985 >300 | N=94 (Zn, Cu) E 250-300 N=52 (Cd) jos = 200-250 2 150-200 = 4150- £ S 100-150 = S 50-100 O L <50 0 20 40 60 80 100 Percent of Samples (Zn ma Cu WZ Cd (x100) Figure 4-3. Trace metal (Zn, Cu, Cd) concentration frequency distribution of samples from the CLIS Reference Station (CLIS REF), cumulated over the years 1979-1985 Sediment Core Chemistry Data Summary from the MOR Mound, August and December 1991 UONCULIOJ JO sosv}s SATSSOOONS ZULINP pUnoW YOIW 2) Wo paysajjoo sqeid3 sovjAins WOI eJep [eJOW De], “p-f VANSIY oulI7 + wWiniwpeg vY- Jeddop ajeq Asvins 2g-6ny gg-JEW y8-AON e8-1nr c8-9e4 0 = 0 en S| © i: y 908 zy O il < | © ol ov | 0001 ro} Ms N 8 vo = = GIy v4 (OXOEIE S (Zg61 euny) y A ie 02 ADAINS JOATY deIdiuUIN?)-]sOg 7 aa 000Z a (7861 dy) Aoains Joary [IHN-180d v Gc 00S2¢ Sediment Core Chemistry Data Summary from the MQR Mound, August and December 1991 50 = = 3000 — = 2500 = = = € 2000 re 2 oF s 1500 a5 = | a7 he ah aie : 0 ! y o—$_______, === 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 Zn (ppm) Pore Det eee ee B's Figure 4-5. = 1000 -— =u & T 800 4 = a ie ~E 600 Bo a a + a o% > 400 | a m| "ge AD + oO 0 ft T —— Sa aa ee ee 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 Zn (ppm) m Black Rock + New Haven e Mill River a Quinnipiac o MQR Cores Zinc and Cu concentrations of MQR sources and core samples: (A) Two lines are estimated slopes for Black Rock (top) and New Haven/Mill/Quinnipiac (bottom) materials; (B) Enlargement of above showing distribution of lower copper values. Sediment Core Chemistry Data Summary from the MQR Mound, August and December 1991 Cu (ppm) + x Figure 4-6. 51 Black Rock Harbor New Haven Harbor Capping Material (approximate region) 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 Zn (ppm) New Haven = Black Rock 4 Stamford STNH-N Cores * OCS-2 Cores O STNH-S Cores Results from the first CLIS coring operations as compared to historical data. Capping material for all mounds was derived from New Haven Harbor. Capped material was derived from Stamford Harbor (STNH-N, STNH-S) and Black Rock Harbor (CS-2). Sediment Core Chemistry Data Summary from the MOR Mound, August and December 1991 Metal ratios were compared by normalizing both Cd and Zn data to Cu, resulting in relatively discrete fields for each of the MQR source areas (Figure 4-7, A). Cd/Cu and Zn/Cu Black Rock Harbor metal ratios were minimized and concentrated in a field due to high Cu concentrations. Quinnipiac and Mill River sediments were separated because of the relatively higher Cd concentration of Quinnipiac sediments. New Haven sediments fell in a field between Mill River and Quinnipiac sediments, as predicted according to the discussion above (Figure 4-7, A). All of the MQR core samples fell within a field dominated by New Haven and Mill River sediments (Figure 4-7, B). Considering trace metal concentrations alone, the results indicated that no samples representative of remnant Black Rock Harbor sediments were taken from the MQR cores. If any Black Rock Harbor material was sampled, it was either not representative of average Black Rock Harbor material, or in such a thin layer that it was diluted by sediment originating from somewhere else. These results also suggested that most of the MQR core samples could be remnant New Haven Harbor capping material. These results do not exclude the possibility that unmeasured contaminants (e.g., PAHs) contributed to the biological disturbance. 4.3 Organic Contamination of MQR Sediments Core descriptions and grain size data were available for all six cores recovered. These data indicated that only MQR1 and MQR6 recovered potential ambient material. PAH results from MQR6-E were consistent with this conclusion as the base sample decreases to low PAH levels relative to the sample above (Figures 3-8 and 3-9). Interpreting organic contaminant results from the MQR mound was hampered by the paucity of historical data. Analytical methods have been modified, and detection limits improved, over the past ten years. Due to the lack of historical organic data, MQR core samples were compared with the more recent CLIS coring results. Two PAH compounds were plotted against each other from the four CLIS mounds (Figure 4-8). These results indicated that most of the MQR samples have PAH concentrations comparable to sediments classified as remnant Black Rock and Stamford Harbor, except for MQR-3F and MQR-S5E. These two samples had exponentially higher PAH concentrations relative to the rest of the samples (Figure 4-8). MQR-S5E was also the sample with the excessively high PCB value (31 ppm). Most significantly, all of the MQR PAH concentrations were higher than the majority of samples classified as capping material in the other CLIS mounds. Plotting pyrene at the same scale in the three cored capped mounds, concentrations approached zero in the top 50- 100 cm of STNH-N and CS-2, while the average of the MQR pyrene concentrations was approximately 2 ppm in the same depth interval of MQR cores (Figure 4-9). The decrease Sediment Core Chemistry Data Summary from the MOR Mound, August and December 1991 Cd/Cu Figure 4-7. 53 (below) Zn/Cu 4 BlackRock ™* New Haven © Mill River @ Quinnipiac © MQR2 4 MQRS = MQRS ® MOR6 Zinc and Cd concentrations normalized to Cu for (A) MQR source areas and (B) MQR core samples. Dashed line separates Mill and Quinnipiac River fields, and follows the range of New Haven samples. MQR samples are clustered along this New Haven axis. Sediment Core Chemistry Data Summary from the MOR Mound, August and December 1991 54 spunow poddes sq Inoj ul usye} sofdures Jo suoeUIDUOD sUSIONTJ pue sUaIkd YON =» SHNLIS vw NHNIS + oSO a (widd) eusion)4 000} OL Ol L LO. L0'0 OOF (widd) euesAd "S-p ainsi] Sediment Core Chemistry Data Summary from the MQR Mound, August and December 1991 PP) 1661 Ul pero0s “MOW (D) pur :066T Ul pat0d *Z-SD (A) ‘0661 UI P2109 ‘N-HNLLS (Vv) :spunour paddes SITD 9274) Woy sajdures jusuNIpas ul WIdap Jo UOKOUNy vB se sUONeNUIDUOD aUdIKg *6-p AINSI (widd) auaiAg (widd) suaihq i Gh Oo. 0 (widd) susasAdq ag Gb Ob f i WAR oy Ch @b g © [--— + + +—__}+—__ + —_ + —_ + 0SZ re j-—4+——4 —4 $+ 002 ie £0 | OOL v SIE 002 w (dp) n ae g g og) & Z-UOW * 3 08 2 WLO a (pZ1)- joe 2 = Bs ae e) 09 9 oo Y aa | 004 8 3 goo Ss a OV eS ia) : 3 9-YOW loa = S Nop <7 0S 3 | 0c _166!1 YOW 19 O661 c-SOD 0661 N-HNLS Sediment Core Chemistry Data Summary from the MQR Mound, August and December 1991 56 of PAH in the base sample of MQR6 was consistent with the visual interpretation of the recovery of basement material. PAH concentrations in MQR core samples were compared with previously measured PAH data. The average value of pyrene of 2 ppm was lower than the recently measured average value in New Bedford Harbor sediments (3.5 ppm; Pruell et al. 1990), and higher than the average measured at the surface of the Mud Dump Site in New York (0.98 ppm; Charles and Muramoto 1991). Because of the lack of historical organic contaminant data, a "contaminant stratigraphy" of the MQR cores cannot be assembled. However, the PAH data do indicate that much of the entire dredged material mound at MQR has relatively high PAH concentrations, and discrete intervals of very high PCB concentrations. Because of the estimated thicknesses of New Haven sediment, the cores should consist of at least one meter of New Haven material. Organic data suggest two alternative conclusions: (1) PAH concentrations are indicative of the original concentrations of New Haven Harbor capping material at the time of disposal, or (2) PAHs have remobilized from the capped materials and infiltrated the capping material. Two points are important to note in order to draw the most reasonable conclusion. Although PAHs are readily adsorbed onto particulate matter, biodegradation and oxidation may occur in the sediment column (e.g., Kennish 1992). There is no current evidence, however, to support the organic contaminant flux scenario, and in previous CLIS cores, capping material remained relatively low in contaminant constituents (SAIC 1994). Secondly, the samples with high PAH and PCB concentrations lie in the Mill and Quinnipiac River | fields, as defined by metals ratios. Considering that both the Mill and the Quinnipiac Rivers eventually flow into New Haven Harbor, it is not inconceivable that the final capping material dredged from New Haven Harbor was obtained from the upper reaches influenced by Mill and Quinnipiac River input. Thus, the first conclusion is also the most plausible. Sediment Core Chemistry Data Summary from the MOR Mound, August and December 1991 5.0 57 CONCLUSIONS Three primary lithologies were recovered in MQR cores. The top 1-1.5 meters of every core contained black silty clay with uniform metals concentrations. Thickness estimates of dredged material units indicated that this unit was New Haven Harbor material. Sandier material containing plant fragments and clasts was recovered in every core below the upper New Haven unit. Trace metal ratios indicated that these samples were remnants of either Mill or Quinnipiac River sediments, rather than from Black Rock Harbor. Basement material representing Central Long Island Sound background sediment was recovered in at least one core (MQR6), indicating that this core was recovered from the mound flanks. Comparison with prior core data from capped mounds recovered at CLIS indicated that New Haven material from the MQR cap contained higher concentrations of PAHs relative to the New Haven material caps of other CLIS mounds. Since there has been no prior evidence of mobilization of PAHs from capped sediments into the overlying caps, the capping sediments at MQR most likely were originally higher in these compounds. Trace metal ratios indicated that New Haven sediments were intermediate in chemical character to Mill and Quinnipiac River sediments. From these data and the disposal sequence, it is clear that the cap material was derived from inner New Haven Harbor, and contained some of the contaminants associated with the inflowing Mill and Quinnipiac rivers. According to tiered monitoring protocols, the coring results indicate that MQR should be recapped as soon as material is available. Sediment Core Chemistry Data Summary from the MQR Mound, August and December 199] 58 6.0 REFERENCES ASTM. 1990. Annual book of ASTM standards, Part 19: natural building stone, soil and rock, peat mosses, and humus. American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, PA. Charles, J. B.; Muramoto, J. 1991. Assessment of contaminants in sediment and biota at the mud dump site, New York Bight, October, 1990. SAIC Report No. SAIC- 91/7608&256. EPA. 1986. Test methods for evaluating solid waste (SW-846): physical/chemical methods. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste, Washington, D.C. EPA. 1988a. Laboratory data validation: functional guidelines for evaluating organics analyses. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, Washington, D.C. EPA. 1988b. Laboratory data validation: functional guidelines for evaluating inorganics analyses. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, Washington, D.C. ERCO. 1980a. Ecological evaluation of proposed oceanic discharge of dredged material from Black Rock Harbor, Connecticut. Energy Resources Co., Inc. Cambridge, MA. Submitted to US Army Corps of Engineers, New England Division, Waltham, MA. ERCO. 1980b. Ecological evaluation of proposed oceanic discharge of dredged material from Black Rock Harbor, Connecticut. Supplemental Report on Bioaccumulation. Energy Resources Co., Inc. Cambridge, MA. Submitted to US Army Corps of Engineers, New England Division, Waltham, MA. ERCO. 1980c. Ecological evaluation of proposed oceanic discharge of dredged material from Mill River, New Haven Harbor, Connecticut. Energy Resources Co., Inc. Cambridge, MA. Submitted to US Army Corps of Engineers, New England Division, Waltham, MA. ERCO. 1980d. Ecological evaluation of proposed oceanic discharge of dredged material from Quinnipiac River, New Haven Harbor, Connecticut. Energy Resources Co., Inc. Cambridge, MA. Submitted to US Army Corps of Engineers, New England Division, Waltham, MA. ERCO. 1981a. Ecological evaluation of proposed oceanic discharge of dredged material from Mill River, New Haven Harbor, Connecticut. Supplemental Report on Sediment Core Chemistry Data Summary from the MQR Mound, August and December 1991 59 Bioaccumulation. Energy Resources Co., Inc. Cambridge, MA. Submitted to US Army Corps of Engineers, New England Division, Waltham, MA. ERCO. 1981b. Ecological evaluation of proposed oceanic discharge of dredged material from Quinnipiac River, New Haven Harbor, Connecticut. Supplemental Report on Bioaccumulation. Energy Resources Co., Inc. Cambridge, MA. Submitted to US Army Corps of Engineers, New England Division, Waltham, MA. Germano, J. D.; Rhoads, D. C.; Lunz, J. D. 1994. An integrated, tiered approach to monitoring and management of dredged material disposal sites in the New England Region. DAMOS Contribution No. 87 (SAIC Report No. SAIC-90/7575&234). US Army Corps of Engineers, New England Division, Waltham, MA. Kennish, M. J. 1992. Ecology of estuaries: anthropogenic effects. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, Inc. p. 494. Long, E. R.; Morgan, L. G. 1990. The potential for biological effects of sediment-sorbed contaminants tested in the National Status and Trends Program. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Technical Memorandum NOS OMA 52, Seattle, WA. Morton, R. W.; Stewart, L. L.; Germano, J. D.; Rhoads, D. C. 1984a. Results of monitoring studies at Cap Sites #1, #2, and the FVP site in Central Long Island Sound and a classification scheme for the management of capping procedures. DAMOS Contribution No. 38. US Army Corps of Engineers, New England Division, Waltham, MA. Morton, R. W.; Parker, J. H.; Richmond, W. H. 1984b. DAMOS: Disposal area monitoring system. Summary of program results 1981-1984. DAMOS Contribution No. 46. US Army Corps of Engineers, New England Division, Waltham, MA. Murray, P. M. 1994. Monitoring of dredged material disposal: the mass balance issue. SAIC Report No. 311. Submitted to the US Army Corps of Engineers, New England Division, Waltham, MA. New England River Basins Commission (NERBC). 1980. Interim plan for the disposal of dredged material from Long Island Sound. New England River Basins Commission. Boston, MA. pp. 1-55. NOAA. 1991. Second summary of data on chemical concentrations in sediments from the National Status and Trends Program. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Technical Memorandum NOS OMA 59, Rockville, MD. Sediment Core Chemistry Data Summary from the MOR Mound, August and December 1991 60 Oceanic Society. 1982. Dredging and dredged materials management in the Long Island Sound Region. The Oceanic Society, Stamford, CT. New England Governors Conference, Boston, MA. p. 196. Pruell, R. J.; Norwood, C. B; Bowen, R. D.; Boothman, W. S.; Rogerson, P. F.; Hackett, M.; Butterworth, B. C. 1990. Geochemical study of sediment contamination in New Bedford Harbor, Massachusetts. Mar. Environ. Res. 29:77-101. Rogerson, P. F.; Schimmel, S. C.; Hoffman, G. 1985. Chemical and biological characterization of Black Rock Harbor dredged material. Tech. Rpt. D-85-9. US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. SAIC. 1988. Monitoring surveys at the Foul Area Disposal Site, February 1987. DAMOS Contribution No. 64 (SAIC Report No. SAIC-87/7516&C64). US Army Corps of Engineers, New England Division, Waltham, MA. SAIC. 1989. 1985 Monitoring surveys at the Central Long Island Sound Disposal Site: an assessment of impacts from disposal and Hurricane Gloria. DAMOS Contribution No. 57. US Army Corps of Engineers, New England Division, Waltham, MA. SAIC. 1990a. Seasonal monitoring cruise at the Central Long Island Sound Disposal Site, July 1986. DAMOS Contribution No. 63. US Army Corps of Engineers, New England Division, Waltham, MA. SAIC. 1990b. Seasonal monitoring cruise at the Central Long Island Sound Disposal Site, August and September, 1987. DAMOS Contribution No. 68. US Army Corps of Engineers, New England Division, Waltham, MA. SAIC. 1994. Sediment capping of subaqueous dredged material disposal mounds: an overview of the New England experience. Final report submitted to US Army Corps of Engineers, New England Division, Waltham, MA. USACE. 1978. Environmental assessment. Maintenance dredging of New Haven and Stamford Harbors, CT. US Army Corps of Engineers, New England Division, Waltham, MA. p. 26. USACE. 1982. Environmental assessment, Section 404(b). Evaluation and findings of no significant impact for the maintenance dredging of the Black Rock Harbor Cedar Creek Federal Navigation Channel. Bridgeport, CT. US Army Corps of Engineers, New England Division, Waltham, MA. Sediment Core Chemistry Data Summary from the MQR Mound, August and December 1991 61 Wiley, M. B.; Charles, J. 1994. Monitoring cruise at the Central Long Island Sound Disposal Site, June 1991. Final report submitted to US Army Corps of Engineers, New England Division, Waltham, MA. Sediment Core Chemistry Data Summary from the MQR Mound, August and December 1991 atomic absorption spectrophotometry 17 barge 5, 9, 44 benthos vi, 1, 9, 11, 15, 43 ampeliscids 11, 14 amphipod iii, vi, 9, 11, 14 Nephtys sp. iii, 11, 13 polychaete 11 bioaccumulation 5, 43, 58, 59 bioassay iii, vi, 1, 5, 9, 11, 14, 15, 43 Black Rock Harbor iv, 1, 5, 7, 9, 10, 11, 15, 33, 41, 43, 44, 45, 47, 50, 51, 52, 57, 58, 60 body burden vi, 9, 11 bioaccumulation 5, 43, 58, 59 bioassay iii, vi, 1, 5, 9, 11, 14, 15, 43 buoy 5 capping vi, 1, 5, 43-45, 51, 52, 56, 57, 59, 60 Central Long Island Sound (CLIS) ili, iv, v, Vi, vii, 1, 2, 9, 11-13, 18, 24, 33, 41, 43, 45, 48, 51, 52, 54-57, 59, 60, 61 Capsite-1 (CS-1) vi, 9 Capsite-2 (CS-2) vi, 9, 33, 45.) ly 25, 55 FVP vi, 11, 13, 59 MQR 1, iii, iv, v, Vi, vil, 1, 4, 5, 9, 11-18, 22245) 29932433" 35, 36, 39-41, 43, 44, 45, 49, 50, 52, 53, 55-57 STNH-N 45, 51, 52, 55 STNH-S 45, 51 consolidation 44 INDEX contaminant vi, vii, 5, 15, 18, 43, 52, 56-59 density 44 deposition 9, 15, 43-45 dispersion 1 disposal site Central Long Island Sound (CLIS) iii, iv, v, vi, Witls It; 24, 2), silat). 18, 24, 33, 41, 43, 45, 48, 51, 52, 54-57, 59-61 dredging clamshell 5, 9 Field Verification Program (FVP) vi, 11 grain size ili, iv, vi, 16, 18, 24, 28, 33, 36, 44, 52 habitat 9, 15 hurricane 60 methane 9 New England River Basin Classification (NERBC) 5, 6, 24, 59 organics vi, 16, 17, 24, 58 polyaromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) iii, vi, vii, UG: 219225) 24.33) 37, 41, 52, 56, 57 polychlorinated biphenyl] (PCB) iii, iv, vi, 6, 16, 17-19, 24, 30, SY), SB Oy DO) oxidation 56 recolonization vi, 1, 9, 11, 43 reference station 11, 18 REMOTS® Organism-Sediment Index (OSI) 9, 11, 12 redox potential discontinuity (RPD) 11, 19, 21, P20?) INDEX (cont.) REMOTS® iii, vi, 1, 9, 11, 12, 43 RPD REMOTS®;redox potential discontinuity (RPD) OI 2S 2 e238 RPDs REMOTS®;redox potential discontinuity (RPD) WER OR 22 sandy 24 sediment clay iv, vi, 6, 18, 24, 36, 44, 57 gravel 18 sand iv, 18, 24, 29, 33, 44 silt iv, vi, 5, 6, 18, 24, 36, 44, 57 sediment sampling 1 cores 1, iii, iv, v, vi, 1, 11, 15-18, 24-27, 29) 3233355505 39, 40, 43-45, 50, SPI 85 Shy 27 grabs iii, v, 16, 17, 49 species dominance 9, 24 spectrophotometry atomic absorption 17 statistical testing 14, 45 stratigraphy vi, 56 successional stage 9 survey bathymetry vii, 5, 43-45 REMOTS® iii, 9, 11, 12 toxicity ili, vi, 1,5, 9, 11, 14, 15 trace metals iii, iv, v, vi, 1, 11, 13, low 1ee24e 33, 34, 43, 45-49, SPJ) Bo, )1/ arsenic (As) 17, 21 cadmium (Cd) iv, v, 1, 5, 6137, 21335 45, 46-48, 52, 53 chromium (Cr) 6, 11, 13, hn Pall 336) copper (Cu) iv, v, 5, 6, 11, 6), U7, il, B35 35) 36, 45-48, 50, 52, 53 iron (Fe) 13 mercury (Hg) 5, 6, 13, 17, Pail, BS nickel (Ni) 6, 17, 21 zinc (Zn) iv, Vv, 6, 13173 21, 45-48, 50, 52, 513} volume estimate 5, 43 waste 58