rrs^:? . ^-/^ » ^,-1 v(7\«» \N^x^\

UMASS/AMHERST

31,e0b(:i01bbDfl477

Report to the

MASSACHUSETTS BAYS PROGRAM

SOURCES AND LOADINGS OF POLLUTANTS
TO THE MASSACHUSETTS BAYS

•%.

Prepared By:

^7 0 ^%' ''^^nzie-Cura & Associates, Inc.

One Courthouse Lane, Suite Two
Chelmsford, Massachusetts 01824

NOVEMBER, 1991
MBP-91-01

Funded by: The Massachusetts Environmental Trust

The Massachusetts Bays Program Is a cooperative venture of

Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management Office, U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, and Massachusetts Environmental Trust

^ -^^ /^a

^

ftnir**^

This research was made possible by funding from The Massachusetts Environmental Trust
environmental philanthropy focussing on the Commonwealth's coastal resources.

an

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The primary authors of this document are Christine Werme and Charles A, Menzie.
We were assisted by many people, some of whom authored specific sections of the
report, and others of whom offered guidance or assistance.

Bonnie Potocki and Jerome Cura assisted us in preparation of the sections on inputs
from point sources and from rivers. The section on loadings in groundwater was
written by Jon Freshman. Brian Field prepared the sections on loading from
dredged material and in-place sediments. The section on loading associated with
atmospheric deposition was prepared by William Galen. Kay Reddy prepared the
section on the spatial distribution of hazardous waste sites near the coast and rivers.
General admimstrative support and production of the final document was
coordinated by Joan Pioli.

Many of the data we used to estimate loadings from point sources were obtained
from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Resource Information Center.
Persoimel at the center assisted us by retrieving data from their permit compliance
system (PCS) database. Michael Connor and Wendy Smith of the Massachusetts
Water Resources Authority (MWRA) provided us with additional information to
develop our estimates of inputs from point sources. The MWRA also supported a
separate effort to estimate loadings to Boston Harbor.

The estimates of loadings from runoff were made using data from the National
Coastal Pollutant Discharge Inventory, which was developed and is maintained by
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Ocean Assessment Division.
Daniel Farrow of that office provided those data to us and assisted us in adapting
the available information to our use. He also provided us with data on land use m
the region and provided us with guidance for developing estimates of loads from
point and nonpoint sources. Philip Shelly of EG&G also provided us with guidance
for estimating inputs from point and nonpoint sources. He developed and reviewed
our strategies poor to our preparation of this document.

Warren Kimball of the Massachusetts Division of Water Pollution Control provided
us with data and documents to assess water flow in the region. He also assisted us in
dividing the system into drainage systems. Gordan Wallace of the University of
Massachusetts at Boston provided guidance for use of data for estimating loads from
rivers.

Many of the data used to estimate loadings from atmospheric data were based upon
regional estimates that were provided to us by Dhan Olmez of the Massachusetts
Institute of Technology.

We prepared this document under the direction of Diane Gould, Program
Coordinator for the Massachusetts Bays Program, at the Massachusetts Executive
Office of Environmental Affairs (EOEA). We thank Dr. Gould, as well as Judy
Pederson and Jan Smith of EOEA, for their direction and support. We also thank
Matthew Leibman, the Program Coordinator for the Massachusetts Bays Program
at the U.S. Enviroimiental Protection Agency, Region I, Water Management
Division.

MASSACHUSETTS BAYS PROGRAM

Massachusetts Executive Office

of Environmental Affairs
Coastal Zone Management
100 Cambridge St., Room 2006
Boston, Massachusetts 02202
(617) 727-9530

FOREWORD

us Environmental ProteOion Ager»Cy
Water Management Division
John F. Kennedy Federal Building
Boston, Massachusetts 02203
(617) 565-3514

The roots of the Massachusetts Bays Program extend back to 1 982, when the City of Ouincy filed
suit against the Metropolitan District Commission and the Boston Water and Sewer Commission
over the chronic pollution of Boston Harbor, Quincy Bay, and adjacent waters. Outdated and
poorly maintained sewage treatment plants on Deer Island and Nut Island were being
overwhelmed daily by sewage from the forty-three communities in the Metropolitan Boston area.
Untreated and partially treated sewage were spilling into Boston Harbor.

Litigation over the pollution of Boston Harbor culminated in 1 985 when the United States Attorney
filed suit on behalf of the Environmental Protection Agency against the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts for violations of the Federal Clean Water Act. The settlement of this suit resulted,
in 1988, in the creation of the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority, the agency currently
overseeing a multi-billion dollar project to repair and upgrade Metropolitan Boston's sewage
treatment system. In addition, the settlement resulted in the establishment of the Massachusetts
Environmental Trust - an environmental philanthropy dedicated to improving the Commonwealth s
coastal and marine resources. $2 millon in settlement proceeds are administered by the Trust to
support projects dedicated to the restoration and protection of Boston Harbor and
Massachusetts Bay.

The Trust provided $1 .6 million to establish the Massachusetts Bays Program, a collaborative
effort of public officials, civic organizations, business leaders, and environmental groups to work
towards improved coastal water quality. The funding was used to support both a program of
public education and a scientific research program focussing on the sources, fate, transport and
effects of contaminants in the Massachusetts and Cape Cod Bays ecosystem. To maximize the
efficiency of limited research funding, the sponsored research program was developed in
coordination with research funded by the MWRA, the United States Geological Survey, and the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology Sea Grant Program. The study described in this report
compares the relative magnitudes of point and nonpoint sources of pollution to the Bays system.
This information will help to meet the Massachusetts Bays Program goal of producing an area-
wide management plan for water quality enhancement and protection. In addition, the study
provides a basis for identifying data gaps to be addressed in future research.

In April, 1990, following a formal process of nomination, the Massachusetts Bays Program
became part of the National Estuary Program. The additional funding provided as part of this
joint program of the Environmental Protection Agency and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts
is being used to continue a coordinated program of research in the Massachusetts Bays
ecosystem, as well as supporting the development of a comprehensive conservation and
management plan for the coastal and marine resources of Massachusetts and Cape Cod Bays.

The information in this document has been subject to Massachusetts Bays Program peer and
administrative review and has been accepted for publication as a Massachusetts Bays Program
document. The contents of this document do not necessarily reflect the views and policies of
the Management Conference.

I

■
■

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ix

1.0 INTRODUCTION 1

1.1 Objectives 1

1.2 Report Organization 2

2.0 TECHNICAL APPROACH 3

2.1 General Approach 3

2.2 Selection ot Compounds and/or Biological Agents 3

2.3 Consideration of Spatial Scales 4

2.4 Quality Assurance 5

2.5 Integration with Other Programs 7

2.6 Uncertainty/Sensitivity Analysis 7

2.7 Source Types 7

3.0 WATERSHED CHARACTERIZATION 8

3.1 Drainage Areas 8

3.2 River Systems 12

4.0 POINT SOURCE INVENTORY 18

4.1 General 18

4.2 Identification of Point Sources 18

4.3 Point Source Loadings 22

4.3.1 Data Sources 22

4.3.2 Calculation of NPDES Loadings 27

4.3.3 Minor NPDES Dischargers 29

4.3.4 Anticipated Changes in Loadings Due to Upgrade of
MWRA Effluents 71

4.3.5 Data Quality for Point Source Estimates 71

5.0 NONPOINT SOURCE INVTENTORY 75

5.1 General 75

5.2 Runoff from Urban and Nonurban Land Areas 75

5.2.1 Runoff to Drainage Areas 75

5.2.2 CSOs and Stormwater Discharges to Boston Harbor 84

5.3 Discharges from Coastal Rivers 89

5.3.1 Water Quality Data for Massachusetts Rivers 89

5.3.2 Estimates of Loadings via Major Rivers 100

5.4 Loadings in Groundwater 1 14

• 5.4.1 Methods 114

5.4.2 Results: Nitrogen Loadings to Cape Cod Bay via
Groundwater 120

5.4.3 Results: Groundwater Loadings to Boston Harbor 127

5.5 Loadings Associated with Dredged Material Disposal 129

5.5.1 General Approach 129

5.5.2 Calculation of Loadings 129

5.6 Loadings Associated with Atmospheric Deposition 133

5.6.1 Nutrients 138

Phosphorus 139

5.6.2 Organic Compounds 140

5.6.3 Atmospheric loading of metals 143

5.7 Spatial Distribution of Hazardous Waste Sites Near the Coast and
Rivers 161

5.7.1 Approach 161

5.7.2 Results 162

5.8 In-Place Sediments 164

5.8.1 North Shore 165

u

5.8.2 Boston Harbor System 180

5.8.3 The Bay 181

5.8.4 Data Quality and Quantity 183

6.0 CONTAMINANT LOADING AND ASSESSMENT 184

6.1 Comparison of pollutant sources 184

6. 1. 1 Freshwater Flow 185

6.1.2 Total Suspended Solids 188

6.1.3 Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) 192

6.1.4 Total Nitrogen 196

6.1.5 Total Phosphorus 200

6.1.6 Oil and Grease 204

6.1.7 PAHs 208

6.1.8 PCBs 214

6.1.9 Metals 219

6.2 Identified Pollutant Problems in Nearshore Waters 243

6.3 Qualifications and Data Gaps 245

ui

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Drainage areas used in this study and their relationshrps to other

designated drainage areas _ 8

Table 2. Land use within the various drainage areas (kin2) _ 12

Table 3. Estimated annual river discharge to Massachusetts Bays (m3/s) 13

Table 4. Names of NPDES permit holders depicted by number in Figure 8 20

Table 5. Compounds monitored for in major NPDES effluents: DMRs 23

Table 6. Contaminant:TSS ratios for selected parameters in sewage effluents

of Massachusetts facilities ~ 29

Table 7. Estimated flows for major dischargers - 30

Table 8. Estimated point source loadings of solids -. 33

Table 9. Estimated point source loadings of biochemical oxygen demand

(kg/yr) - 35

Table 10. Estimated point source loadings of nitrogen. ^ 37

Table 11. Estimated point source loadings of phosphorus _ 39

Table 12. Estimated point source loadings of oil and grease 41

Table 13. Estimated point source loadings of volatile organic compounds 43

Table 14. Estimated point source loadings of polynuclear aromatic

hydrocarbons _ 45

Table 15. Estimated point source loadings of polychlorinated biphenyls

(PCBs) _ 46

Table 16. Estimated point source loadings of phthalate esters 48

Table 17. Estimated point source loadings of cadmium based solely on DMR

data _ 50

Table 18. Estimated point source loadings of cadmium based on DMR data

as well as the CdiTSS Ratio _ 52

Table 19. Estimated point source loadings of chromium based solely on

DMR data _ 54

Table 20. Estimated point source loadings of chromium based on DMR data

as well as the Cr:TSS ratio _ 56

Table 21. Estimated point source loadings of copper -_ 58

Table 22. Estimated point source loadings of lead based soleh on the DMR

data L 60

Table 23. Estimated point source loadings of lead based on the DMR data as

well as the Pb:TSS ratio ^ 62

Table 24. Estimated point source loadings of nickel 64

Table 25. Estimated point source loadings of zinc 66

Table 26. Estimated point source loadings of mercury ^ 68

Table 27. Projected future loadings for MWRA effluents (kg/vr) 73

Table 28. Contaminant concentrations reported for MWRA CSOs and the

NCPDI _ 77

Table 29. Contaminant concentrations in runoff. ^ 78

Table 30. Estimated loads for runoff within each drainage area. 80

Table 31. Estimated loads for runoff within 0.5 mile of coastline 82

Table 32. Stormwater and CSO annual load summary for northern Boston

Harbor _ 85

Table 33. Summary of land use in the coastal drainage area around Boston

Harbor _ 87

Table 34. Summary of annual loads to Boston Harbor using NURP data. 88

Table 35. Water quality data for total suspended soUds 91

Table 36. Water quality data for biochemical oxygen demand 92

Table 37. Water quality data for nitrogen -> 93

Table 38. Water quality data for phosphorous.. — 94

IV

Table 39. Water quality data for cadmium 95

Table 40. Water quality data for chromium 96

Table 41. Water quality data for copper 97

Table 42. Water quality data for lead. 98

Table 43. Water quality data for zinc 99

Table 44. Literature values for ranges of concentrations of selected chemicals

in river water 100

Table 45. Loadings of total suspended solids via rivers 101

Table 46. Loadings of biochemical oxygen demand via rivers 102

Table 47, Loadings of total nitrogen via rivers 103

Table 48. Loadings of total phosphorus via rivers 104

Table 49. Loadings of total PAHs via rivers 105

Table 50. Loadings of total PCBs via rivers 106

Table 51. Loadings of phthalates via rivers 107

Table 52. Loadings of arsenic via rivers 108

Table 53. Loadings of cadmium via rivers 109

Table 54. Loadings of chromium via rivers 110

Table 55. Loadings of copper via rivers Ill

Table 56. Loadings of lead via rivers 112

Table 57. Loadings of zinc via rivers 113

Table 58. Recharge areas by town for Cape Cod 122

Table 59. Nitrogen loadings from Cape Cod Bay watershed 123

using discrete methods approach 123

Table 60. Loadings of nitrogen to Cape Cod Bay 125

using discrete ana groundwater measurements approach ,...125

Table 61. Summary of nitrate and ammonia concentrations used in the

groundwater measurements approach 126

Table 62. Estimates of loadings via groundwater to Boston Harbor 128

Table 63. Loadings to Massachusetts Bay due to dredged material disposal 131

Table 64. Parameters used to estimate atmospheric loading 134

Table 65. Seasonal and annual rainfall (cm) in the Massachusetts Bays
region measured at two sites in the National Atmospheric Deposition

Program 136

Table 66. Areas of Massachusetts Bays 137

Table 67. Atmospheric loading (kg/>T) of nitrogen to Massachusetts Bays.

Estimate includes wet and dry deposition 138

Table 68. Atmospheric loading (kg/yr) of phosphorus to Massachusetts

Bays. Estimate includes dry and wet deposition 139

Table 69. Atmospheric loading (kg/yr) of PAHs to Massachusetts Bays (dry

and wet) 141

Table 70. Atmospheric loading (kg/)rr) of PCBs to Massachusetts Bays.

Estimates include dry and wet deposition 142

Table 71. Atmospheric loading ot antimony (kg/yr) to Massachusetts Bays.

Estimates include dry and wet deposition 144

Table 72. Atmospheric loading of arsenic (kg/yr) to Massachusetts Bays.

Estimates include dry and wet deposition 145

Table 73. Atmospheric loading ot cadmium (kg/yr) to Massachusetts Bays,

Estimates include dry and wet deposition 146

Table 74. Atmospheric loading ot chromium (kg/yr) to Massachusetts Bays.

Estimates include dry and wet deposition 147

Table 75. Atmospheric loading ot cobalt (kg/yr) to Massachusetts Bays.

Estimates include dry and wet deposition 148

Table 76. Atmospheric loading ot copper (kg/yr) to Massachusetts Bays.
Estimates include dry and wet deposition 149

Table 77. Atmospheric loading of iron (kg/yr) to Massachusetts Bays.

Estimates include dry and wet deposition 150

Table 78. Atmospheric loading of lead (kg/yr) to Massachusetts Bays.

Estimates include dry and wet deposition 151

Table 79. Atmospheric loading ot manganese (kg/yr) to Massachusetts Bays.

Estimates include dry and wet deposition 152

Table 80. Atmospheric loading oi mercury (kg/yr) to Massachusetts Bays.

Estimates include dry and wet deposition 153

Table 81. Atmospheric loading ot molybdenum (kg/yr) to Massachusetts

Bays. Estimates mclude only wet deposition 154

Table 82. Atmospheric loading of nickel (kg/yr) to Massachusetts Bays.

Estimates include dry and wet deposition 155

Table 83. Atmospheric loading of selenium (kg/yr) to Massachusetts Bays.

Estimates include only dry deposition 156

Table 84. Atmosphenc loading of silver (kg/yr) to Massachusetts Bays.

Estimates include dry and wet deposition 157

Table 85. Atmospheric loading of vanadium to Massachusetts Bays.

Estimates include dry and wet deposition 158

Table 86. Atmospheric loading of zinc to Massachusetts Bays. Estimates

include dry and wet deposition 159

Table 87. Atmospheric loading to the Massachusetts Bays (kg/yr) 160

Table 88. Distribution of sediment samples examined for this report 164

Table 89. Summary of sediment samples examined in the Boston Harbor

system 180

Table 90. The distribution of high metals concentrations in the bay subarea. 182

Table 91. Freshwater inflow to Massachusetts Bay (m3/s) 186

Table 92. Suspended sediment load to Massachusetts Bay by source (kg/yr) 189

Table 93. BOD load to Massachusetts Bay by source (kg/yr) 193

Table 94. Nitrogen load to Massachusetts Bay by source (kg/yr) 197

Table 95. Phosphorus load to Massachusetts Bay by source (kg/y) 201

Table 96. Oil and grease load to Massachusetts Bay by source (kg/yr) 205

Table 97. Higher estimate of PAH loading by source (kg/yr) 209

Table 99. PCB load to Mass Bay by source (kg/yr) 216

Table 100. Cadmium load to Mass Bay by source (kg/yr) 220

Table 101. Chromium load to Mass Bay by source (kg/yr) 224

Table 102. Copper load to Mass Bay by source (kg/yr) 228

Table 103. Lead load to Mass Bay by source (kg/yr) 232

Table 104. Zinc load to Mass Bay by source (kg/yr) 236

Table 105. Mercury load to Mass Bay by source (kg/yr) 240

Table 106. Identified water quality problems in near-coastal areas 244

VI

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Drainage areas selected for this study 6

Figure 2. Drainage areas used by the Massachusetts 9

Department of Environmental Protection 9

Figure 3. USGS cataloguing units : 10

Figure 4. County boundaries 11

Figure 5. Seasonal pattern of flow in Merrimack River 15

Figure 6. Seasonal flow in Ipswich River ,. 16

Figure 7. Seasonal flow in Charles River 17

Figure 8. Lx)cations of major point sources on major rivers and along the

coast 19

Figure 9. Groundwater divide on Cape Cod 121

Figure 10. Locations of DEP confirmed waste sites within 500 feet of the

coast or Merrimack River 163

Figure 11. Locations of elevated levels of chromium in sediments of

Massachusetts Bay 166

Figure 12. Locations of elevated levels of lead in sediments of Massachusetts

Bay 167

Figure 13. Locations of elevated levels of total PAHs in sediments of

Massachusetts Bay 168

Figure 14. Lead in sediments of Boston Inner Harbor 169

Figure 15. Cadmium in sediments of Boston Inner Harbor 170

Figure 16. Chromium in sediments of Boston Inner Harbor 171

Figure 17. Copper in sediments of Boston Inner Harbor 172

Figure 18. Mercuiy in sediments of Boston Inner Harbor 173

Figure 19. Nickel m sediments of Boston Inner Harbor 174

Figure 20. Zinc in sediments of Boston Inner Harbor , 175

Figure 21. PCBs in sediments of Boston Inner Harbor 176

Figure 22. Total PAHs in sediments of Boston Iimer Harbor 177

Figure 23. Carcinogenic PAHs in sediments of Boston Inner Harbor 178

Figure 24. Total phthalates in sediments of Boston Inner Harbor 179

Figure 25. Contribution of various sources to freshwater inflow 187

Figure 26. Suspended sediment load to Massachusetts Bay by source

(mt/yr) 190

Figure 27. Relative contributions to suspended sediment load. 191

Figure 28. BOD load to Massachusetts Bay by source (mt/yr) 194

Figure 29. Relative contributions to BOD load 195

Figure 30. Nitrogen load to Massachusetts Bay by source (mt/yr) 198

Figure 31. Relative contributions to nitrogen load 199

Figure 32. Phosphorus load to Massachusetts Bay by source (mt/yr) 202

Figure 33. Relative contributions to Massachusetts Bay load of phosphorus 203

Figure 34. Oil and grease load to Massachusetts Bay by source (mt/yr) 206

Figure 35. Relative contributions to Massachusetts Bay load of oil and

grease 207
igure 39. PCB load to Mass Bay by source (kg/yr) 217

Figure 40. Relative contributions to Mass Bay load of PCBs 218

Figure 41. Cadmium load to Mass Bay by source (kg/yr) 221

Figure 42. Relative contributions to cadmium load 222

Figure 43. Chromium load to Mass Bay by source (kg/yr) 225

Figure 44. Relative contributions to chromium load 226

Figure 45. Copper load to Mass Bay by source (kg/yr) 229

Figure 46. Relative contributions to copper load 230

Figure 47. Lead load to Mass Bay by source (kg/yr) .....233

vii

i

Figure 48. Relative contributions to lead load _ 234

Figure 49. Zinc load to Mass Bay by source (kg/yr) ^ 237

Figure 50. Relative contributions to zinc load ^ 238

Figure 51. Mercury load to Mass Bay by source (kg/yr) 241

Figure 52. Relative contributions to mercury load _ 242

■

vm

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report identifies and quantifies sources and loadings of pollutants to the Massachusetts
Bays system and completes the objectives of Task 1 of the Massachusetts Bays Program
(MBP). Information presented in this report is part of the MBP effort to develop a plan for
conservation and management of the estuarine waters from the New Hampshire border to the
tip of Cape Cod. The identification of sources and estimates of loadings of pollutants have
been developed jfirom existing information and are viewed as part of an overall risk
assessment framework for the bays. When linked with information on the fate and effects of
contaminants, the results of this report can provide insight into the relative importance of
contaminants and sources with regard to the natural resources of the bays' systems.

Because environmental problems may be manifested at various spatial scales (i.e. local,
regional, or bay-wide), information on sources and loadings has been developed with respect
to individual point and non-point sources, specific rivers and drainage basins, and the
Massachusetts Bays system as a whole. With regard to the "importance" of a source, care
must be taken to consider the spatial scale of the natural resource of concern as well as that
of the contaminant source. Most of the information on loadings has been organized and
reported for six broad geographic areas. Five of these correspond to drainage areas and
include: the Merrimack River to the Lowell Dam (abbreviated ME in Figures i through iv);
tiie North Shore (NS); Boston Harbor (EH); South Shore (SS); and, Cape Cod (CC). In
addition, loadings of materials that are introduced directiy into the bay (atmospheric
deposition) or are moved from nearshore to offshore areas (dredged material), are presented
as being introduced to the "Bay" and are not related to specific drainage basins.

The general approach of this study was to identify important pollutants to the Massachusetts
Bays system and, to the extent possible, quantify the point and nonpoint source loads of these
chemicals and agents. We used the most recent available data . Where gaps in data occurred
or where data were considered to be of low quality, we used estimates based upon typical
values reported in the literature.

Elements, compounds, and biological agents were selected for the study based upon several
criteria:

Potential to degrade the quality or impair the use of Massachusetts Bays water;

Inherent toxicity to environmental receptors or humans;

Potential to be bioaccumulated by marine organisms;

Environmental persistence;

Information indicating that Massachusetts Bays water or sediment is being "en-
riched" as a result of loading.

IX

Based on these criteria, the following general categories of materials were initially selected
for the study:

Total suspended solids;

Oxygen-consuming substances (biochemical oxygen demand or BOD;;

Nutrients, including nitrogen and phosphorus;

Oil and grease;

Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs);

Pesticides and Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs);

Selected metals, including cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, zinc, mercury,
arsenic, selenium, beryllium, silver and nickel;

Pathogens (viruses and bacteria).

Comparisons of sources and drainage areas were made for total suspended solids, BOD,
nitrogen, phosphorus, oil and grease, PAHs, PCBs, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, zinc
and mercury. For some of the selected materials, data were insufficient to compare the
relative magnitude of various sources. Comparisons were not made for pathogens or
pathogen indicators, since they are a greater problem on a local rather than a bay-wide scale.
However, based on surveys conducted by the Massachusetts Department of Environmental
Protection, point and nonpoint sources are important contributors of pathogens at the local
level. Few data are available on pesticides and other synthetic organic compounds, and their
loads were not evaluated in detail in this report.

Information on sources is presented for:

1. Point Sources - estimates were made for all major point sources throughout the
drainage areas feeding the Massachusetts Bays system. For the Merrimack River,
point sources were considered up to the Lowell Dam;

2. Coastal Point Sources - estimates were made for major point sources that discharge
directly to coastal embay ments or to the open bay waters;

3. Rivers - estimates were made of loadings associated with 27 river systems;

4. Runoff from Drainage Basins - estimates were made of runoff in the five major
drainage basins (ME, NS, BH, SS, and CC);

5. Groundwater Discharges - estimates were made for nutrients and toxics in Boston
Harbor and nitrogen for Cape Cod;

6. Coastal Runoff - estimates were made of runoff directiy from the coast into open bay
waters or embayments; this analysis considers a zone of 0.5 miles from the coast as
contributing directiy as coastal runoff;

7. Locations of areas where sediments exhibit elevated levels of contaminants - these
areas may indicate the presence of other sources and may, themselves, act as sources;

8. Locations of Hazardous Waste Sites within 500 Feet of a river or coastline - the
presence of these sites indicates a potential for a release; however, no effort was
made in this study to confirm if releases have occurred;

9. Ocean Disposal of Dredged Material - this results in movement of materials from
near-shore embayments or channels to the offshore Massachusetts Bay Disposal Site
(MBDS): While the contaminants are already "in-place" within the marine system
and are the result of point and non-point sources, offshore disposal of dredged
material provides a mechanism by which contaminants may be moved and introduced
directiy to offshore areas. Therefore, within this document, dredged material is
viewed as a source with regard to offshore areas; this is consistent with the approach
taken in other coastal areas (e.g.. New York Bight);

10. Atmospheric Deposition - estimates are provided for the major areas of the bays (ME,
NS, BH, SS, CC). It is estimated as direct input and does not attempt to determine
what portion of run off is from atmospheric sources.

Some of these sources of contaminants to the bays overlap. For example, estimates of runoff
from entire drainage basins would include inputs to the bays from rivers. This overlap made
it possible to calculate and compare loadings using more than one method. In this study, two
approaches (A and B) were used to estimate loadings to Massachusetts Bay. These differed
primarily in the way loadings from watersheds were considered.

For Method A, loads were estimated as the sum of all discrete loadings to the drainage
basins. This involved estimating loads by drainage basins as the sum of loads from (1) all
major National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) discharges to the drainage
basin; (2) all runoff from the drainage area; and (3) for selected parameters and areas for
which data are available, groundwater flow from the drainage basin. Total load to
Massachusetts Bay was estimated as the sum of these loadings, plus the loadings from
atmospheric deposition onto the water surface and disposal of dredged material at the MBDS
site. This will overestimate total load somewhat because the disposal of dredged material
actually involves movement of contaminants that have already entered the system via various
point and non-point sources. Note that contribution from inplace sediments is not included,
leading to some underestimation of total loadings.

For Method B, loads were estimated for each drainage area as the sum of (1) major NPDES
discharges for only the coastal discharges; (2) river disch2Lrges; (3) runoff from coastal
areas, defined as the area within 0.5 miles of shore (except for Cape Cod Bay for which total
runoff was used); and (4) groundwater flow for the selected parameters and drainage basins.
Similar to Method A, loads from atmospheric deposition and disposal of dredged material
were added to this sum to provide an overall estimate of loadings to the Massachusetts Bays
system.

There is considerable uncertainty in the estimates and this is described in detail within the
report. Loadings for most contaminants and sources are presented as ranges. For a number
of contaminants and sources there were no available measurements or the available data were
judged to be unreliable. When this was the case, concentrations and loads were estimated
from literature values or from extrapolations from similar systems. Most data on runoff, for
example, were obtained from the NO A A National Coastal Pollutant Discharge Inventory
(NCPDI), a database that probably provides the best available estimates of runoff for the
region but which relies on extrapolations from "typical" conditions. Data on loads from
river flow were also frequently estimated from typical values reported in the literature rather
than based upon actual data.

FAtimates of Loadings

The report should be consulted for details on estimates and the associated uncertainties.
Here, we present summary information based on the upper estimates of loadings from the
Merrimack River (ME), North Shore (NS), Boston Harbor (BH), South Shore (SS), Cape
Cod (CC), and "directly" to the Bay (Figures i-iv). These figures present results using
Method A only. In order to illustrate the data, loadings estimates are presented in "log"
format in the figures. Thus, the "Y" axis increases by factors of 10 (e.g., 10, 100, l.CXX),
etc.). A value that appears to be only a few times greater than another value, may actually
be 10 to 1(X) times greater. Based on the analyses performed during this study, a few
general observations can be made:

• The Merrimack River, North Shore, and Boston Harbor drainage areas are the
dominant sources of pollutants. They contain the greatest number of major
NPDES discharges, riverine inputs, as well as the highest concentration of
identified hazardous waste sites. Of these three drainage areas, Boston Harbor
was generally the largest source;

• NPDES discharges are the most important sources of nitrogen, phosphorous,
and biochemical oxygen demand;

• For drainage areas that are serviced predominately by septic systems (e.g.,
Cape Cod), groundwater can be the major source of nitrogen to nearshore
waters;

XII

• For toxic organic compounds and metals, the relative importance of point and
nonpoint sources depends on the compound. There is also considerable
uncertainty in these estimates;

• The atmosphere can be an important source of the toxic organic compounds
PAHs and PCBs;

• Sediments exhibiting elevated levels of organic compounds or metals occur as
localized "patches" within some rivers and harbors. This has been observed
in Boston and Salem Harbors;

• Bacterial contamination, nutrient enrichment, and oxygen-related problems
have been identified in a number of coastal and river environments. The
localized occurrence of these conditions indicates the importance of local point
and nonpoint sources of bacteria, nutrients, and oxygen-consuming substances
and underscores the need to evaluate effects and sources at the right spatial
scales.

Freshwater Flow

Freshwater flow to the bays was estimated. The total annual discharge from the Merrimack
River accounted for 52% of the freshwater flow to the system based on the assumption that
100% of the flow enters Massachusetts Bay. Rainfall accounted for 28%. If the Merrimack
River were excluded from calculations, rainfall would account for 58% of the total input of
freshwater to the bays. While nonpoint sources dominated the inputs from most of the
drainage basins, inputs from the Deer and Nut Island POTWs dominated the flow into Boston
Harbor.

Our estimates did not include estimates of inputs of freshwater from the Gulf of Maine. This
source may in fact provide the greatest inputs of freshwater to the system, so its exclusion is
significant.

The estimates that we do provide are subject to uncertainty. Annual river flows were
estimated using several techniques, depending upon whether gauge measurements were
available. Seasonal and year-to-year variability in flow is also high. This variability will
affect the input of contaminants as well as the amount of water to the system.

Total Suspended Solids Fig. i

Loadings of total suspended solids were calculated using both Methods A and B. No data
were available to consider atmospheric inputs, but inputs from other sources ranged from
299,000-555,000 metric tons per year (mt/yr). Disposal of dredged material was a major
source of solids, accounting for 31% of the Method A and 60% of the Method B estimate.

XIII

In the case of dredged material, the loading represents movement of sediments (solids; from
nearshore areas to an offshore location.

Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) Fig. i

Estimates of BOD loadings were almost identical using Methods A and B, about 180,000
mt/yr. Most of the loads were due to inputs from NPDES discharges. The Boston Harbor
NPDES outfalls accounted for approximately one half of the coastal NPDES inputs to the
bays.

Total Nitrogen (N) Fig, i

The NPDES discharges also accounted for major portions of the inputs of nitrogen to the
system, 66% of 28,000 mt/yr for the Method A and 43% of 36,000 mt/yr for the Method B
estimate. For Method A, runoff and atmospheric deposition were other important sources.
For Method B, river discharges accounted for 37% of the inputs.

Groundwater discharges were calculated only for Boston Harbor and Cape Cod Bay. For
Cape Cod, groundwater appeared to be an important nearshore source for nitrogen and was
ten times higher than the contribution from runoff.

ToUd Phosphorus (P) Fig. i

Approximately 3,880-4,100 mt/yr total phosphorus are introduced to the bays using Methods
A and B. These estimates did not include inputs from dredged material. However dredged
material accounted for only about 5% of the inputs of nitrogen, the other nutrient examined.
NPDES discharges accounted for 82% of the Method A and 71% of the Method B estimate.

Oil and Grease Fig. ii

An estimate of 13,000 mt/yr oil and grease into the bays was obtained using Method A.
Based upon the available information, nonpoint source runoff is probably the major source of
oil and grease to the bays. Dredged material disposal is also important as a mechanism for
movement of oil and grease from one location to another.

XIV

PAHs Fig, U

We found considerable variability in the estimates of PAH loads to the system, largely
because few measurements of PAH estimates have been made. Our estimates were therefore
based upon ranges of values that we considered typical. Using our higher estimates, which
assumed that municipal effluents contain average concentrations of PAHs of about 10 ug/1,
Methods A and B resulted in approximately the same input, 13,100-13,700 kg/yr. The
NPDES discharges to Boston Harbor dominated these estimates. Those values probably
rq>resent an extreme worst-case high estimate.

More recent, but preliminary, data, indicate that average concentrations of PAHs in
municipal effluents are far lower than assumed by our high estimates, about 0. 1 ug/1. Even
using an average concentration of 1 ug/1, the total loads were 1,819 kg/yr for Method A and
2,200 kg/yr for Method B. The NPDES discharges accounted for one third to one half of
these estimates. Using the lower estimates, atmospheric deposition appeared to be an
important source of PAHs to the system, 52% for Method A and 43% for Method B.

PCBs Fig. U

Total load of PCBs to the bays was approximately 2,600 kg/yr using both Methods A and B.
The similarity of these estimates results from the dominance of our estimate by atmospheric
deposition. This estimate was based upon data collected during the mid 1970s, and the
current value may be less.

Estimated inputs of PCBs from NPDES discharges ranged from 416-468 kg/yr, which is
about 20% of the total load. However, there is uncertainty in these estimates because most
measurements are reported as being below the detection limits. A value below the detection
limit was selected for the purpose of developing an estimate. Recent, preliminary data
indicate that the selected value may be high. Similar to PAHs, the estimates presented in
this report for inputs from NPDES discharges represent an upper or worst case estimate.

Cadmium (Cd) Fig, iU

There is considerable uncertainty in the estimates of cadmium inputs to the bays, because few
measurements have been made of cadmium in point sources. Using high estimates of these
values, we calculated inputs of 8,020-14,700 kg/yr. NPDES discharges accounted for 34%
of the Method A and 17% of the Method B estimates. Runoff accounted for 30% of the
Method A estimate, and river discharge accounted for 66% of the Method B estimate,
assuming an average concentration in rivers of 1 ug/1.

XV

Chromium (Cr) Fig, Hi

Similarly, few data were available for chromium concentrations in NPDES discharges.
Using high estimates for chromium in NPDES discharges for Methods A and B, 84,000-
120,000 kg/yr enter the bays. NPDES discharges accounted for 53% of the Method A
estimate and 35% of the Method B estimate. Runoff accounted for 24% of the Method A
estimate. Rivers accounted for 47% of the Method B estimate, assuming an average
concentration of chromium in river waters of 6 ug/1.

Copper (Cu) Fig, Hi

Methods A and B provided similar estimates of copper inputs to the bay, 150,000 and
190,000 kg/yr. Point and nonpoint sources were both important contributors to the overall
load. NPDES discharges accounted for 57% and 37% of the Methods A and B estimates,
respectively. Runoff accounted for 25% of the Method A estimate, and rivers accounted for
50% of the Method B estimate, assuming an average concentration in river water of 10 ug/1.

Lead (Pb) Fig. iU

Lead inputs, however, were dominated by estimates of inputs from nonpoint sources. Based
on Method A, an estimated 470,000 kg/yr enter the bays. Method B yields 540,000 kg/yr.
NPDES discharges accounted for less than 10% of these estimates. Runoff accounted for
42% of the inputs, using Method A and assuming concentrations in CSOs of 92 ugA.
Atmospheric deposition was also an important source of lead, accounting for 45% of the
Method A and 39% of the Method B estimates.

Zinc (Zn) Fig. iv

Zinc inputs were estimated as 419,000-536,000 kg/yr using Methods A and B. NPDES
discharges, runoff, and atmospheric deposition contributed approximately equally to these
values. NPDES discharges accounted for about 35% of the total load. Assuming an average
concentration of 30 ug/1, rivers accounted for 53% of the Method B estimate.

Mercury (Hg) Ftg. iv

Mercury inputs were estimated using only Method A. Point source loads were difficult to
estimate, because the only available data were for the MWRA outfalls into Boston Harbor.
Those data included only values that were below detection limits. Extrapolations from these
limited data therefore represented a worst-case estimate. Using the limited available
information, point sources were the major sources of mercury to the bays, accounting for
about one half the total load. Runoff, dredged material, and atmospheric inputs also
contributed to the mercury loads.

XVI

Qualifications and Data Gaps

In addition to the uncertainties inherent in each of the estimates of pollutant inputs to the
bays, there are other factors that affect interpretation or use of the information included in
this report. For example, the fate and effects of contaminants entering the system will differ,
dq)«iding upon the methods by which they are introduced. Atmospheric deposition, for
example, is spread out over a wide area, while an NPDES discharge is located at a specific
site. The horizontal and vertical (water depth) modes in which contaminants are introduced
are important with regard to subsequent fate and effects. In order to understand the
significance of a source, its location, spatial extent, and resultant exposure concentrations
must be understood.

Inputs also vary seasonally. River flow, nonpoint source runoff, and groundwater discharge
are aU expected to vary seasonally. Stormwater runoff will vary not only seasonally, but
periodically, when large rainfall events increase runoff from storm drains and CSOs.

Also, seemingly constant inputs, such as those from the major NPDES discharges, may vary
with the changes in the hydrodynamics of their receiving waters. Concentrations of
contaminants in the receiving waters may be higher during periods of low flow than they are
during periods of high flow when they are diluted by larger volumes of water.

Several data gaps were identified during preparation of the report:

• Few data were available on sources of PAHs. However, these are considered
to be an important group of compounds in the Massachusetts Bay system.

• Although heavily contaminated sediments have been identified in the report, it
is unclear if they should be considered as sources. Resuspension of
contaminants from the sediments has not been considwed in our comparison of
relative magnitude of sources of contaminants to the bays.

• Information on loadings is presented at various spatial scales. However, it is
unclear how the different spatial scales affect the fate and effects of the
contaminants.

• Oil spills and other infrequent large-scale events were not considered in the
estimates of sources.

• Marine pumpout facilities and other discharges from marinas were not
included;

• Loadings of nitrogen from groundwater appears to be an important source of
nutrients to embayments along the shores of Cape Cod. There is insufficient
data to verify that this is the case.

XVII

■

o 3

-• ■

a. a

Si

3
o

O

Dl

> z
I t

• m

CO

o a

•* O

Z CO

m O

S •

D

o
c

3

a
<

3 •

3

^ O

-« o o

» -• o o o

5 -• o o o o

" — o o o o o

2 I — I I I Turn — r i r iirtn — r i i Jinri — r-rrmw. — i i ttiiTX

3

a.
m

3
o
m

?

(A
R

o

C

o
o
o
o
o
o

, 3

CD

CA

(5

a.

30

3 S.

?:

li

o •

3 ^
0.0

« -

o

o

I

I

Dl

Major NPDES
Almoaphere

01

1'=

•

0
0

c
a
0.
<

-^ o

o o

o o

o o

J I lllll

m\m\S\>NmWN{iN

OD

to

o
o

CD

^^^^^^^^

^

o
S

*

O

o

N

•

O

o
a

'?

•<

N

s
5

<

*

z

M

H

Z

O

y
o

?

O

o

IB

o
o

o
o
o

o
o
o
o

o
o
o
o
o

o

CD
Q.
09

o
o

<

(D

o

SL

O

o

3

o

a»
o

m

CO

CD

CO
CD

o
o

o

1 III llllll 1 II 1 1 MM

vmm>i\m\>\mm\\m\\m\v>;{(;;!m(H

1

.\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\V^^^Hi

1

a\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\m^^

1

H»U»V»^>\\\\\»»\«»U\»\tl

1

\\immm>\\\>\\m\v\«

mvmwmms

/^\

2

' 1

1

J

i^

I CO

^ cr

Q.

3

0

D)

(S
0)

i

a

e

s

«<
I

e

3
o

<•

8

(A 9

O ^

0) i

s *■

o I

H Z

«?
0» H

^Z

o ^

If

I"

II

O B»

ff

Dl

> z

S 5

• m

CO

I s

I §

o
o

o
o
o

o
o
o
o

I I I mill I I I mm — i i i iiiiii — i i i iiiii

CD

•<

o

9

OP

<

«

o

-^

(0

3

0)

O

(/} /

CD/

d

fit

a.

9

3
o

CO

o
o

0>

3

a
3

Q>
CO
0

in

c

CD

O
P
Q.
0)

(Q
D)

o

O

E"

S"

o
o

o
o
o

o
o
o
o

1 r 1 ^TTTTi 1 — 1 1 1 Hill 1 iitmn i i iiiin

mmmmv^^H

^^H

mm\mm^>{{9(«^

1

O

1 1

ii:::::::::-::::::=::::|

1

§ i

mini I I I II

\>m'm>imm\\'(iK^^

^

e

3

<

Q.

D
D)
(O
CD

(^

0
03

'IIIIIIIIIHtllHIHHIHIIIITimill'

i
■
■
■
■
■

v>

w

o
c

0*
3-

(0

ar
o

11 ••

3

a

3

0)

o
S 30

O
O

»

■o

<D

O
Q.

e»
<

II

o

o

<

(D

(A

II

O
3

3-

CO

ar
o

OS

o

C0

o

■
i
i
■
i
i

m

i
1

= 3-
J? ©

OB

tt

<

CO

c

a
w

0)

<

(D

a

ar
3
o

CD

n

CO

i 3

3 t

H

II

SS

e
o

s

o

e

s

I I iiiin I I I mill

^^

'^^9^(^^^09^^Q«C!^9QQ^Q«9(S^Q9(«Q9«

J

^^^

o
o

xss\ssss\ss\s

WsSSSSSi

n

3

o

(A

•o

o

^ =1

o
o

e
e
o
o
I I iiiiii

e
e
o
e
e

&? i ^

rrmi

<9999996^9Q999«i(9d9i999^9^9^

s ■

'^^«^(«I^^9C!QC!9«9Q«N!«9W

^^^ms^sssss^ssssssssssiss^

^SiSS^m^SSiiSSi

o
o

p

S\\\\\V\\^

1

*JSSS«SSSSSSSSSS$S«JSSS?SS5S«^

J?

s

Q.
(Q

<D
Q.

OB
^^
<D

OB

C

g

s^sssssssssssss^sssss^ss^

sssss^ssssss^ssssssssssssssssss^

o
c

3
Q.

OB

o

^s

o
o

p

^^^

^^

o

Q.
C/)

N

3

o

Q.

o

m

M s s*

y N •■

M s

E ^

o» i
s «■

.• s

n ^
or

M Z
"^

0» II

• Z
a ^

II ,•

§

CO

z
II

oi

SZ

O tt

o ^

S

"2.

<

t

Dl

3

o

o

0)

(D

Q.

3
O

3:

Q.

o

s

0)

»

o

r*

M

o

ii

l[

I (
i

s

■ ■iii.iBHiaBBaiiiii

.1 I iiiim

{QQ$$$$s$s$$$$s$$$QSQ$$s$Q$$Q$$;

!Q$$$Q$$$$Q$($Q($$$$QSQ$9QQ$^^

!SQSssQS$$QS!S9$Q$;s!S$$$$SQ$i$s$!$$s;

S

sWWWW^

^S^

f

sWWWWWH

f

s

I mini

H '

C>NC^^KCCC^C>S>^^X^K!^^CS»^^CS?C^

vVSSvVVM

o
o

I

kV\\\VV\\VSS\V\V\VN

'mMMM^M^^MM^^MM'

s

I

CO

c

3

<

S r-
=■ o

SI a

CD tJ

? u-
(20

O

c

1.0 INTRODUCTION

This report identifies and quantifies sources and loadings of pollutants to the
Massachusetts Bays system. This report provides the results of Task 1 of the
Massachusetts Bays rrogram (MBP). The MBP is jointly administered by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Massachusetts Coastal Zone
Management (CZM). The MBP is developing a plan for conservation and
management of the estuarine waters from the New Hampshire border to Race Point
on Cape Cod. The plan will cover Massachusetts and Cape Cod bays.

1.1 Objectives

Over the past several years, investigators and regulators have approached marine
pollution and waste management issues within a risk assessment/risk management
framework (e.g., Bierman et al., 1985). The Massachusetts Bays Program embodies
many of the key elements of this framework. In simple terms, the overall elements
of any marine risk assessment/risk management program include the following:

1. Hazard Identification (what conditions are thought
to pose a hazard)

2. Source Identification and Characterization

3. E?qposure Assessment

- Fate and Transport studies

- Estimates of Exposure Point Concentrations

4. Effects Assessment

- Acute, subchronic, and chronic effects on
marine organisms

- Acute, subchronic, and chronic effects on
humans using marine resources

5. Risk Characterization

6. Risk Management

- Where can efforts be best spent to reduce risks?

This report provides information related to the first elements of the risk
assessment/risk management framework:

1. Hazard identification

2. Source identification and characterization

The objectives are to identify and characterize the compounds or biological agents
and estimate the loadings of these pollutants to the Massachusetts Bays system.
This information has been developed to identify specific sources of the compounds.
Such information is important for facilitating sound management decisions.

In summary the proposed objectives for Task 1 of the MBP are:

1. Idemify chemical compounds and biological agents that may pose hazards
to the Massachusetts bays system;

2. Identify and characterize point and nonpoint sources and loadings of these
compounds and agents;

3. Gather and organize information to be compatible with fate and
transport modeling efforts and with regulatory and research programs
used to make decisions concerning the need for and efficacy of source
controls;

4. Integrate information from the concurrent Massachusetts Water
Resources Authority (MWRA) program and address data gaps as needed.

1.2 Report Organization

The technical approach used in the study is presented in Chapter 2. A discussion of
the various watersheds that feed the Massachusetts Bays system is provided in
Chapter 3 and provides a basis for organizing data on point and nonpoint sources.
The locations and magnitudes of point and nonpoint sources are described in
Chapters 4 and 5 respectively. An overview of contaminant loadings and an
assessment of these foadings is given in Chapter 6. This chapter also identifies
sources of uncertainty and data gaps in the estimates of loadings.

2.0 TECHNICAL APPROACH

2.1 General Approach

The approach employed in this study was to identify important poUutants being
discharged to the Massachusetts Bays system, quantify to the extent possible the
point and nonpoint source loads of these chemicals, and organize this information at
several spatial scales. An effort was made to obtain the most recent data available.
In some cases, where data gaps or data of poor quadity existed, estimates were made
based on available data in the literature or based on extrapolation from similar
systems. An example is the loading of lead via National Pollutant EHscharge
Elimination System (NPDES) outMls. We recognize that lead will probably be
present in virtually all Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW) effluents.
However, it is not measured in all effluents (i.e., it is not reported in their Discharge
Monitoring Reports). To obtain an estimate of loadings, we developed a ratio of
lead to total suspended solids (TSS) for other POTWs in the system and applied this
ratio to the TSS levels measured at the POTWs for which there were no lead data.

Wherever possible we have identified uncertainties associated with the data. We
have also included an annotated bibliography of data sources as Appendix A of this
document. This bibliography provides additional information on tne data bases and
also provides some basis for evaluating the quality of underlying data.

2.2 Selection of Compounds and/or Biological Agents

The assessment considered a specific set of compounds and/or biological agents
judged to have the potential for posing a hazard to the Massachusetts Bays System.
The selection of these compounds was a critical part of the program because it
provides the framework for subsequent data collection and analysis efforts.

Several criteria were considered in selecting the compounds and/or biological
agents to be included in the analysis. The primary cnteria are the following:

• The potential for the compounds to degrade the quality or impair the use
of Massachusetts Bays water;

• The inherent toxicity of the chemical to environmental receptors or

humans;

• The potential for the chemical to be bioaccumulated by marine organisms;

• The environmental persistence of the compounds;

• Information indicating that Massachusetts Bays water or sediment is being
"enriched" as a result of the loading of the compound.

Based on the criteria provided above the following general categories of materials
were selected for the analyses:

• Total suspended soHds

• Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs);

• Environmentally persistent chlorinated organic compounds (e.g., PCBs,
pesticides);

• Selected metals including lead, cadmium, chromium, mercury, copper,
arsenic, selenium, beryllium, silver and nickel;

• Oxygen consuming substances (BOD);

• Nutrients;

• Pathogens (viruses/bacteria in wastewater).

2.3 Consideration of Spatial Scales

Loadings to Massachusetts Bays are estimated at several spatial scales. This has
been done in recognition of the fact that environmental problems may be
manifested at various spatial scales and to provide a basis for identifying which
sources or which regions are most "important" with regard to loadings to
Massachusetts Bays. The spatial scales included in the analyses are as follows:

1. Point Sources - estimates are provided individually for all major point
sources throughout the drainage areas feeding the Massachusetts Bays
system;

2. Coastal Point Sources - estimates are provided individually for major
point sources that discharge directly to coastal embayments or to the
open bay waters;

3. Rivers - estimates are provided for point sources by river and for total
loadings associated with each major river discharge to the bays; twenty-
seven river systems are considered in the analysis;

4. Drainage Basins - estimates are provided for point sources, runoff, and, in
few cases, groundwater discharges; the system has been broken up into
five drainage basins for the purpose of this analysis: Merrimack, North
Shore, Boston Harbor, South Shore, and Cape Cod (Figure 1);

5. Coastal Runoff - estimates are provided for runoff directly from the coast

into open bay waters or embavrnents; this analysis considers a zone of 0.5
miles from the coast as contributing directly as coastal runoff; these
estimates are made for each drainage basin;

6. Locations of In-place Sediments and Hazardous Waste Sites within 500
Feet of a Surface Waterbody Draining to Massachusetts Bays - this
information is presented in terms of the locations of such sediments or
waste sites;

7. Ocean Disposal of Dredged Material - this is considered as a direct input
to the bays and occurs at the DAMOS site;

8. Inputs of Atmospheric Deposition - these estimates are provided for the
major areas of the bays.

Source information organized within these various spatial scales should help provide
linkage between the fate and effects of chemicals in the bays and specific sources.

2.4 Quality Assurance

The analysis presented in this report relies upon data obtained from a variety of
sources which may differ in quality and level of documentation. To provide some
basis for evaluating the quality of the underlying data each data source is described
in Appendix A along with comments related to the apparent quality of the data. A
detailed review of these data was beyond the scope of this program. Nevertheless,
the probable ranges and values of data were assessed using appropriate "reality
checks". Where data were suspect we nevertheless used it, but provided
qualifications regarding its usefulness. Data judged to be unrehable are not used in
Chapter 6 where an assessment is made of overdl loadings of pollutants to the Bays.

The effort involved entry of many data points into spreadsheets and calculations of
loadings using these spreadsheets. Quality Assurance included a review of data
entry and generally several reviews of calculations.

-^

timmMiimi

MERRIMACK

NORTH SHORE

BOSTON HARi30R

SOUTH SHORE

CAPE COD

T""

0 s 10 muM

FIGURE 1

BROT

C9d C9n*tvi*

■nr

' Catry Banttkm*

a^^ar

^DR.\[!^-\GE BASINS

--■■ '**— -^-> - '^1 nrir nJ

2.5 Integration with Other Programs

Members of the study team participated in exchanges of information with other
MBP Project teams. In addition, information gathered as part of meetings with
citizen's groups was utilized to define and/or supplement data gathering efforts.

2.6 Uncertainty/Sensitivity Analysis

This project yields a variety of estimates of loadings. Underlying these estimates are
various statistical distributions and assumptions. Therefore, there is a certain
amount of uncertainty associated with each estimate. In most cases we have
provided ranges for estimates and have checked estimates in several ways.
Underlying assumptions are identified in Chapters 4 and 5 of this report.

2.7 Source Types

The Water Quality Act of 1987 (PL 100-4) and its predecessor legislation identifies
two categories of water discharges: point and nonpoint sources. However, it is
generally convenient to consider them in the following way:

• Traditional point sources: discharges from POTWs and industrial
wastewater discharges.

• Nontraditional point sources: discharges that are defined as point
sources under the act but that are driven by additional considerations
such as meteorological conditions, e.g., separate municipal storm
sewers, combined sewer overflows.

• Nonpoint sources: everytin^ else, including runoff from nonurban
areas, atmospheric deposition, interflow and groundwater inputs,
inplace sediments, and seeps.

We used these definitions because while the nontraditional point sources are
treated as point sources under the law, they behave in fact liJce nonpoint sources,
and similar methodological approaches are needed to assess them.

3.0 WATERSHED CHARACTERIZATION

3.1 Drainage Areas

The Massachusetts Bays system was organized into five drainage basins within which
twenty-seven major rivers were identified (Figure 1). These drainage basins can be
compared to those established by the Massachusetts Department of Environmental
Protection (DEP) (Figure 2). Tne drainage basins selected for this analysis (Figure
1) were established based on the extent of information available on land use in the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administrations (NOAA) National Coastal
Pollutant Discharge Inventory (NCPDI) file. The United States Geological Survey
(USGS) and County boundaries are shown in Figures 3 and 4 respectively. Data in
the NCPDI were reported by drainage basins denned by the USGS cataloging units,
counties, and units called HUCOs, unique areas made up by overlaying county lines
upon the lines defined by the USGS cataloging units. Because the areal resolution
or the USGS units was too coarse to mimic the five drainage areas, HUCOs or

Portions of HUCOs were attributed to each drainage area. The spatial relationships
etween the drainage areas selected for this study and those used by DEP, NOAA,
and USGS are summarized in Table 1. In one instance, Cape Cod Bay, the drainage
area was a portion of the DEP drainage area.

Table 1 . Drainage areas used In this study and their
relationships to other designated drainage areas.

Drainage Area

Merrimack River
(1,527 km2)

Massachusetts DEP
Coastal Drainage Area

84

(1,960 km2)

NOAA HUCO (County x
USGS Cataloging Unit)

30, 32, 33, 34

North Shore
(1,553 km2)

91, 92, 93
(1,060 km2)

29,31,(40%)35,
(25%)37

Boston Harbor
(1,425 km2)

71, 72, 73, 74
(1,560 km2)

(60%) 35, 36, (75%) 37,
38,42

South Shore
(636 km2)

94

(681 km2)

39, (60%) 43

Cape Cod Bay

(117 km2)

Part of 96

(30%) 45

8

Figure 2. Drainage areas used by the Massachusetts
Department of Environmental Protection

2

>^*<9 1 S ••

■ QBiSO X i ? S M

9 5«ia<» i S S S &
S S«ae««S*«ae

8^

w S

. « s K ;( 8 8 S S X ? 9 8 S S 9 8

« « «

FCF

■jgsaaas^

01070005

P*rr w

10 MiU*

3

FIGURE 3

iwum

CoW Corwpfa

T^

0^•«k«*«l

Cary DonafVii4\

B-«^ix»r

to«^«-

||<J>« & jiat»cialm

iwg h.-^^

Land-use characteristics were developed for each of the five drainage areas using
information presented in the NCPDI. Seven categories of urban environment were
used as well as nonurban (Table 2). The total study area for the five drainage areas

is 5,270 km^. The largest drainage area is the North Shore (1,550 km^) and the

smallest is Cape Cod (118 km^). The drainage area with the highest percentage of
urban environment is Boston Harbor (51%) and the area with the lowest percentage
is the South Shore (17%).

Table 2. Land use within the various drainage areas (km^).

l^ndUse

ReskJentlal

Merrimack

317(73%)

North
Shore

3//(68%)

Boston
Harbor

516(71%)

South
Shore

82.3(76%)

Cape Cod

23.4(67%)

Total
1316(71%)

Commercial

67.4 (16%)

81.9(15%)

107(15%)

6.0(6%)

3.9(11%)

266(14%)

Industrial

3.7(1%)

14.0(3%)

13.8(2%)

0.9(1%)

0.3(1%)

32.7(2%)

Transport.

17.2 (4%)

25.4(5%)

29.8(4%)

9.3 (9%)

1.2(3%)

82.9(4%)

Industrial
/Commercial

0.6

1.5

2.7

0.2

0.3

5.3

Mixed Urban

3.2(1%)

0.2

2.1

2.5

0.9(3%)

8.9

Total Urban

433 (28%)

553(36%)

727(51%)

108(17%)

35(30%)

1856(35%)

Non-Urban

1104(72%)

1000
(64%)

698
(49%)

528
(83%)

83

(70%)

3413
(65%)

Total

1537

1553

1425

636

118

5270

3.2 River Systems

Twenty-seven rivers were considered in this analysis (Table 3). Annual flows for
each nver were estimated from a combination oi gauge measurements and
estimates of river discharge for drainage areas. For rivers with gauges, statistical
summaries of stream flow data were employed to estimate average flow. All USGS
flow data are reported in units of cubic feet per second. For our loading analysis,
flows were converted to cubic meters per second.

12

Table 3. Estimated annual river discharge to Massachusetts Bays

(m3/,)

M

UJ V

u

m '
c

1

3 O) E

e ^ CH

c m

<

21

c

■o

E

«

3,

2

«

3

»«. <~> f^ «* /Vl l"^ />\ /~S f"^ «-N ^^ <«N/VI<*^*n,A#AaA <M^ik .«< <-v .M

r^ o o ^ evj

CM

OOOOOOC0CJO^U)<0"<t'.-t-«Of-OOO

S o

^ CM
CM

d

7;ocMuSoT-r». h-cou)^
d u> d d ^' 1-^ d o d

^ U5

H

CM

00

CM

8f- <D <D <r> ^ <o
in o CM p q h-

CO ^- o o o o ▼-

▼- -I- T- 00
0> CO U5 ^

d d d d

O CM CM ^
,ft "«• o> -^

in

»« O) o> g g

^^88S

S§^^

S?S8S88j^§S

o> <o o ^ - • • CO _. o

1- T- CO

lA

J^ ^ ^ 0> CM

CM 00

CM

O

§ 8

.A lA

in

CM

CO

CM f-
^CM

^
^

CM "

SgS

CM

in

"V ^ h-

CO

d

CO

S.SSffl

«> Oi 5 lO

II
- cc

> o

■=1

^lij

o

oc

QC

0) ^ o ^

-"531351 = 5 65

S£

r « o • g

• 1

|i

jQ A

at in
9 o

2 d

— «
to t5

S ^

if

CO c

II

« £
ll

If

-I

CO ^

si

3 Si

l~

il

ll

UJ

5

^ CM

13

When available, flow data from gauginc stations near the mouths of the coastal
rivers were used. Otherwise, flow data from other stream gauges within the river
drainage basin and nearest the mouth as possible were used, we calculate total
flow as:

Total Flow = Flow at Gauge X Total Drainage Area

Drainage Area Above Gauge

Most minor coastal rivers which drain to Massachusetts Bays system do not have
USGS gauges and many of the major rivers have gauges that capture only part of
the tot5 drainage area. Therefore, flows were estimated using another method.
Throudi information provided in the USGS gazetteers, the drainage areas of minor
as well as major coastal rivers were estimated by multiplying the conversion factor,
1.7 cfs per square mile, by the river's discharge area. Tliis value was calculated as
being typical for such rivers.

Total estimated average annual freshwater flow to Massachusetts Bays via river

discharges is 300 m^/s including the Merrimack and about 60 m^/s excluding the
Merrimack. Flows trom rivers vary seasonally as well as among years. To illustrate
recent variability in river flow to the Massachusetts Bays system, monthly mean flow
values (cfs) are presented in Figures 5 through 7 for the Merrimack, Ipswich, and
Charles Rivers tor 1987 to 1989. The overall seasonal pattern of flow was similar
for these three rivers. Flow tended to be higher in March throu^ May period and
lowest in July through October. Year-to-year variation is clearly evident. For
example, the flow in April 1987 is substantially greater than the flows observed in
1988 and 1989.

14

u. <1>

o o

2 <i>

c >

CO tt

CO v*

0) -g
CO §

u5|

CO

c

(0

0) fe

€0

3 2

w

D>^

H

u.

*«

O

1

o

0)
CO
0)

CO
CO
0>

CO
0)

I

o

Q.

cc

a
I

I

>

CO
CO

o

CO

s

3

o

CO

15

o
u.

Q>

(0

CO ^

Q- (Q

5 0)

£ >

o -^

CO QC

CO _

CO -g

. ^

<D W

Q.

a> —

3

O)

u.

€0

^

o

o
o

0>

00

CO
GO

GO
0>

I

o
a

a
I

•
>

CO
00

o

CO

•

o

CO

16

o

LL
O (0

(0

k.

c

^

o

>

CO

cc

CO

<1>

CO

CO

o

v«

CO

<i> O

^B

3

O)

LL

o
o

(O

0>
CO
0>

a>

I

o

I

o
o

o
o
ca

o
o
o

o
o

00

o
o

(O

o
o

o
o

CM

•
>

CO
09

o

00

•

o

00

17

I

4.0 POINT SOURCE INVENTORY

4.1 General

This section describes the inventory of point source contributions to Massachusetts
Bays and the potential loadings of contaminants from these point sources within
coastal drainage basins to Massachusetts Bays. Under the Water Quality Act of
1987, point sources are identified as discharges from publicly-owned treatment
works (POTWs) and industrial wastewater discharges. Those major point sources
which contribute directly to Massachusetts Bays were identified as well as those
which contribute to rivers, streams, estuaries or near coastal environments which
enter or exchange with the Massachusetts Bays system.

Estimates of loadings are provided for individual dischargers as well as the five
major drainage areas.

Estimates of point source contribution to Massachusetts Bays were made by:

• Indentifying and characterizing the point sources within each
watershed. Emphasis was placed upon obtaining information on the
compounds ana biological agents that are the subject of the analysis.
However, other parameters monitored for thes emuemts were
characterized when available.

• Providing qualitative characterization and, where possible,
quantitative estimates of the contaminant contributions from these
sources.

• Estimating (by extrapolation from other similar discharges) the
concentrations and loadings for sources for which data may be
lacking.

4.2 identification of Point Sources

All major point source discharges within the five drainage basins were identified and
located on USGS maps. The locations of the major point source dischargers are
shown in Figure 8. Annotated USGS maps are being provided separately to CZM.
Major NPDES outfalls which discharge to tributaries of the major coastal rivers are
not displayed on Figure 8. These tributaries include Mill Brook, Concord River,
Assabet River, Sudbury River, Hop River, French Stream and River Meadow River.
The names of the dischargers depicted by number in Figure 8 are provided in Table
4.

18

Table 4. Names of NPDES permit holders depicted by number In

Figure 8.

MAP-ID.

NPDES-#

Facility Name

1

101745

AMESBURY

2

102873

SALISBURY

3

101427

NEWBURYPORT

4

100145

ROCKPORT MTP

5

281

GOULD INC.

6

100625

GLOUCESTER

7

100501

SOUTH ESSEX SEWAGE DIST.

8

100871

MANCHESTER WTP

9

5096

NEW ENGLAND POWER

10

101907

SWAMPSCOTT

11

100552

LYNN SEWER MAIN OUTFALL

11A

100552

LYNN SEWER MAIN 2ND OUTFALL

12

3905

GENERAL ELECTRIC-A.F. PLT 29

13

28193

REFUSE ENERGY SYS! EMS CO.

14

100609

IPSWICH

15

101621

HAVERHILL WPAF

16

100447

GREATER LAWRENCE SO

17

1261

AT&T NORTH ANDOVER

18

100633

LOWELL MSS

19

2225

EXXONC)

20

809

MONSANTO EVERb 1 1 PLANT

21

4740

BOSTON EDISON MYSTIC STATION

22

833

EXXON OIL ISLAND END

23

4731

BOSTON EDISON CO-NEW BOSTON STATION

24

101192

BOSTON WATER & SEWER COMMISSIONC)

25

4898

CAMBRIDGE ELEC.-KENDAI 1 SO.

26

101231

HULL

27

101737

MARSHFIELD

28

100587

PLYMOUTH

29

3557

BOSTON EDISON PYLGRIM PLANT

30

4928

CANAL ELECTRIC PLANT-1

31

102351

MWRA DEER ISLAND OUTFALL

32

102361

MWRA SLUDGE OUTFALL

33

1023S2

MWRA NUT ISLAND OU I FALL

34

281

BOSTIC CHEMICAL GROUP

35

7

MWRA TROPOSED" OUTFALL

(•)= REFER TO TEXT

RED = INDUSTRIAL DISCHARGERS
BLUE= MUNICIPAL; DISCHARGERS

20

Point source discharges include NPDES-permitted outfalls. The NPDES permits
include industrial as well as municipal facilities. Wastewater discharges to all
surface waters in the Commonwealth are regulated by permits which co-issued by
EPA and DEP. This system sets levels of effluent quahty to be maintained by the
POTWs and the industrial dischargers and designates implementation schedules for
meeting effluent limits for discharges that contribute to water quality standards
violations. NPDES permits are usually reviewed and reissued every five years.

NPDES facilities are either designated as major or minor dischargers. The major
NPDES facilities are closely monitored by the regulatory agencies. Tlie discharges
from the niajor facilities must meet more effluent limits than the discharges fi^om
the minor NPDES facilities.

There are several factors that determine whether a facility should be listed as a
major or minor NPDES discharger.

If a facility is a steam electric power plant with a power output of 500 MW or
greater (not using a cooling pond or lake) and/or has a cooling water discharge
greater than 25% of the receiving water body's seven-day, ten-year mean low-flow
rate, then the facility is automatically listed as a major NPDES discharger. When the

facility does not fall under this category, then a series of parameters must be
evaluated for the facility. For instance, the NPDES regulatory permit writers take
into account the quantity and type of wastewater discharge from the facility. The
permit writer scores the facihty for not only the quantity and type of wastewater
discharged, but also its relationship to the receivmg stream low flow. The
wastewater type is determined based on the relative volumes of noncontact cooling
water, process wastewater (resulting from most manufacturing processes, contact
cooling water, and contaminated simace water run-off), and other wastewaters in
the total combined discharge from the facility.

The SIC code or codes of a fadlity is another parameter which must be evaluated by
the NPDES permit writer. The SIC code represents the activity at the facility and
indicates the toxic pollutant potential of its discharges. For example, a large metal
finishing plant which discharges a large quantity of process wastewater could be
potentiSly discharging toxic concentrations of metals into a river.

Once a NPDES facility has been assigned a major or minor designation, then its
permit information is mcluded in the Permit Compliance System (PCS) computer
data base.

In support of the current project, the EPA Region I Resource Information Center
conducted two kinds of computer searches and provided summarized data to
Menzie-Cura for each Massachusetts major NPDES discharger within the selected
drainage areas. The resultant reports included:

• An Effluent Statistical Summary Report, which summarizes effluent
data on an annual basis for 1988, 1989, and 1990;

• A Facnity Information Report, which provides general information on
the facility (discharger).

21

These data were used to estimate loadings and to map the locations of the major
outfalls. For some discharges, telephone calls were made to local communities to
determine the approximate locations of the outfalls.

4.3 Point Source Loadings
4.3.1 Data Sources

Estimates of loadings were made for major point source dischargers using the
following data sources:

Computer searches conducted by EPA Region I;

NPDES permit applications;

Discharge Monitoring Reports (DMRs);

301(h) studies;

Massachusetts Division of Water Pollution Control

survey reports.

The DMRs were used as the primary source of information on discharge flow and
on the concentrations of pollutants. However, NPDES dischargers are required to
monitor for a hmited number of parameters and, thus, there are data gaps in the
available information. Table 5 provides a summary of which compounds are
monitored at each of the effluents. Often the data did not include toxic
components, but only conventional pollutants. We extraaed and tabulated the
available effluent monitoring data from the DMRs for all existing point sources.

r>

«0

a
o

• •

5

%

0)

Ul

Q

o.
z

o

E

o

i

c
o

E

«o

TS
C
3

i

E
o
o

lO

CD
O

o.

fl
X

<
a.

o

8

I

I

8
I

I

(0

XX

<
8

<
8

<
o

<

IL

8

i

I

I

o

(0

<
8

8
o

UJ

lU

I

I

J

1

<

8

(0

I

Ui

23

I

3

J

t.

a.
o
o

¥

3
1

O

E

3
1

O

<
o

<

<
8

<
8

I

t

I
1

t

<
o
<
u.

I

t

<
8
I

<
8

CO

I I ■ f

8
I

u.

r

f

s

<

8

<
I

3

<

8

?%l

■fi!

O

COi

* X

s

• <
UJ

<!l

<

8

lU

c

a. ■

11

o cr

24

1

s

a.

0.

Q

o

CO
0)

I-

I

f

CO

<
o

f
I

UJ

I

£

lu

8

I

I

<

8

*
s:

i

ui

25

8

N

z

I

I

O

o

3

E
I

E

IS
o

I

f

z

■

<

lU

1

UJ

Ul

8

rl

Si

<
8

o

UJ

26

Over the last ten j^ears, the Massachusetts Division of Water Pollution Control
(DWPC) has obtained wastewater discharge data for streams and rivers. Additional
monitoring data was available for 1983 to 1990 for some NPDES outfalls depending
how often the drainage basin was surveyed.

The wastewater discharge data are presented in survey reports for designated river
basins. Often these reports include data on the efQuent discharge characteristics of
the industrial and municipal discharges in that particular river basin. Typically, the
DWPC data are from grao samples taken at various outfalls within a particular river
basin. DWPC also periodically analyzes wastewater discharges for contaminants
that are not specified in the NFDES outfall's permit in addition to typically
monitored pollutants.

MWRA provided combined loadings associated with MWRA effluents and sludge
for their Nut Island and Deer Islandplants. The contribution of each of the facihties
was estimated to be 70% from Deer island and 30% from Nut Island. MWRA data
are from Menzie-Cura (1991), the MWRA Facilities Plan for Secondary Treatment,
and the Metcalf and Eddy (1990) pilot treatment study.

The major sources of data for POTWs besides the DMRs or obtained directly from
MWRA are 301(h) waiver applications. These applications, maintained on file at
the EPA Region I Library, provide detailed characterizations of the effluent
characteristics from the plant. These documents do not exist for aU treatment plants
since not all plants have applied for a waiver under the 301(h) program. However,
where they do exist, the data have been incorporated into the point source
contaminant characterization data base. Several of the major coastal POTWs have
developed information on wastewater characteristics as part of 301(h) applications.
These mclude the South Essex Sewage District (SESD) plant. Since the
preparation of the SESD 301(h) waiver application in 1986, the mass of pollutants
entering the plant has decreased by approximately 50% based on discussion with
EPA personnel. This condition has been ascribed to the pretreatment of wastes by
industry and by the closing of many of leather tanning businesses in the service
territory.

4.3.2 Calculation of NPDES Loadings

Loadings were estimated for the following parameters: biochemical oxygen demand,
total phosphorus, total nitrogen, total suspended solids, oil and grease, nonvolatile
and volatile organic compounds, polynuciear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), PCBs,
phthalate esters, and metals including cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, nickel,
and zinc. Total nitrogen was estimated as the sum of total kjelaahl nitrogen, nitrate,
and nitrite. Nondetectable concentrations were assumed to be zero.

27

In PCS effluent summary reports, loads were often cited in kg/day for BOD,
phosphorus, and total suspended solids. If the monitoring reports did not give loads,
they were calculated as:

Load = contaminant concentration ^ annaal flow

The annual mean concentration was specified in each NPDES facility's effluent
summary report. Depending on the type of permit, the reported mean
concentration was eifiier a monthly or weekly average. If the report did not include
mean concentration the daily maximum concentration was used if flows were
continuous rather than intermittent stormwater. Within the NPDES summary
permit reports, annual flow data were usually given for the major outfalls.

Many major NPDES facilities have more than one permitted discharge (outfall).
However, some of these outfalls are overflow pipes or stormwater culverts which do
not continuously discharge. These outfalls will have variable flow. The ciurent
analysis distinguishes between wastewater effluents and intermittent stormwater
discharges. Tlie latter are not estimated in this section of the report but are
included under nonpoint sources.

The estimated loads from the major NPDES discharges were added together for
each of the five coastal drainage areas. The Merrimack River Drainage Area
includes the Merrimack River, Mill Brook, Concord River, Sudbury River, River
Meadow River and Assabet River. The North Shore Drainage Area includes the
Parker River, Ipswich River, Saugus River, Rockport Harbor, Gloucester Harbor,
Manchester Harbor, Salem Harbor, Lynn Harbor, and King Harbor, and Nahant
Bay. The Boston Harbor Drainage Area includes the Mystic River, Charles River,
Neponset River, and Weymouth & Weir Rivers. The South Shore Drainz^e Area
includes Plymouth Harbor, North River and Massachusetts Bay. Finally, Cape Cod
includes Cape Cod Bay.

The annual loads of a pollutant from a major NPDES discharge were calculated for
the years, 1986 to 1990 when flow and concentration data were available. Minimum
and maximum loads were determined from the range of annual loads. Often
municipal facilities have upgraded the plant and the effects of upgrades can be seen
when comparing the annual pollutant loads.

Data were generally lacking in the DMRs of many industrial facilities and POTWs
for several compounds that are of interest in this study. Often these compounds are
not routinely measured or are reported at below detection limits. The later is the
case for many synthetic organics such as PCBs. However, detection limits are
frequently high.

In order to estimate loading of several constituents for which data were sparse, we
developed ratios of contammant loading to the loading of total suspended solids
from facilities for which there were data. These estimates were developed for
metals and organics which would tend to be associated with solids and which are
considered persistent in marine environments. It should be noted that this approach
is used only as a means of extrapolation and not all the metals or organics would be
associated with the particle fraction. This method was applied to o^ a few
compounds which are viewed as important in the system but for whicn there was
inadequate data: the metals cadmium and lead and the organic compounds PCBs

28

and phthalate esters. These ratios are presented in Table 6. The mean values are
usecl to calculate the loads for POTWs tor which data were absent

Table 6. ContamlnantrTSS ratios for selected parameters in sewage

effluents of Massachusetts facilities.

Parameter # Facilities Average Minimum Maximum

Used in (Icg/lcg of TSS) (l^gAgofTSS) (Itg/lcg of TSS)

" Estimate

Cadmium

MWRA

2,79E-05

NA

NA

Chromium

8

1.53E-03

1.64E-05

5.9E-03

Lead

7

1.79E-03

1.4E-04

7.6E-03

Mercury

MWRA

<1.77E-03

NA

NA

PCBs

MWRA

< 4.0E-06

NA

NA

Phthaiate
Esters

MWRA

1.1 E-04

NA

NA

Loads of PAHs via point sources were also estimated from literature values and
from recent data for the MWRA effluents (personal communication, M. Connor,
MWRA). Data were also available for the MWRA sludge outfall. Although
recent, preliminary data indicated that concentrations of PAHs may be even lower,
a range of 1 ug/1 to 10 ug/1 was considered to be representative of tie ranee likely
to be found in sewage effluents. This range is used to calculate loads for all
POTWs. No data are available for industrial effluents. Those recent, preliminary
data indicated that no PAH was present at concentrations above 10 ng/1 (personal
communication, D. Shea, Battelle). If the individual PAH compounds are present
at 10 ng/1, then the total PAH concentration of the effluent would be about 0.1 ug/1
rather than 1 ug/1. At levels of 0.1-1.0 ug/1, PAHs in the sludge rather than in
effluents dominate the point source loads.

The estimated flows and pollutant loads associated with point sources are presented
in Tables 7 through 25.

4.3.3 Minor NPDES Dischargers

Estimates presented in Tables 7 through 26 are for the major point sources in the
drainage areas to the Massachusetts Bay. Another group of point sources is the
minor NPDES dischargers. This group will contribute to the overall loadings to the
drainage areas. However, monitoring data for these minor sources are not entered
into P& and require direct examination of the DMRs. In order to evaluate the
potential importance of the minor point sources we conducted an initial
examination of the characteristics of these sources.

29

Table 7. Estimated flows for major dischargers.

SIC

Maximum

Minimum

Facility

Code

Flow (m3/8)

Flow (mS/s)

Merrimacic River Drainage

Concord RIvr

WestboroughWTPOOIA

4952

1.95E-01

1.08E-01

Billerica-Letchworth WTP FACA

4952

1.24E-01

1.01E-01

Marlborough STP

4952

1.58E-01

8.32E-02

Hudson WWTF FACA

4952

1.14E-01

7.88E-02

Marlborough Westerly WTF 001 A

4952

7.80E-02

6.55E-02

MayrwrdSTPOOIA

4952

5.48E-02

4.03E-02

Raytheon Corporation 001 A

3672

3.43E-03

1 .35E-03

Raytheon Corporation 002A

3672

inactive 12/23^86

Corxjord 001 A

4952

3.97E-02

8.23E-03

Silicon Transistor 001 A

3674

2.93E-02

2.10E-02

Silicon Transistor 002A

3674

1.08E-02

2.00E-03

Silicon Transistor 002B

3674

1.08E-02

2.00E-03

Raytheon Co.-Wayland 001 A

3625

1.93E-03

1.32E-03

Raytheon Co.-Wayland 002A

3625

Raytheon Co.-Wayland 003A

3625

5.62E-04

2.56E-04

Raytheon Co.-Wayland 004A

3625

6.83E-05

1.04E-05

NYES Japenamelac WWTP 001 A

3479

1.28E-03

1.31E-04

Merrimack River

AmesburyOOIA

4952

7.62E-02

6.67E-02

Haverhill WPAF 046A

4952

5.59E-01

4.37E-01

Haverhill WPAF 046B

4952

sanitary runoff

*

AT&T 001 A

3661

3.28E-01

3.89E-02

AT&T 0018

3661

6.96E-02

1.89E-02

AT&T 001 C

3661

4.83E-02

3.94E-02

AT&T 001 D

3661

8.76E-02

8.54E-02

AT&T 001 E

3661

AT&T002A

3661

3.13E-03

2.61 E-03

GoukJ Inc. FACA

3613

1.27E-03

9.27E-04

Greater Lawrence SD 001 A

4952

1.73E-.^

1.58E+00

NewburyportWPCFOOIA

4952

1.18E-01

8.47E-02

Salisbury SewerComm. 001A

4952

1.50E-02

1.38E-02

Exxon Company 001 A

5171

Exxon Company 002A

5171

Lowell MSS 035A

4952

1.31E"^00

6.61 E-01

Very Rne Inc. 001 A

2033

2.47E-03

1.72E-03

Very Rne Inc. 0018

2033

6.92E-03

2.77E-03

Very Fine Inc. 001 C

2033

4.64E-03

3.42E-03

Very Fine Inc. 001 D

2033

6.26E-03

3.98E-03

Very Fine Inc. 001 E

2033

norxx>ntact cooftng

water

Very Fme Inc. 001 1

2033

2.77E-02

1.27E-02

30

SIC

Maximum

Minimum

Facility

Code

Flow (m3/8)

Flow (m3/8)

North Shore Drainage Basin

Ipswich Rlv0r

Bostic Chemical Group 001 A

2821

2.54E-02

1.05E-03

Bostic Chemical Grcxjp 0010

2821

6.22E-02

8.76E-03

Bostic Chemical Group 003A

2821

7.10E-O4

1.97E-04

Bostic Chemical Group 0036

2821

Bostic Chemical Group 004A

2821

3.15E-03

1.18E-03

Bostic Chemical Group 004B

2821

Bostic Chemical Group 005A

2821

2.53E-03

4.82E-04

Rockport MTP

4962

2.79E-02

2.41 E-02

Ipswich Public

4952

6.41 E-02

3.03E-02

North Shon

South Essex SD outfall 001 A

4952

1.19E+00

9.15E-01

New Englarxj Power outfall 001 A

4911

1.87E+01

1.75E+01

New England Power outfall 005A

4911

New England Power outfall 006B

4911

9.19E-03

4.49E-04

New England Power outfall 007A

4911

New England Power outfall 008A

4911

1.31E-03

1.31E-03

New England Power outfall 01 OA

4911

1.31E-03

1.31 E-03

New England Power outfall 01 4A

4911

Gloucester 001 A

4952

1.61E-01

1.10E-01

Lynn Water & Sewer 001 A

4952

3.68E+00

1.25E+00

Lynn Water & Sewer 002A

4952

4.17E-02

2.63E-04

Manchester WTP FACA

4952

3.00E-02

1.76E-02

Swampscott WPCP FACA

4952

4.16E-02

4.16E-02

Swampscott WPCP 001 A

4952

1.26E-01

3.72E-02

General Electric 001 A

3511

4.38E-04

2.92E-04

General Electric 003A

3511

3.50E-02

2.33E-02

General Electric 005A

3511

8.76E-04

5.84E-04

General Electric 007A

3511

4.91 E-02

3.27E-02

General Electric 009A

3511

3.11E-03

2.07E-03

General Electric 01 OA

3511

1.S8E-01

1.05E-01

General Electric 01 2A

3511

General Electric 01 3A

3511

1.53E-02

1.02E-02

General Electric 01 4A

3511

1.10E+00

6.84E-01

General Electric 01 5A

3511

1.10E-03

7.30E-04

General Electric 01 7A

3511

2.19E-04

1.46E-04

General Electric 01 8A

3511

1.10E+00

7.30E-01

General Electric 01 9A

3511

1.53E-02

1.02E-02

General Electric 020A

3511

7.36E^)1

2.96E-01

General Electric 021 A

3511

1.58E-01

1.05E-01

General Electric 027A

3511

4.38E-02

2.92E-02

General Electric 028A

3511

3.29E-03

2.19E-03

General Electric 029A

3511

9.46E-01

9.46E-02

General Electric 030A

3511

2.19E-03

2.19E-03

Gerteral Electric 031 A

3511

3.90E-02

3.90E-02

Refuse Energy Systems 001 A

4923

2.37E+00

2.37E+00

31

SIC

Maximum

Minimum

Facility

Code

Flow (m3/s)

Flow (m3/s)

Boston Harbor Drainage Basin

Boston Harbor

MWRA - Deer Island

4952

1.40E+01

1.40E-t-01

MWRA - Nut Island

4952

6.00E+00

6.00E+00

MWRA - Nut Island Sludge Outfall

4952

Mystic River

Boston Edison (Boston) 01 1 A

4911

1.58E-02

6.57E-03

Boston Edison (Boston) 01 2A

4911

Boston Edison (Boston) 01 3A

4911

Boston Edison (Boston) 01 4A

4911

Monsanto 001 A

2819

8.76E-03

2.92E-03

Exxon Oil * Island End Terminal

5172

2.71 E-02

3.69E-04

Boston Edison (Everett) 002A

4911

2.41 E-02

1.26E-02

Boston Edison (Everett) 003A

4911

1.75E-02

1.75E-02

Cambridge Electric 001 A

4911

2.11E+00

1.91E+00

Cambridge Electric 002A

4911

2.11E+00

1.91E+00

Cambridge Electric 003A

4911

2.81 E-01

1.02E-01

Charles River

Norfolk- Walpole 001 A

9223

1.37E-02

1.34E-02

Norfolk-WalpoleOOIB

9223

1 .39E-02

1.39E-02

Charles River PCD 01 1

4952

1.68E-01

1.14E-01

Charles River PCD 012

4952

1.60E-01

1.60E-01

Charles River PCD 013

4952

1.48E-01

1.48E-01

Charles River PCD 014

4952

1.17E-01

1.17E-01

MedflekJ WWTP FACA

4952

3.33E-02

3.33E-02

MedfieWWWTPOOIA

4952

4.00E-02

3.57E-02

Neponset River

Plymouth Rubber Co.

2821

2.01 E-01

1.31 E-01

Foxboro Co. Neponset 001 A

3471

2.88E-03

2.88E-03

Foxboro Co. Neponset 001 B

3471

3.23E-03

4.04E-04

South Shore Drainage Basin

HullWTPOOIA

4952

6.57E-02

5.61 E-02

Plymouth 001 A

4952

1.10E-01

1.02E-01

MarshfiekJWTPOOIA

4952

4.24E-02

4.04E-02

Boston Edison-Pilgrim PI.001 1

4911

1.70E+01

7.71 E+00

Boston Edison-Pilgrim PI.0021

4911

1.09E+00

6.13E-02

Boston Edison-Pilgrim PI.003A

4911

4.42E-02

1.26E-02

Boston Edison-Pilgrim PI.010A

4911

3.02E-01

1.61 E-01

Boston Edison-Pilgrim PI.001 1 A

4911

2.48E-05

2.23E-05

Rockland V\n-P 001 C

4952

1.12E-01

6.18E-02

Rockland WTP 001 B

4952

1.07E-01

8.51 E-02

Cape Cod Drainage Basin

Canal Electric-PI.#1 001 A

4911

1.52E+01

6.40E-KO0

Canal Electric-PI.#1 002A

4911

1.10E-01

1.10E-01

Canal Electric-PI.#1 Oil A

4911

6.44E-03

5.39E-03

Canal Electric-PI.#1 01 2A

4911

1.88E-03

1.62E-03

32

Table 8. Estimated point source loadings of solids.

^int Sources

Lower

Higher

Total Suspended Solids

Estimate (kg/yr)

Estimate (kg/yr)

Merriniack River Drainage Basin

Concord Rlvr

Westborough WTP

1.30E+04

3.90E+04

Billerica-Letchworth WTP FACA

1.30E+04

3.90E+04

Marlborough STP

1.50E+04

4.50E+04

Hudson WWTF FACA

2.60E+04

6.40E+04

Marlborough Westerly WTF

3.20E+04

5.60E+04

Maynard STP

1.80E+04

3.60E+04

Raytheon Corporation

1.80E+01

2.80E+02

Concord

1.30E+03

4.00E+04

Silicon Transistor

4.20E+02

3.40E+03

Raytheon Co.-Wayland

1.80E+02

3.90E+02

NYES Japenamelac WWTP

1.30E+05

6.70E+05

Merrimaci( River

Amesbury

Haverhill WPAF

2.90E+04

3.60E+05

AT&T

7.70E+03

8.10E+03

Gould Inc. FACA

Greater Lawrence SD

3.40E+05

7.10E+05

Newburyport WPCF

1.20E+04

3.10E+04

Salisbury Sewer Comm.

2.30E+02

1.90E+03

Exxon Company

O.OOE+00

O.OOE+00

Lowell MSS

3.60E-I-03

3.60E+03

Very Fine Inc.

3.90E+07

4.00E+07

Subtotal

3.96E+07

4.21 E+07

North Shore Drainage Basin

Ipswich Rivw

Bostic Chemical Group

9.30E+03

9.30E+03

Rockport MTP

2.70E+03

7.80E+03

Ipswich Public

5.10E+03

3.50E+04

North Shon

South Essex SD

1.00E+06

6.20E+06

New England Power

2.20E+03

2.20E+03

Gloucester

2.30E+05

4.40E+05

Lynn Water & Sewer

2.20E+06

8.30E+06

Manchester WTP FACA

9.40E+03

3.80E+04

Swampscott WPCP

1.10E+05

3.80E+05

General Electric

O.OOE+00

O.OOE+00

Refuse Energy Systems

O.OOE+00

O.OOE+00

Subtotal

3.57E+06

1.54E+07

33

^oint Sources

Lower

HighM-

Total Susp«nd«d Solids

Estln^to (kg/yr)

Estlmat* (kg/yr)

Boston Harbor Drainage Basin

Boston Harbor

MWRA - Deer Island

4.30E+07

4.30E+07

MWRA - Nut Island

1.90E+07

1 .90E+07

MWRA - Nut Island Sludge Outfall

2.30E+07

2.30E+07

MysHc RIvr

Boston Edison (Boston)

Monsanto

Exxon Oil • Island End Terminal

3.50E+02

1.90E+04

Boston Edison (Everett)

1.70E+04

5.70E+04

Cambridge Electric

Charles RIvr

Norfolk-Walpoie

4.70E+03

5.90E+03

Charles River PCD

2.00E+06

3.10E+06

Medfield WWTP

8.00E+03

l.OOE+04

Neponset River

Plynrwuth Ruk)ber Co.

Foxboro Co. Neponset

3.10E+03

3.10E+01

Subtotal

8.70E+07

8.82E+07

South Shore Drainage Basin

Hull WTP

2.20E+04

1.30E+05

Plymouth

8.60E+04

1.20E+05

Marshfiekj WTP

Boston Edison-Pilgrim PI.

Rockland WTP

3.60E+04

3.60E+04

Subtotal

1.44E+05

2.86E+05

Cape Cod Drainage Basin

Canal Electric-PI.

5.60E+03

6.60E+03

Subtotal

5.60E+03

6.60E-K03

TOTAL

1.30E+08

1 .46E+08

Table 9. Estimated point source toadinas of biochemical oxygen

demand (kg/yr).

Lower

Higher

^

Biochemicai Oxygen Demand

Estimate

Estimate

Merrimack River Drainage Basin

Concord RIvr

Westborough WTP

1.20E+04

3.40E+04

Billerica-Letchworth WTP FACA

3.90E+04

2.30E+05

Marlborough SIR

4.70E+03

3.00E+04

Hudson WWTF FACA

4.00E+04

7.10E+04

Marlborough Westerly WTF

2.30E+04

4.50E+04

Maynard STP

2.50E+04

7.30E+04

Raytheon Corporation

Concord

3.30E+03

2.80E+04

Silicon Transistor

Raytheon Co.-Wayland

NYES Japenamelac WWTP

Merriniack River

Amesbury

1.00E+05

1.00E+05

Haverhill WPAF

2.20E+05

7.30E+05

AT&T

4.60E+04

5.90E+04

Gould Inc. FACA

Greater Lawrence SD

3.40E+06

1.10E+06

Newburyport WPCF

Salisbury Sewer Comm.

9.30E+02

1.10E+03

Exxon Company

Lowell MSS

2.40E+05

7.20E+05

Very Fine Inc.

9.00E+03

2.00E+04

Subtotal

1.10E+06

3.24E+06

North Shore Drainage Basin

Ipswich Riv9r

Bostic Chemical Group

2.30E+03

2.30E+03

Rockport MTP

8.40E+03

1.00E+04

Ipswich Public

1.20E+04

3.00E+04

North Shore

South Essex SD

2.30E+07

2.00E+07

New England Power

7.20E+01

7.20E+01

Gloucester

7.50E+05

7.50E+05

Lynn Water & Sewer

5.30E-J-06

1.40E+07

Manchester WTP FACA

1.30E+04

4.60E+04

Swampscott WPCP

8.60E>06

3.50E+07

General Electric

Refuse Energy Systems

Subtotal

3.77E+07

6.98E+07

35

Biochemical Oxygen Demand

.ower
Estinr«te

Higher
Estimate

Boston Harbor Drainage Basin
Boston Harbor

MWRA - Deer Island
MWRA - Nut Island
MWRA - Nut Island Sludge Outfall
Mystic RIvr
Boston Edison (Boston)
Monsanto

Exxon Oil * Island End Terminal
Boston Edison (Everett)
Cambridge Electric
Charfos Rivar
Norfolk-Walpole
Charies River PCD
MedfiekJ WWTP
Neponsat Rlvor
Plynrwuth Rubber Co.
Foxboro Co. Neponset

5.40E+07
2.20E+07
1.5OE+07

5.40E+07
2.20E-t-07
1.50E+07

Subtotal

9.10E+07

9.10E+07

South Shore Drainage Basin

Hull WTP

2.50E+04

3.80E+04

Plymouth

7.60E+04

1.00E+05

MarshfiekJ WTP

Boston Edison-Pilgrim PI.

Rockland WTP

2.40E+04

6.00E+04

Subtotal

1.25E+05

1.98E+05

Cape Cod Drainage Basin

Canal Electric-Pl.

Subtotal

O.OOE+00

O.OOE+00

TOTAL

1.30E+08

1.64E+08

36

Table 10. Estimated point source loadings of

nitrogen.

»oint Sourcot
Nitrogen

.ow«r Higher

Estlmatt (kg/yr) Eitimaf (kg/yr)

Merrimack River Drainage Basin

Concord RIvr

Westborough WTP

Billerica-Letchworth WTP FACA

Marlborough STP

Hudson WWTF FACA

Marlborough Westerly WTF

Mayr»rd STP

Raytheon Corporation

Concord

Silicon Transistor

Raytheon Co.-Wayland

NYES Japenamelac WWTP

Merrimack RtvBr

Amesbury

Haverhill WPAF

AT&T

Gould Inc. FACA

Greater Lawrence SD

Newburyport WPCF

Salisbury Sewer Comm.

Exxon Company

Lowell MSS

Very Fine Inc.

Subtotal

North Shore Drainage Basin
Ipswich Rlv9r

Bostic Chemical Group
Rockport MTP
Ipswich Public
North Shon
South Essex SD
New England Power
Gloucester
Lynn Water & Sewer
Manchester WTP FACA
Swampscott WPCP
General Electric
Refuse Energy Systems
Subtotal

1.70E+03

8.40E+04

1.40E+0S

1.40E+05

5.90E+02

7.50E+04

8.30E+04

8.30E+04

8.10E+04

8.10E+04

2.50E+02

6.40E+02

7.10E+03

4.00E+04

2.10E+03

7.90E+04

3.20E+05

6.00E+05

4.30E+04

4.30E+04

1.20E+05

1.20E+05

2.50E+04

3.70E+04

7.80E+05

8.70E+05

5.20E+04

5.20E+04

1.50E+03

2.90E+03

4.20E+05

4.60E+05

1.10E+00

8.40E+01

2.08E+06

2.77E+06

1.10E+03

1.10E+03

3.90E+04

3.90E+04

3.90E+06

3.90E+06

1.40E+05

1.40E+05

1.20E+04

1.20E+04

4.09E+06

4.09E-I-06

37

Point Sources

Lowof

Higher

NItrogon

Estimate (kg/yr)

Estimatt (kg/yr)

Boston Harbor Drainage Basin

Boston Harbor

MWRA - Deer Island

7.00E+06

7.00E-K06

MWRA - Nut Island

3.30E+06

3.30E-»^

I^WRA - Nut Island Sludge Outfall

1.10E+06

1.10E+06

Mystic Rivsr

Boston Edison (Boston)

Monsanto

3.20E+02

3.20E-^O2

Exxon Oil • Island End Terminal

5.60E-»-03

5.60E+03

Boston Edison (Everett)

4.80E+03

4.80E-^O3

Cambridge Electric

Chariss RIvar

Norfolk-Walpole

5.80E+04

6.50E+04

Charies River PCD

1.20E+04

3.10E+04

MedfieW WWTP

Neponset Rlvar

Plyrnouth Rubber Co.

Foxboro Co. Neponset

3.90E+04

3.90E+04

Subtotal

1.15E+07

1.15E+07

South Shore Drainage Basin

Hull WTP

7.90E+04

7.90E+04

Plymouth

MarshfieW WTP

Boston Edison-Pilgrim PI.

Rockland WTP

1.20E+03

5.20E+03

Subtotal

8.02E+04

8.42E+04

Cape Cod Drainage Basin

Canal Electric-PI.

Subtotal

TOTAL

1.78E+07

1.85E+07

38

Table 11. Estimated point source loadings of phosphorus.

Low«r Higher

Estimata (kg/yr) Estimato (Icg/yr)

Merriniacic River Drainage Basin

Concord Rivr

Westborough WTP

Billerica-Letchworth WTP FACA

Marlborough STP

Hudson WWTF FACA

Marlborough Westerly WTF

Mayriard STP

Raytheon Corporation

Concord

Silicon Transistor

Raytheon Co.-Wayland

NYES Japenamelac WWTP

Merrimack RIvr

Amesbury

Haverhill WPAF

AT&T

Gould Inc. FACA

Greater Lawrence SD

Newburyport WPCF

Salisbury Sewer Comm.

Exxon Company

Lowell MSS

Very Fine Inc.

Subtotal

2.15E+04

2.15E+04

1.82E+04

1.82E+04

4.78E+04

4.78E+04

1.61E+04

1.61 E+04

2.75E+04

2.75E+04

1.11E+04

1.11 E+04

2.04E+03

7.43E+03

2.40E-i^

2.40E+02

3.07E+02

3.07E+02

1.69E+04

1.69E+04

1.17E+04

1.17E+04

1.38E+03

2.36E+03

6.23E+04

9.32E+04

7.56E+03

7.56E+03

2.45E+05

2.82E+05

North Shore Drainage Basin

Ipswich Riv9r

Bostic Chemical Group
Rockport MTP
Ipswich Public
North Shon
South Essex SD
New England Power
Gloucester
Lynn Water & Sewer
Manchester WTP FACA
Swampscott WPCP
General Electric
Refuse Energy Systems
Subtotal

2.93E+05

2.93E+05

1.53E+04

1.53E+04

1.63E+03

1.63E+03

3.10E+05

3.10E+05

39

^oint sources
Phosphorus

Lowsr Higher

Estimats (kg/yr) Estimato (kg/yr)

Boston Harbor Drainage Basin

Boston Harbor

MWRA • Deer Island
MWRA - Nut Island
MWRA - Nut Island Sludge Outfall
Mystic RIvr
Boston Edison (Boston)
Monsanto

Exxon Oil * Island End Terminal
Boston Edison (Everett)
Cambridge Electric
Charles RIvar
Norfdk-Walpole
Charles River PCD
MedfieW WWTP
Naponsat Rlvar
Plymouth Rubber Co.
Foxt)oro Co. Neponset
Subtotal

South Shore Drainage Basin

Hull WTP

Plymouth

MarshfiekJ WTP

Boston Edison-Pilgrim PI.

Rockland WTP

Subtotal

1.75E+06

1.75E+06

7.50E+05

7.50E+05

7.(X)E+04

7.00E+04

3.76E+02

1.18E+03

4.58E+03

9.76E+03

5.81 E+02

8.65E+02

9.08E+01

9.08E+01

2.58E+06

2.58E+06

1.14E+04

1.14E+04

1.41 E+00

2.(X)E+00

1.14E+04

1.14E+04

Cape Cod Drainage Basin

Canal Electric-PI.
Subtotal

TOTAL

3.14E+06

3.19E+06

40

Table 12. Estimated point source loadings of

oil and grease.

Point SourcM

Lower

Higher

Oil and GrMM

Estimate (Icg/yr)

Estimata (Icg/yr)

Merrimack River Drainage Basin

Concord RIvr

NOTE: THIS TABLE NEEDS A QA CHECK

Westborough WTP

Billerica-Letchworth WTP FACA

Mariborough SIR

Hudson WWTF FACA

Marlborough Westerly WTF

Maynard STP

Raytheon Corporation

Concord

Silicon Transistor

1.27E+03

7.36E+03

Raytheon Co.-Wayland

2.56E+01

2.67E+02

NYES Japenametec WWTP

1.72E+01

1.24E+02

Merrimack Rlvw

Amesbury

Haverhill WPAF

AT&T

4.59E+04

5.98E+04

Goukj Inc. FACA

Greater Lawrence SD

2.97E+02

3.09E+02

Newburyport WPCF

Salisbury Sewer Comm.

Exxon Company

Lowell MSS

Very Fine Inc.

3.30E+02

1.81E+03

Subtotal

4.79E+04

6.97E+04

North Shore Drainage Basin

Ipswhh RIvr

Bostic Chemical Group

1.20E+03

7.37E+03

Rockport MTP

1.20E+03

7.37E+03

Ipswich Public

North $hor9

South Essex SD

5.95E+04

8.75E+05

New England Power

6.59E+02

2.27E+03

Gloucester

2.90E+04

2.69E+05

Lynn Water & Sewer

1.12E+06

1.99E+06

Manchester WTP FACA

Swanpscott WPCP

General Electric

2.60E-i>04

2.08E+05

Refuse Energy Systems

Subtotal

1.24E+06

3.36E+06

41

Point Sources

Lower

High>er

Oil and GrMM

Estimate (kg/yr)

Estinruit« (kg/yr)

Boston Harbor Drainage Basin

Boston Harbor

MWRA - Deer Island

1.39E-^04

1.39E+04

MWRA • Nut Island

6.95E-J.03

5.95E-^03

MWRA - Nut Island Sludge Outfall

Mystic RIvr

Boston Edison (Boston)

Monsanto

1.23E+02

5.81 E+02

Exxon Oil * Island End Terminal

2.83E+01

5.66E+03

Boston Edison (Everett)

9.52E+01

7.35E+02

Cambridge Electric

Chartss RIvr

Norfolk-Walpole

Charies River PCD

Medflekj WWTP

Neponsat RIvar

Plymouth Rul)ber Co.

9.67E+03

3.36E+04

Foxtx>ro Co. Neponset

1.87E+02

6.68E+02

Subtotal

2.99E+04

6.11E+04

South Shore Drainage Basin

Hull WTP

8.77E+03

1.17E+04

Plynnouth

Marshfiekj WTP

Boston Edison-Pilgrim PI.

Rockland WTP

Subtotal

8.77E+03

1.17E+04

Cape Cod Drainage Basin

Canal Electric-Pi.

Subtotal

TOTAL

1.32E+06

3.50E+06

42

Table 13. Estimated point source loadings of
volatile organic compounds.

Point Sources

Lower

Higher

Volatile Organic Compounds

Estimate

Estimate

Merrimack River Drainage Basin

Concord River

Westborough WTP

1.24E+02

1.24E+02

Billerica-Letchworth WTP FACA

Marlborough STP

Hudson WWTF FACA

7.03E+00

7.03E+00

Marlborough Westerly WTF

6.51 E+01

6.51 E+01

Maynard STP

9.84E+00

9.84E+00

Raytheon Corporation

Concord

8.26E+00

8.26E+00

Silicon Transistor

6.23E+01

7.51 E+03

Raytheon Co.-Wayland

NYES Japenamelac WWTP

1.86E-01

1.86E-01

Merrimack River

Amesbury

7.34E+01

7.34E+01

Haverhill WPAF

2.35E+03

2.35E+03

AT&T

Gould Inc. FACA

1.86E-01

1.86E-01

Greater Lawrence SD

1.15E+02

1.15E+02

Newburyport WPCF

Salisbury Sewer Comm.

Exxon Company

8.82E+03

8.82E+03

Lowell MSS

1.37E+02

4.03E+02

Very Fine Inc.

7.33E+00

7.45E+03

Subtotal

1.18E+04

2.69E+04

North Shore Drainage Basin

Ipswich River

Bostic Chemical Group

1.37E+04

1.37E+04

Rockport MTP

Ipswich Public

North Shore

South Essex SD

4.66E+03

8.79E+06

New England Power

1.14E+00

1.14E+00

Gloucester

Lynn Water & Sewer

1.14E+00

1.14E+00

Manchester WTP FACA

Swampscott WPCP

General Electric

Refuse Energy Systems

Subtotal

1.84E+04

8.81 E+06

43

Point Sources

Lower

Higher

Volatile Organic Compounds

Estimate

Estimate

Boston Harbor Drainage Basin

Boston Harbor

MWRA- Deer Island (1)

1.53E+05

1.53E+05

MWRA- Nut Island (1)

6.57E+04

6.57E+04

MWRA - Nut Island Sludge Outfall: benzene only

3.00E+00

3.00E+00

Mystic River

Boston Edison (Boston)

Monsanto

Exxon OJI * Island End Terminal

Boston Edison (Everett)

Cambridge Electric

Charles River

Norfoll<-Walpole

Charles River PCD

Medfield WWTP

Neponset River

Plymouth Rubber Co.

Foxboro Co. Neponset

Subtotal

2.19E+05

2.19E+05

South Shore Drainage Basin

Hull WTP

2.32E+04

2.32E+04

Plymouth

Marshfield WTP

Boston Edison- Pilgrim PI.

Rockland WTP

Subtotal

2.32E+04

2.32E+04

Cape Cod Drainage Basin

Canal Electric-PI.
Subtotal

TOTAL

2.72E+05

9.08E+06

1. VOCs for MWRA efluents are from Table 3.3.1-1 of the Secondary Treatment Facilities Plan
Volume V, Appendix A and includes the following: benzene, bromomethane. chloroform,
ethylbenzene, methylene chloride, styrene, tetrachtoroethylene, trichloroethylene, acetone,
2-butanone, cartwn disulfide, chlorobenzene, dichloroethylene, methylpentanone. .trichloroethane.
tetrachloroethane, toluene, and xylenes

44

Table 14. Estimated point source loadings of polynuclear aromatic

hydrocarbons.

PAH

PAH

Point SourcM

Load

Load

PAH Loadings

MIn. Flow

Max Flow

at Cone, of

at Cone, of

(1ug/l)

(10ug/l)

Merrimack River Drainage

WestboroughWTPOOIA

3.41 E+OO

6.15E+01

Blllerica-Letchworth WTP FACA

3.18E+00

3.93E+01

Marlborough STP

2.63E+00

4.98E+01

Hudson WWTF FACA

2.49E+00

3.60E+01

Marlborough Westerty WTF 001 A

2.07E+00

2.46E+01

MaynardSTPOOIA

1.27E+00

1.73E+01

Greater Lawrence SD 001 A

5.00E+01

5.46E+02

NewburyportWPCFOOIA

2.68E+00

3.72E+01

Salisbury SewerComm. 001A

4.36E-01

4.75E+00

6.81 E+01

8.16E+02

North Shore Drainage Basin

Ipswich River

Rockport MTP

7.61 E-01

8.80E+00

Ipswich Public

9.58E-01

2.03E+01

North $hor9

South Essex SD outfall 001 A

2.89E+01

3.76E+02

Gloucester 001 A

3.48E+00

5.09E+01

Lynn Water & Sewer 001 A

3.95E+01

1.16E+03

Lynn Water & Sewer 002A

8.31 E-03

1.32E+01

Manchester WTP FACA

5.55E-01

9.49E-t-00

Swampscott WPCP FACA

1.32E+00

1.32E+01

Swampscott WPCP 001 A

1.18E+00

3.97E+01

7.66E+01

1.70E+03

Boston Harbor Drainage Basin

Boston Harbor

MWRA- Deer Island

4.36E+02

4.36E+03

MWRA - Nut Island

1.87E+02

1.87E+03

MWRA - Nut Island Sludge Outfall

4.60E+01

2.16E+03

Charles Rivar

Medf ieW WWTP FACA

1.05E+00

1.05E+01

MedfieldWWTPOOIA

1.13E+00

1.26E+01

6.71 E+02

8.41 E+03

South Shore Drainage Basin

Hull WTP 001 A

1.77E+00

2.08E+01

Plynxxjth 001A

3.21 E+OO

3.49E+01

MarshfieldWTPOOIA

1.28E+00

1.34E+01

Rockland WTP 001C

1.95E+00

3.53F+01

RocWandWTPOOIB

2.69E+00

3.39E+01

1.09E+01

1.38E+02

Cape Cod Drainage Basin

Totals

8.27E+02

1.11E+04

45

Table 15. Estimated point source loadings of polychiorinated

biphenyls (PCBs).

l>OTW Point SourcM

Low*r

Higher

PCBs

Ettinrwit* (kg/yr)

Estlmatt (kg/yr)

Merrimack River Drainage Basin

Concord RIvr

Westborough WTP

5.20E-02

1.56E-01

Billerica-Letchworth WTP FACA

5.20E-02

1.56E-01

Marlborough STP

6.00E-02

1.80E-01

Hudson WWTF FACA

1.04E-01

2.56E-01

Marlborough Westerly WTF

1.28E-01

2.24E-01

Maynard STP

7.20E-02

1.44E-01

Raytheon Corporation

Concord

5.20E-03

1.60E-01

Silicon Transistor

1.68E-03

1.36E-02

Raytheon Co.-Wayland

7.20E-04

1.56E-03

NYES Japenamelac WWTP

5.20E-01

2.68E+00

Merrimacic River

Amesbury

Haverhill WPAF

1.16E-01

1.44E+00

AT&T

Gould Inc. FACA

Greater Lawrence SD

4.00E-06

4.00E-06

Newburyport WPCF

4.00E-06

4.00E-06

Salisbury Sewer Comm.

4.00E-06

4.00E-06

Exxon Company

Lowell MSS

Very Fine Inc.

Subtotal

1.11 E+00

5.41 E+00

North Stiore Drainage Basin

Ipswich RIvw

Bostic Chemical Group

Rockport MTP

1.08E-02

3.12E-02

Ipswich Public

2.04E-02

1.40E-01

North Shon

South Essex SD

4.00E+00

2.48E+01

New England Power

Gloucester

9.20E-01

1.76E+00

Lynn Water & Sewer

8.80E+00

3.32E+01

Manchester WTP FACA

3.76E-02

1.52E-01

Swampscott WPCP

4.40E-01

1.52E+00

General Electric

Refuse Energy Systems

Subtotal

1.42E+01

6.16E+01

46

POTW Point Sources

Lower

Higher

RGBs

Estimate (kg/yr)

Estimate (kg/yr)

Boston Harbor Drainage Basin

Boston Harbor

MWRA • Deer Island

1.75E+02

1.75E+02

MWRA - Nut Island

7.50E+01

7.50E+01

MWRA - Nut Island Sludge Outfall

1.50E+02

1.50E+02

Mystic Rivr

Boston Edison (Boston)

Monsanto

Exxon OH • Island End Tenninal

Boston Edison (Everett)

■

Cambndge Electric

Charlos Rlvr

Norfolk-Walpole

1.88E-02

2.36E-02

Chartes River PCD

Medfield WWTP

3.20E-02

4.00E-02

Neponset River

Plymouth Rubber Co.

Foxboro Co. Neponset

Subtotal

4.00E+02

4.00E+02

South Shore Drainage Basin

Hull WTP

8.80E-02

5.20E-01

Plymouth

3.44E-01

4.80E-01

Marshfiekj WTP

Boston Edison-Pilgrim PI.

Rockland WTP

1.44E-01

1.44E-01

Subtotal

5.76E-01

1.14E+00

Cape Cod Drainage Basin

Canal Electric-PI.
Subtotal

TOTAL

O.OOE+OO
4.16E+02

O.OOE+OO
4.68E+02

47

Table 16. Estimated point source loadings of phthalate esters .

ToVN Point SourcM

Low*r

Higher

Phthalata Ett»rt

Estlmat* {kg/yi)

Estimat* (kg/yr)

Merrinnack River Drainage Basin

Concord RIvr

Westborough WTP

1.43E+00

4.29E-^00

Billerica-Letchwofth WTP FACA

1.43E+00

4.29E+00

Marlborough STP

1.65E+00

4.95E+00

Hudson WWTF FACA

2.86E+00

7.04E+00

Marlborough Westerly WTF

3.52E+00

6.16E+00

Maynard STP

1.98E+00

3.96E+00

Raytheon Corporation

Concord

1.43E-01

4.40E+00

Silicon Transistor

Raytheon Co.-Wayland

NYES Japenamelac WWTP

Merrimack River

Amesbury

Haverhill WPAF

3.19E+00

3.96E+01

AT&T

Gould Inc. FACA

Greater Lawrence SO

3.74E+01

7.81 E+01

Newburyport WPCF

1.32E+00

3.41 E+00

Salisbury Sewer Comm.

2.53E-02

2.09E-01

Exxon Company

Lowell MSS

Very Fine Inc.

Subtotal

5.49E+01

1.56E+02

North Shore Drainage Basin

Ipswich River

Bostic Chemical Group

Rockport MTP

2.97E-01

8.58E-01

Ipswich Public

5.61 E-01

3.85E+CX)

Nortli Shore

South Essex SD

1.10E+02

6.82E-K02

New England Power

Gloucester

2.53E+01

4.84E+01

Lynn Water & Sewer

2.42E+02

9.13E+02

Manchester WTP FACA

1.03E+00

4.18E+00

Swampscott WPCP

1.21E+01

4.18E-K01

General Electric

Refuse Energy Systems

Subtotal

3.91 E-»^

1.69E+03

A9

POTW Point Sources

Lower

Higher

Phthalato Esters

Estimate (kg/yr)

Estimate (kg/yr)

Boston Harbor Drainage Basin

Boston Harbor

MWRA- Deer island

4.90E+03

4.90E+03

MWRA - Nut Island

2.10E+03

2.10E+03

MWRA - Nut Island Sludge Outfall

1.80E+03

1.80E+03

Mystic Rlvw

Boston Edison (Boston)

Monsanto

Exxon Oil * island End Terminal

Boston Edison (Everett)

Cambridge Electric

Charles RIvar

Norfolk-Waipole

5.17E-01

6.49E-01

Charles River PCD

MedfiekJWWTP

8.80E-01

1.10E+00

Neponset River

Plymouth Rut^ber Co.

Foxtx)ro Co. Neponset

Subtotal

8.80E+03

8.80E+03

South Shore Drainage Basin

Hull WTP

2.42E+00

1.43E+01

Piynwuth

9.46E+00

1.32E+01

Marshfield WTP

Boston Edison-Pilgrim PI.

Rockland WTP

3.96E-I-00

3.96E+00

Subtotal

1.58E+01

3.15E+01

Cape Cod Drainage Basin

Canal Electric-Pi.
Subtotal

TOTAL

O.OOE+00
9.26E+03

O.OOE+00
1.07E+04

49

Table 17. Estimated point source loadings of cadmium based solely

on DMR data.

Point Sources Lowir High«f

Cadmium: DMRs Estlmaf (kg/yr) E«t]m«t» (kg/yr)

Merrimack River Drainage Basin
Concord Rlvr

Westborough WTP

Billerica-Letchworth WTP FACA

Marlborough STP

Hudson WWTF FACA

Marlborough Westerly WTF

Maynard STP

Raytheon Corporation

Concord

Silicon Transistor

Raytheon Co.-Waytand

NYES Japenamelac WWTP

Merrimack River

Amesbury

Haverhill WPAF

AT&T 3.20E+00 3.20E+00

Gould Inc. FACA

Greater Lawrence SD

Newburyport WPCF (considered high) 4.40E+03 2.30E+04

Salisbury Sewer Comm.

Exxon Company

Lowell MSS 7.40E+01 7.40E+01

Very Fine Inc.

Subtotal 4.48E+03 2.31 E+04

North Shore Drainage Basin

Ipswich River

Bostic Chemical Group

Rockport MTP

ipswich Public

North Shore

South Essex SD

New England Power

Gloucester

Lynn Water & Sewer

Manchester WTP FACA

Swampscott WPCP

General Electric

Refuse Energy Systems

Subtotal O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00

Point Sources

Lower

HighM^

Cadmium: OMRs

Estimate (Icg/yr) Estimate (kgAyr)

Boston Harbor Drainage Basin

Boston Harbor

MWRA- Deer island

1.20E+03

1.20E+03

MWRA- Nut Island

5.00E+02

5.00E+02

I^WRA - Nut Island Sludge Outfall

3.70E+02

3.70E+02

Mystic Rivar

Boston Edison (Boston)

Monsanto

Fxxon Oil * Island End Temiinal

Boston Edison (Everett)

Cambridge Electric

Charles Rivar

Norfolic-Walpoie

Charies River PCD

Medflekj WWTP

Neponset River

PlynfK>utii Rubber Co.

Foxboro Co. Neponset

2.40E+01

5.50E+01

Subtotal

2.09E+03

2.13E+03

South Shore Drainage Basin

Hull WTP

Piynx>utii

Marshf lew WTP

Boston Edison-Pilgrim PI.

Rockland WTP

Subtotal O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00

Cape Cod Drainage Basin

Canal Eiectric-PI. O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00

Subtotal O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00

TOTAL 6.57E+03 2.52E+04

51

Table 18. Estimated point source loadings of cadmium based on DMR

data as well as the Cd:TSS Ratio.

^oint Sources

Cadmium: DMRt and Cd:TSS Ratios for POTWt

.owar
Ettlmaf (kg/yr)

— m^ —

Estlmata (kg/yr)

Merrimack River Drainage Basin
Concord RIvr

Westborough WTP

Billerica-Letchworth WTP FACA

Mailborough STP

Hudson WWTF FACA

Marlborough Westerty WTF

Maynard STP

Raytheon Corporation

Concord

Silkx>n Transistor

Raytheon Co.-Wayland

NYES Japenamelac WWTP

Merrimack River

Anr>esbury

Haverhill WPAF

AT&T

GouW Inc. FACA

Greater Lawrence SD

Newburyport WPCF

Salisbury Sewer Comm.

Exxon Company

Lowell MSS

Very Fine Inc.

Subtotal

3.63E-01
3.63E-01
4.19E-01
7.26E-01
8.93E-01
5.02E-01

8.09E-01
3.20E+00

9.49E+00

3.35E-01

6.42E-03

7.40E+01

9.11E+01

1.09E^-00
1.09E-(-00
1 .26E+00
1.79E-t-00
1.56E-K00
1 .OOE+00

1.00E+01
3.20E-»-00

1.98E+01
8.65E-01
5.30E-02

7.40E+01

1.16E+02

North Shore Drainage Basin
Ipswich River

BosXic Chemnal Group
Rockport MTP
Ipswich Public
North Shore
South Essex SD
New England Power
Gk>ucester
Lynn Water & Sewer
Manchester WTP FACA
Swampscott WPCP
General Electric
Refuse Energy Systems
Subtotal

7.53E-02

2.18E-01

1.42E-01

9.77E-01

2.79E+01

1.73E^^

6.42E+00

1.23E+01

6.14E+01

2.32E+02

2.62E-01

1.06E+00

3.07E+00

1.06E+01

9.93E+01

4.30E+02

52

Point Sources

Lower

Higher

Cadmium: DMRs and Cd:TSS Ratios for POTWs

Estimate (kg/yr)

Estimate (Icg/yr)

Boston Harbor Drainage Basin

Boston Harbor

MWRA - Deer Island

1.20E+03

1.20E+03

MWRA • Nut Island

5.00E+02

5.00E+02

MWRA • Nut Island Sludge Outfall

3.70E+02

3.70E+02

Mysth Rlv9r

Boston Edison (Boston)

Monsanto

Exxon Oil • Island End Terminal

Boston Edison (Everett)

Cambridge Electric

Charl08 Rivr

Noffolic-Walpole

Charles River PCD

Medfiekj WWTP

2.23E-01

2.79E-01

NeponsBt Rlvsr

Plynxxith Rubber Co.

Foxboro Co. Neponset

Subtotal

2.07E+03

2.07E+03

South Shore Drainage Basin

Hull WTP

6.14E-01

3.63E+00

Plymouth

2.40E+00

3.35E+00

Marshf ieid WTP

Boston Edison-Pilgrim PI.

Rocldand WTP

1.00E+00

1.00E+00

Subtotal

4.02E+00

7.98E+00

Cape Cod Drainage Basin

Canal Eiectric-PI.

Subtotal O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00

TOTAL 2.26E+03 2.62E+03

S3

Table 19. Estimated point source loadings of chromium based solely

on DMR data.

Toint SourcM

Low^r

WflK^ ^

Chromium: DMRs

Estimate (kg/yr)

Estimate (kgAyr)

Merrimack River Drainage Basin

Concord RIvBr

Westborough WTP

Billerica-Letchworth WTP FACA

2.30E+02

2.30E+02

Marlt)orough STP

Hudson WWTF FACA

Marlborough Westerly WTF

1.20E+02

1.20E+02

Maynard STP

Raytheon Corporation

Concord

Silicon Transistor

Raytheon Co.-Wayland

1.20E+00

1.70E+00

NYES Japenamelac WWTP

3.90E+00

1.10E-K01

Merrimack Rlv9r

Amesbury

4.20E+01

1.10E+02

Haverhill WPAF

AT&T

8.40E+01

4.30E+02

Gould Inc. FACA

Greater Lawrence SD

1 .30E+02

1.30E+02

Newburyport WPCF

2.70E+01

6.70E+01

Salisbury Sewer Comm.

Exxon Company

Lowell MSS

1.80E+02

1.80E+02

Very Fine Inc.

Subtotal

8.18E+02

1.28E+03

North Shore Drainage Basin

Ipswich River

Bostic Chemical Group

Rockport MTP

Ipswich Public

North Shore

South Essex SD

New England Power

3.30E+03

3.30E+03

Gloucester

Lynn Water & Sewer

Manchester WTP FACA

5.50E+01

5.50E+01

Swampscott WPCP

General Electric

Refuse Energy Systems

Subtotal

3.36E+03

3.36E+03

54

Point SourcM

Lower

Higher

Chromium: DIMRs

Estimate (kg/yr)

Estimate (kg/yr)

Boston Harbor Drainage Basin

Boston Harbor

MWRA - Deer Island

8.40E+03

8.40E+03

MWRA - Nut Island

3.60E+03

3.60E+03

MWRA - Nut Island Sludge Outfall

3.70E+03

3.70E+03

Mystic Rivsr

Boston Edison (Boston)

Monsanto

Exxon Oil • Island End Terminal

Boston Edison (Everett)

2.90E+01

2.90E+01

Cambridge Electric

Chariss Rivar

Norfolk-Walpole

Charies River PCD

Medfleld WWTP

Neponset Rivar

Plynx>uth Rubber Co.

Foxboro Co. Neponset

3.10E-05

3.10E-05

Subtotal

1.57E+04

1.57E+04

South Shore Drainage Basin

Hull WTP

Plynrx>uth
Marshfiekj WTP

Boston Edison-Pilgrim PI.
Rockland WTP

Subtotal

O.OOE+00

O.OOE+00

Cape Cod Drainage Basin

Canal Electric-PI.

Subtotal

O.OOE+00

TOTAL

1.99E+04

2.04E+04

55

Table 20. Estimated point source loadings of chromium based on
DMR data as well as the CriTSS ratio.

Point SourcM

Chromium: DMRs and CrTSS Ratios for POTWs

.owr
E8tlmat«(kg/yT)

Estimate (kg/yr)

Merrimack River Drainage Basin
Concord RIvr

Westborough WTP

Billerica-Letchworth WTP FACA

Marlborough STP

Hudson WWTF FACA

Marllx)rough Westerly WTF

Maynard STP

Raytheon Corporation

Concord

Silicon Transistor

Raytheon Co.-Wayland

NYES Japenamelac WWTP

Merrimack River

Amesbury

Haverhill WPAF

AT&T

Gould Inc. FACA

Greater Lawrence SD

Newburyport WPCF

Salisbury Sewer Comm.

Exxon Company

Lowell MSS

Very Fine Inc.

Subtotal

1.95E+01
2.30E+02
2.25E+01
3.90E+01
1.20E+02
2.70E+01

1.20E+00
3.90E+00

4.20E+01
4.35E+01
8.40E+01

1.30E+02
2.70E+01
3.45E-01

1.80E+02

9.70E+02

5.85E+01
2.30E+02
6.75E+01
9.60E+01
1.20E+02
5.40E+01

1.70E+00
1.10E+01

1.10E+02
5.40E+02
4.30E+02

1.30E+02
6.70E+01
2.85E+00

1.80E+02

2.10E+03

North Shore Drainage Basin

Ipswich River

Bostic Chemical Group
Rockport MTP
Ipswich Public
North Shore
South Essex SD
New England Power
Gk)ucester
Lynn Water & Sewer
Manchester WTP FACA
Swampscott WPCP
General Electric
Refuse Energy Systems
Subtotal

4.05E+00

1.17E+01

7.65E+00

5.25E+01

1.50E+03

9.30E+03

3.30E+03

3.30E+03

3.45E+02

6.60E+02

3.30E+03

1.25E+04

5.50E+01

5.50E+01

1.65E+02

5.70E+02

8.68E+03

2.64E+04

56

Point Sources Low«r

Chromium: DMRs and Cr:TSS Ratios for POTWt Estimaf (kg/yr)

Highar
Estlmata (kg/yr)

Boston Harbor Drainage Basin

Boston Harbor

MWRA - Deer Island
MWRA - Nut Island
MWRA - Nut Island Sludge Outfall
Mystic RIvBr
Boston Edison (Boston)
Mortsanto

Exxon Oil * Island End Terminal
Boston Edison (Everett)
Cambridge Electric
Chari9s RIvar
Norfolk-Walpoie
Charles River PCD

8.40E+03

8.40E+03

3.60E+03

3.60E+03

3.70E+03

3.70E+03

2.90E+01

2.90E+01

Medfiekj WWTP

1.20E+01

1.50E+01

Neponset River

Plymouth Rubber Co.

Foxboro Co. Neponset

3.10E-05

3.10E-05

Subtotal

1.57E+04

1.57E+04

South Shore Drainage Basin

Hull WTP

3.30E+01

1.95E+02

Plymouth

1.29E+02

1.80E+02

MarshfieW WTP

Boston Edison-Pilgrim PI.

Rockland WTP

5.40E+01

5.40E+01

Subtotal

2.16E+02

4.29E+02

Cape Cod Drainage Basin

Canal Electric-PI.

O.OOE+00

O.OOE+00

Subtotal

O.OOE+00

TOTAL

57

Table 21. Estimated point source loadings of copper.

Point SourcM

Low«r

MlgU

Copp«r: DMRt

Estlmat* (kg/yr)

E«tlm«t« (kg/yr)

Merrimack River Drainage Basin

Concord RIvr

Westborough WTP

3.00E+02

3.00E+02

Billerica-Letchworth WTP FACA

Marlborough STP

1.10E+02

1.10E-K02

Hudson WWTF FACA

2.70E+02

2.70E+02

Marlborough Westerly WTF

8.30E+01

8.30E+01

Maynard STP

4.10E+00

1.70E.^02

Raytheon Corporation

Concord

7.80E+00

1.40E+02

Silicon Transistor

1.90E-fOO

6.10E-J-00

Raytheon Co.-Wayiand

1.70E+00

2.40E+01

NYES Japenamelac WWTP

4.10E-01

4.10E-01

Merrimack River

Amesbury

6.30E+01

1.70E'^03

Haverhill WPAF

2.20E+03

2.20E+03

AT&T

2.20E+03

7.90E+03

Goukj Inc. FACA

Greater Lawrence SD

9.90E+02

3.30E-K03

Newburyport WPCF (considered high)

2.70E+01

2.30E+02

Salisbury Sewer Comm.

Exxon Company

Lowell MSS

1.20E+03

1.30E+03

Very Fine Inc.

9.40E+00

1.10E+01

Subtotal

7.47E+03

1.77E+04

North Shore Drainage Basin

ipswicti River

Bostic Chemical Group

Rockport MTP

Ipswich Public

North Shore

South Essex SD

2.50E+03

2.50E+03

New England Power

4.40E-01

4.20E+01

Gloucester

1.00E+02

1.00E+02

Lynn Water & Sewer

Manchester WTP FACA

4.40E+01

4.40E+01

Swampscott WPCP

General Electric

Refuse Energy Systems

Subtotal

2.64E+03

2.69E-K03

58

Point Sources

Lower

Higher

Copper: DMRs

Estimate (kg/yr)

Estimate (kg/yr)

Boston Harbor Drainage Basin

Boston Harbor

MWRA - Deer island

3.10E+04

3.10E+04

MWRA - Nut Island

1.30E+04

1.30E+04

MWRA - Nut Island Sludge Outfall

2.20E+04

2.20E+04

Mystic River

Boston Edison (Boston)

6.00E+00

6.20E+00

Monsanto

Exxon Oil * Island End Terminal

Boston Edison (Everett)

2.80E+01

5.70E+01

Cambridge Electric

Ctiaries River

Norfolk-Walpole

Charles River PCD

Medf iekj WWTP

Neponset River

Plymouth Rubber Co.

Foxboro Co. Neponset

Subtotal

6.60E+04

6.61 E+04

South Shore Drainage Basin

Hull WTP

1.50E+02

1.50E+02

Plymouth

MarshfiekJ WTP

Boston Edison-Pilgrim PI.

Rockland WTP

Subtotal

1.50E+02

1.50E+02

Cape Cod Drainage Basin

Canal Electric-PI.
Subtotal

TOTAL

2.60E+01

3.00E+01

2.60E+01

3.00E+01

7.63E+04

8.67E+04

59

Table 22. Estimated point source loadings of lead based soieiy on the

DMR data.

Point Sources

Low^r

Higher

LMd: DMRs

Estlmat* (kg/yr)

Estlmat* (kg/yr)

Merrinnack River Drainage Basin

Concord Rlv0r

Westborough WTP

Billerica-Letchworth WTP FACA

4.60E-».03

4.60E^-03

Mariborough STP

Hudson WWTF FACA

Mariborough Westerly WTF

Maynard STP

4.80E+00

7.60E-^00

Raytheon Corporation

Concord

Silicon Transistor

4.40E+00

5.70E+00

Raytheon Co.-Wayland

4.80E+00

6.10E+00

NYES Japenamelac WWTP

Merrimack River

Amesbury

2.10E+01

5.70E+01

Haverhill WPAF

AT&T

8.60E+01

7.70E+02

Gould Inc. FACA

Greater Lawrence SD

1.00E+02

1.00E*02

Newburyport WPCF (considered high)

5.30E+01

1.20E+02

Salisbury Sewer Comm.

Exxon Company

Lowell MSS

3.80E+02

3.80E+02

Very Fine Inc.

1.40E+00

2.20E+00

Subtotal

5.26E+03

6.05E+03

North Shore Drainage Basin

Ipswich River

Bostic Chemical Group

Rockport MTP

Ipswich Pul:>lic

North Shore

South Essex SD

1.90E+03

1.90E+03

New England Power

Gloucester

Lynn Water & Sewer

Manchester WTP FACA

2.90E+02

2.90E+02

Swampscott WPCP

General Electric

Refuse Energy Systems

Subtotal

2.19E+03

2.19E+03

60

Point SourcM

Lower

Higher

LMd: DMRs

Estimate (kg/yr)

Estimate (kg/yr)

Boston Harbor Drainage Basin

Boston Harbor

MWRA - Deer Island

7.70E+03

7.70E+03

MWRA • Nut Island

3.30E+03

3.30E+03

MWRA - Nut Island Sludge Outfall

3.30E+03

3.30E+03

Mystic Rivw

Boston Edison (Boston)

Monsanto

Exxon Oil * Island End Terminal

Boston Edison (Everett)

4.80E+01

4.80E+01

Cambridge Electric

Charles River

Norfolk-Walpole

Charies River PCD

MedfieW WWTP

Neponset River

Plymouth Rubber Co.

Foxboro Co. Neponset

1.10E+01

1.10E+01

Subtotal

1.44E+04

1.44E+04

South Shore Drainage Basin

Hull WTP

Plymouth

Marshf ield WTP

Boston Edison-Pilgrim PI.

Rockland WTP

Subtotal

Cape Cod Drainage Basin

Canal Eledric-PI.
Subtotal

TOTAL

2.18E+04

2.26E+04

61

Table 23. Estimated point source loadings of lead based on the DMR

data as well as the Pb:TSS ratio.

Point Sources

Low*r

Hlgh«f

LMd : DMRs and Pb:TSS Ratios for POTWt

Estimate (kg/yr)

Estlmatt (kg/yr)

Merrimack River Drainage Basin

Concord RIvtr

Westbofough WTP

2.34E+01

7.02E-»-01

Billerica-Letchworth WTP FACA

4.60E+03

4.60E-K03

Mariborough STP

2.70E+01

8.10E+01

Hudson WWTF FACA

4.68E+01

1.15E+02

Marlborough Westerly WTF

5.76E+01

1.01E-^02

Maynard STP

4.80E+00

7.60E-^00

Raytheon Corporation

Concord

Silicon Transistor

4.40E+00

5.70E+O0

Raytheon Co.-Wayland

4.80E+00

6.10E+00

NYES Japenamelac WWTP

Menimack Rlvor

Amesbury

2.10E+01

5.70E+01

Haverhill WPAF

5.??E+01

6.48E+02

AT&T

8.60E+01

7.70E+02

Gould Inc. FACA

Greater Lawrence SD

1 .OOE+02

1. OOE+02

Newburyport WPCF

5.30E+01

1.20E+02

Salisbury Sewer Comm.

4.14E-01

3.42E+00

Exxon Company

Lowell MSS

3.80E+02

3.80E+02

Very Fine Inc.

1.40E+00

2.20E+00

Subtotal

5.46E+03

7.07E+03

North Shore Drainage Basin

Ipswich RivQr

Bostic Chemical Group

Rockport MTP

4.86E+00

1.40E+01

Ipswich Public

9.18E+(X)

6.30E-K01

North Short

South Essex SD

1.90E+03

1.90E4<X3

New EngicirKJ Power

Gloucester

4.14E+02

7.92E+02

Lynn Water & Sewer

3.96E+03

1.49E-^04

Manchester WTP FACA

2.90E+02

2.90E+02

Swampscott WPCP

1.98E-t^

6.84E-i^

General Electric

Refuse Energy Systems

Subtotal

6.76E+03

1.86E+04

62

Point SourcM

LMd : DMRs and Pb:TSS Ratios for POTWs

Lowar
Estlmata (kg/yr)

Highar
Estimata (Icg^)

Boston Harbor Drainage Basin

Boston Harbor

MWRA - Deer Island
MWRA - Nut Island
MWRA - Nut Island Sludge Outfall
Mystic RIvsr
Boston Edison (Boston)
Monsanto

Exxon Oil * Island End Tennlnal
Boston Edison (Everett)
Cambridge Electric
Chartss RIvsr
Norfollc-Walpoie
Charles River F>CD

7.70E+03
3.30E+03
3.30E+03

7.70E+03
3.30E+03
3.30E+03

4.80E+01

4.80E+01

Medfiekj WWTP

1.44E+01

1.80E+01

Neponsat Rivsr

PlynKHJth Rubber Co.

Foxboro Co. Neponset

1.10E+01

1.10E+01

Subtotal

1.44E+04

1.44E+04

South Shore Drainage Basin

Hun WTP

3.96E+01

2.34E+02

Plymouth

1.55E+02

2.16E+02

MarshfieldWTP

Boston Edison-Pilgrim PI.

Rocldand WTP

6.48E+01

6.48E+01

Subtotal

Cape Cod Drainage Basin

Canal Electric-PI.

Subtotal

TOTAL

63

Table 24. Estimated point source loadings of nickel.

Point Sources

Lower

[higher

Nickel: OMRs

Estimate (kg/yr)

Estimate (kg/yr)

Merrlnnack River Drainage Basin

Concord Rlvr

Westborough WTP

Billerica-Letchworth WTP FACA

Martborough STP

Hudson WWTF FACA

Martborough Westerty WTF

1.41E+03

1.41E+03

Maynard STP

Raytheon Corporation

Concord

Sliicon Transistor

Raytheon Co.-Waytand

NYES Japenamelac WWTP

Merrimack Rlvr

Amesbury

6.31 E+01

1.38E+02

Havertiili WPAF

AT&T

2.36E+02

7.49E+03

Gouid Inc. FACA

Greater l_awrence SD

3.13E+02

3.13E+02

Newburyport WPCF (considered high)

4.43E+01

2.43E+02

Salisbury Sewer Comm.

Exxon Company

Lowell MSS

3.32E+02

1.25E+03

Very Fine Inc.

Subtotal

2.40E+03

1 .08E+04

North Shore Drainage Basin

Ipswich River

Bostic Chemical Group

Rocl<port MTP

Ipswich Public

Horth Shore

South Essex SD

1.17E+03

1.17E+03

New England Power

1.90E+00

1.05E+02

GkHJcester

Lynn Water & Sewer

Manchester WTP FACA

3.55E+02

3.55E+02

SwampscottWPCP

General Electric

Refuse Energy Systems

Subtotal

1.53E+03

1.63E-K03

64

Point SourcM

Lower

Higher

Nlck«l: DMRs

Estimate (Icg/yr)

Estimate (icg/yr)

Boston Harbor Drainage Basin

Boston Harbor

MWRA - Deer Island

5.11E+03

5.11E+03

MWRA • Nut Island

2.19E+03

2.19E+03

MWRA • Nut Island Sludge Outfall

2.20E+03

2.20E+03

Mystic RIvr

Boston Edison (Boston)

1.66E+00

4.03E+01

Monsanto

Exxon Oil * Island End Terminal

Boston Edison (Everett)

6.76E+02

7.00E+02

Cambridge Electric

Charles Rivsr

Norfdk-Walpole

Charles River PCD

Medfield WWTP

Neponset River

Plymouth Rubber Co.

Foxboro Co. Neponset

3.07E+01

3.07E+01

Subtotal

1.02E+04

1.03E+04

South Stiore Drainage Basin

HullWTP

Plymouth
MarshfieidWTP

Boston Edison-Pilgrim PI.
Rockland WTP

Subtotal

O.OOE+00

O.OOE+00

Cape Cod Drainage Basin

Canal Electric-PI.

Subtotal

TOTAL

1.41 E+04

2.28E+04

6S

Table 25. Estimated point source loadings of zinc.

^Int SourcM

Low*r

Hlgh«r

Zinc: DMRs

Ettimat* (kg/yr)

Estimatt (kg/yr)

Merrinnack River Drainage Basin

Concord Rivr

Westt)orough WTP

3.60E+02

3.60E+02

Blilerica-Letchworth WTP FACA

7.20E+02

7^0E+02

Marlborough STP

Hudson WWTF FACA

Marlborough Westerly WTF

Maynard STP

1.40E+02

2.30E>02

Raytheon Corporation

5.50E+00

5.5OE+O0

Concord

2.90E+01

8.60E+01

Silicon Transistor

2.40E+00

2.40E+00

Raytheon Co.-Wayland

1.10E+01

1.10E+01

NYES Japenamelac WWTP

3.70E-01

3.70E-01

Merrimack River

Amesbury

2.50E+02

2.50E+02

Haverhill WPAF

1.10E+03

1.10E+03

AT&T

3.00E+02

3.00E+02

Gould Inc. FACA

Greater Lawrence SD

1.90E+03

3.10E+03

Newburypoft WPCF (considered high)

1.30E+02

2.10E+02

Salisbury Sewer Comm.

Exxon Company

Lowell MSS

2.50E+03

3.90E+03

Very Fine Inc.

1.50E+01

3.10E+01

Subtotal

7.46E+03

1.03E+04

North Shore Drainage Basin

Ipswich River

Bostic Chemical Group

Rockport MTP

Ipswich Public

North Shore

South Essex SD

5.30E+03

5.30E+03

New England Power

5.70E-01

3.20E+01

Gloucester

2.40E+02

2.40E+02

Lynn Water & Sewer

Manchester WTP FACA

8.30E+02

8.30E+02

Swampscott WPCP

General Electric

Refuse Energy Systems

Subtotal

6.37E+03

6.40E-K03

66

Lowtr
Estimato (kg/yr)

HighM*
Estlmaf (kgAyr)

Boston Harbor Drainage Basin

Boston Hsrbor

MWRA - Deer island
MWRA • Nut Island
MWRA - Nut Island Sludge Outfall
Mystic RIvr
Boston Edison (Boston)
Monsanto

Exxon Oil * Island End Tenninal
Boston Edison (Everett)
Cambridge Electric
Chsrtss RIvr
Norfoik-Walpoie
Charies River PCD
MedTiekJ WWTP
Neportset River
Plymouth Rubber Co.
Foxboro Co. Neponset
Subtotal

5.11E+04
2.19E-i-04
4.70E+04

1.80E+01
1.90E+01

1.90E+01

5.11E+04
2.19E+04
4.70E+04

9.40E+01
1.90E+01

8.00E+01

1.20E+05

1.20E+05

South Shore Drainage Basin

HullWTP
Plymouth
Marshfiekj WTP
Boston Edison-Pilgrim PI.
RocWand WTP

1.10E+04

1.10E+04

Subtotal

1.10E+04

1.10E+04

Cape Cod Drainage Basin

Canal Electric-PI.
Subtotal

O.OOE+00

O.OOE+00

TOTAL

1.45E+05

1.48E+05

67

Table 26. Estimated point source ioadings of mercury.

Point Sourcet

=s

Mercury

Low(kg/yr

High (kg/yr)

Merrimack River Drainage Basin

Concord RIvr

Westborough WTP

2.30E-02

6.90E-02

Blllerica-Letchwoith WTP FACA

2.30E-02

6.90E-02

Marlborough STP

2.66E-02

7.97E-02

Hudson WWTF FACA

4.60E-02

1.13E-01

Marlborough Westerly WTF

5.66E-02

9.91 E-02

Maynard STP

3.19E-02

6.37E-02

Raytheon Corporation

Concord

Silicon Transistor

Raytheon Co.-Wayland

HiES Japenamelac WWTP

2.30E-01

1.19E + 00

Merrimack River

Amesbury

Haverhill WPAF

5.13E-02

6.37E-01

AT&T

Gould Inc. FACA

Greater Lawrence SD

6.02E-01

1.26E + 00

Newburyport WPCF

2.12E-02

5.49E-02

Salisbury Sewer Comm.

4.07E-04

3.36E-03

Exxon Company

Lowell MSS

6.37E-03

6.37E-03

Very Fine Inc.

Subtotal

1.12E+00

3.64E + 00

Nortti Shore Drainage Basin

Ipswich Rivr

Bostic Chemical Group

RockportMTP

4.78E-03

1.38E-02

Ipswich Publk:

9.03E-03

6.20E-02

North Shorn

O.OOE+00

O.OOE + 00

South Essex SD

1.77E+00

1.10E+01

New England Power

Gloucester

4.07E-01

7.79E-01

Lynn Water & Sewer

3.89E+00

1.47E+01

Manchester WTP FACA

1.66E-02

6.73E-02

SwampscottWPCP

1.95E-01

6.73E-01

General Electric

Refuse Energy Systems

Subtotal

6.30E+00

2.73E+01

68

Point Sources
Mercury

Low(kg/yr

High (kg/yr)

Boston Harbor Drainage Basin

Boston Harbor

MWRA - Deer Island

MWRA- Nut Island

MWRA - Nut Island Sludge Outfall

Mystic River

Boston Edison (Boston)

Monsanto

Exxon Oil * Island End Terminal

Boston Edison (Everett)

Cambridge Electric

Charles River

1.10E+02
1.10E+02

110
110

Norfdk-Walpole

8.32E-03

1.04E-02

Charies River PCD

3.54E+00

5.49E+00

Medfield WWTP

1.42E-02

1.77E-02

Neponset River

Plymouth Rubber Co.

Foxboro Co. Neponset

Subtotal

2.24E+02

2.26E+02

South Shore Drainage Basin

Hull wrp

3.89E^2

2.30E-01

Plymouth

1.52E-01

2.12E-01

Marshfieid WTP

Boston Edison-Pilgrim PI.

Rockland WTP

6.37E-02

6.37E-02

Subtotal

2.55E-01

5.06E-01

Cape Cod Drainage Basin

Canal Electric-Pl.

Subtotal

TOTAL

2.31 E +02

2.57E+02

69

A PCS retrieval was performed to identify the Massachusetts minor dischargers.
The minor dischargers were aggregated by two major drainage basins: Merrimack
River basin and Massachusetts Coastal basin. The Merrimack basin included 88
minor point sources south of the Pawtucket dam in Lx)well, MA. There were 225
minor dischargers within the Massachusetts Coastal River basin. TTie minor
dischargers were further subdivided according to the minor river subbasins within
one of the two major river basins. A key identified all minor dischargers by facility
name and NPDES ID number.

A general facility report and 1989 effluent statistical summary also was requested
from the PCS retrieval system for each identified minor discharger. If no general
facility information and/or effluent summary statistics were available, then we
reviewed selected hard copy permit files of Massachusetts minor dischargers. These
files are maintained at the EPA Region I offices in Boston. We reviewed
approximately 30 permit files for minor dischargers to establish the general nature
of these discharges; this is approximately 10% of the minor point sources
discharging to the drainage areas for which there are permits.

The permitted minor discharges reviewed by us were found to consist of stormwater
runoff from drainage systems, sanitary waste water, boiler blowdown, noncontaa
cooling water from air compressor units, refrigeration units and heat exchange
pumps. The permitted storm drainage systems typically contained oil/water
separators. Occasionally, permits for groundwater recovery wells were found. The
groundwater discharge permits required that the treated effluent must meet
drinking water standarcis before being released into a receiving water body.
Accordmg to EPA personnel, there are approximately "a couple hundred" of these
permittedgroundwater remediation systems within the state of Massachusetts.

Because of the nature of the minor discharges (i.e. stormwater runoff), the
discharges may only occur periodically, unlike the discharges from the major
NPDES facilities which are often continuous. Parameters that are typically
monitored within the effluents from minor NPDES facilities are temperature, oil &
grease, conductivity, total suspended and settleable solids. Cobalt, phthalate esters,
chromium and residual chlonne were among the parameters measured occasionally.
For a given effluent limit, daily maximum or average monthly are usually reported
based on the analysis of grab samples. From our investigation of minor permits, the
flow from the outfalls of the minor NPDES facilities ranged from 400 to 42,000,000
GPD per outfall.

The wide range of effluent flows and limited effluent data for the minor NTDES
dischargers prevented the estimation of pollutant loads for this particular group of
point sources. Most of the permits are for stormwater outfalls and, to some, extent,
we have taken these into account under nonpoint sources in Section 5. Another
major category of minor dischargers included noncontact cooling water discharges.
It is likely that these dischargers will not contain high concentrations of
contaminants. Small sanitary wastewater discharges are also included among the
minor point sources and will contribute to the loadings of nutrients and other
pollutants. These loadings may be important at the local level.

70

4.3.4 Anticipated Changes in Loadings Due to Upgrade of MWRA Effluents

Current MWRA effluents include the discharge of sludges from Nut and Deer
Island, primary treated wastewater from these two facilities, and CSO discharges.
Upgraae of the system will involve removal of the sludge discharges and abatement
of^CSOs via enhancing the capability of the system to handle stormwater. In
addition, increased treatment of the wastewater will reduce loadings of conventional
as well as toxic pollutants. Here, we provide estimates of the reduction in loadings
associated with the additional treatment of wastewater (Table 27). Loads
associated with complete secondary treatment are shown. Depending on the
pollutant, load reductions range from a few percent to over 95%. Thus, elimination
of sludge and complete secondary treatment should have a relatively large impact
on overall point source loads to Massachusetts Bay. It is anticipated that the
treatment of MWRA effluents may involve several phases which include some
combination of enhanced primary and secondaiy treatment. At this writing, the
schedules for these activities is still not clear. Thus, we project that future loadings
from MWRA effluents will be within the range shown in Table 27.

4.3.5 Data Quality for Point Source Estimates

There are several sources of uncertainty in estimating loadings for point sources.
One of the major sources of uncertainty is that discharge monitoring is performed
on only a subset of nutrients, organic compounds, or metals at any one facility and,
therefore, there are a number of data gaps.

Discharge monitoring may occur in a manner that is aperiodic or uneven. In the
case of major stormwater outfalls, monitoring is event oriented. In the case of
minor dischargers, the overall availability of data may be limited.

Loadings developed on a drainage area basin may not reflect the loadings received
by Massachusetts Bays. A number of chemical and physical processes (e.g.,
volatilization, biodegradation, sedimentation) will affect the fate and transport of
materials discharged from point sources within the drainage areas. To provide a
lower bound for direct point source loadings, we have made a separate estimate for
major "coastal" dischargers located within the Massachusetts coastal zone. These
estimates exclude all the dischargers on the Merrimack Drainage Area, include all
those for the North Shore and South Shore and the Boston Harbor effluents.

Data quality for one set of compounds, PAHs, is especially uncertain, because few
data are available. Because the concentrations that we estimated in effluents may
be too high, we checked our total loads for the MWRA outfalls using the ratio of
PAH:TSS in the MWRA sludge. If 23,000 mt solids/yr are discharged in the sludge,
and 62,000 mt are discharged m the effluent, then the effluent discharges
approximately 2.7 times more solids than the sludge. Using this ratio and our data
for inputs from sludge, PAH discharges from MWTIA effluent would range from
124-5,830 kg/yr. This range is approximately the same as the 624-6,230 kg/yr that
we calculated.

We also checked PAH data using a more recent estimate from the MWRA
(personal communication, M. Connor, MWRA) that sludge inputs account for

71

approximately 365 kg/yr. Using the same PAH:TSS ratio, MWRA effluents would
contribute 986 kg PAHs/yr, a value just slightly higher than our lower estimates.

72

Table 27. Projected future loadings for MWRA effluents (kg/yr).

MWRA WMt«watM'

Primary

Secondary

pv—nX and futur*

EfflUMlt

Effluwit

Parcant

Load

Load

Reduction

Constituant

(kflAyr)

(kgAyr)

(%)

Conv^ntlonMl Pollutants

total suspended solids

6.20E+07

2.91 E+O/

53%

biochemicai oxygen demand

7.70E+07

1.99E+<J7

74%

total nitrogen

1.10E+07

7.06E*06

36%

total phosphorus

2.50E-t>06

1.19E+06

53%

Volatlh Organic Compounds

acetone

6.96E+04

3.48E403

95%

benzene

2.74E+03

1.36E+02

95%

bromomethane

1.03E+04

5.17E+02

95%

2-butanone

1.70E+04

1.70E4C3

90%

cartx>n disulfide

5.68E+03

2.84E402

95%

chiorobenzene

5.60E+03

5.61 E+02

90%

chloroform

3.69E+03

3.69E+02

90%

trans- 1 ,2-dichloroethylene

3.17E+03

4.95E+02

84%

ethytbenzene

5.54E+03

2.78E+02

95%

methyierte chloride

1.99E+04

9.97E+02

95%

4-methy!-2-pentanone

1.33E+04

1.33E+03

90%

styrene

6.22E+03

6.21 E+02

90%

1 .1 ,2.2-tetrachioroethane

5.68E-»-03

5.68E+02

90%

tetrachtoroethylene

1.02E+04

1.02E+03

90%

toluene

1.18E+04

1.18E+03

90%

1,1,1-trichloroethane

4.94E+03

4.10E+02

92%

trichloroethylene

5.78E+03

3.63E+02

94%

xylenes

1.77E+04

8.86E+02

95%

Volatlla Acid Extractable and Basa Neutral Compounds

benzoic acid

5.56E+04

5.56E+03

90%

benzyl alcohol

1.43E+04

1.43E+03

90%

bis(2-ethylhexyOphthalate

1.30E+04

1.30E+03

90%

butyibenzyl phthalate

1.06EH-04

5.27E+02

95%

di-n-butyi phthalate

1.13E+04

1.13E+03

90%

1,2-dichlorobenzene

1.24E+04

1.24E+03

90%

diethyl phthalate

1.12E+04

1.12E+03

90%

dimethyl phthalate

1.01E+04

6.6SE4C2

93%

di-n-octyl phthalate

1.09E+O4

1.09E403

90%

fluorene

2.72E+03

2.71 E+02

90%

2-methylnaphthalene

1.02E+04

1.02E+03

90%

2-methylphenol

1.46E'i04

1.46E+03

90%

4-methylphenol

1.26E-f04

1.26E+08

90%

naphthalene

8.70E+O3

4.35F+0e

95%

n-nitro6odiphenylamine

1.43E+04

4.43E+03

69%

phenol

8.51 E+03

5.33F+02

94%

2.4.54rlchlorophenol

6.65E404

6.64E+03

90%

73

If WRA Wastewater

Primary

S«cor>dary

prasent and futura

Effluant

Effluant

Parcant

Load

Load

Radudion

Constltuant

(kg/yr)

(kgW

(%)

ifaea/s

antimony

1 .88E+03

1 .08E+03

43%

arsenic

9.46E+02

6.31 E+02

33%

cadmium

1.19E+03

6.97E+02

41%

chromium

8.80E+03

3.52E+03

60%

copper

4.31 E+04

1.19E+04

72%

lead

6.22E+03

4.95E+03

20%

mercury

6.40E+02

2.06E+02

68%

fnolytxienum

3.18E+03

1.77E+03

44%

nickel

1.11 E+04

8.91 E+03

20%

selenium

7.94E+03

4.42E+03

44%

silver

2.08E+03

2.96E+02

86%

zinc

8.61 E+04

3.44E+04

60%

Posticki9 and Ottwr Compounds

akjrin

1.10E+02

1.10E+01

90%

4.4-DDT

2.68E+01

2.68E+00

90%

dieldrin

1.17E+01

1.17E+0C

90%

heptachlor

1.26E+02

1 .39E+01

89%

boron

2.55E+05

2.47E+05

3%

cyanide

1.67E+04

7.42E+03

56%

PCBs

5.27E+02

4.10E+01

92%

1 . Current loadings of conventional pollutants are from Menzie-Cura 1 991 ;
current and future loadings of toxics are calculated from Table 3.3.1(1-4) of Volume V,
Appendix A of Secondary Treatment Facilities Plan; future loadings of conventional
pollutants are calculated for average high groundwater days from the Trailer Pilot Plant
report prepared by Metcalf and Eddy (1 990).

74

5.0 NONPOINT SOURCE INVENTORY

5.1 General

Several categories of nonpoint sources were evaluated. These induded ruaoff from
urban and nonurban areas for the entire drainage areas as well as for a 0.5 mile area
along he coastal shoreline, direct discharge of coastal rivers, ocean disposal of
dredged material, atmospheric loadings, and groundwater discharees oi seleaed

S)Ilutants for selected drainage areas. In addition, an inventory of DEP Confirmed
azardous Waste Sites located within 500 feet of a surface water body draining to
the Massachusetts Bays was compUed. Sediment data for harbors and the bays were
reviewed in an effort to identify locations where levels of contaminants were
elevated and could represent in-place sediment contaminant sources.

5.2 Runoff from Urban and Nonurban Land Areas

Estimates of loadings have been made for each of the five drainage areas. In
addition additional calculations are presented for Boston Harbor. These
calculations are based on the Menzie-Cura (1991) report prepared for the NfWRA.

S.2.1 Runoff to Drainage Areas

Estimates of urban and nonurban runoff were developed for the areas delineated
for each of the five drainage areas. The bases for these areas are provided in
Section 3 of this report. Estimates of the concentrations of pollutants in the runoff
were taken from NOAA's National Coastal Pollutant Discharge Inventory (NCPDI)
and are based on data gathered as part of the Nationwide Urban Runoff Program
(NURP). Nonpoint source categories in the NCPDI data base included urban storm
runoff (CSO and non-CSO), runoff from cropland, runoff from pastures and
brushland, and runoff from deciduous, coniferous, and mixed forests with good and
poor cover. Although the NCPDI relies on extrapolation rather than upon direct
measurements, it is probably the best source of information necessary to estimate
runoff in the region.

Data in the NCPDI were reported by drainage basins defined by U.S. Geological
Survey (USGS) cataloging units, counties, and unique areas made up by overlaying
county lines upon the USGS cataloging units. As described in Section 3, we
assigned each of these areas (caUedHUCOs) to one of our five drainage areas:
Merrimack River, North Shore, Boston Harbor, South Shore, or Cape Cod Bay. In
some cases, a HUCO straddled the line of our drainage basins. In those instances,
we visually estimated the aerial proportion of the HUCO included in each drainage
basin. In subsequent calculations, we assumed that runoff was uniform throughout
the HUCO. Therefore, we adjusted data on runoff to reflect the pn^wrtion of that
HUCO included within the drainage area.

Adjusting data proportional^ isprobably a reasonable approach for estimating most
runoff. For areas tnat include CoOs, however, runoff may be disproportionate
between the drainage areas. Specifically, for HUCOs that straddled the North

75

Shore and Boston Harbor drainage areas, the methods would probably attribute
more runoff from CSOs to the North Shore than actually occurs.

The NCPDI used separate methods to calculate runoff from urban and nonurban
land-use areas. For urban land, runoff was calculated separately for areas with
CSOs and areas without CSOs. For areas with CSOs, estimates of flow were based
on the capacity of the wastewater treatment plant. The estimates accounted for
design capacity, the age and condition of the system, and the amount of the capacity
used to treat sanitary sewage. The estimates did not, however, include actual
measurements. MWRA has measured CSO flow and calculated 7.9 x 10^ gallons

per year from their entire system. The MWRA value is about one third of the value
estimated by the NCPDI for Boston Harbor and about one quarter the NCPDI
estimate for Boston Harbor and the North Shore combined. Therefore, the loads
calculated for CSOs using flow data from the NCPDI are probably over estimates.
Despite this shortcoming, we used the NCPDI data for flow.

The NCPDI calculated pollutant loads by multiplying total flow by typical
concentrations of pollutants in CSOs. For most contaminants, data were also
available for CSOs from the MWRA system (MWRA, 1989; Wallace et al., 1990)
(Table 28). For these data, we recalculated loads, using the NCPDI data for flow
and the MWRA data for contaminant concentration. .

For areas without CSOs, the NCPDI sunmied daily precipitation for each land-use
type. The total annual precipitation for each land-use type was multiplied by a land-
use-specific runoff coefficient, and these values were summed. Loads were
calculated using mean urban runoff concentrations for different types of land use
compiled for the NCPDI from NURP (EPA, 1983) and Stenstrom et al. (1984) in
Table 29.

Nonurban runoff was calculated using the Simulator for Water Resources for Rural
Basins (SWRRB) which was developed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture's
Agricultural Research Service (USDA ARS). SWRRB simulations were performed
for each HUCO that contained nonurban land-use types (all HUCOs except the one
comprising Suffolk County).

76

Table 28. Contaminant concentrations reported for MWRA CSOs and

the NCPDI.

Concentrations in CSOt

Pollutant

Units

NCPCX

MWRA

Total Suspended Solids

mg/l

310

240

Biochemical Oxygen Demand

mg/1

47.5

110

Total Nitrogen

mg/l

5.08

5.8

Total Phosphorus

mg/l

1.07

2.7

Fecal Collfomi

cells/100 ml

2.13E+05

Oil and Grease

mg/l

13.8

Iron

ug/l

10.5

Arsenic

ug/l

9.82

Cadmium

ug/l

8.09

3.5

Chromium

ug/l

103

22

Copper

ug/I

100

74

Lead

ug/l

474

92

Mercury

ug/I

0.673

Zinc

ug/l

264

217

PCBs

ug/l

0.42

77

%

c

3

10
C

o
«5

o

c
o

ID

C
O

o

2

c

o

J

I

E

e

u

z

E

8 m
*. £

? =

e

3
CE

e
m

3

O

1

c

1.

00

^ CM

CM

E

cvi

csi

8 CSi

CNJ "^

E

s ?

in
ca

CO

c\i

CO

Z, o

d

d

CO

d

E E

ss

+ +

UJ UJ

o o

"•- CM
K CO

+ +

UJ LU

O O

t- CNJ

1^ CO

SS

+ +

UJ UJ

o o
h*: CO

ss

+ +

LU HI

o o

1- ca

N: CO

SS

+ +

UJ UJ

o o

t- CM

f^ CO

E E
88

11

o o
u u

00
CO

E

CO
CM

CO
CM

CO

cvi

O 5

CM

S U)

V

r*.

00

m

oi

CM

00

T"

h*

d

CM

CO
CM

f3

CM

d

CM

^

S U3

^

N.

00

U3

o>

CM

00

h*

U3

d

CO

o

CM

U3
CM

S U)

d

CM

lA

d

CO

CM

CO

CO

(A

T*

1^

CM

CO

CM

'^

S kO

^

h^

00

in

d

CM

d

h-

d

cri

- CM

lA
CM

S wn

.fm.

r^

00

lA

d

CM

d

1^

r^

lA

d

CO

csi

Si 2 ^

E

E

3

E
S

o

2

2

N

(S
o

0.

78

Following the recommendation of USDA ARS (1976), runoff of total nitrogen and
total phosphorus from nonurban areas was based solely upon inputs from fertilizers.
The procedure employed by NCPDI was as follows:

For each county, determine the tons of nitrogen and phosphorus
applied per season.

Compute the total cropland in each HUGO.

Compute the amount of nitrogen and phosphorus appbed in each
HUCO by weighting the amounts according to area of cropland.

Determine the percent of cropland in each HUCO that is in
conservation tillage.

Compute the runoff of nitrogen and phosphorus discharged in each
HUCO by applying different loss rates from conservation and
conventional tillage.

Nonurban runoff of metals was calculated using data on concentrations of metals in
soils (Shacklette and Boemgen, 1984 for arsemc, chromiurn, copper, iron, lead,
mercury, and zinc; Helsel, 1978 and Lorenz, 1978 for cadmium). The quantity of
soil eroded in each HUCO for each season, calculated by SWRRB, ^-as multiplied
by the most frequently occurring concentration reported at the closest sampling
points to the HUCO.

Loads calculated using the NCPDI are presented in Table 30.

To estimate runoff from areas that drain directly into coastal waters, we arbitrarily
assumed that such runoff occurred from land within 0.5 mi of the shore. We
estimated the percentage of area within each drainage area that occurred within 0.5
mi of the shore as 0.3% for Merrimack River, 3% for North Shore, 2% for Boston
Harbor, 8% for South Shore, and 60% for Cape Cod Bay. Assuming that runoff is
uniform, we used these percentages of the values for total runoff to estimate runoff
from coastal areas. This procedure ignored differences in land-use practices along
the shoreline from those of the entire drainage areas. It also resulted in
underestimating inputs from CSOs that drain into coastal waters. These estimates
are provided in Table 31. Because we did not estimate river discharges from Cape
Cod to Cape Cod Bay, our summary information on flow and runoff from the Cape
Cod Drainage Area is based on the entire drainage area and not on the 0.5 mile
region from shore.

79

s

c

si

6|

3l

j|

2

i

r

a.

ID
O

i

Ui

D
O
ffi

2%

S8S88S

liJ LU LU UJ UJ LU
CNJ CSJ f^ O Q O

ca o> o o o cNj
T-* ^ <6 d d o>

+ + + + + +

LU UJ LU UJ UJ UJ
^- Op O Q Q e*5

o <o 00 o o ro
cri uJ t-^ d d cj

o o o o 8 3

+ + + + + +

LU LU LU UJ UJ UJ
^ vn >- Q Q KTi

h*; p CO q o cr>
u) o> c\j d d ^'

3S388S

++++++

UJ LU LU LU LU LU
S LO O O O CNi

^ <N 00 d d 1-^

+ + + + + +

LU UJ UJ LU LU UJ

CVJ <0 O Q Q 5

^ O) CM O O CO

^' d cj d d CO

^ in in Q Q (A
o o o o o o

+ + + + + +

UJ LJJ LU LU LU LU
1- Q U5 O Q O
U) in h* O O CNJ

o> -r^ "^ d d 1^

88^88^

+ + + + + +

LU LU UJ UJ UJ LU
^ CM h- Q Q CO
0> CVJ o> O O o>

CO* d -r^ d d cvj

88888^

+ + + + + +

LU LU LU UJ UJ LU
o in CM Q o r»-

00 00 O O O CO

W CM o> d d -^

(O CO r» Q o r«-
+ + + + + +

LU LU UJ UJ LU LU
CO CO ^ Q Q CO
"^ "^ f^ O O <o

CO in -r^ d d CM

o o o O O O

LU LU LU iij UJ UJ

S S 8 8 8 a

•'J «o CM d d CO

S8SS3S

+ -♦• + + + +

UJ LU LU LU LU LU
(O CM ^ CM <Q (D
O ^. CO (O <6 3

Ni in r^ »-' ^' evi

888358
++++++

LU LU LU LU LU LU

^ r- Ob ■^ 0> O
■^ ^ CM CO o> d

CM CM CM T- IP- CO

o o o o o o

+ + + + + +

LU LU LU UJ LU LU
CO CM CO O Q CM
CM CO 1^ O) O Csi

CO CM in d CM W

838So8

+ + + + + +

LU LU LU ULi LU LU

CO in h« o> o o

▼- CO O ^ CM ^
T-^ d CM CM 1^ -"d^

SS8S88

+ + + + + +

LU UJ LU LU LU UJ
h« Q ^ CD in o>

^ CO CO in m f^

t^ iri 1-^ T-: V CM

in in in m 9 (p

o o o o o o

+ + + + + +

LU LU UJ LU LU UJ

^ Op ^- CO Q CO

0> ^ (O p p 00

^ CO 00 ▼- CO ^

r^ r» h> (o (p 00

o o o o o o

+ + + + + +

LU LU LU UJ UJ Ui

o h* ^ m <p o>

CM CM <0 h^ a ^

CO CM in d T^ v^

+ + + + + +

LU LU UJ UJ UJ UJ

^ ^ '^ o o r*.

^ in r^ m CO o>

cvi •^" CO ^ f-' K

(O (O (o in m r^

T- ^ T- ^ 1^ 1»"

+ + + + + +

UJ 111 UJ LU LU LU

SCO (O Op o> ^

p h* to in o

CM 1-* ^' ih T-' T^

8 8 8 8 o o

+ + + + I,'. +

LU LU LU LU l^ UJ

m h. h» o> 2 «o

^ ^ 00 T- ^ r^

o> d d 1-* w cj

+ + + + , /^ +

UJ LU UJ LU UJ LU

8^SS^3

d CO CM in f^ 1-"

SSooSS
+ + + -♦•/?; +

UJ UJ UJ UU LU LU
5 5 O O «^ CM

^ r». m T-

CM

O O o o o o

+ + • • ■ +

UJ UJ LU UJ UJ UJ

o> h* 5; 2 a? CM

CM ^ t^ CO P 00

«:: ^ CO ^ CO ^'

!358S3
+ + +•;■ +

I UJ UJ UJ UJ LU

1 ^^ irt lA ^^ rrt

33

UJ LU UJ LU Ui LU

m o> m in ^^ CO
^_ h«; ^ CM P p

ui r^ W CM ^ r^

CO CO CO Q CM "5

o o o o o o

+ + + + + +

UJ LU LU LU LU LU

o o h* r«- o 00

•^ -»- T- O ^ ^

d CM ^* ▼-^ 1-^ "»-■

in ^ ^ CM CO m

o o o o o o

+ + + + + +

UJ LU UJ UJ LU LU

^ O) <0 N- <0 h*

<0 O O O ^ O

T^ CO *-^ ^* T-* CM

r^ r*. <p in CO h-

o o o o o o

+ + + + + +

UJ LU LU LU LU LU

CM CVJ a> ;o in ^

CM f- <o ^ <o in

CO T^ ■»-* CO K '^

in 5 CO CM *- in

o o o o o o

+ + + + + +

LU UJ LU LU LU LU

SO> » ^ in T-

o> o *- m ^

CM CM CM CM ^' CM

888888

++++++

UJ UJ LU LU UJ UJ

888888

G d d d d d

888835

UJ UJ LU LU UJ LU

m Q CO CM S "»"
CM <0 O CM Cy ▼-

• • • • •

CO CM -•-•»- "^ '-

LU UJ UJ LU LU iU
^ r» in CM (Q Z
in <o a> d (O S

o> f»* ^^ ▼- ^ o

88835S

•♦• + + •♦> + ♦

LU UJ LU UJ UJ UI

CO ^ T- m r*. V-
^ u) r>. in o> V-

CO CM ^' co' d ri

w w w ^ ^ «

O O O O O Q

+ + + + + ♦
LU UJ LU lU

5 5 O 8

LU LU LU LU UJ

CO rv

p CM

CO d CO d CM v^

S883p

+ + + + +

LU UJ LU LU LU

in r*. Op ^ o

00 CM CD in CM
^-^ T-^ CM CM is!

888S8S

+ + + + + ♦

LU LU LU UJ LU Ui

h^ in CM cp o> u>
CM CM in in to CM

T^ ^* CO ▼^ ^ d

in in (o in 9 CD
o o o o o 5

+ + + + + ♦

LU LU LU LU LU UJ

SO) in CO CM (D
CM CO O ▼- K

r*.' ih ^ ^" CO ei

^^88S

+ + + + +

o
+

LU UJ LU LU LU UJ

^ ▼- in o ^ in

00 o h* •»- g> fli

d ^' 1^ K ^' «-^

^ (o h> m in N

o o o o o p

+ + + + + ♦

LU LU LU LU UJ UI

m 0> 00 Q p 01

▼- CO CM in w ^

-^ ^* T-' "^ -^ CM

<o (O ro m in K

+ '? + +'?♦

lU UJ LU UJ LU Ui

n (O ^ op O) lA

T- ^ CM <o in S)

d 1**^ CM in W CO

080809

UJ LU UJ LU UJ UI

CM o in -•- <5 *
<o o> CO ^ «^ 01

1-^ d *-^ CM w «»

I

CO c ^O

«-?£ ^

80

Loads via Runoff

F«

Pb

Hg

Zn

Oil

PCBs

Total Drainage Areas

kg/yr

kg/yr

kg/yr

kg/yr

kg/yr

kg/yr

Area/Source

CSO Inputs

Merrimack River

1.72E+05

1.51E+03

1.11E+01

3.56E+03

2.26E+05

6.83E+00

North Shore

2.71 E+05

2.38E+03

1.74E+01

5.62E+03

3.57E+05

1.08E*01

Boston Hartx>r

8.58E+05

7.54E+03

5.50E+01

1.78E+04

1.13E+06

3.41 E+01

South Shore

O.OOE+00

O.OOE+00

O.OOE+00

O.OOE+00

O.OOE+00

O.OOE+00

Cape Cod Bay

O.OOE+00

O.OOE+00

O.OOE+00

O.OOE+00

O.OOE+00

O.OOE+00

TOTAL

1.30E+06

1.14E+04

8.35E+01

2.70E+04

1.71 E+06

5.17E+01

NonCSO Inputs

Merrimacl< River

5.78E+05

3.23E+04

1.78E+01

3.59E+04

1 .42E+06

O.OOE+00

North Shore

4.09E+05

2.30E+04

1.26E+01

2.54E+04

1.01 E+06

O.OOE+00

Boston Hartx)r

1.01 E+06

5.67E+04

3.11E+01

6.30E+04

2.50E+06

O.OOE+00

South Shore

1.22E+05

6.82E+03

3.75E+00

7.57E+03

2.93E+05

O.OOE+00

Cape Cod

3.52E+04

1.98E+03

1.09E+00

2.19E+03

8.18E+04

O.OOE+00

TOTAL

2.16E+06

1.21 E+05

6.64E+01

1.34E+05

5.30E+06

O.OOE+00

NonUrban

Merrimacic River

6.60E+05

4.82E+02

3.22E-03

1.45E+03

O.OOE+00

O.OOE+00

North Shore

3.34E+05

1.68E+02

1.12E-03

5.03E+02

O.OOE+00

O.OOE+OO

Boston Hartx)r

2.53E+04

2.44E+01

1.69E-04

7.58E+01

O.OOE+00

O.OOE+00

South Shore

5.20E+03

3.46E+00

3.46E-05

1.56E+01

O.OOE+00

O.OOE+00

Cape Cod Bay

1.15E+02

7.65E-02

3.82E-07

1.30E-01

O.OOE+00

O.OOE+00

TOTAL

1.02E+06

6.78E+02

4.54E-03

2.04E+03

O.OOE+00

O.OOE+00

Total

Merrimack River

1.41 E+06

3.43E+04

2.88E+01

4.09E+04

1.64E+06

6.83E+00

North Shore

1.01 E+06

2.55E+04

3.00E+01

3.16E+04

1.37E+06

1.08E+01

Boston Hartx>r

1.90E+06

6.42E+04

8.62E+01

8.08E+04

3.63E+06

3.41 E+01

South Shore

1.27E+05

6.83E+03

3.75E+00

7.59E+03

2.93E+05

O.OOE+00

Cape Cod

3.53E+04

1.98E+03

1.09E+00

2.19E+03

8.18E+04

O.OOE+00

TOTAL

4.48E+06

1.33E+05

1.50E+02

1.63E+05

7.02E+O6

5.17E+01

81

(0

CO

o
o

B

9

1

•

O
C

^
?

«D

o

1

(0
Ul

CO

9

5

oS

ol

si

2I

s

II

Z

a f

Ss

LU UJ LU LU LU tlJ
a CO O CO CD p

CO csi CO -r^ cvi ^

??????

LU Lli LU HI 111 Ul

8 S ? S 8 S

T^ K o> C«i (O M

!?????

UJ LU LU HI HI U
T- ^ "*- <0 '- ^

f ?????

LU LU LU LU UJ UJ

<o CO U5 cvi ^ ^

LU LU LU LU LU Ul
CM ^ in (D C^ M

oS r^ o CNj 00 10
CO CO t**^ T^ cvi ^

LU LU LU LU LU Ul

10 o> » t; li: 2

CJ U) <0 CSJ CO M

csi ■^-^ cvi CO* ^ h»

fllll!

o

LU UJ

o ca
cj

LU LU lU Ul

u) CO CO p

U) « T- h»

• • • *

▼- T- m ^ ^

mil?

LU LU LU UJ LU UJ

^ CM to Q £i ^
CM CO 10 © CO *^

^ T-* CM CO 1^ 10

^ U5 U5 ^ ^ Ift

T- ^- ^ ▼- ^ *"

+ + + + + +

LU UJ LU lU LU Ul

CO 10 J «D

S CM
T^ CM

I/)

C4

^ o> •

LU LU LU LU lU Ul

rs. fx^ p CO rr M
00 o> t^ o> ▼- o

CM CM T- CM ^

82

ffi ^

O*

't

888888
+ + + ■♦■ + ♦

LU Uil LU LU UJ Ul

888888

d d ^ d d ^
+ + + + + +

111 LJ 111 UJ lit 111
CO O <0 5 ^ ^
O) '" CNJ CO O) 0>

'd^ '^^ 1^ CNJ •^* ^-J

^S|

8g8S

+ + +

LU 111 HI LU m UJ

CO h* cj r«* CM ^

CM <^ <0 O CO (D

• •••••

^ o> •»- <o '- ^

888888

+ + + + + *

LU 111 LU UJ 111 UJ

888888

d T- cvi d ■»- W

+ + + + + +

LU LU UJ LU LU Ul
CO U) 0> (O o> O

o <D cvi rr -r- 6
1-^ r*^ 1-* ir> T^ eo

833SS$
++++++

liJ UJ

LU UJ

CO

CM

"^ CO CO T-"

LU LU

SO) ^
r^ o

CM 1^

83

5.2.2 CSOs and Stormwater Discharges to Boston Harbor

This section of the report presents calculations made by Menzie-Cura (1991)
for the MWRA. We estimated urban runoff to Boston Harbor in two ways:
The first involved using information developed for MWRA by CH2M Hill
(1989). The second involved applying the NURP model to the Boston Harbor
area. For Quincy Bay, recently discovered problems with storm-drain
contamination may result in loadings being underestimated.

CH2M Hill Studv

Estimates of pollutant loading to Boston Harbor from CSOs and storm drains
are from the Facilities Plan (CH2M Hill, 1989). The study area for the
Facilities Plan includes the Dorchester Bay Basin, the Neponset Estuary Basin,
the Inner Harbor Basin, and the Quincy Bay /Outer Harbor Basin, which
comprise the North Harbor as defined for tne present analysis. The
Alewife/Mystic Basin, the Upper Charles River Basin, and the Lower Charles
River Basin are other basins for which loadings were estimated by CH2M HiU;
these are not included in the estimates of direct loading to Boston Harbor
since their contribution is included as tributary sources. None of the CSO or
storm drain load in these estimates directly enters the South Harbor.

Annual pollutant loadings due to CSOs and storm drains were calculated by
CH2M Hill using a sewer model that was calibrated with measured
concentrations and flow rates taken during wet and dry conditions during the
spring and summer of 1988 (CH2M HILL Tech. Mem. 3-10).

The Facilities Plan provides estimates of dry weather overflow (DWO), and
wet weather overflow from CSOs and storm drains (SWO). The DWO
estimate was subtracted from the sum of the CSO and SWO estimates to
obtain the net discharge associated with storm events.

Estimates of loads via CSOs and stormwater to the northern Boston Harbor
are provided in Table 32. These estimates were taken from the facilities plan
authored by CH2M Hill and are presented according to their selected basins:
Dorchester Bay, Neponset Estuary, Inner Harbor, and Quincy Bay/Outer
Harbor. All these basins are contained within North Harbor as defined for the
present analysis. No estimates of CSO loadings were available for the South
Harbor.

Total annual loading to North Harbor is estimated to be 8,855 mt total
suspended solids, 3,905 mt BOD, 20 kg TKN, 96 kg phosphorus, 4,278 kg
copper, 354 kg lead, 854 kg zinc, and 4.92E+ 16 counts fecal coliform.

84

c o»|

N J

»n ^ «n
♦ + +

LU LU LU

9 c^ in
m aS ^

CNJ CNJ CNJ

"»- 00

X) at
a. ^

o

CD

E
E

3
«0

TJ
CO

2^

Z O
CQ A

i«

iz

«c

(/> CO

C
CD
w
O

CD

E
o

2
|2

3 I

(L OB

I- 5H

I" I

5^

CM fy. U)

u> -»- u>

52 «

ca

CNJ

I

s

U)

<0 («> uj
CNi S U)

ca " csi

E

3

o

hs e

O

CO

o -s

2
ico

"♦■ -f +

LU LU LU

S J8 S?

00 00 h«^

^ ▼-■ cj

^ fc s
eg CNJ CO

CM

0> T-

CO

"S

Q U) lA
^ -r- C4
^ -^ -^

O U) U)

-_ CNJ CO
CM CNJ

o>

S2$§

o>

o> o

'•- CM

(0 (A <0

T T ^
LU LU LU

^' CO ^

i

CO
. CM
<D CM* OT

I/) <o
CO r: CM

CO ^ CO

"^ *r% ^

lO 2 a

CM 2 O

CM* CO*

fs. o <0
<0 ^ f^

^!$£

^ s ^

in CO*

S

— 2 in

<o 2 o

*».r CO _.-

CM CO

e

CO s

(0 ^

ii

LU LU LU

8U) in
m in

d a> o>

P is CO

i

in 00
-t- m

i/i n o>
CO »- ^
CM eg ^

LU
CM

!8
CM*

in*

CO

CM

f^ CM °

m T- to

••- »- CM

CM

c» 2 CO

$

CM O)

in
m

00
00*

o> o S

CM »- CO

m
o

CO*

I O s «
c CO o ^

I

o

S

6

9

C
9

5 & i«

« c o i «

3 CO 2 "5

8S

We estimated pollutant loading to Boston Harbor due to direct urban runoff
from the cities and towns within the coastal drainage basin using the
methodology adopted by the EPA Nonpoint Source Branch (described in the
National IJrban Runoff Program Report available from EPA Office Of
Water). The NURP methodology is a stochastic approach. It models the
episodic rainfall events which cause urban runoff, in the model, pollutant
concentration in runoff derives from land use category and rainfall event
statistics. The NURP approach calculates loadings from total rainfall and the
area within each land use category.

Event statistics were calculated from long-term, hourly rainfall records from
four gauging stations in eastern Massachusetts. Mean and coefficient of
variation for storm duration, intensity, volume, and time between storms were
calculated using SYNOP, a computer program developed specifically to
provide input for the NURP analysis. Pollutant concentration and runoff
coefficient for each land use type were taken from the NURP report based on
the event statistics provided by SYNOP. The area of each land-use category
within the cities and towns bordering Boston Harbor was from Hruby et al.
(1988) and is based on the land use maps of MacCoimell et al. (1985). These
areas include only the portion of cities and towns within the coastal drainage
basin (Table 33).

Pollutant loadings by land-use category were calculated by multiplvine the
mean concentration by the runoff coefficient and an armual rainfall or 44
inches. Total loading was calculated by summing over land-use categories.

Loadings are estimated for total suspended solids, BOD and COD combined,
total phosphorous, total nitrogen, TkN, copper, lead, and zinc (Table 34).
Estimates of loadings for other pollutants are not validated sufficiently using
the NURP methodology to allow their presentation.The estimated loadings for
lead, 6,585 kg for North Harbor and 1927 kg for South Harbor, may be higher
than present loadings due to decreased use of leaded gasoline since the time
the >fURP methodology was developed. The NURP estimate is much lower
than the estimated lead loading reported by Hruby et al. (1988), which is
roughly 60,000 kg/yr to North and South Harbors combined. Hruby et al.
relied on the methodology of Midwest Research Institute (McElroy et al.,
1976), using lead loadings which are likely outdated.

86

a

i2

m

Sssa

00 f-

3
P

(0

s

9

C

S

CO
O o

oO

CO CO
3 O

o

CO

E
E

3

I

o

I.

m
e

e

I-

O Q O O O

ssssf

00 o J^ o o>

Oi

CO "t-

T- O C5 O 00

^ CVJ

B
i2

E

5

I w

ll

lis

« o S; <=> ®

o

0> Q CNJ

(O O ^ (A (O

ca

c
«

2

o

5) CO <o N.
O T- CO

o o o o

5 15 S o

•^-3

^5es

?^|55

o

sis

M3 ^ «^ -K
in 5^ T- CO

CO o N. i:

__-__- - CO

0»

s

Q

I

E

3

Ko

§

lllli

e
It

I

I

sf=t|

MX X O^

(0

87

N C.

u

c

O

n
z

(0

o

OTJ

«

3
C

O
CO

E
E

3

•

CO

o
2

.(0

^ 5*

?s

a.

p>

la. o o

@ CD w

e

I* e

Ri-S

lo

a
a
c
c
<

o

i

E

3

CO

CO CM

-Is 5

CM
CO"

<0 CM h- 00 CO
h* CO CO CO 1-
O U5 -^ 1-

^ O) 0> CO CO

O CO

00 y-

CM

^

■*

CO

o

CM

CM

CM CO CO CM

S

co" "^"

CO CM O) 0> CO

a> CO ^ ^ r^

0> ^ O CM h*

T-" CM*

r^ ir> CO CM r>»
u) CO r^ CO CM
CO CO r^ T- o)

ST- g CM -^
00 00 ^ r^

-»- T- ^

It o>

^

CO

o

?

CM

1- 00 ^ in

CO ■«»■ Ui CO

CO O) r». "^

CM OJ

O)

h*.

o>

o

00 T-

CO

00

r»-

O" lO

co"

o>"

h-"

r>."

co" K T-" o

CO

CO

CM

CM O)

00

o

h".

CM "T- in o>

CO CM
« CO

h^

w

a>

CM

CO

O CO U5 CO

r^ 00 00 oo

U5_

CO

o

"t

-*" cm"

^

oo"

co"

co"

^ co" of

"

"

00 h-

U)

•*

5

■*

CO

CM CO CM CO

"*r Q in in

■^ 00

00

CM

CM O

^

UJ

■«t

r>. CO CO -»-

co" ▼-"

co"

■^

'"

1-" '^*

O) o

O)

•^

CM

o>

r^

f- in h- o

T- CO

o>

O)

CM

s

00 0> CO ▼"

00 CM

CM

\Xi

T- CO o

h* CO o) CO in
in in m CO CO

N» CO CO T- ^-

cm"

a
KB

•

«
c

&

O

c

S=l

(0 9

"?= to

5 « 2 <D c a
lO o ^ > > o

Z CD O LLI ^ h-

CB

CD

E

Q

I

I I

o.e

(0

_ c 2k75
O > I-

88

5.3 Discharges from Coastal Rivers

The major coastal rivers discharging to Massachusetts Bay are presented in Section
6 along with estimates of annual flow. We have estimated loaclings associated with
these rivers as another method for estimating loading^ associated with point and
nonpoint sources within the various drainage areas. The approach involved
developing estimates of pollutant concentrations near the mouths of the rivers and
multiplying these estimates by aimual river flows presented in Section 3 of this
report.

Estimates of pollutant concentrations were developed using a combination of
measurements made by the Massachusetts DWPC along with literature vsilues on
typical levels of chemicals in river water. The latter data were used in several cases
where the measurements did not seem to be correa in our opinion or where data
were lacking.

S.3.1 Water Quality Data for Massachusetts Rivers

Water quality data were available at or near the mouths of several rivers within the
Massacnusetts Bay drainage areas:

• Merrimack River. Data were available for two stations sampled in
1986, one at the Routes 1 and lA bridge in Newburyport (River Mile
3.0) and one near the Essex-Merrimack Bridge in Amesbury (River
Mile 5.2). Data were also available for 1989, but the farthest
downstream station was at the Route 25 bridge in Haverhill (River
Mile 18.5).

• Ipswich River. Data were available for two stations sampled in 1985,
one at Green Street in Ipswich (River Mile 4:2) and one at the GTE-
Sylvania Dam in Ipswich (River Mile 4^).

• Parker River. Data were available for one station sampled in 1984,
the Route 1 bridge in Newburyport (River Mile 4.9).

• Mystic River. Data were available for one station sampled in 1983-
1986, near the confluence with the Island End River.

• Chelsea River. Data were available for one station sampled in 1983-
1986, at Meridian Street (River Mile 02).

• Qiarles River. Data were available for one station sample in 1982-
1986, just downstream of the Charlestown Bridge.

• Neponset River. Data were available for one station sampled in 1984-
1986, just upstream from the Neponset Bridge in BostoiL

• North River. Data were available for one station san^led in 1989, at
the Bridge Street bridge in Norwell (River Mile 42). Only
conventional parameters were measured.

89

Summaries of the water quality data for the rivers are provided in Tables 35 through
43.

90

Table 35. Water quality data for total suspended solids.

River Water Quality

TSS Concentraticns (mg/l)

Number

Number

Number

River

Stations

Years

Obeerv.

Mewi

MIn

Max

References

Merrimack Drainage

Merrimack River

3

2

10

6.80

3.50

19.00

DEQE,1988.DEP, 1990a

North Shore Drainage

Ipswich River

2

1

5

3.70

3.00

6.50

DEQE.1986a

Essex River

Rowley River

Parker River

1

1

2

17.00

14.00

20.00

DEQE.1986b

Annisquam River

Bass River

htorth River

Danvers River

Crane River

Pines River

Saugus River

*

Boston Harbor Drainage

Mystic River

1

5

30

15.10

1.00

46.00

DEQE,1982,19e3. 1984, 1986c. 1987

Chelsea River

1

3

21

13.37

4.00

56.x

DEQE. 1984,1986c, 1987

Charles River

1

5

31

11.26

0.00

30.00

DEQE. 1982,1983,1984, 1986C.1987

Neponset River

1

3

18

16.61

<2

31.00

DEQE,1984,1986c,1987

Weymouth Fore River

Weymouth Back River

Weir River

South Shore Drainage

South River

North River

1

1

3

3.00

2.00

4.50

DEP.1990b

Green Hartxx River

Jor>es River

Town Brook

Eel River

Herring River

Beaver Brook Dam

Mean for rivers

10.86

Mean for all measurenients

12.59

91

Table 36. Water quality data for biochemical oxygen demand.

River WatM' OiMriity

'

BOD Concentrations (mg/1)

Number

Number

Number

River

Stations

Years

Observ.

Mean

IMin

IMax

References

Merrimack Drainage

MeTTimack River 3

North Shore Drainage

Ipswich River 2

Essex River

Rowley River

Parker River 1

Annisquam River

Bass River

North River

Danvers River

Crar>e River

Pir^es River

Saugus River

Boston Hart>or Drainage

Mystic River

Chelsea River 1

Charles River

Neponset River

Weymouth Fore River

Weymouth Back River

Weir River

1.61 0.00 2.40 DEQE.1988:DEP.1990a

2.64 0.90 4.80 DEQE, 1986a

3.10 1.20 5.00 DEQE,1986b

4.58 1.20 8.70 DEQE, 1982, 1983

South Shore Drainage

South River
North River
Green Hartxx River
Jones River
Town Brook
Eel River
Herring River
Beaver Brook Dam

DEP,1990b

Mean for rivers

Mean for all measurements

3.98
3.00

92

Table 37. Water quality data for nitrogen.

River Water Quality

Nitrogen Concentrations (mg/l)

Nunnt>er

Numl>er

Number

River

Stations

Years

Observ.

Mean

iyiin

Max

Reference*

Merrimack Drainage

Mwnmack River

North Shore Drainage

Ipswich River
Essex River
Rowley River
Parker River
Annisquam River
Bass River
North River
Danvers River
Crarte River
Pines River
Saugus River

Boston Harbor Drainage

Mystic River
Chelsea River
Charles River
Neponset River
Weymouth Fore River
Weymouth Back River
Weir River

1.44 0.87 2.03 DEQE.1988;DEP. 1990a

1.49 0.97 3 00 DEQE, 1986a

2.01 1.51 2.50 DEQE, 1986b

5

31

1.59

0.50

2.80

3

22

2.85

1.07

6.61

S

31

1.63

0.44

3.11

3

19

1.77

0.72

4.11

DEQE, 1982.1983, 1984. 1986c.19e7
DEQE, 1984. 1986c, 1987
DEQE , 1 982, 1 983. 1 984 , 1 986c 1 987
DEQE, 1984, 1986c. 1987

South Shore Drainage

South River
North River
Green Hartxx River
Jones River
Town Brook
Eei River
Herring River
Beaver Brook Dam

1.71

1.53

1.90 DEP, 1990b

Mean for rivers

Mean for all measurements

1.81
1.86

93

Table 38. Water quality data for phosphorous.

River Watar QuaHty

PhosphofiM Concentrations (mg/l) Number Number Number

River Stationa Years Observ.

Mean

MIn

Max References

Merrimack Drainage

Merrimack River

North Shore Drainage

Ipswich River
Essex River
Rowley River
Parker River
Annisquam River
Bass River
North River
Danvers River
Crane River
Pines River
Saugus River

Boston Harbor Drainage

Mystic River
Chelsea River
Charles River
Neponset River
Weymouth Fore River
Weymouth Back River
Weir River

11

0.14 0.09 0.20 DEQE.1988;DEP,1990a

0.09

0.07 0.11 DEQE. 1986a

0.15 0.14 0.16 DEQE,1986b

5

31

0.17

0.04

0.29

DEQE.1982,1983,1984.1986C,1987

3

27

0.20

0.08

0.36

DEQE.1984.1986c.1987

5

31

0.17

0.06

0.39

DEQE. 1 982. 1 983. 1 984. 1 986c. 1 987

3

19

0.18

0.11

0.28

DEQE.1984.1986c.1987

South Shore Drainage

South River
North River
Green Hartxx River
Jor>es River
Town Brook
Eel River
Herring River
Beaver Brook Dam

0.15 0.13 0.17 DEP.1990b

Mean for rivers

Mean for all measurements

0.16
0.18

94

r

Table 39. Water quality data for cadmium.

River Water Qu^tty

Cadmium Concentrations (mg/l)

Number

Number

Number

River

Stations

Years

Observ.

Mean

MIn

Max

Refer an c««

Merrimack Drainage

Merrimack River

North Shore Drainage

Ipswich River
Essex River
Rowley River
Parker River
Annisquam River
Bass River
North River
Danvers River
Crane River
Pines River
Saugus River

Boston Harbor Drainage

Mystk: River
Chelsea River
Charles River
Neponset River
Weymouth Fore River
Weymouth Back River
Weir River

10 0.001 0.000 0.004 DEQE,1988:DEP, 1990a

0.000 0.000 0.000 DEQE, 1986a

0.000 0.000 0.000 DEQE. 1986b

4
2

4
2

20

0.020

0.000

0.070

DEQE, 1 982, 1 983. 1 984, 1 986c

13

0.020

0.000

0.060

DEQE. 1984, 1986c

21

0.018

0.000

0.070

DEQE, 1982.1983, 1984. 1986c

12

0.021

0.000

0.060

DEQE, 1984. 1986c

South Shore Drainage

South River
North River
Green Harbor River
Jones River
Town Brook
Eel River
Herring River
Beaver Brook Dam

DEP. 1990b

Mean for rivers

Mean for all measurements

0.011
0.017

Values entered as 0 are less than detection limits of .001 -.02 mg/1

95

Table 40. Water quality data for chromium.

Water OuaMy

Chromium Concantraflons (mg/l) Numbar Numbar Numbar
RIvar Stattona Yay Ob—r^. Maan MIn Max Referancaa

Merrimack Drainage

Merrimack Rivar 2 1 4 0.00 0.00 0.00 DEQE,1988;DEP.1990a

North Shore Drainage

Ipswich Rivar 11 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 DEOE.1986a

Essax Rivar

Rowiay Rfvar

Parltar Rivar 1 1 1 0.01 0.01 0.01 DEQE,1986b

Annisquam Rivar

Bass Rivar

NorlhRivar

Danvars Rivar

Crane River

Pines River

Saugus River

Boston Harbor Drainage

Mystic River 1 4

Chelsea River 1 2

Charles River 1 4

Neponset River 1 2

Weymouth Fore River
Weymouth Bacic River
Weir River

South Shore Drainage

South River

North River DEP.1990b

Qreen Harbor River

Jones River

TownBrooic

Eel River

Herring River

Beaver Brook Dam

Mean for rivers o.oi

Mean for all measurements 0.02

23

0.03

0.00

0.06

DEQE,1982,1983,1984.19e6c

14

0.02

0.00

0.03

DEQE.1984,1986C

23

0.02

0.00

0.06

DEQE,1982.1983,1984.1986C

13

0.02

0.00

0.04

DEQE. 1984, 1986c

Values entered as 0 are less Ihan the detection limtt of 0.02 mgd

96

Table 41 . Water quality data for copper.

Water Oiuriity
Coppar Conoantratfofw (rngfti Numbar
Rivar Stationa

Nmnbar

Obaarv.

yin

Max Rafarencaa

Merrimack Drainage

Marrimack Rtvar 3

North Shora Dralnaga

Ipswich Rivar 1

Easax Rivar

Rowiay Rivar

ParKar Rivar 1

Annisquam Rivar

Basa Rivar

North Rivar

Danvars Rivar

Crana Rivar

Pinas Rivar

Saugus Rivar

Boston Hart>or Drainage

Mystic Rivar 1

Chalsaa Rivar 1

Chartas Rivar 1

Naporisat Rivar 1

Waymouth Fore Rivar
Waymouth Back Rivar
Wair Rivar

11

0.002

<0.002

0.000

<0.002

0.019 DEQE.1968,DEP,1»0a

<0.002 <0.002 DEQE.1986a

0.000

0.000 DEQE. 19666

4
2

4
2

23

0.070

<0.02

0.150

14

0.068

<0.02

0.250

23

0.054

<0.02

0.240

14

0.069

<0.02

0.260

DEQE. 1 982. 1 963. 1 964. 1 9e6c
DEOE. 1984. 1966c
DEQE. 1982, 1963, 1964 19660
DEQE. 1984. 19660

South Shore Drainage

South Rivar
North Rivar
Qraan Hartxx Rivar
Jonas Rivar
Town Brook
Eal Rivar
luring Rivar
Baavar Brook Dam

DEP.1990b

Mean for rivers

Mean for all measurements

0.129
0.056

97

Table 42. Water quality data for lead.

River Water Quality

Lead Concentrations (mg/l)

Number

Numl}er

Numljer

River

Stations

Years

OI>8erv.

iMean

IMin

Max

References

Merrimack Drainage

Merrimack River

North Shore Drainage

Ipswich River
Essex River
Rowley River
Parker River
Annisquam River
Bass River
North River
Danvers River
Crarw River
Pines River
Saugus River

Boston Harbor Drainage

Mystic River
Chelsea River
Charles River
Neportset River
Weymouth Rxe River
Weymouth Back River
Weir River

11

0.01

<0.02

0.06

<0.02

<0.02

0.06

0.03 DEQE.1988;DEP.1990a

<0.02 DEQE, 1986a

0.06 DEQE, 1986b

4
2
4
2

23

0.22

<0.04

0.40

DEQE,1982,1983,1984,1986c

14

0.19

<0.04

0.46

DEQE. 1984, 1986c

23

0.17

<0.04

0.33

DEQE, 1 982, 1 983, 1 984, 1 986c

13

0.19

<0.04

0.37

DEQE,1984,1986c

South Shore Drainage

South River
North River
Green Harbor River
Jones River
Town Brook
Eel River
Herring River
Beaver Brook Dam

Mean for rivers

Mean for all measurements

0.12
0.168

98

Table 43. Water quality data for zinc.

Rlw YiaHmr Quality

Zinc Concentrations (mg/l) NumtMr Number Number

River Stations Years Ot>serv. Mean Min Max References

Merrimack Drainage

Merrimack River 3 2 11 0.004 0.000 0.023 DEQE.19d8,DEP. 1990a

North Shore Drainage

Ipswich River 1 1 1 0.000 0.000 0.000 DEOE. 1986a

Essex River

Rowley River

Parker River 1 1 2 0.040 0.020 0.060 DEQE.l986b

Annisquam River

Bass River

North River

Danvers River

Crane River

Pines River

Saugus River

Boston Harbor Drainage

Mystk: River 1

Chelsea River 1

Charles River 1

Neponset River 1

Weymouth Fore River
Weymouth Back River
Weir River

South Shore Drainage

South River

North River DEP. 1990b

Green Hart)or River

Jortes River

Town Brook

Eel River

Herring River

Beaver Brook Dam

Mean for rivers o.03i

Mean for all nieasurements ooss

Values entered as 0 are less than detection linvts ol 0.03-0.03 mgd

4

23

0.037

0.000

0.100

DEQE, 1 982, 1 983, 1 984, 1 986c

2

14

0.021

0.000

0.070

DEQE. 1984. 1986c

4

23

0.048

0.000

0.450

DEQE.1982.1983.1984.1966C

2

13

0.069

0.000

0.210

DEQE. 1984, 1986c

99

S.3.2 Estimates of Loadings via Major Rivers

Based on an evaluation of the reliability of the data in Tables 35 through 43, we
judged that the following water quality parameters could be relied upon for making
estimates of loadings from the available measurement data: total suspended solids,
biochemical oxygen demand, nitrogen, and phosphorus. The data for metals were
not considered entirely reliable because some ot the values greatly exceeded levels
reported for urban riverine environments and also differed with more recent data
gathered by Gordon Wallace of University of Massachusetts at Boston. No data
were available for the levels of PAHs in Massachusetts river water.

Based on a review of the literature on metals and PAH levels in rivers of the United
States, ranges were developed for estimating loadings of these chemical compounds
to Massachusetts Bays via rivers (Table 44). Primary sources of data were Neff
(1979), Forstner and Wittman (1981), USGS (1985), USEPA (1983, 1986), Atlas et
al. (1986), USPHS (1987), and Menzie et al. (1991).

Table 44. Literature values for ranges of concentrations of selected

chemicals In river water.

Chemicals Range from Literature Value Used

Review

Arsenic 90% < 10 ug/1 10 ug/1

Cadmium 0.01 - 7 1 ug/1

Chromium 1 - 30 ug/1 6 ug/1

Copper 10 ug/1

Lead 1-890 1-30 ug/1

Zinc 2 -50,000 ug/1 1-30 ug/1

PAHs 10-lOOng/l 50ng/l
PCBs 0.1 - 20 ng/1 1 ng/1
Phthalates 50 - 10.000 ng/1 IQQ flg/l

Using either the measured values or the ranges in literature values, estimates were
made of the loadings via major rivers are provided in Tables 45 through 57.

100

Table 45. Loadings of total suspended solids via rivers.

Riv«r Loads

Annual

Cone. Ussd

suspended solids

flow rats

Avg

In Loadings

Estlmatsd

(m3/ssc)

Ysarsof

Cone

Estimats

Loadings

Data

(mg/I)

(mgA)

(Kg/Yr)

lltonimack Drainags

Merrimaclc River

243.84

3

7.58

7.58
Subtotal =

5.83E-»-07

5.83E-^07

North Shots Drainags

Ipswich River

6.46

1

3.25

3.25

6.62E-^05

Essex River

0.45

10.SO

1.49E-K05

Rowley River

0.48

10.50

1.59E-.^)6

Parker River

2.86

2

16.58

16.58

1.50E^06

Annisquam River

0.11

10JO

3.64E*04

Bass River

0.07

10.50

2.32E-»-04

North River

10.50

0.0OE*O0

Danvers River

0.59

10.50

1.95E-»^)5

Crane River

0.28

10.50

9.27E+04

Pines River

0.48

10.50

1.59E-K05

Saugus River

2.32

10JO

Subtotal =

3.74E^-06

7.68E-K05

Boston Hart>or Drainags

Mystic River

3.18

5

11.97

11.97

1.20E.K06

Chelsea River

5

15.47

15.47

O.OOE+00

Charles River

15.35

5

10.16

10.16

4.92E*06

Neponset River

5.58

6

21.92

21.92

3.86E+06

Weymouth Fore River

6.28

1

5.60

5.60

1.11E-K06

Weymouth Back River

4.38

1

9.10

9.10

1.26E+06

Weir River

1.25

1

9.10

9.10
Subtotals

1.27E-^07

3.59E+05

South Shore Drainage

1.15

10JO

South River

3.81E-^05

North River

3.90

1

5.00

5.00

6.15E.K)5

Green Harbor River

0.35

10J0

1.16E+05

Jones River

1.71

10J0

5.65E.K06

Town Brook

0.31

10.50

1.03E+O5

Eel River

0.51

10S0

1.69E+06

Herring River

0.37

10J0

1.23E+06

Beaver Brook Dam

0.18

10.50

Subtotals

2.13E+06

5.96E<*^

Maximum:

21.92

TOTAL.

7.69E+07

Minimum s

3.25

Average s

10.52

i

^Memr7»ck =

76%

101

Table 46. Loadings of biochemical oxygen demand via rivers.

Riv«r Loads Annual

Wochamical oxygan flow rata
damand (m3/8ac)

Yaarsof
Data

Avfl
Cone

ssssn

Cone. Usad

In Loadings

Estimata

(mg/Q

Estimatad
Loadings

Marrimack Drainaga

Merrimack River

243.84

2 1.61E+00

1.61 E+00
Subtotals

1.24E+07

1.24E+07

North Shore Drainaga

Ipswich River

6.46

1 2.64E+00

2.64E-«<X}

5.38E+05

Essex River

0.45

3.00E-»-00

4.26E+04

Rowley River

0.48

3.00E+00

4.54E+04

Parker River

2.86

1 3.10E+00

3.10E+00

2.80E-t-05

Annisquam River

0.11

3.00E+00

1.04E+04

Bass River

0.07

3.00E+00

6.62E-i^

North River

3.00E+00

O.OOE+00

Danvers River

0.59

3.00E+00

5.58E-»-04

Crane River

0.28

3.00E+00

2.65E+04

Pines River

0.48

3.00E+00

4.54E+04

Saugus River

2.32

3.00E+00
SiJt)total s

1.27E+06

2.19E+05

Boston Harl>or Drainaga

Mystic River

3.18

3.00E+00

3.01 E+05

Chelsea River

1

4.58E+00 4.58E+00

O.OOE+00

Charles River

15.35

3.00E+00

1.45E+06

Neponset River

5.58

3.00E+00

5.28E+05

Weymouth Fore River

6.28

3.00E+00

5.94E+05

Weymouth Back River

4.38

3.00E+00

4.14E+05

Weir River

1.25

3.00E+00
Subtotal =

3.41 E+06

1.18E+05

South Shore Drainage

1.15

3.00E+00

1.09E+05

South River

North River

3.90

3.00E+00

3.69E+05

Green Hartx>r River

0.35

3.00E-t<X)

3.31 E+04

Jones River

1.71

3.00E+00

1.62E+05

Town Brook

0.31

3.00E+00

2.93E+04

Eel River

0.51

3.00E+00

4.83E+04

Herring River

0.37

3.00E-h00

3.50E+04

Beaver Brook Dam

0.18

3.00E+00

Subtotal:::

8.02E+05

1.70E+04

Maximum:

4.58E-f00

TOTAL-

1.79E+07

Minimum s

1.61 E+00

Average-

2.98E+00 % Menlmack «

69%

102

Table 47. Loadings of total nitrogen via rivers.

Riv«r Loads

Annual

Cone. Utad

total nitrogan

flow rata

Avg

in Loadlr>gt

Ettlmatad

{vn3/99c)

Yaartof

Cone

Estimata

Loadings

Data

(mgn)

(mg/I)

(Kg/Yr)

Manimack Drainaga

243.84

3

1.44E+00

1.44E+00

Merrimack River

1.11 E*07

Subtotal-

1.11E+07

North Shora Drainaga

Ipswich River

6.46

1

1.20E+00

1.20E400

2.43E*05

Essex River

0.45

1.39E+00

1.97E-^04

Rowley River

0.48

1.39E+00

2.10E-K04

Parker River

2.86

1

2.01 E+00

2.01 E+00

1.81E+05

Annisquam River

0.11

1

9.13E-01

9.13E-01

3.17E-»^

Bass River

0.07

1.39E+00

3.07E*03

North River

1.39E+00

O.OOE+00

Danvers River

0.59

1.39E.^00

2.S9E*04

Crane River

0.28

1.39E+00

1.23E+04

Pines River

0.48

1.39E+00

2.10E-^04

Saugus River

2.32

1.39E+00
Subtotals

6.32E+06

1.02E-.-05

Boston Harbor Drainaga

Mystic River

3.18

5

1.56E+00

1.56E-h00

1.56E<^05

Chelsea River

6

1.45E-»^

1.46E.^00

O.OOE^OO

Charies River

15.35

6

1.57E+00

1.57E-MX)

7.60E-»^

Neponset River

5.58

8

1.82E+00

1.82E-»^

3.21E.K05

WeynxHJth Fore River

6.28

2

7.16E-01

1.39E+00

2.7SE+05

WeynrxHJth Back River

4.38

1.39E+00

1.92E+05

Weir River

1.25

1

1.43E+00

1.39E+00
Subtotals

1.76E+06

5.48E-^04

South Shora Drainaga

1.15

1.39E+00

South River

5.04E-^04

North River

3.90

1

1.17E+00

1.17E+00

1.44E^^

Green Harbor River

0.35

1.39E+00

1.53E-K04

Jones River

1.71

1.39E+00

7.48E+04

Town Brook

0.31

1.39E+00

1.36E-K>4

Eel River

0.51

1.39E+00

2.24E+04

Herring River

0.37

1.39E-^00

1.62E*04

Beaver Brook Dam

0.18

1.39E+00
Subtotals

3.45E+06

7.89E+03

Maximum:

2.01 E+00

TOTAL.

1.38E+07

Minimum =

7.16E-01

Average X

1.39E+00

% Merrimack s

80%

103

Table 48. Loadings of total phosphorus vfa rivers.

Riv^r Loads

Annual

Cone. Used

total phosphorus

flow rate

Avg

in Loadings

Estimated

(m3/sec)

Years of

Cone

Estimate

Loadings

Data

(mg/l)

(mg/l)

(Kg/Yr)

Merrimack Drainage

Merrimacic River

243.84

3

1.40E-01

1.40E-01
Subtotals

1.08E+06

1.08E+06

f4orth Shore Drainage

Ipswich River

6.46

1

1.00E-01

1.00E-01

2.04E+04

Essex River

0.46

1.47E-01

2.09E+03

Rowley River

0.48

1.47E-01

2.23E+03

Parker River

2.86

1.47E-01

1.33E+04

Annisquam River

0.11

2

1.30E-01

1.30E-01

4.51 E+02

Bass River

0.07

1.47E-01

3.25E+02

North River

1.47E-01

O.OOE+00

Danvers River

0.59

1.47E-01

2.74E+03

Crane River

0.28

1.47E-01

1.30E+03

Pines River

0.48

1.47E-01

2.23E+03

Saugus River

2.32

1.47E-01
Subtotal s

5.57E+04

1.08E+04

Boston Harbor Drainage

Mystic River

3.18

5

1.90E-01

1.90E-01

1.91 E+04

Chelsea River

6

1.80E-01

1.80E-01

O.OOE+00

Charles River

15.35

6

1.80E-01

1.80E-01

8.71E-I-04

Neponset River

5.58

8

1.90E-01

1.90E-01

3.34E+04

Weynxxith Fore River

6.28

2

8.00E-02

8.00E-02

1.58E+04

Weymouth Back River

4.38

1

1.10E-01

1.10E-01

1.52E+04

Weir River

1.25

1.47E-01
Subtotals

1.76E+05

5.79E+03

South Shore Drainage

South River

1.15

1.47E-01

5.33E+03

North River

3.90

1

1.70E-01

1.70E-01

2.09E+04

Green l-lartx>r River

0.35

1.47E-01

1.62E+03

Jones River

1.71

1.47E-01

7.92E+03

Town Brook

0.31

1.47E-01

1.44E+03

Eel River

0.51

1.47E-01

2.36E+03

Hening River

0.37

1.47E-01

1.72E+03

Beaver Brook Dam

0.18

1.47E-01
Subtotals

4.21 E+04

8.34E+02

Maximum:

1.90E-01

TOTAL «

1.35E+06

Minimum s

8.00E-02

Averages

1.47E-01

4

)^ Merrimack s

80%

104

Table 49. Loadings of total PAHs via rtvert.

Riv«r Loads

Annual

ConcUsad

Lowar

total PAHs

flow rata

in Loadings

EstJmatad

(m3/sac)

Estimate (1)
(mg/l)

Loadings
(Kg/Yr)

Merrimaclc Drainaga

Merrimaclc River

243.84

5.00E-05
Subtotal =:

3.84E+02

3.84E+02

North Shora Drainaga

Ipswich River

6.46

5.00E-05

1.02E+01

Essex River

0.45

5.00E-05

7.10E-01

Rowley River

0.48

5.00E-05

7.57E-01

Parker River

2.86

5.00E-05

4.51E-t.00

Annisquam River

0.11

5.00E-05

1.73E-01

Bass River

0.07

5.00E-05

1.10E-01

North River

5.00E-05

O.OOE+00

Danvers River

0.59

5.00E-05

9.30E-01

Crane River

0.28

5.00E-05

4.42E-01

Pines River

0.48

5.00E-05

7.57E-01

Saugus River

2.32

5.00E-05
Subtotal =

2.22E-M)1

3.66E+00

Boston Harbor Drainaga

Mystic River

3.18

5.00E-05

5.01 E+00

Chelsea River

5.00E-05

O.OOE+OO

Charles River

15.35

5.00E-05

2.42E+01

Neponset River

5.58

5.00E-05

8.80E+00

WeynxHJth Fore River

6.28

5.00E-05

9.90E+00

Weymouth Back River

4.38

5.00E-05

6.91 E+00

Weir River

1.25

5.00E-05
Subtotal =

5.68E+01

1.97E+00

South Shora Drainaga

South River

1.15

5.00E-05

1.81 E+00

North River

3.90

5.00E-05

6.15E+00

Green Hartx>r River

0.35

5.00E-05

5.52E-01

Jor>es River

1.71

5.00E-05

2.69E+00

Town Brook

0.31

5.00E-O5

4.89E-01

Eel River

0.51

5.00E-O5

8.04E-01

Herring River

0.37

5.00E-O5

5.83E-01

Beaver Brook Dam

0.18

5.00E-05
Subtotals

1.34E+01
TOTAL-

% Merrimack =

2.84E-01
: 4.77E+02
81%

1. A vahje of 50 ng/l was selected for PAH concentratk>n in surface water. This

vakie falla within the range of 10 to 100 ng^ reported by Menzie (1990) for urban river systems.

IDS

Table 50. Loadings of total PCBs via rivers.

RivM* Loads

Annual

Cone. Used

Lower

PCBs

flow rate

In Loadings

Estimated

(m3/sec)

Estimate (1)

« Loadings

(mg/1)

(Kg/Yr)

Merrimack Dralnags

Merrimack River

243.84

1.00E-06

7.69E+00

Subtotal =

7.69E+00

North Shore Drainage

Ipswich River

6.46

1.00E-06

2.04E-01

Essex River

0.45

1.00E-06

1.42E-02

Rowley River

0.48

1.00E-06

1.51 E-02

Parker River

2.86

1.00E-06

9.02E-02

Annisquam River

0.11

1.00E-06

3.47E-03

Bass River

0.07

1.00E-06

2.21 E-03

North River

1.00E-06

O.OOE+00

Danvers River

0.59

1.00E-06

1.86E-02

Crane River

0.28

1.00E-06

8.83E-03

Pines River

0.48

1.00E-06

1.51 E-02

Saugus River

2.32

1.00E-06

7.32E-02

Subtotal =:

4.45E-01

Boston Harbor Drainage

Mystk; River

3.18

1.00E-06

1.00E-01

Chelsea River

1.00E-06

O.OOE+00

Chartes River

15.35

1.00E-06

4.84E-01

Neponset River

5.58

1.00E-06

1.76E-01

Weymouth Fore River

6.28

1.00E-06

1.98E-01

Weymouth Back River

4.38

1.00E-06

1.38E-01

Weir River

1.25

1.00E-06

3.94E-02

Subtotal -

1.14E+00

South Shore Drainage

South River

1.15

1.00E-06

3.63E-02

North River

3.90

1.00E-06

1.23E-01

Green Hart)or River

0.35

1.00E-06

1.10E-02

Jones River

1.71

1.00E-06

5.38E-02

Town Brook

0.31

1.00E-06

9.78E-03

Eel River

0.51

1.00E-06

1.61 E-02

Hening River

0.37

1.00E-06

1.17E-02

Beaver Brook Dam

0.18

1.00E-06

5.68E-03

Subtotal =

2.67E-01
TOTALS 9.54E+00

% Merrimack :r 81%

1 . A value of 1ng/l was selected for PCB concentratkxi in surface water. This
value is conskjered by Atlas et al. (1986) to be a 'reasonable upper Rmit'
for PCBs in average river water.

106

Table 51. Loadings of phthalates via rivers.

Rivw Loads

Annual

Cone. Used

Lower

phthalatts

flow rate

in Loadings

Estimated

(m3/8ec)

Estimate (1)

(mg/i)

Loadings
(Kg/Yr)

Merrimack Drainaga

Merrimack River

243.84

1.00E-04
Subtotal =

7.69E+02

7.69E+02

North Shore Drainage

Ipswich River

6.46

1.00E-04

2.04E+01

Essex River

0.45

1.00E-04

1.42E+00

Rowtey River

0.48

i.ooe-04

1.51E+00

Parker River

2.86

1.00E-04

9.02E+00

Anr>isquam River

0.11

1.00E-04

3.47E-01

Bass River

0.07

1.00E-04

2.21 E-01

North River

i.ooe-04

O.OOE+00

Danvers River

0.59

1.00E-04

1.86E+00

Crane River

0.28

I.ooe-04

8.83E-01

Pines River

0.48

1.00E-04

1.51E+00

Saugus River

2.32

1.00E-04
Subtotals

4.45E+01

7.32E+00

Boston Harbor Drainage

Mystic River

3.18

I.OOE-04

1.00E+01

Cheisea River

I.OOE-04

O.OOE+00

Chartes River

15.35

1.0OE-O4

4.84E-K01

Neponset River

5.58

I.OOE-04

1.76E-K01

Weymouth Fore River

6.28

I.OOE-04

1.98E-^1

Weymouth Back River

4.38

I.OOE-04

1.38E-K01

Weir River

1.25

I.OOE-04
Subtotals

1.14E+02

3.94E+00

South Shore Drainage

South River

1.15

I.OOE-04

3.63E+00

North River

3.90

I.OOE-04

1.23E+01

Green Hartxx Rh^er

0.35

I.OOE-04

1.10E+00

Jones River

1.71

I.OOE-04

5.38E+00

Town Brook

0.31

I.OOE-04

9.78E-01

Eel River

0.51

I.OOE-04

1.61E+00

Herring River

0.37

I.OOE-04

1.1/E+OO

Beaver Brook Dam

0.18

I.OOE-04
Subtotals

2.67E+01
TOTAL =

%Menimack =

5.68E-01
; 9.54E+02
81%

107

Table 52. Loadings of araenic via rivers.

Riv«r Loads

Annual

ConcUsad

arssnic

flow rata

Avg

in Loadings

Estlmatad

(m3/sac)

Yaarsof

Cone

Estlmata

Loadings

Data

(mg/0

(mg/0

(Kg/Yr)

Merrimack Dralnaga

Merrimack River

243.84

1.00E-02
Subtotals

7.69E+04

7.69E+04

North Shore Dralnaga

Ipswich River

6.46

1.00E-02

2.04E+03

Essex River

0.45

1.00E-02

1.42E+02

Rowley River

0.48

1.00E-02

1.51E+02

Parker River

2.86 1

1.00E-03

1.00E-03

9.02E+01

Annisquam River

0.11

1.00E-02

3.47E+01

Bass River

0.07

1.00E-02

2.21 E+01

North River

1.00E-02

O.OOE-kOO

Danvers River

0.59

1.00E-02

1.86E+02

Crane River

0.28

1.00E-02

8.83E+01

Pines River

0.48

1.00E-02

1.61 E+02

Saugus River

2.32

1.00E-02
Subtotals

3.63E+03

7.32E+02

Boston Hart>or Drainage

Mystic River

3.18

5.00E-03

5.00E-03

5.01 E+02

Chelsea River

6.30E-02

6.30E-02

O.OOE+00

Charles River

15.35

5.40E-02

5.40E-02

2.61 E+04

Neponset River

5.58

1.18E-01

1.18E-01

2.08E+04

Weymouth Fore River

6.28

1.00E-02

1.98E+03

Weymouth Back River

4.38

1.00E-02

1.38E+03

Weir River

1.25

1.00E-02
Subtotal s

5.12E+04

3.94E+02

South Shore Drainage

South River

1.15

1.00E-02

3.63E+02

hiorth River

3.90

1.00E-02

1.23E+03

Green Hartx>r River

0.35

1.00E-02

1.10E+02

Jones River

1.71

1.00E-02

5.38E+02

Town Brook

0.31

1.00E-02

9.78E+01

Eel River

0.51

1.00E-02

1.61 E+02

Herring River

0.37

1.00E-02

1.17E+02

Beaver Brook Dam

0.18

1.00E-02
Subtotals

2.67E+03

5.68E+01

Maximum:

1.18E-01

TOTAL.

1.34E+05

Minimum -

1.00E-03

Averages

4.82E-02

% Merrimack s

57%

1 . A value of 0.01 mg^ is used for rivers for which we have no measuremerts. This value
is selected as representative of typical maximum values in the United States rivers.

106

Table 53. Loadings of cadmium via rtvers.

Rlv^r Loads

Annual

Estimated

cadmium

flow rate

Loadings

(m3/sec)

(Kg/Yr)

Cd Cones

0.001 mg/1

Merrimack Drainaga

243.84

Subtotals ^

7.69E+03

Merrimack River

7.69E-h03

North Shore Drainage

6.46

2.04E+02

Ipswfch River

0.45

1.42E+01

Essex River

0.48

1.51E+01

Rowley River

2.86

9.02E+01

Parker River

0.11

3.47E+00

Annisquam River

0.07

2.21 E+00

Bass River

O.OOE+00

North River

0.59

1.86E+01

Danvers River

0.28

8.83E+00

Crane River

0.48

1.51E+01

Pines River

2.32

Subtotals =

7.32E+01

Saugus River

4.45E+02

Boston Hartx>r Drainage

3.18

1.00E+02

O.OOE^^

Mystic River

15.35

4.84E-K02

Chelsea River

5.58

1.76E+02

Charies River

6.28

1.98E+02

Neponset River

4.38

1.38E+02

Weymouth Fore River

1.25

Subtotals =

3.94E-^01

Weymouth Back River

1.14E+03

Weir River

South Shore Drainage

1.15

3.63E-K01

3.90

1.23E+02

South River

0.35

1.10E+01

North River

1.71

5.38E+01

Green Hartx>r River

0.31

9.78E"fO0

Jones River

0.51

1.61E+01

Town Brook

0.37

1.17E-^01

Eel River

0.18

Subtotals s

5.68E^^

Herring River

2.67E+02

Beaver Brook Dam

TOTAL.

9.54E+03

%MerTirnacks

81%

109

Table 54. Loadings of chromium via rivers.

Rlv^r Loads

Annual

Estimated

chromium

flow rate

Loadings

{n\3f99c)

(Kgnrr)

Or Cone «

0.006 mg/l

IMttiTlmacIc Drainagt

Merrimack River

243.84

4.61 E+04

Subtotals s

4.61 E+04

North Short Drainaga

Ipswich River

6.46

1.22E+03

Essex River

0.46

8.61 E+01

Rowley River

0.48

9.08E-t^1

Paricer River

2.86

5.41 E+02

Annisquam River

0.11

2.08E+01

Bass River

0.07

1.32E+01

HorXh River

O.OOE+00

Danvers River

0.59

1.12E+02

Crane River

0.28

5.30E+01

Pines River

0.48

9.08E+01

Saugus River

2.32

4.39E+02

Subtotals s

2.67E+03

Boston Harbor Drainage

•

Mystic River

3.18

6.02E+02

Chelsea River

O.OOE+00

Charles River

15.36

2.90E+03

Neponset River

6.58

1.06E+03

Weymouth Fore River

6.28

1.19E+03

Weymouth Back River

4.38

8.29E+02

Weir River

1.25

2.37E+02

Subtotals =

6.82E+03

South Shore Drainage

South River

1.15

2.18E+02

North River

3.90

7.38E+02

Green Hartx>r River

0.36

6.62E+01

Jories River

1.71

3.23E+02

Town Brook

0.31

6.87E+01

Eel River

0.51

9.66E+01

Herring River

0.37

7.00E+01

Beaver Brook Dam

0.18

3.41 E+01

Subtotals »

1.60E+03

TOTAL*

5.72E+04

%Merrimacks

81%

110

Table 55. Loadings of copper via rfvert.

Riv«r Loads

Annual

Estimated

copp«r

flow rate

Loadings

(m3/sec)

(Kgnrr)

Cu Concz

0.01 rr>g/l

Merrimack Drainaga

Merrimack River

243.84

7.69E+04

SU}totals =

7.69E+04

^k>rth Shore Drainaga

Ipswich River

6.46

2.04E-»'03

Essex River

0.45

1.42E-^02

RowJey River

0.48

1.51 E+02

Parker River

2.86

9.02E+02

Annisquam River

0.11

3.47E-»^1

Bass River

0.07

2.21 E^1

North River

O.OOEt^

Danvers River

0.59

1.86E+02

Crane River

0.28

8.a3E+01

Pines River

0.48

1.51 E+02

Saugus River

2.32

7.32E+02

Subtotals =

4.45E+03

Boston Harbor Drainage

Mystic River

3.18

1.00E+03

Chelsea River

C.OOE-t^

Charles River

15.35

4.84E-^03

Neponset River

5.58

1.76Et-03

Weymouth Fore River

6.28

1.98E.^

Weymouth Back River

4.38

1.38E-»^

Weir River

1.25

3.94E-K02

Subtotals =

1.14E-K04

South Shore Drainage

South River

1.15

3.63E+02

North River

3.90

123E+03

Green Hartx>r River

0.35

1.10E-K02

Jones River

1.71

5.38E.K02

Town Brook

0.31

9.78E«M)1

Eei River

0.51

1.61 E+02

Herring River

0.37

1.17E+02

Beaver Brook Dam

0.18

5.68E+01

Subtotals =

^67E+03

TOTAL «

9.54E+04

%Mdntiiack«

81%

lU

Table 56. Loadings of lead via rivers.

Riv»r Loads

Annual

Estimated

Estimated

iMd

flow rate

Loadings

Loadings

(m3/sec)

(Kg/Yr)

(Kg/Yr)

Pb Cones

0.001 mg/1

0.03 mg/l

Merrimack Drainaga

Merrimack River

243.84

7.69E+03

2.31 E+05

Subtotals s

7.69E+03

2.31 E+05

North Shora Drainage

lpswk:h River

6.46

2.04E+02

6.11E+03

Essex River

0.45

1.42E+01

4.26E+02

Rowley River

0.48

1.51E+01

4.54E+02

Parker River

2.86

9.02E-(>01

2.71 E+03

Annisquam River

0.11

3.47E+00

1.04E+02

Bass River

0.07

2.21 E+00

6.62E+01

North River

O.OOE+00

O.OOE+00

Danvers River

0.59

1.86E+01

5.58E+02

Crane River

0.28

8.83E+00

2.65E+02

Pines River

0.48

1.51E+01

4.54E+02

Saugus River

2.32

7.32E+01

2.19E+03

Subtotals =

4.45E-t-02

1.33E+04

Boston Harbor Drainage

Mystic River

3.18

1.00E+02

3.01 E+03

Chelsea River

O.OOE+00

O.OOE+00

Charles River

15.35

4.84E-i^

1.45E+04

Neponset River

5.58

1.76E+02

5.28E+03

WeynxHJth Fore River

6.28

1.98E+02

5.94E+03

Weymouth Back River

4.38

1.38E+02

4.14E+03

Weir River

1.25

3.94E+01

1.18E+03

Subtotals s

1.14E+03

3.41 E+04

South Shore Drainage

South River

1.15

3.63E+01

1.09E+03

North River

3.90

1.23E+02

3.69E+03

Green Hartx>r River

0.35

1.10E+01

3.31 E+02

Jor>es River

1.71

5.38E-t-01

1.62E+03

Town Brook

0.31

9.78E+00

2.93E+02

Eel River

0.51

1.61E+01

4.83E+02

Herring River

0.37

1.17E+01

3.50E+02

Beaver Brook Dam

0.18

5.68E+00

1.70E+02

Subtotals =r'

2.67E+02

8.02E+03

TOTAL.

9.54E+03

2.86E+05

% Merrimack s

81%

81%

112

Table 57. Loadings of zinc via rtvert.

Rlv*r Loads

Annual

Estimated

Estimated

zinc

flow rata

Loadings

Loadings

(m3/sac)

(Kgnrr)

(KgTfr)

Zn Concz

0.001 mgl

0.03 mg/1

IM«nimacl( Dnilnag«

Merrimack River

243.84

7.69E+03

2.31 E+05

Subtotals ='

7.69E+03

2.31 E+05

North Shore Drairmge

Ipswich River

6.46

2.04E+02

6.11E+03

Essex River

0.45

1.42E+01

4.26E*02

Rowley River

0.48

1.51E+01

4.54E-M)2

Partner River

2.86

9.02E+O1

2.71E-^03

Annlsquam River

0.11

3.47E+00

1.04E-K02

Bass River

0.07

2.21 E+00

6.62E+01

^4orth River

O.OOE-^00

O.OOE-J-00

Danvers River

0.59

1.86E+01

5.58E+02

Crane River

0.28

8.83E+00

2.65E+02

Pines River

0.48

1.51E+01

4.54E+02

Saugus River

2.32

7.32E+01

2.19E+03

Subtotals s

4.45E+02

1.33E+04

Boston Harbor Drainage

Mystic River

3.18

1.00E-^Q2

3.01 E+03

Chelsea River

O.OOE+00

O.OOE+00

Charles River

15.35

4.84E+02

1.45E+04

Neponset River

5.58

1.76E+02

5.28E+03

Weymouth Fore River

6.28

1.98E+02

5.94E+03

Weymouth Back River

4.38

1.38E+02

4.14E+03

Weir River

1.25

3.94E-^01

1.18E-^03

Subtotals = '

1.14E+03

3.41 E+04

South Shore Drainage

•

South River

1.15

3.63E+01

1.09E+03

North River

3.90

1.23E+02

3.69E+03

Green Hartx>r River

0.35

1.10E+01

3.31 E+02

Jones River

1.71

5.38E+01

1.62E-K03

Town Brook

0.31

9.78E+00

2.93E-K02

Eel River

0.51

1.61E+01

4.83E^^

Herring River

0.37

1.17E+01

3.50E+02

Beaver Brook Dam

0.18

5.68E-^00

1.70E-K02

Subtotals =:'

2.67E+02

e.OZE-^OS

TOTAL.

9.54E-^03

2.86E+05

%Menimack«

81%

81%

113

5.4 Loadings In Groundwater

Loads in groundwater were made only for selected watersheds and contaminants for
which data were available.

5.4.1 Methods

Nitrogen Loading to Cape Cod Bay

We used two methods to estimate nitrogen loading into Cape Cod Bay and the
watershed. The first method estimated nitrogen loadings into both Cape Cod Bay
and its watershed (i.e., inputs to both the water and onto the land) by identifying
significant inputs of nitrogen. The second method considered nitrogen loading just
into Cape Cod Bay, including flow from groundwater. This second method required
an estimate of both groundwater flow and nitrogen groundwater concentration.
Note that here the term "Cape Cod Bay watershed" refers specifically to that area
whose groundwater discharges into Cape Cod Bay.

We assumed that all groundwater in the Cape Cod Bay watershed discharges
directly into Cape Cod Bay, thereby ignoring streams, springs, or other surface
water. We also assumed steady-state conditions for the flow, concentration, and
loading data. In addition, we assumed a contiguous groundwater divide exists, such
that groundwater discharges on one side into Cape Q)d Bay, on the other, into
Buzzards Bay, Vineyard Sound, Nantucket Sound, and the Atlantic Ocean.

To estimate the location of the ^oundwater divide, we used a method similar to M.
Frimpter (personal communication, M. Frimpter. We assumed that regionally the
water table coincides with piezometric head. Orthogonal lines to groundwater
contours therefore represent the migration of groundwater from a higher to lower
fluid potential (i.e., the general directions of groundwater flow.) By determining
the general directions of flow, the groundwater divide can be found.

We used the USGS groundwater atlas for Cape Cod (USGS Atlas HA-692, 1986) to
obtain our groundwater profile. The atlas displays six discrete cells in which the
water-table altitude is generally higher near the center of the cells, and lower near
the coast. Thus groundwater generally flows from the center of the Cape to the
coastlines. After approximating the groundwater divide for each cell, we connected
them to create a contiguous divide for the Cape Cod region. Much of this
groundwater divide comcides with Route 6, which in turn tends to coincide with
topographic highs.

Only land lying within the Cape Cod Bay watershed was included in the analysis.
For each town, this area was measured by digitizing the groundwater divide and
town boundaries into ARC/INFO computer mappmg system. Towns which have
land lying within the watershed include Barnstable, Yarmouth, Sandwich, Dennis,
Brewster, Orleans, Eastham, Provincetown, Wellfleet, and Truro. Note that Bourne
was not included in the analysis, since we assessed that almost all of its nitrogen
sources discharge into Buzzards Bay.

114

Estimates of Nitrogen Loading Using Method A: Discrete Loadings to Cape Cod
Watershed

The first method identifies discrete sources of nitrogen introduced into the
watershed. For each source, we calculated a respective nitrogen loading; we then
summed these to obtain the total nitrogen loading. Sources of nitrogen considered
are precipitation; septic systems; and lawn, agricultural, and ^olf course fertilizers.
We Ignored package treatment plants as a potential source smce onJy a few are
located withm the Cape Cod Bay watershed.

Precipitation

We calculated a nitrogen loading to the watershed via precipitation by estimating an
annual volume of precipitation and its associated nitrogen concentration. We
calculated a mean preapitation rate of 1.1 m/year, based upon 1947 to 1976 data
(USGS Atlas HA 692, 1986) for stations located within the Cape Cod Bay
watershed. The annual volume of precipitation was found by multiplying the annual
precipitation rate by the area of the watershed. We used a mean concentration of
dissolved inorganic nitrogen (DIN) in precipitation of 22.4 uM, measured in
Buttermilk Bay, an embayment of Cape Cod, by Valiela, et al., 1988. The nitrogen
loading due to precipitation was calculated by multiplying the annual precipitation
volume by the mean DIN concentration.

Domestic Fertilizer

To obtain a lawn fertilizer loading for the watershed, we first obtained the number
of combined housing units for each town of concern (personal communications,
towns' assessors). We define one combined housing unit as any residential building,
regardless of the number of families residing there. Therefore, a four family home
equals only one combined housing unit. Usmg approximations made by USGS
(Frimpter, et al., July 1988), we assumed each housing unit possessed a lawn area of
5000 square feet.

In addition, we assumed that the percentage of both a town's land and its residential
units within the watershed were identical. For example, if 30 percent of a town's
land lies within the watershed, then 30 percent of its lawns do as well. Street maps
of each town were used to assess the validity of this assumption. USGS (Frimpter,
et al., July 1988) also provides a typical application rate of^2 lb/ 1000 square ft/year
of nitrogen to the soil.

To calculate the nitrogen loading due to lawn fertilizer, we multiplied the mean
lawn size by the number of lawns to obtain total lawn land use. We multiplied this
area by the mean fertilizer application rate to obtain a mean total nitrogen loading.

Septic Systems

We calculated septic system loading for the Cape Cod Bay watershed based upon
the number of residents per town. However, Barnstable County has disparate
winter and summer populations. We therefore assumed nine months of a year only
permanent residents would be present; the remaining three months of peak summer
tourism, a substantially larger population was considered. We obtained each town's
winter population through town clerks (personal communications, towns' clerks. In
addition, some town clerks provided an estimate of their summer population. If no
estimate on the sunmier population was available, winter population was tripled as a
rough estimate (Fersky, 1986). Similar to our assumption concerning housing

115

distributions, we assumed that the percentage of a town's area within the watershed
would hold an identical percentage of the town's population.

We used a septic system infusion rate of 3.8 kg/DIN /person/year, based upon
Valiela et al. (1988). We multiplied this rate by winter and summer populations
within the watershed to obtain winter and summer loadings, respectivefy. Once
weighted and summed (i.e. [9/12 winter population + 3/12 summer
populationjinfusion rate ), we obtained a total nitrogen loading due to septic
systems.

Other Fertilizers

The most significant source of agricultural fertilizer on Cape Cod is cranberry
production; we used 1980 cranberry bog land-use data for each town of concern
from MacConnell, et al., 1984. Similar to our previous assumptions, we assumed
that the percentage of a town's land within the watershed is identical to the
percentage of the town's cranberry bog land use within the watershed. In addition,
Valiela et al. (1988) provide a typical cranberry fertilizer application rate of 22.5 kg
DEN/ha/yr. We multiplied these data together to obtain a nitrogen loading
estimate for the watershed.

Finally, the nitrogen loading due to golf course fertilizer was estimated. This
method is identical to that mentioned previously for agricultural fertilizer: land use
data by town (MacConnell, et al., 1984), the percent area within the watershed, and
a typical golf course fertilizer application rate of 99 DIN/acre/yr were used to
calculate a loading. The application rate was obtained by taking the mean of
application rates on several Cape Cod golf course fairways and roughs (Cape Cod
Planning and Economic Development Commission, 1989).

Total Estimates

These individual estimates, when summed together, yield the nitrogen loading for
the Cape Cod Bay watershed. From these estimates we calculated a nitrogen
loading into Cape Cod Bay itself via groundwater.

Estimate of Loadings Using Method A: Discrete Loadings to Cape Cod Bay

The modeling previously applied to the Cape Cod Bay watershed can also be
applied to Cape Cod Bay sdone. This is accomplished by: (1) predicting the amount
of nitrogen in the watershed which leaches into the groundwater; (2) assuming all
of the mtrogen introduced into groundwater will discharge into Cape Cod Bay; (3)
assuming the annual recharge into the Cape Cod Bay watershed dictates the annual
discharge into Cape Cod Bay.

Precipitation

After DIN enters the watershed via precipitation, a portion of this nitrogen leaches
from the zone of aeration into the groundwater. Since the nitrogen is dissolved, the
area's recharge determines the amount of nitrogen to reach the groundwater. Once
an annual estimate of recharge is found, a method identical to mat used for
precipitation loading into the watershed is used.

Our recharge data (USGS Atlas HA 692, 1986), based upon the mean annual
precipitations used in Section 5.1 were estimated by USuS using the Thomthwaite
and Mather (1957) method. The annual volume of recharge was then found by
multiplying the annual recharge by the area of the Cape Cod Bay watershed. Again,

116

we used the mean concentration of DIN in precipitation (22.4 uM). We a.ssumed
that all recharge discharges to the ocean and neglected minor discharges into canals
or streams (USGS Atlas HA-692, 1986). Thus the nitrogen loading into the Bay was
calculated by multiplying the annual recharge volume by the mean DIN
concentration.

Septic Systems

Since septic systems are typically located at least four feet below topsoil, we
assumea that none of its mtrogen will be available to plants for uptake. In addition,
as Valiela et al. (1988) point out, denitrification in porous sand or groundwater are
probably not significant, since the low amounts of dissolved inorganic carbon
present here disallow microbial activity. Instead, we assumed that all of the
nitrogen leaches directly into the groundwater, where it is eventually discharged into
Cape Cod Bay. Thus, Cape Cod Bay and its watershed have identical estimates for
mtrogen loading due to septic systems.

Fertilizers

We assessed what portion of fertilizer (and therefore nitrogen) would leach into
groundwater, as opposed to plant uptake or denitrification. USGS (Frimpter, et al.,
1988) states that typically, for the Cape Cod region, 45 to 50 percent of lawn
fertilizer leaches into the groundwater. (The leachable portion of fertilizer depends
on many factors including application rate, type of vegetation, and soil
characteristics.) Similar estimates have been made for golf course fertilizer
leachability, while no estimates could be obtained as cranberry fertilizer
leachability. For simplicity, we assumed that for all of the previously mentioned
fertilizers, the leachable to total fertilizer ratio is 0.5.

Estimate of Loadings to Cape Cod Bav Using Method B: Groundwater Measurements
and Discharge Rates

We assumed in the second approach that a typical nitrogen concentration in
groundwater exists, along with a typical groundwater flow rate. Although both
nitrogen concentrations and flow in groundwater can vary widely locally, they are
probably adequate to quantify a regional estimate for Cape Cod Bay. This method
simply multiplies a representative nitrogen concentration by a representative flow in
groundwater to obtain a nitrogen loading due to groundwater for Cape Cod Bay.

A data base of nitrate levels from private wells in Cape Cod was obtained through
the Barnstable County Health Department. Each data base record had to meet the
following criteria: (1) sample measured on or after 1 January 1989; and (2) sample
taken from an area within the Cai>e Cod Bay watershed. Once these records were
selected from the data base, various statistics were calculated in an attempt to
obtain a representative nitrate concentration. It should be noted that this data set
may contain an inherent bias: older homes (whose owners suspeaed possible water
quality problems) were probably sampled most frequently. In some cases, however,
sampling was conducteci for real estate transactions or general information
purposes. No ammonia concentrations for groundwater were available from this
data base. Other sources of summary nitrate and ammonia concentrations for Cape
Cod include two USGS publications to be discussed in Section 5.4.2.

We assumed that an amount of groundwater equal to the annual recharge in the
Cape Cod Bay watershed would discharge aimually into Cape Cod Bay. We used
this value as our representative flow into Cape Cod Bay. Thus we could calculate a

117

second estimate of nitrogen loading into Cape Cod Bay by calculating the
groundwater flow by its associated concentration.

Groundwater Discharges to Boston Harbor

Estimates of loadings associated with groundwater discharges were made for
the harbor as a whole by making estimates of possible groundwater discharge
and estimating the concentrations of substances in groundwater.

An estimate of groundwater discharge to the harbor was made indirectly from
the application of the NURP methodology. It was assumed that the areas
considered for the purpose of runoff calculations in Menzie-Cura (1991) for
M WRA were the same areas that would provide recharge to the harbor.
Areas further landward were presumed to discharge groundwater to the major
tributaries (e.g., Charles, Mystic, Neponset Rivers) and not directly to the
harbor.

The NURP methodology provided an estimate of the amount of rainfall that
becomes runoff and enters the harbor. By difference, the remaining rainfall
either is lost to the atmosphere via evapotranspiration or recharges the
shallow groundwater aquifers underlying the land masses considered in our
analysis. Based on discussions with the USGS at Boston and Arlington,
Virginia, it appears that approximately 50% of the rainfall that does not runoff
would become groundwater and would eventually discharge to Boston Harbor.
This is the basis of our flow estimate.

The concentrations of substances in the groundwater were estimated based on
a review of the literature and an examination of groundwater data for several
sites around Boston.

118

The following groundwater concentrations were used for our estimates for
Boston Harbor:

Nitrogen

A concentration range of 0.1 to 1.0 mg/l is used. TTie lower end of this ranee
is considered representative of coastal areas and the higher end may provide
an upper bound of average groundwater conditions. The Maximum
Contaminant Level (MCL) for nitrate in groundwater is 10 mg/1. Levels at
and exceeding the MCL can typically be tound in the immediate vicinity of
subsurface sewage disposal systems and in agricultural areas.

Phosphorous

Phosphorous occurs in low concentrations in groundwater. Jones and Lee
(1977) report a range of 0.01 to 0.06 ug/1 nationwide. This range was used to
estimate loadings.

Metals

Metals in groundwater can exhibit wide ranges in values (i.e., over several
orders of magnitude). In developing ranges for groundwater discharging to
Boston Harbor, we examined the groundwater monitoring results for three
study sites in the Boston area, considered other information on the general
levels of metals in groundwater and considered the existing MCL values for
metals. The ranges we provided are probably on the high side for average
natural groundwater conditions but are intended to give some indication of the
implications of discharging slightly contaminated groundwater to the harbor:

• Cadmium: A range of 2 to 20 ug/1 was selected. Groundwater
levels of 2 to 29 ug/1 and 6 to 20 ug/1 were reponed for studies
at the Monsanto site in Everett and the Quincy Shipyard,
respectively. The MCL for cadmium in drinking water is 10 ug/1
(proposed value is 5 ug/1).

• Chromium: A range of 10 to 100 ug/1 was selected.
Groundwater levels of 3 to 1,900 ug/1 were reported for the
Quincy Shipyard. Typical values for chromium appear to be at
or less than 10 ug/1. The MCL for chromium is 50 ug/1
(proposed level is 100 ug/1.

• Copper: A range of 10 to 100 ug/1 was selected. Groundwater
levels of 7 to 28 ug/1 and 20 to 1,000 ug/1 were reported for the
Monsanto Plant in Everett and the Qumcy Shipyard,
respectively. The MCL for copper is 1,3000 ug/l.

• Lead: A range of 1 to 100 ug/1 was selected. Groundwater
levels of 1 to 200 ug/1 were reported for the Quincy Shipyard.
The MCL for lead in raw drinking water is 5 ug/1.

• Nickel: A range of 10 to 100 was seleaed. Groundwater levels
of 25 to 120 ue/1, 1 10 to 230 ug/1, and 20 to 165 ug/1 were
reported for the Monsanto, Parcel 18, and Quincy Shipyard sites,
respectively. The MCL for nickel is 100 ug/1.

119

Zinc: A range of 10 to 100 ug/1 was selected. Groundwater
levels of 17 to 230 ug/1, 6 to 11 ug/1, and 12 to 30,500 ug/1 were
reported for the Monsanto, Parcel 18,and Quincy Shipyard sites.

Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs)

A range of 1 to 10 ng/1 was selected based on the literature review carried out
by Menzie et al. (1991). The proposed MCL for the PAH compound
Benzo(a)pyrene is 200 ng/1.

Volatile Organic Compounds

Volatile organic compounds such as benzene, toluene, and xylene are mobile
in groundwater and also are the substances that are most likely to be
transported away from locations of petroleum spills or leaks of underground
storage tanks. Based on our knowledge of the levels that occur in
contaminated groundwaters (10s to 1,000s of ug/1), we have selected a range
of 1 to 10 ug/1 to represent average conditions for groundwater entering
Boston Harbor.

5.4.2 Results: Nitrogen Loadings to Cape Cod Bav via Groundwater

Groundwater Divide

The estimated location of the groundwater divide for Cape Cod is presented in
Figure 9. Areas to the north (and west for the arm of the Cape) or the divide are
assumed to discharge groundwater into Cape Cod Bay. Using ARC/INFO to
calculate areas with respect to the groundwater divide, we estimated that 25 percent
of Barnstable County discharges into Cape Cod Bay. This estimate is broken down
by town in Table 58.

Watershed Estimate

The resulting estimates of nitrogen loading into the watershed are presented in
Table 58. We estimated the total nitrogen loading to the Cape Cod Bay watershed
to be 447 metric tons/year. Just under half of this estimate is predicted to originate
from septic systems, while lawn fertilizer and precipitation account for most of the
remaimng inputs. Golf course and agricultural fertilizers together accounted for
only six percent of the total nitrogen mputs. Table 58 summarizes each input's
loading, as well as its percent contribution to total inputs.

120

CRQUNDVArER DrVEDC

TOVN BQARICKS

10 MiUa

=3

FIGURE 9

^•"■ajK-ty^

• *i*nfm * icw>» ic

J^

!^3SSS^L

&i>1» 'efc-N».-T, .. LW. it-.^-

Table 58. Recharge areas by town for C^>e Cod.

Source

Year

Nitrate

Statistic An¥nonta Statistic

Measured

(ug/l)

(u^)

Frimpter, et al.

1979

0.12

median 0.01

median

Persky(1)

1980-1984

1.54

weighted average 0.24

weighted average

Barnstable County

r

Health Department 1989-1990

1.51

average NA

■

'1989-1990

0.6

median NA

■

'1989-1990

0.9

geometric mean NA

NA = Not Available

1 . These values were calculated from histograms of nitrate arxj ammonia measured throughout Cape Cod.

122

1^

z

88
8

<o ^ *-

J J^ g ^

(O 00 o o
' CM CVJ

o> O

CD Ob

m CM

5

1 ^

^ 5 c ±i

ifi

.1

m

The largest nitrogen input, septic systems, resulted in a loading of 206 metric tons
DIN /year, which accounts for 46 percent of the total loading into the watershed.
Valiela et al. (1988) estimated that 43 percent of the total loading into Buttermilk
Bay watershed was due to septic systems. Cape Cod has undergone major housing
developments in the past 15 years, thus drastically increasing the septage produced.
Since, as Persky (1986) points out, Barnstable County's population is expected to
continue its rapia increase, septic systems should continue to contribute a majority
of the input into the watershed well into the next century.

Domestic fertilizers account for the next most significant input of nitrogen into the
watershed. We calculated a DE^ loading of 125 metric tons/year, accounting for 28
percent of our total loading, while Valiela et al. (1988) estimated lawn fertilizers
contribute to 17 percent to Buttermilk Bay watershed. Precipitation accounted for
20 percent of our total, as compared to 34 percent for Buttermilk Bay. Golf course
fertilizer accounted for only 22 metric tons DlN/year; agricultural fertilizer, 4
metric tons.

Cape Cod Bay Estimates

Groundwater is probably the most significant mechanism of transport of nitrogen
into Cape Cod Bay. Vauela et al. estimate that 85 to 95 percent of all nitrogen
input into Buttennilk Bay originates from groundwater transport We have two
results in which we estimated nitrogen transport via eroundv^ter: our discrete
inputs approach yielded 322 metric tons DD^I/year vmile groundwater
measurements predicted a slightly lower result of 224 metric tons DIN/year. By
comparing the watershed loading to both the discrete inputs and groundwater
measurement methods, we estimate between 50 and 72 percent of the nitrogen in
the watershed discharges into the Bay.

Discrete Input Results

We estimate that 64 percent of nitrogen in groundwater is due to septic system
loading; this results not only because septic systems were the largest input into the
watershed, but also because nitrogen from septage does not typically experience
denitrification or uptake from plants. Lawn fertilizer contributes 20 percent of the
loading into the Bay while precipitation and golf and agricultural fertilizers make up
the remaining 16 percent of inputs into the Bay. Table 60 summarizes each loading
lo Cape Cod Bay.

Groundwater Measurement Results

Table 60 provides a summary of representative measurements of nitrate and
ammonia in groundwater on Cape Cod. The nitrate records selected from the
Barnstable Q)unty Health Department private well data base (498 samples) were
found to have neither a normal nor a lognormal distribution. This suggests that the
median nitrate level would be more appropriate to represent the data set than the
mean or geometric mean. The median nitrate concentration, 0.6 ug/1, is less than
half of the mean, 1.51 ug/1. The Barnstable County nitrate data were used since
they contained only recent measurements (1989 to 1990), selected only for the Cape
Cod Bay watershed. Other sources include Frimpter, et al^ (data from 1979) and
Persky (data from 1980 to 1984).

124

Table 60. Loadings of nitrogen to Cape Cod Bay
using discrete and groundwater measurements approach.

Nitrogen Loading via Prtclpitatfon
Mean Recharge
Recharge Concentration
Town Area within Watershed
Volume of Recharge
PncipHation Loading

Nitrogen Loading via Septic Systems

Septic System Infusion Rate
Winter Population within Watershed
Winter Septic System Loading
Summer Population within Watershed
Summer Septic System Loading
Septic SystBm Total Loading

Nitrogen Loading via Domestic Fertilizer

Mean Lawn Area/Unit

Mean Nitrogen Application Rate

Combined Residential Units within Watershed

Leachabie/Total Nitrogen Ratio

Lawn Fartllizar Total Loading

Nitrogen Loading via Agricultural Fertilizer

Cranberry Fertilizer Application Rate
Cranberry Bog Land Use within Watershed
Leachable/Totai Nitrogen Ratio
Cranbarry Fartillzor Total Loading

Nitrogen Loading via Golf Course Fertilizer

Application Rate

Golf Course Land Use within Watershed

Leachabie/Total Nitrogen Ratio

Golf Coursa Fartillzar Total Loading

0.49 nVyvar
22.4 uM DIN
101.00 sq. miles
1.28E+11 Itteifyear
40.216 kgDINAyear

3.8 leg DIN/person/yr
35.643 # of persons
101.583 kgDIN^season
110.310 Estimates
104.795 kgDIN/season
206.377 kgDIN^ear

5,000 sqfl

2 lb/1000 sq ft/yr
27.643 reskiential unit

0.5
62.694 kgDiN/year

22.5 kg DIN/ha/yr
378 acrts
0.5
1.723 kgDIN/year

99 lb 0IN/acr«/yr
481 acres
0.5
10.809 kgDINAyear

Cape Cod Bay Watershed Nitrogen Loading:

321.819 kgDIN/year

Percent Contribution to Total Loading

Septb Systems

64%

Domestic Fertilizers

19%

Precipitation

12%

Other Fertilizers

4%

125

I

s

ri vi t( le

H

'8

—■ V «rf «>" o

IS

•"a «?

8

8 « n 8 A

..-- Mf ^ rsT rf

8[

^s

•^ Mf

^

Co

SS

O IB

is
• S

c •

• E

II
II

S e»

i|

CO

I
ij

I

8

3

8

8
8

!^

10

Si

li

I -

I

I

ys5

8 = 8

1

M • f^' «f n

-■ -• -■ 9S

M ^:' K K V

§S§2S

5lf§5

• V la V •
M cv M #

lUll

S;:8£8

O K> ^ (X ^

2 S 8 S S

% a 3

I

1

I
I

J

f M
'ill H

Hiih

§1

SS

2 fc 8 s 8 ;

SB

•5

§1

111

2 I

K 10

I

I

ii i!

I

1

Jill

«8 'S

8= S|

a

9a

8 52S|

I

II

SS ?3 ?S

• 8

2 s

5 3

}

f

liij
I

s

r

5

1
I

I

J
I

126

Persly presented histograms of nitrate and ammonia concentrations (number of
samples for each class and range of each class), from which mean concentrations
were calculated. The nitrate and ammonia data reported by Frimpter, et al. is
significantly less than those calculated from Persky (0.12 vs. 1.54 ug/1 nitrate and
0.01 vs. 0.24 ug/1 ammonia). Presumably, this difference over a few years is due to
rapid population increases and a housing boom. Since ammonia concentrations
were not available from the Barnstable County data base, the ammonia
concentration calculated from the Persky report was used. Since this was an average
ammonia concentration, we used the average nitrate concentration of 1.51 ug/1 from
the Barnstable Health data base in lieu of the median. This choice permitted us to
sum the two values to obtain an average nitrogen concentration. Using the average
concentration is probably an overestimate due to the non-normality of the nitrate
database.

The representative flow of groundwater in the watershed was estimated using the
annual recharge. We assumed that whatever recharge enters the watersheds'
aquifers, an equal amount of groundwater would be discharged. Thus, a flow rate of
1.28E+ 11 liters groundwater/year was assumed to discharge into Cape Cod Bay.
We then obtain a nitrogen loading into Cape Cod Bay via groundwater of 224
metric tons/year.

5.4.3 Results: Groundwater Loadings to Boston Harbor

Groundwater flow to the North and South Harbors was estimated to be
approximately 1 m^/sec. The estimated loadings of substances associated with the

discharge of groundwater are provided in Table 62.

127

Table 62. Estimates of loadings via groundwater to Boston Harbor.

Constituent

Low

High

Estimate

Estimate

Total Flow (m3/s)

>

1 m3/s

Conventionais (mt/yr)

Total BOD

not
determined

Total Nitrogen

1.6

15.7

Total Phosphorus

1.6E-04

9.5E-04

Total Solids

not
determined

Total Conforms

not
determined

•

Metais (kg/yr)

Cadmium

32

320

Chromium

160

1600

Copper

160

1600

Lead

16

1600

Mercury

not
determined

Nickel

160

1600

Zinc

160

1600

Organic Compounds
(kg/yr)

PCBs

not
determined

PAHs

0.02

0.2

Phthalates

not
determined

Volatile Organic Cmpds

16

160

128

5.5 Loadings Associated with Dredged Material Disposal

5.5.1 General Approach

This section of the report provides estimates of pollutant loadings resulting from
the ocean disposal of dredged material at the ocean disposal site in Massachusetts
Bay (Figure 2). The continuous effort to dredge and maintain the waterways and
shipping channels of Massachusetts Bay results in the creation of large amounts of
dredged material for disposal. This material, because it comes from waterways
located in urban and inclustrial areas, may be contaminated with various pollutants.
Dredged material disposal is regulated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(USAGE) and EPA. Disposal taJces place at two locations within the bay. The first
of these is the Massachusetts Bay Disposal Site, located at the Northeastern edge of
the Stellwagen Basin. The second site is located in Cape Cod Bay, and, is used only
for the dispos2il of clean sandy materials from the dredging of the Cape Cod Canal.

Prior to disposal the USACE requires that sediments be analyzed for the following
metals: mercury, cadmium, lead, chromium, copper, nickel, zinc and arsenic. In
addition concentrations of PCBs, volatile organics and oils are measured. PAHs are
not measured in materials destined for ocean disposal. However, data on levels of
these compounds in coastal marine sediments can be used to provide an estimate of
loadings.

Using data showing the volume of materials disposed of at the Massachusetts Bay
Disposal Site from 1976 through 1987 and concentrations of contaminants in the
sediments (Hubbard, Penko and Fleming, 1988), we have calculated the loadings of
these materials to the bay.

5.5.2 Calculation of Loadings.

The USACE data are presented in terms of barge volumes of sediment in cubic
meters per year. We multiplied these volumes by a factor of 0.65 to convert barge
volume to in-place sediment volume as suggested by Tavalaro (1985).

Metals data are presented as weighted annual averages, in parts per million dry
weight. The water content of sediment samples vary widely and is dependent on the
grain-size and distribution. Based on discussions with Glenn Jones at Woods Hole
Oceanographic Institution, we estimated that 1 cubic meter of wet sediment
contains approximately 1 metric ton of sediment on a dry weight basis.

129

The following formula was used to calculate the loading of a particular metal:

Metal (mt) = Sediment (mt) x Metal Concentration (mg/kg)

1,000,000 (conversion factor)

The results of the calculations are presented in Table 63. There are several sources
of uncertainty in the calculations. Based on conversations with Mr. Fredette of the
USAGE, we assumed that the material at the Cape Cod Bay disposal site is clean
and therefore did not contribute to pollutant loadings. Thus, the estimates are for
those materials that are dumped at the ocean disposal site in Massachusetts Bay
alone. Weighted, averaged data are used in the estimates, and it must be
recognized that there is variability among samples. For example the weighted
average for mercury was 0.68 ppm, while the standard deviation was 0.9 ppm.

Some uncertainty is introduced when converting from wet weight to dry weight. We
estimated that a cubic meter of wet in-place sediment would contain approximately
one metric ton of dry solids. However, the range, depending on bulk density could
fall between 0.6 to 1.2 metric tons of dry sediment per cubic meter of in-place wet
sediment. In addition, the factor for conversion from barge estimates to in place
sediment volumes will varies with the amount of water entrained in the sediments
during the dredging process.

130

{«

Is

• o

(0

E

o
o>

n

S

O

3

c S c

N • O

Iz % o

o ? o

o

i

CO
CO

i2 A

CO

CO

o

CO

c

CO

2

A
A
A

(Ol
-I

<
I-

Ui

• o

Q. "S o

» I-

5 t5 o

S •-

X ^ o

§1

5|E

^ 3

Sst

lis

Q 2 >-

r^ c\j T— op o> CO ■r-
0> CO CNJ u5 o o> CO

T-: d d d d

■»- 00 CNJ CNJ CO lf>

^ r>. ^ fs. .^ f^
T-' uj -r^ T-: T-^ T-" d

*^. CJOOflOOj'^^P^^^R
CVJ^^'^'^CMh^CMr-caf-T-

co cvj o
r^ o> «

in" d

d "»-

00 (O

U)

N. ^ o> "^ r^

**/ >*» _^ 1"^ ■>* W< ^*^ l"~

CNJt^^. -.-T-OJCJ-r-

2T-csiooo>2l5:r'!>r:fcco
«*5^^ftifi;co<3>i^i^cs4q;;ii

'^ h- o) cr> in fc
o 1^ o> ®

ojcocviirid^g^^C^^r^

CM CM S ^

COh-lft'^CMCO^CMeOO^h".
^OO^O^CM'«rCO^CO"r-

dddddd-r^ddcicici

(Dh-^T-iocpuSincocMcoo
0»-^eoQOoo®h»^h»^

i-OOOOt-CMOOOOO

dddddddddddd

§88

lA

d 00 r*^

CO lO fo-

o) 'sr CO

■^* CD U5

CM T- '^

8

U)

8 S 18 8 o

CM

o

^CMCOCbCM-^fcM-vi
QOLOCOOOLOCOS!

ococotoioflortg

U)

:S

o

CM

'ii^^^^^m

88888SS88 8 88

CO

O CO CM

CM r»> lo

CO CM U)

8

CM"*^'^'^CM<OCM<r-CM

CO O T-

^ CM 00

h* CO O

<o" © co"

o

CO

<o r»« CO O) o T- CM
r>^r<^f>.t^oooooo.

0>0>0>0>0>0>0>0>0>0)0>0>

S5 in CO h-
00 00 CO 00

(O

8

d

(O
CM

CM
CM

CM
CM

o

55

d

o

lA

I 8
< —I

Dl

Oil
Metric
Tons

PCB
MT
0.2 mg/kg

•

PAHs
PAH
10 mg/kg

P

o

z
<
o

o

PAHs

MT

'd 0.1 mg/kg

Dredged
Materials
Year

s

CO "^

d cvj o>

tX) h«- lO

CO O) T-

lO T- o •*- o

o> CO r^ c\j ;o

^' d CO 1^ (^

_. O) o> o) U5 in

0> CJ> CO 00 -^ CSJ

00 C\J CM CNJ C\J »-

s

in
in

CO Q r>o in in

rt o T- 'jr cvj

o o o o o o o

d d d d d d d

s

<o

(0

s

in

in

^

in

■^

in

1^

s

o

in

CM

"<t

o

in

CVJ

^-

o

o

o

o

T-

"^

T- T- ^ -I- O

coin(0(Ooor>>o-«-co(Oino)
incj-r-5Qinc\j^i-co^in

oooooooooooo

o o o

o o o o o o o

cor-cooo-r-csjco^incDf^
s•^>•^^s•ooQOoooooocooooo

CM

® 00 <5> "^ Q

o ^ o> in CO

CO CM CM CM ^
O O O O O

in

O O O O O

o

T- Q in q
CO in 00 c
o CM in u

§5

o

0 O)

in

^ i- CO T

- m

T~

CO

o
d

132

5.6 Loadings Associated with Atmospheric Deposition

The atmospheric loading of selected nutrients, organic compounds and metals to the
Massachusetts Bays is estimated in this section. Tne listed metals, except for iron,
have been identified as toxic or potentially toxic by Wood (1974). Iron is included in
the loading analysis because it is listed as a pollutant in the NCPDI (Farrow et al.,
1986). Beryllium, although listed as toxic by Wood (1974), is not analyzed because
of the lack of data pertaining to the Massachusetts Bays region. The limited data
available on the aerosol concentration of beryllium (Measures et aL, 1984) indicates
that atmospheric loading to the western North Atlantic is not significant.
Atmospheric deposition of beryllium to the Massachusetts Bays therefore is not
likely to be sigmficant. The atmospheric loading of the orgamc pollutants PAH and
PCB are also estimated in this section as are the nutrients nitrogen and phosphorus.

Atmospheric loading was calculated as the sum of dry and wet depositional flux
integrated over the entire area of the Massachusetts Bays. Dry deposition is the
direct settling of aerosol-bound pollutants. Dry flux is calculated by multiplying the
measured aerosol concentration by an estimated deposition velocity. Wet
deposition results from the scavenging of aerosol- bound pollutants by rain and
snow. Concentration in precipitation has been measured directly for some
pollutants. Where such measurements were available, the concentration was
multiplied by the precipitation rate per unit area to estimate wet depositional flux.
WTiere wet concentration has not been measured directly, it was estmiated by
multiplying the dry concentration by a scavenging or "washout" ratio, i.e., the ratio of
measured wet and dry concentrations, as reported in refereed literature. The
combined dry flux and wet flux are multiplied by the surface area of the
Massachusetts Bays to obtain the loading from atmospheric deposition.

Atmospheric concentration data were found in refereed literature that pertain
specifically to the Massachusetts Bays region for all chemicals except mercury and
phosphorus (Table 64). Loadings were estimated for these chemicals based on
regional concentrations or concentrations represented as characteristic of urban
areas. The data sources for each chemical are discussed in detail in subsections
5.3.1 through 5.3.3. Some of the most relevant data were provided by Dhan Olmez
of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

The estimate of atmospheric flux is assumed to apply equally to all the
Massachusetts Bays, regardless of distance from the measurement location. The
spatial sampling of aerosol concentration is generally inadequate to estimate
concentration gradients, so a point estimate of flux is used to calculate loadings.
Tliis approach may introduce a bias towards higher loadings since many of the
measurements have been made in urban areas and almost none have been made in
the marine atmosphere. This potential bias is minimized by restricting the
concentration data to submicron-sized

133

Table 64. Parameters used to estimate atmospheric ioading.

Deposition

Washout

Atmospheric

Velocity, Vd

(cm/s)

Ratio,

Concentration

Chemical

W

(ng/m3)

Metals

Sb

0.1

—

9.1

As

0.22

110

0.8

Cd

0.45

125

3

Cr

0.5

150

3.4

Co

0.3

—

1

Cu

0.5

140

16.1

Fe

1.1

250

75.7

Pb

0.3

76

326

Mn

0.56

370

3.6

Hg

—

—

—

Mo

—

—

0,14 to 2

Ni

0.7

gw 1?,S

8.6

Se

0.1

— _

0.6

Ag

0.24

—

0.5

V

0.29

110

25

Zn

0.62

179

38.7

Organic

Compounds

PAH

0.53

1.5 to 2

PCB

0.16

86

1.4 to 3.9

Nutrients

t-N

0.4

1700 to 5500

t-P

—

—

...

134

particles which have a higher likelihood of dispersing over the entire study area than
coarser particles. In order to represent the variability in the concentration
measurements, the 10th and 90th percentiles of the frequency distribution are used
as bounds on the range of concentration in the study area. Tliese estimates are
based on a log-norm5 distribution.

Loadings are estimated on an annual basis only. The seasonal variation of
atmospheric concentration has not been measured for most of the pollutants in this
study. Rainfall, affecting the amount of wet deposition, does not have a strong
seasonal dependence as described further below.

Dry deposition flux is calculated by multiplying the atmospheric concentration, C, by
a characteristic deposition velocity, Vd:

Fd = Vd . C (1)

which is the approach used by Hicks et al. (1988) and other investigators.
Deposition velocities are reported for metals by McMahon (1979), Sehmel (1980),
McVeety and Hites (1988), for organics by McVeety and Hites (1988), and for
nutrients (nitrogen) by Galloway et al. (1987).

Wet deposition flux is calculated by multiplying the atmospheric concentration by
the precipitation rate, P, and the volumetric washout ratio, Wv, for each specific
chemical:

Fw = Wv . P . C (2)

The volumetric washout ratio is defined as the ratio of concentration in
precipitation to the concentration in unscavenged air:

(ug/l)^ain
Wv =

(ng/m3),air (3)

Washout ratios for metals were reported by McMahon (1979) and by Jaffrezo and
Colin (1988), and for organic compounds by Ligocki et al. (1985 a,b). Washout
ratios are not available for antimony, mercury, molybdenum, selenium, silver,
nitrogen or phosphorus. (Wet deposition flux of mercury, molybdenum, sUver,
nitrogen and phosphorus was determined directly from estimates of concentration in
rainfall).

Precipitation in the Massachusetts Bays region was measured on Cape Cod and in a
Boston suburb as part of the National Atmospheric Deposition Program (Table 65).
Annual precipitation is about 1.1 m/yr. Preapitation rates show little seasonal
variation. Wet concentration is presented in units of ug/1 and wet deposition flux in
units of mg/m2/yr.

135

Table 65. Seasonal and annual rainfall (cm) in the Massachusetts
Bays region measured at two sites in the National Atmospheric

Deposition Program.

North Atlantic Coastal Lab

Barnstable County MA

TOTAL

FALL

WINILK

SPRING

SL^ME
R

1982

134.12

35.01

28.60

27.38

42.70

1983

160.47

38.28

31.09

56.97

28.99

1984

134.52

24.38

34.53

44.39

36.68

1985

121.00

23.04

17.12

31.05

54.75

1986

118.93

27.38

21.63

21.36

34.18

1987

58.01

16.10

49.40

—

1988

96.36

36.18

30.02

17.67

1738

East Middlesex County MA

1982

96.14

20.07

4.75

21.97

46.46

1983

133.65

35.99

24.39

47.32

14.47

1984

122.53

17.64

39.47

32.84

39.50

1985

92.13

30.94

13.26

20.15

33.15

1986

107.55

23.10

17.53

16.76

33.71

1987

102.81

30.83

37.16

31.37

16.27

\m

92.88

28.34

19.66

23.66

24.58

The flux determined from analysis of dry and wet deposition are multiplied by the
area of each of the Massachusetts Bays (Table 66). These bays were identified and
their areas were estimated at the MIT Collegium, 1989. The total area of the
Massachusetts Bays closely matches that of Long Island Sound, 3,350 kin2
(Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection, 1987), which is used for
comparison of some of the loading estimates. Summaries by land use (i.e., urban,
rural, marine) such as Galloway et al. (1982) for wet deposition and such as the Gas
Research Institute for PAH data are also used for comparison purposes.

136

Table 66. Areas of Massachusetts Bays.

Location

Area

kin2

Massachusetts Bay

2200

Cape Cod Bay

1300

Broad Sound

66

North Harbor

41

Quincy Bay
Inner Harbor

38
10

Hingham Bay

19

Total

3700

137

Annual loadings of metals, organic pollutants and nutrients are presented in the
following subsections.

5.6.1 Nutrients

Nitrogen

Atmospheric concentration of nitrogen is reported to be 1700 ng N/m^ as measured
50 km east of Boston (Galloway et al., 1987), and 5500 ng N/m^ for the nonheastern
U.S. (Galloway et al., 1984). TTiese concentrations are used as the lower and upper
range limits, respectively, for the present analysis.

Deposition velocity of nitrogen (as NOx) is reported to be 0.4 cm/s by Galloway et
al. (1987); deposition velocity of N03 + HN03 is 0.8 cm/s. The deposition velocitv
used for nitrogen in the present analysis is 0.4 cm/s. This deposition velocity results
in a dry deposition flux of 214 to 694 mg/m2/yr.

No data are available on the washout ratio of nitrogen.

Wet deposition is calculated directly from measurements of nitrogen concentration
in precipitation at stations on Cape Cod and in a suburb of Boston (NADP, 1989).
These concentrations ranged from 200 to 479 ug/1, a combination of N03 and NH4.
These data exhibited seasonal variation, largest concentrations in summer, smaDest
in winter.

The estimate of atmospheric loading of nitrogen to the Massachusetts Bays is
presented in Table 67. Total annual loading of nitrogen is estimated to be 1759 to
4944 tons/yr.

Table 67. Atmospheric loading (^g/yr) of nitrogen to Massachusetts

Bays.
Estimate includes wet and dry deposition.

Area

Low Estimate

High Estimate

Mass Bay
Cape Cod Bay
Broad Sound

955779
564778
28673

2685522
1586900
80566

North Harbor

17812

50048

Quincy Bay
Inner Harbor

16509

4344

46386
12207

Hingham Bay

8254

23193

Total

1596150

4484822

138

Phosphorus

Graham and Duce (1982) measured the concentration of phosphorus off Cape Cod
to be 19 ng/m3 t-P. Deposition velocity was estimated to be 0.4(0.2) cm/s. TTie
resulting dry deposition flux is then 1.2 mg/m2/yr.

Wet concentrations of 2 ug/1 and 11.6 ug/1 were measured by Graham and Duce
(1982) in the western Atlantic near the study area. This results in a wet deposition
flux of 12 to 70 mg/m2/yr for the study area. The wet deposition flux for Long
Island Sound (Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection, 1987), as
measured by USGS, is 11.1 mg/m2/yr, indicating that the lower estimates are
probably more representative.

The estimate of atmospheric loading of phosphorus to the Massachusetts Bays is
presented in Table 68. Total annual loading of phosphorus is estimated to be 14 to
290 tons/yr.

Table 68. Atmospheric loading (kg/yr) of phosphorus to

Massachusetts Bays.
Estimate includes dry and wet deposition.

Area Low High

Mass Bay
Cape Cod Bay
Broad Sound
North Harbor
Quincy Bay
Inner Harbor
Hingham Bay

Total 124S6 512g3

7476

30708

4418

18146

224

921

139

572

129

530

34

140

65

265

139

5.6.2 Organic Compounds

Atmospheric loadings of PAH and PCB to Massachusetts Bays are estimated in this
subsection.

PAH loading to Massachusetts Bays is of concern because of the carcinogenjc
potential of some PAH compounds. Kertesz-Saringer et al. (1971), for instance,
identify benzo[alpyrene as a very dangerous carcinogen. Tlie atmospheric
concentration or B[a]P has been momtored by the EPA at stations in Boston and in
Chelsea. Dry deposition flux is determined from these concentrations and an
estimate of deposition velocity. Wet deposition flux is determined from these
concentrations and an estimate of the washout ratio. Extrapolation to total PAH
from the estimates for B[a]P is based on the relative abundances of PAH
compounds measured in sediments in Boston Harbor. This approach to estimating
t-PAH suffers from variabilities among the PAH compounds in particle size
distribution, aerosol-vapor partitioning, and washout ratios for aerosol and vapor
phases.

PCB loading to Massachusetts Bays is calculated on the basis of regional
measurements of atmospheric concentration of PCB as Aroclor 12d4. Deposition
velocity and washout ratios for Aroclor 1254 are used to estimate dry and wet
deposition fluxes and total atmospheric loading. This approach neglects other
congeners, but loading of t-PCB is likely to be dominatea by Aroclor 1254.

PAH

Atmospheric concentration of B[a]P is reported to be 0.2 ng/m3 (U.S. EPA AIRS,
1990). These concentrations are similar to those for the low range of urban areas by
the Gas Research Institute (Atlantic Environmental Services, 1988).

No data are available on the atmospheric concentration of other PAH compounds
in the Massachusetts Bays region. The relative abundance of PAH compounds
measured in sediments from Boston Harbor and remote sites along the N'ew
England coast may reflect to some extent the composition in atmospheric deposition
and is used here to derive total PAH inputs from data on B[a]P. A limitation on
using these data as a basis for estimating total PAH inputs is that PAH compounds
seem to be apportioned among different particle sizes based on their molecular
weight. High molecular weight compounds, such as B[a]P, are associated with
submicron-sized particles on which diey were emitted while lo^- molecular weight
compounds, such as fluoranthene, can migrate to larger particles (DeWiest, 1978).)

Gshwend and Kites (1981) found that B[a]P comprised 10% of the total PAH in
sediments from Boston Harbor and at a remote site off the coast of Maine; Shiaris
and Jambord-Sweet (1986) reported B[a]P concentrations that average 13% of t-
PAH (variability was large, 2 to 40%). Assuming that B[a]P comprised 10 to 13% of
the total PAH in air, the concentration of t-PAH in air was 1.5 to 2 ng/m3. This
estimate is similar to the mean urban concentration, 3 ng/m3, reported by the Gas
Research Institute (Atlantic Environmental Services, 1988).

Deposition velocity of PAH is reported to be 0.53 cm/s for combined vapor and
aerosol by McVeety and Hite (1988). This deposition velocity was used for PAH in

140

the present analysis and results in a dry deposition flux of 0.25 to 0.33 mg/ni2/yr.
This estimate is similar to the total deposition flux, 0.2 m^/m2/yr, measured at a
remote site by Gschwend and Hites (1981). Wet deposition was estimated from the
concentration of t-PAH in air and the scavenging ratio. Ligocki et al. (1985 a,b)
have measured the scavenging ratio for gas phase and particle phase PAH in coastal
and urban Oregon. Particulate washout is important only for tne higher molecular
weight compounds, e.g., benzo[a]pyrene. Lower molecular weight compounds, e.g.

ghenanthrene, have predominantly gas phase washout. B[a]P and phenanthrene
ux were determined to be about the same by Gschwend and Hites (1981), 0.17 and
0.24 mg/m2/yr. This result may indicate that B[a]P scavenging is representative of
total PAH scavenging, even though most PAH compounds are scavenged through
their gas phase. Based on the measured concentration of B[a]P, 0.2 ng/m3, anda
particulate washout ratio of 1700, the concentration in rain is estimated as 0.34 ng/1.
Extrapolating from B[a]P to t-PAH results in estimates of 2.6 to 3.4 ng t-PAH/1.
This estimate is about the same as the estimate of wet deposition made by
Gschwend & Hites (1981) based on concentration in rain at the Great Lakes by
Eisenreich et al. (1981).

The estimate of atmospheric loading of total PAH to the Massachusetts Bays is
presented in Table 69. Total annual loading of PAH is on the order of 1 metric
ton/yr. Dry deposition dominates the loading, which may be expected because of
the low efficiency of scavenging submicron-sized particles (Gschwend & Hites,
1981). It is approximately the same as the estimate of atmospheric loading made by
Gschwend and Hites (1981), but is low by a factor of 2 to 10 compared with
estimates presented at the MIT Collegium (1989).

Table 69. Atmospheric loading (l(g/yr) of PAHs to Massachusetts

Bays (dry and wet).

Area

Low Estimate

High Estimate

571

755

337

446

17

23

11

14

10

13

3

3

5

7

Mass Bay
Cape Cod Bay
Broad Sound
North Harbor
Quincy Bay
Inner Harbor
Hingham Bay

JsM 252 1260

1

141

PCB

Atmospheric concentration of PCB (as Aroclor 1254) is reported to be 1.4 n2/m3 at
Georges Bank and 3.9 ng/m3 at Vineyard Sound (Harvey and Steinhauer, 1974).
These concentrations are used as the lower and upper range limits, respectively, for
the present analysis.

Deposition velocity of PCB (Aroclor 1254) is reported to be 0.16 cm/s by McVeety
and Hites (1988); deposition velocity oft- PCB is 0.13 cm/s and for PCB aerosol is
0.91 cm/s. The deposition velocity used for PCB in the present analysis is 0.16
cm/s. This deposition velocity results in a dry deposition flux of 0.07 to 9.20
mg/m2/yr.

The washout ratio for PCB is 86, according to Mackay et al. (1986). This results in a
wet deposition flux of 0.12 to 0.34 mg/m2/yr.

The dryiwet ratio calculated in the present analysis (1:2) is in moderate agreement
with the ratio for the Great Lakes (1:3) reported by Swackhamer et al. (1988).

The estimate of atmospheric loading of PCB to the Massachusetts Bays is presented
in Table 70. Total annual loading of PCB is estimated to be 1 to 2 metric tons/yr.

Table 70. Atmospheric loading (kg/yr) of PCBs to Massachusetts
Bays. Estimates include dry and wet deposition.

Area Low Estimate High Estimate

Mass Bay 446 1256

Cape Cod Bay 263 742

Broad Sound 13 38

North Harbor 8 23

Quincy Bay 8 22

Inner Harbor 2 6

Hingham Bay 4 11

JsM 245 2097

142

5.6.3 Atmospheric loading of metals.

The principal data sources for atmospheric metal concentrations are Zoller and
Gordon (1970), Gladney et al. (1974), Hopke et al. (1976), Fogg and Fitzgerald
(1979), Rahn (1981), Rahn and Lowenthal (1984), Thurston and Spengler (1985),
and Olmez (1990).

Zoller and Gordon (1970) analyzed samples collected at MIT and other locations in
the Boston area. Instrumental neutron activation analysis provided results for a
large suite of metals. Gladney et al. (1974) analyzed samples collected from two
sites at MIT: the roof of the Nuclear Chemistry Building and the roof of the Green
Building (100 m above ground level) and from one site west of Route 128 in
Wellesley. Size distribution was also determined. Zoller and Gordon (1970) and
Gladney et al. (1974) both used instrumental neutron activation analysis. Hopke et
al. (1976) analyzed samples taken from locations around the perimeter of Boston
Harbor (Hull, Long Island, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston Naval
Shipyard, Lx)gan International Airport) and at Wellesley. They used INAA on 90
total samples.

Fogg and Fitzgerald (1979) measured the concentration of mercury in rainwater at a
site on Cape Cod (Centerville, MA) during September and Oaober, 1975.

Rahn (1981) measured the concentration of manganese and vanadium at a rural site
in Narragansett, RI for the purpose of establishing regional tracers. Rahn and
Lowenthal (1984) measured arsenic, antimony, selenium, vanadium, zinc,
manganese, and indium at Narragansett. They isolated measurements obtained
during winds from the Boston area in order to identify a Boston signature.

Data used for comparison purposes were found in Scudlark and Church (1988),
Galloway et al. (1982), ancl Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection
(1987). Scudlark and Church measured arsenic concentration at a remote site at
Lewes, DE. Galloway et al. (1982) summarized reports of metal concentration in
precipitation, categorized by urban, rural, and manne areas or by specific areas in
some cases. Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection estimated
atmospheric loadings to Long Island Sound by extrapolating measurements from
Chesapeake Bay and the Great Lakes, and using local measurements reported in
the literature and made by USGS for the DEP as part of the National Estuary
Program.

Concentrations of metals are provided as means; standard deviations are shown in
parentheses in the following sections.

143

Antimony

Atmospheric concentration of antimony is reported to be 0.5 n£/m3 by ZoUer and
Gordon (1970), 9.1(11) ng/m3 bv Hopke et al. (1976) and 0.83^0.41) ng/m3 by
Rahn et al. (1984). Analysis of (fata reported by Olmez (1990) results in an estimate
of 1.1(2.2) ng/m3. The concentration used for antimony in the present analysis is
1.1(2.2) ng/m3 based on the data of Olmez (1990). It is the roost recent and most
extensive data set available. Except for the data of Hopke et al., it is the most
representative of the study area.

Antimony is associated with emissions from coal combustion, incineration, and
antimony roasting (Keeler and Samson, 1989). Hopke et al. (1976) identify an
incinerator in Somerville as a possible source of pollution to Boston Harbor.

Deposition velocity of antimony is reported to be 0.06 to <0.4 cm/s by Sehmel
(1980). The deposition velocity of metals reported by McMabon (1979) is usually at
the lower end of the range reported by Sehmel (1980). Since McMahon does not
report a deposition velocity for antimony, it is estimated to be 0.1 cm/s.

No data are available on the concentration of antimony in precipitation or on the
washout ratio of antimony. Wet depositional flux is therefore not estimated.

The estimate of atmospheric loading of antimony to the Massachusetts Bays is
presented in Table 71. Dry depositional flux is estimated to be 0.01 to 0.09
mg/m2/yr using the 10th and 90th percentiles of aerosol concentration. Total
annual loading of antimony is estimated to be < < (much less than) 1 metric ton/yr
(46 to 333 kg^), based on dry deposition alone.

Table 71 . Atmospheric loading of antimony (kg/yr) to Massachusetts
Bays. Estimates include dry and wet deposition.

Arga Low Estimate High Estimate

Mass Bay

28

200

Cape Cod Bay

16

118

Broad Sound

1

6

North Harbor

1

4

Quincy Bay
Inner Harbor

0
0

3

1

Hingham Bay

0

2

Total

46

333

144

Arsenic

Atmospheric concentration of arsenic is reported to be 0.5(2.1) ng/m3 by Olmez
(1990). Rahn et al. (1984) measured concentrations of 0.49(0.15) ng/m3 and Walsh
et al. (1979) measured concentrations of 1.9 ng/m3. Both these measurements were
made in Rhode Island, the former in a rural area and the latter in an urban area
(Providence). Scudlark and Church measured arsenic concentrations of 1.05 ng/m3
at Lewes, DE. The major source of arsenic is the upper Ohio River Valley andthe
Sudbury region of Ontario, Canada (Keeler and Samson, 1989). Arsenic is therefore
not a local source and the concentration across the Massachusetts Bays is likely to
be uniform. The concentration of 0.5(2.1) ng/m3 by Olmez was used in the present
analysis. The 10th and 90th percentile are 0.2 and 1.3 ng/m3.

Deposition velociw of arsenic is reported to be 0.22 cm/s by McMahon (1979) and
to be <0.1 to < 0.6 cm/s by Sehmel (1980). The deposition velocity used for arsenic
in the present analysis is 0.22 cm/s. The resulting dry deposition flux is 0.01 to 0.09
mg/m2/yr.

The washout ratio for arsenic is 110, according to McMahon (1979). This results in
a wet deposition flux of 0.02 to 0.16 mg/m2/yr. The arsenic concentration in
precipitation is 0.02 to 0.16 ug/1; this is much smaller than the 0.58 ug/1 that
Galloway et al. (1982) report tor generic urban areas.

The estimate of atmospheric loading of arsenic to the Massachusetts Bays is
presented in Table 72. Total annual loading of arsenic is estimated to be about < 1
metric ton per year.

Table 72. Atmospheric loading of arsenic (l(g/yr) to Massachusetts
Bays. Estimates Include dry and wet deposition.

Area Low Estimate High Estimate

Mass Bay

87

557

Cape Cod Bay

51

329

Broad Sounds

17

North Harbor

2

10

Quincy Bay

2

10

Inner Harbor

0

3

Hingham Bay

1

5

Total

145

930

145

Cadmium

Very few data are available on the atmospheric concentration of cadmium in the
northeast U.S. Olmez (1990) reported nine measurements, roost of which are below
detection. The lowest detectable concentration that he reports is 2.4 ng/m3, which
was used in the present analysis as the high end of the range of concentration.

Deposition velocity of cadmium is reported to be 0.45 cm/s b> McMahon (1979)
and to be <0.4 to >8 cm/s by Sehmel (1980). The deposition velocity used for
cadmium in the present analysis is 0.45 cm/s. Dry de|X>sition flux is estimated to be
0.34 mg/m2/yr.

The washout ratio for cadmium is 125, according to McMahon (1979), resulting in a
wet concentration of 0.30 ug/l using the Olmez data. Concentration of cadmium in
rainfall was measured to be 0.31 ug/l at Woods Hole, Massachusetts. Reported wet
concentrations of 2.3 ug/l by Galloway et al. (1982) for a generic urban area are too
high to be representative of the study area.

Wet deposition based on the above concentrations are 0.34 mg/m2/yr.

The estimate of atmospheric loading of cadmium to the Massachusetts Bays is
presented in Table 73. Total annual loading of cadmium is estimated to be 3 metric
tons/yr.

Table 73. Atmospheric loading of cadmium (kg/yr) to Massachusetts
Bays. Estimates include dry and wet deposition.

Area Low Estimate High Estimate

Mass Bay 0 1499

Cape Cod Bay 0 886

Broad Sound 0 45

North Harbor 0 28

Quincy Bay 0 26

Inner Harbor 0 7

Hingham Bay 0 13

Total Q 2504

146

Chromium

Atmospheric concentration of chromium is reported to be 3.4(5^) ng/m3 by Hopke
et al. (1976). Analysis of the data provided by Olmez (1990) results m 0.7(4.0)
ng/m3. The estimates from the Olmez data set is used in the present analysis with
10th and 90th percentiles of 0.1 and 4.3 ng/m3 respectively.

Deposition velocity of chromium is reported to be 0.5 cm/s by McMahon (1979) and
to be 0.6 to 6.8 cm/s by Sehmel (1980). The deposition velocity used for chromium
in the present analysis is 0.5 cm/s. This results in a dry deposition flux of 0.02 to
0.68 mg/m2/yr.

The washout ratio for chromium is 150, according to McMahon (1979). This results
in a wet deposition flux of 0.02 to 0.71 m§/m2/yr. This flux corresponds to the low
end of the range of urban wet concentrations reported by Galloway et sH. (1982),
0.51tol5ug/l.

The estimate of atmospheric loading of chromium to the Massachusetts Bays is
presented in Table 74. Total annual loading of chromium is estimated to be < 6
metric tons/yr.

Table 74. Atmospheric loading of chromium (kg/yr) to Massachusetts
Bays. Estimates include dry and wet deposition.

Area

Low Est

Mass Bay

87

Cape Cod Bay

51

Broad Sound

3

North Harbor

2

Quincy Bay

1

Inner Harbor

0

Hingham Bay

1

High Estimate

3062

1810

92

57
53
14
14

Total 145 511L

147

Cobalt

Atmospheric concentration of cobalt is reported to be 0.2 ng/ni3 by Zoller and
Gordon (1970), 0.62 to 2.3 ng/m3 by Gladney et al. (1974) and 1.00 (0.70) ng/m3 by
Hopke et al. (1976). Analysis of the data provided by Olmez (1990) results in
estimates of 0.3(3.1) ng/m3. The 10th and 90th percentiles of the Olmez data, 0.08
and 1.5 ng/m3, are used.

Deposition velocit>^ of cobalt is reported to be to be 0.3 to 1.9 cm/s by Sehmel
(1980). The deposition velocity used for cobalt in the present analysis is 0.3 cm/s,
consistent with the deposition velocity selected for other metals which are at the low
end of the range reported by Sehmel (1980). This deposition velocity results in a dry
deposition flux of 0.01 to 0.14 mg/m2/yr.

No data are available on the washout ratio of cobalt. The wet deposition of cobalt
is estimated from the urban concentration of cobalt in precipitation reported by
Galloway et al. (1982), 1.8 ug/1. This results in a wet depositional flux of 1.98
mg/m2/yr.

The estimate of atmospheric loading of cobalt to the Massachusetts Bays is
presented in Table 75. Total arniual loading of cobalt is estimated to be 8 to 9
metric tons/yr. Most of this loading is due to wet deposition, which is based on
summary data for urban areas and do not include data specific to eastern
Massachusetts. Dry deposition is based on data from the Boston area, and
constitutes < 1 metric ton/year of loading, which is probably a more representative
estimate.

Table 75. Atmospheric loading of cobalt (kg/yr) to Massachusetts
Bays. Estimates include dry and wet deposition.

Area Low Estimate High Estimate

Mass Bay

4373

4662

Cape Cod Bay

2584

2755

Broad Sound

131

140

North Harbor

82

87

Quincy Bay

76

81

Imier Harbor

20

21

Hingham Bay

38

40

Total

7303

7786

148

Copper

Atmospheric concentration of copper is reported to be 50 ng/m3 by Zoller and
Gordon (1970) according to their own measurements; they 3so repon a value of
1 10 ng/m3 as measured by the U.S. Public Health Service in SomerviUe. Thurston
and Spengler (1985) measured fine and coarse concentrations of copper of 16.1 and
10.4 ng/nfi, respectively. The fine concentration measured by Thurston and
Spengler (1985), 16.1 ng/m3, is used.

Deposition velocity of copper is reported to be 0.5 cm/s by McMahon (1979) and to
be <0.6 to 1.1 cm/s by Sehmel (1980). The deposition velocity used for copper in
the present analysis is 0.5 cm/s. This results in a dry deposition flux of 2.5 to 8.4
mg/m2/yr.

The washout ratio for copper is 140, according to McMahon (1979). This results in
a wet deposition flux of 2.5 mg/m2/yr. This flux is lower than the low end of the
range of urban wet concentrations reported by Galloway et al. (1982), 6.8 to 120

ugA

The estimate of atmospheric loading of copper to the Massachusetts Bays is
presented in Table 76. Total aimuaT loading of copper is estimated to be 20 metric
tons/yr, lower than estimates for Long Island Sound (29 to 78 metric tons/yr;
Cormecticut Department of Environmental Protection, 1987).

Table 76. Atmospheric loading of copper (kg/yr) to Massachusetts
Bays. Estimates include dry and wet deposition.

Area

Low Estimate

High Estimate

Mass Bay

11040

Cape Cod Bay

6523

Broad Sound

331

North Harbor

206

Quincy Bay

191

Inner Harbor

50

Hingham Bay

95

Total

m}6

149

Iron

Atmospheric concentration of iron is reported to be 1000 to 1300 ng/ni3 by Zoller
and Gordon (1970) and to be 1090(1000) ng/m3 by Hopke et al. (1974). Thurston
and Spengler (1985) report 74.7 and 281 ng/m3 for the fine and coarse fractions,
respectively. Analysis of the data provided by Olmez (1990) results in a mean of 1 1 1
ng/m3 with 10th and 90th percentiles of 53 and 231 ng/m3. These estimates are
used in the present analysis.

Deposition velocity of iron is reported to be 1.1 cm/s by McMahon (1979) and to be
1.0 to 2.5 cm/s by Sehmel (1980). The deposition velocity used for iron in the
present analysis is 1.1 cm/s. This results in a dry deposition flux of 18.5 to 80.4
mg/m2/yr.

The washout ratio for iron is 250, according to McMahon (1979). Jaffrezo and
Colin (1988) report a scavenging ratio which is equivalent to a washout ratio of 330,
as defined by McMahon (19/9). A washout ratio of 250 is used in the present
analysis. This results in a wet deposition flux of 14.6 to 63.7 mg/ni2/yr.

The estimate of atmospheric loading of iron to the Massachusetts Bays is presented
in Table 77. Total aimual loading of iron is estimated to be 134 to 584 metric
tons/yr. The iron loading estimated for Long Island Sound, an area comparable in
size to the Massachusetts Bays, is 1110 metric tons/yr (Connecticut Department of
Environmental Protection).

Table 77. Atmospheric loading of iron (kg/yr) to Massachusetts Bays.
Estimates include dry and wet deposition.

Area

Low Estimate

High Estimate

Mass Bay

72804

316977

Cape Cod Bay
Broad Sound

43021
2184

187304
9509

North Harbor

1357

5907

Quincy Bay
Iimer Harbor

1258
331

5475
1441

Hingham Bay
Total

629

121584

2738
529^51

150

Lead

Atmospheric concentration of lead is reported to be 326(13.2) ng/m3 for the fine
fraction and 75.6(4.57) ng/m3 for the coarse fraction by Thurston and Spengler
(1985). The fine concentration is used in the present analysis.

Deposition velocity of lead is reported to be 0.3 cm/s by McMahon (1979). This
deposition velocity is used in the present analysis. This results in a dry deposition
flux of 30.8 mg/m2/yr.

The washout ratio for lead is 76, according to McMahon (1979). This results in a
wet deposition flux of 27 mg/m2/yr.

The estimate of atmospheric loading of lead to the Massachusetts Bays is presented
in Table 78. The annual loading of lead is estimated to be 235 metric tons/yr. ITie
lead loading estimated for Long Island Sound is 628 metric tons/yr (Connecticut
Department of Environmental Protection), much higher than the estimate for
Massachusetts Bays. Connecticut also reports a wet depositional loading of 30
metric tons/yr, measured by USGS. The wet loading to Massachusetts Bays is
estimated to be 110 tons/yr. This comparison suggests that the estimates for
Massachusetts Bays may be low. Other data sources for the atmospheric
concentration of lead and for the washout ratio for lead should be sought to resolve
this question.

Table 78. Atmospheric loading of lead (kg/yr) to Massachusetts
Bays. Estimates include dry and wet deposition.

Area

Low Estimate

High Estimate

Mass Bay

127811

Cape Cod Bay

75525

Broad Sound

3834

North Harbor

2382

Quincy Bay

2208

Inner Harbor

581

Hingham Bay

1104

Total

213444

151

Manganese

Atmospheric concentration of manganese is reported to be 10 to 50 ng/ni3 by
Zoller and Gordon (1970) and 27(19) ng/m3 by Hopke et al. (1974). Thurston and
Spengler (1985) report 3.61 ajnd 5.81 ng/m3 for the fine and coarse size fraaions,
respectively. Rahn and Lowenthal (1984) report non-crustaJ manganese
concentrations of 4.2(0.8) ng/m3 at Narragansett during winds from the direction of
Boston. The data provided by Olmez (1990) results in a mean of 3.7 ng/m3 with
10th and 90th percentiles of 1.8 and 7.3 ng/m3, respectively. These estimates are
used in the present analysis.

Deposition velocity of manganese is reported to be 0.56 cm/s by McMahon (1979)
and to be 0.4 to 0.9 cm/s by Sehmel (1980). The deposition velocity used for
manganese in the present analysis is 0.56 cm/s. This results in a dry deposition flux
of 0.§ to 1.3 mg/n^/yr.

The washout ratio for manganese is 370, according to McMahon (1979). This
results in a wet deposition flux of 0.7 to 3.0 mg/m2/yr. This flux corresponds to the
low end of the range of urban wet concentrations reported by Galloway et al.
(1982), 1.9to80ug/l.

The estimate of atmospheric loading of manganese to the Massachusetts Bays is
presented in Table 79. Total annual loading of manganese is estimated to be 4 to 17
metric tons/yr. The total manganese loading estimated for Lone Island Sound is
22.2 metric tons/yr (Cormecticut Department of Environmental Protection, 1987).

Table 79. Atmospheric loading of manganese (kg/yr) to
Massachusetts Bays. Estimates include dry and wet deposition.

■■■■■' ■■ t. '- JJ-' ' ■ ?■■-- 1 "-■■■'-' ■'■-■■' - ■ * ■' ' ■ » ^^-^— I ■ ■■ — y ■■!■

Area Low Estimate High Estimate

Mass Bay

2338

9433

Cape Cod Bay

1382

5580

Broad Sound

70

283

North Harbor

44

176

QuincyBay
Inner Harbor

40
11

163

43

Hingham Bay

20

82

Total

3905

15770

152

Mercury

No data are available for the atmospheric concentration of mercury in the
Massachusetts Bays region.

No data are available on the deposition velocity of mercury.

No data are available on the washout ratio of mercury. The concentration of
mercury in precipitation was measured directly by Fogg and Fitzgerald (1979), 6 to
18ng/l.

The estimate of atmospheric loading of mercury to the Massachusetts Bays is
presented in Table 80 and in the Appendix. Total annual loading of mercury is
estimated to be 24 to 73 kg/yr.

Table 80. Atmospheric loading of mercury (kg/yr) to Massachusetts
Bays. Estimates include dry and wet deposition.

Area Low Estimate High Estimate

Mass Bay 15 44

Cape Cod Bay 9 26

Broad Sound 0 1

North Harbor 0 1

QuincyBay 0 1

Inner Harbor 0 0

Hingham Bay 0 0

JjM 24 22_

153

Molybdenum

TTie data provided by Olmez (1990) result in a mean concentration of 0.6 ng/ni3
with 10th and 90th percentiles of 0.2 and 1.8 ng/m3, respectively. However, no data
are available on the deposition velocity of molybdenum, therefore no estimate is
made for dry deposition loading of molybdenum.

No data is available on the washout ratio of molybdenum. The concentration of
molybdenum in precipitation is taken from the summary of Galloway et al. (1982)
for urban areas, 0.2 ug/1. This results in a wet deposition flux of 0.22 mg/m2/yr.

The estimate of atmospheric loading of molybdenum to the Massachusetts Bays is
presented in Table 81. Total annual loading of molybdenum is estimated to be < 1
metric ton/yr, based on wet deposition alone.

Table 81. Atmospheric loading of molybdenum (kg/yr) to
Massachusetts Bays. Estimates include only wet deposition.

Area Low Estimate High Estimate

Mass Bay 484

Cape Cod Bay 286

Broad Sound 15

North Harbor 9

Quincy Bay 8

Iimer Harbor 2

Hingham Bay 4

Total 808

154

J

Nickel

Atmospheric concentration of nickel is reported to be 52 ng/m3 by Zoller and
Gordon (1970). Thurston and Spengler (1985) report 8.57(0.39) and 2.44(0.13)
ng/m3 for the fine and coarse fractions, respectively. The fine fraction
concentration measured by Thurston and Spengler (1985), 8,57 ng/m3, is used in the
present analysis.

Deposition velocity of nickel is reported to be 0.45 cm/s by McMahon (1979) and to
be 0.7 to <2 cm/s by Sehmel (1980). The deposition velocity used for nickel in the
present analysis is 0.7 cm/s. This results in a dry deposition flux of 1.9 mg/m2/yr.

The washout ratio for nickel is 125, according to McMahon (1979). This results in a
wet deposition flux of 1.2 mg/m2/yr.

The estimate of atmospheric loading of nickel to the Massachusetts Bays is
presented in Table 82 and in the Appendix. The total annual loading of nickel is
estimated to be 12 metric tons/yr, 5 metric tons/yr for wet deposition. The loading
from wet deposition estimated for Lonp Island Sound is 8 tons/yr (Connecticut
Department of Environmental Protection, 1987), slightly below the estimate for
Massachusetts Bays.

Table 82. Atmospheric loading of nickel (kg/yr) to Massachusetts
Bays. Estimates include dry and wet deposition.

Area

Low

Estimate

High Estimate

Mass Bay
Cape Cod Bay
Broad Sound
North Harbor
Quincy Bay
Inner Harbor
Hingham Bay

Total

6754
3991
203

126

117

31

58

11280

155

Selenium

Atmospheric concentration of selenium is reported to be 0.6 ng./m3 bv Zoller and
Gordon (1970), 1.4 to 4.9 ng/m3 by Gladney et al. (1974) and 123(1.13) ng/ni3 by
Hopke et al. (1974). Thurston and Spengler (1985) report 0.595(0.46) for the fine
size fraction; no coarse fraction was detected. Rahn and Lowenihal (1984) report
selenium concentrations of 1.00(0.60) ng/m3 at Narragansett, Rhode Island during
winds from the direction of Boston. The data provided by Olmez (1990) results in an
estimated mean concentration of 0.7 ng/m3 with 10th and 90th percentiles of 0.2
and 2.6 ng/m3, respectively. These values are used in the present analysis. The
data from Rahn and Lowenthal (1984), suggest that these values are Likely
representative of the entire study area.

Deposition velocity of selenium is reported to be 0.1 to 0.6 cm/s by Sehmel (1980).
The deposition velocity used for selenium in the present analysis is 0.1 cm/s; this is
consistent with the selection of deposition velocity for other metals, i.e. choosing
from the lower limit reported by Sehmel (1980). This deposition velocity results in a
dry deposition flux of <0.01 to 0.08 mg/m2/yr.

No data is available on the washout ratio of selenium. No data is available on the
concentration of selenium in wet deposition, either specifically for the
Massachusetts Bays region or for generic urban, rural, or marme regions. No wet
deposition can be estimated for selenium in the present analysis.

The estimate of atmospheric loading of selenium to the Massachusetts Bays is
presented in Table 83. Total aimuaJ loading of selenium is estimated to be < < 1
metric ton/yr. This estimate is based on dty deposition only.

Table 83. Atmospheric loading of selenium (kg/yr) to Massachusetts
Bays. Estimates include only dry deposition.

Area

Low

Estimate

High Estimate

Mass Bay
Cape Cod Bay
Broad Sound

14
8
0

182
108

North Harbor

0

3

Quincy Bay
Inner Harbor

0
0

3
1

Hingham Bay
Total

0

23

2
305

156

Silver

Very few aerosol data are available for silver. Olmez (1990) reports a maximum
concentration of 1 ng/m3 for silver; most samples were below cfetection. A
concentration of 0.2 ng/m3 is used, based on Olmez data.

Deposition velocity of silver is reported to be 0.24 cm/s by McVeety and Hites
(1988) and 0.1 to 0.6 cm/s by Sehmel (1980). The deposition velocity assumed for
silver in the present analysis is 0.24 cm/s. This results in a dry depositional flux of
0.02 mg/m2/yr.

No data are available on the washout ratio of silver. The concentration of silver in
precipitation is taken from the summary of Galloway et al. f 1982) for urban areas,
3.2 ug/1. This results in a wet deposition flux of 3.5 mg/m2/yr. This estimate may
not be representative of the study area.

The estimate of atmospheric loading of silver to the Massachusetts Bays is
presented in Table 84 and in the Appendix. Total annual loading of silver is
estimated to be 14 metric tons/yr. This estimate is dominated by the wet con-
centration of silver in generic urban areas, not on data specific to the Massachusetts
Bays region. The total silver loading estimated for Long Island Sound is 5.23 metric
tons/yr (Connecticut Department or Environmental Protection, 1987), which may
indicate that the estimate of silver loading for Massachusetts Bays is too high.

Table 84. Atmospheric loading of silver (kg/yr) to Massachusetts
Bays. Estimates Include dry and wet deposition.

Area

Low Estimate

High Estimate

Mass Bay
Cape Cod Bay
Broad Sound
North Harbor
Quincy Bay
Inner Harbor
Hingham Bay

Total

7777

4596

233

145

134

35

67

12988

157

Vanadium

Atmospheric concentration of vanadium is reported to be 13.18 n2/m3 by Rahn
(1981) and 35(6) ng/m3 by Rahn and Lowenthal (1984) measured at Narragansett,
RI during winds from the Boston direction. Thurston and Spengler (1985) reported
concentrations of 22.1(1.10) and 3.34(0.33) ng/m3 for the fine and coarse size
fractions respectively. Data provided by Olmez (1990) have a mean concentration
of 12.1 ng/rn3 with 10th and 90th percentiles of 4.1 and 35.7 ng/m3, respeaively.
These values are used in the present analysis.

Measurements of atmospheric concentration of vanadium made in the 1960's and
early 1970's (Gladney et al., 1974; Hopke et al. 1976) were as hi^ as 2000 n2/m3.
The source of this vanadium was local combustion of residual oil. Rahn (1981)
notes that this is no longer an important source and that urban concentrations are
generally under 100 ng/m3. The older reports of extremely high vanadium
concentrations are no longer representative of present conditions.

Deposition velocity of vanadium is reported to be 0.29 cm/s by McMahon (1979)
and 0.2 to <0.7 cm/s by Sehmel (1980). The deposition velocity used for vanadium
in the present analysis is 0.29 cm/s. This deposition velocity results in a dry
deposition flux of 0.4 to 3.3 mg/m2/yr.

The washout ratio for vanadium is 110, accordineto McMahon (1979). This results
in a wet deposition flux of 0.4 to 4.3 mg/ni2/yr. This flux corresponds to a wet
deposition concentration well below the range reported by Galloway et al. (1982),
16 to 68 ug/1. The older measurements reported in the review article by Galloway
are probably not representative of present conditions. The estimate of atmospheric
loading of vanadium to the Massachusetts Bays is presented in Table 85. Total
annualloading of vanadium is estimated to be 4 to 31 metric tons/yr.

Table 85. Atmospheric loading of vanadium to Massachusetts Bays.
Estimates include dry and wet deposition.

Area

Low Estimate

High Estimate

Mass Bay

1909

16668

Cape Cod Bay

1128

9850

Broad Sound

57

500

North Harbor

36

311

Quincy Bay

33

288

Inner Harbor

9

76

Hingham Bay

16

144

Total

3188

27836

L58

Zinc

Atmospheric concentration of zinc is reported to be 100 to 210 ng/m3 by Zoller and
Gordon (1970), 100 to 340 ng/m3 by Gladney et al. (1974) and 190(220) ng/m3 by
Hopke et al. (1974). Thurston and Spengler (1985) report 26.5(1.05) and 12.2(0.64)
ng/m3 for the fine and coarse size fractions, respectively. The data provided by
Olmez (1990) has a mean concentration of 14.6 ng/ni3 with 10th and 90th
percentiles of 3.7 and 58.3 ng/m3, respectively. Tnese values are used in the present
analysis.

The concentrations reported by Thurston and Spengler (1985) and the
measurements of Rahn and Ijowenthal (1984) at Narragansett during winds from
the direction of Boston are similar to the data of Olmez (1990), suggesting that
these data are temporally and spatially representative of the entire study area.

Deposition velocity of zinc is reported to be 0.62 cm/s by McMahon (1979) and 0.4
to 4.5 cm/s by Sehmel (1980). The deposition velocity used for zinc in the present
analysis is 0.62 cm/s. This deposition velocity results in a dry deposition flux of 0.7
to 11.4 ms/m2/yr. The washout ratio for zinc is 179, accordmg to McMahon (1979).
This results in a wet deposition flux of 0.7 to 11.5 mg/m2/yr.

The estimate of atmospheric loading of zinc to the Massachusetts Bays is presented
in Table 86. Total annual loading of zinc is estimated to be 6 to 93 metric tons/yr.
TTie total zinc loading estimated for Long Island Sound is 480 metric tons/yr
(Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection, 1987), much larger than the
estimate for Massachusetts Bays.

Table 86. Atmospheric loading of zinc to Massachusetts Bays.
Estimates include dry and wet deposition.

Area

Low Estimate

High Estimate

Mass Bay

3153

50325

Cape Cod Bay

1863

29738

Broad Sound

95

1510

North Harbor

59

938

Quincy Bay

54

869

Inner Harbor

14

229

Hingham Bay

27

435

Total

5265

88043

159

Summary of atmospheric loading

Ranges in atmospheric loadings of chemicals to Massachusetts Bays are presented
in Table 87.

Table 87. Atmospheric loading to the Massachusetts Bays (kg/yr).

Chemical

Total

References

Nutrients

Nitrogen

1596150-4484822

M7M8

Phosphorus

12486-51283

R6

Organics

PAHs

953 - 1260

M6

PCB

745 - 2097

R5

Metals

Sb

46- 333

M1M2M8R1

As

145 - 930

M8R1R2

Cd

2504

M8R3

Cr

145-5114

M2M8

Co

7303 - 7786

M1M2M3M8

Cu

18436

M1M4

Fe

121584-529351

Ml M2 M4 M8

Pb

213444

M4

Mn

3905 - 15770

Ml M2 M4 M8

Hg

24-73

M5

Mo

808

M8G1

Ni

11280

M4 Rl R4

Se

23-305

M1M2M3M4M8
Rl

Ag

12988

M8G1

V

3188 - 88043

M4M8R1R2

Zn

5265 - 88043

Ml M2 M3 M4 M8
Rl

References by area.

Massachusetts Bays: Ml (Zoller & Gordon, 1970); M2 (Hopke et al., 1976); M3

(Gladney et al., 1974); M4 (Thurston & Spengler, 1985); M5 (Fogg & Fitzgerald,

1974); M6 (US EPA AIRS, 1990); M7 (Galloway et al., 1987); M8 (NADP, 1989);

M8 (Olmez, 1990).

New England Regional: Rl (Rahn & Lowenthal, 1984); R2 (Walsh et al., 1979): R3

(Galloway et al., 1982); R4 (Rahn, 1981); R5 (Harvey & Steinhauer, 1974); R6

(Conn. Dept. Environ. Protect., 1987).

Generic Urban Areas: Gl (Galloway, et al., 1982).

160

5.7 Spatial Distribution of Hazardous Waste Sites Near the Coast and Rivers

This section identifies DEP Confirmed Waste Disposal Sites and Locations To Be
Investigated within 500 feet of Massachusetts coastal waters and the Merrimack
River to Pawtucket Dam,

5.7.1 Approach

The following approach was used to identify the sites:

1. Streets and roadways within 500 feet of surface water bodies were
identified using the "Universal Atlas of Metropolitan Boston and
Eastern Massachusetts", 23rd Edition published in 1990 by Universal
Publishing Company, Stoughton, MA and the "Universal Atlas of
Cape Cod and Southeastern Massachusetts," 1st Edition published in
19»8 by Universal Publishing Company.

2. The October 15, 1990 and November 1990 Northeast Region Sites
database was reviewed. This is a DEP inhouse database of all
Environmental Site Assessment Reports on file with the Northeast
Office of the DE in Wobum, MA. Properties located within 500 feet
of coastal or Merrimack River surface waters were identified.

3. The September, 1990 and December 1990 Southeast Region Sites
Database were reviewed. This inventory is maintained at the
Southeast Office of the DEP in Lakeville, MA. Properties within 500
feet of surface waters were identified.

4. The July 15, 1990 and January 15, 1991 "List of Confirmed Disposal
Sites and Locations To Be Investigated" was reviewed for possible
additional sites.

5. Pertinent reports at the Northeast and Southeast Region Offices of
the DEP were reviewed in order to determine the exact locations of
properties for plotting on USGS maps.

6. Site visits were made to certain locations in Newburyport, Methuen,
Amesbury, Andover, North Andover, Lowell, and Lawrence, MA, in
order to determine if selected properties were located within 500 feet
of Massachusetts coastal waters or tributaries.

7. Sites were classified in the following ways: (A) Former Coal
Gasification Plants; (B) Tanneries and Factories; (C) Gasoline
Stations and Miscellaneous Unknown Usage (Commercial Sites).

8. All sites were classified by town, by drainage basin, and by
contaminant (H-hazardous materials, P-petroleum, UNK-unknown,
not specified).

161

9. All sites identified within 500 feet of coastal surface waters or the
Merrimack River were plotted on USGS maps and also on a
computer-aided design (CAD) drawing of coastal Massachusetts,

5.7.2 Results

Sites identified within 500 feet of coastal waters or the Merrimack River illustrated
on Figure 10. Figure 10 shows how the sites are grouf>ed along the Merrimack
River, in the greater Boston area, and in several smaller clusters. Details about the
sites are presented in Appendix C, Within Appendix C, drainage basins are
identified as follows:

ME: Merrimack River WF: Weymouth Fore

NS: North Shore Coastal WB: Weymouth Back

IP: Ipswich River MB: Massachusetts Bay

SS: South Shore Coastal MS: Mystic River

Some municipalities were found to be free of sites within 500 feet of Massachusetts
coastal water ways and along the Merrimack River. The abbreviation N/A (not
applicable) is reierenced in Appendix B for each of these.

A total of 239 Confirmed Waste Sites were found to be located v^ithin 500 feet of
the coast or Merrimack River. Most of these are located in the northern part of the
state. Relatively few sites were found along the South Shore drainage area or on
Cape Cod.

Sites were dominated by commercial facilities including gasoline stations.
Tanneries and factories made up the next most prevalent category. Finally, there
were four sites identified as former coal gasification facilities. Petroleum-related
contamination was identified at 177 sites and hazardous materials were identified at
65 sites.

162

!

!

+;

u

<i

u

o

W

i.

0/

£

f

0

M

u

4J

c

L

d

Q.

-p
□

8

m

T5

+!

t;

C

0

-H

<

U

•^

<♦-

u

c
0

+>
cs
-H

u
■■ a

Lu

If

Q!

U

c

L

<3

— ■

Oi

^

0

£

3

i.

c

u.

ei

5.8 In-Piace Sediments

This section describes the status of knowledge about the quality of the sediments in
Massachusetts Bay. TTie data are the results of core and grab sample analyses
reported in various sources including both the scientific and the gray literature.
Many of the coastal data were derived from regulation-driven sampling relating to
the sites of sewage treatment plants or dredging activity. TTie samples taken were
analyzed for various chemical constituents depending on the purpose of the study,
thus, results for any subarea will tend to be weighted by a panicularly heavy
sampling effort due to a specific study. These data sources are described in
Appendix B. The nature of the data are, therefore, not representative of the
sediments throughout any particular system. Since the majority of sampling within
the bay has been driven by the search for answers to environmental questions, the
data may indicate that the extent of contamination is greater than reality.

To facilitate analysis and discussion of the data we have divided the study area by
drainage basin and added two further subareas, the harbor and the bay. Data
included in the drainage basin subarea is for coastal sampling stations. Table 88
shows the distribution of samples within each subarea.

Table 88. Distribution of sediment samples examined for this report.

Subarea Number of Samples

(Drainage Basin)

North Shore 20

Boston Harbor 193

Bay (including Cape Cod) 101

TOTAL ai4

Each subarea will be discussed in a sub-section of this report. Each subsection will
contain a description of the area, sample availability and sources, metals, organics,
PCB and pesticides.

For metals,the sediments will be discussed in terms of the Massachusetts Criteria for
Classification of Dredged or Fill Material (314 CMR 9.00, Certification for
Dredging, Dredged Material Disposal and Filling in Waters). Three categories are
provideo, category I being the least contaminated, category III being most
contaminated. Sediments will be classified in terms of FCB, pesticide and PAH
content. With regard to total PAH concentrations, three levels were identified for
classification purposes: < 10 mg/kg, 10 mg/kg to 100 mg/kg, greater than 100
mg/kg.

The locations of sediments exhibiting elevated levels of chromium, lead, and P.AHs
throughout the system are illustrated in Figures 11 to Figure 13. These figures are
somewhat qualitative in nature but are intended to show those areas where bulk
concentrations of compounds are generally elevated. Such areas may be considered
to represent potential "hot spots". Based on our review of available data there
appeared to be locations within the Boston Inner Harbor and Mystic River s>-stem

164

N^ here elevated levels of contaminants occurred. These data are summarized in
Figures 14 through 24.

5.8.1 North Shore

Description

The North Shore Drainage Basin extends from Castle Neck in the North East to
Swampscott in the South West. The major coastal centers of population and industry
are Gloucester, Beverly, Salem and Marblehead. The available data for this sub-
area are presented in Appendix C.

Metals
Of the twenty samples collected, eleven were classified as category III, sue as
category II, and the remaining three samples as category I. Several of the Salem
Harbor samples contained high levels of chromium, this metal is associated with the
hide tanning industry which was important in Salem's early industrial history.

Organic Compounds
PAHs were analyzed in only one sample set, the Salem Harbor Tier II Chemical
evaluation report. PAHs were analyzed for samples from eight stations. Two of
these exhibited PAH levels in excess of 10 mg/kg; none exceeded 100 mg/kg.

Pesticides
Pesticides were not measured in any of the samples taken. PCBs were measured in
sixteen samples, of these the highest concentration was 0.03 mg/kg. Pesticides were
measured in nine samples, but none were detected.

165

^1 *

CHROMIUM
CATEGORY PPM

1 = <100

2 = 100-300

>*i#

3 = >300

<» •

/O JK2m

I 1

=1

FIGURE 11

CW* CvnfT^}*

Cory i^09%*^»M

^.n^ * &««■ ^ rf.r-^A., Jnc

iW "W-vfcn ? t**; B^n IZZI

LEAD
CATEGORY PPM

1 = <100 f I

2 = 100-200

3 = >200

>»ir.

5

=1=

/O MUam

3

FIGURE 12 ^

Ob* Ovnt-rjtt

(r«yy

•act ' X

^

fnvmrnvu

POLYAROMATIC HYDROCARBONS
CATEGORY PPM

1 = <10 W !

2 = 10-100

3 = >100

IMf

0 S to MUm

1 I 1

FIGURE 13

Ob4 Cvn^^U

JU'^fm. * «.-» A M

Bte« '.a»vM

tfti^ A^c

fc.^ ew^-. < ,4fc ■>_^ ^

169

*%

170

171

n

II
[I
ii

I
I

m

, 8 1

o

* ?l

m

t It

B

«

i\hlU

c

Z\°ZH'

i

€

•

:!l si

«0

c

1

••

ft-

&

a

o

o

•

▼■

fi

3

a»

i
I

I
I
I

i
I
p
II

172

I

173

SB

J

;s

174

■
■
■
■
■

• » • • l» »

175

i

176

I

177

178

179

5.8.2 Boston Harbor System

The Boston Harbor system is highly developed and includes many industries. Major
tributaries are the Mystic, Charles, Neponsctt, and Weymouth Rivers. The available
data for this subarea are presented in Appendix B and summarized in Table 89.

Table 89. Summary of sediment samples examined In the Boston

Harbor system.

Northern

Percent

Southern

Percent

Harbor

of Total

Harbor

of Total

Total Metals

#Sampies

161

# Samples

32

Class 11 Metals

47

29.19%

10

31.25%

Class ill

98

60.87%

2

6.25%

Metals

Total PAH

25

8

PAH

13

52.00%

0

0.00%

>10mg/kg
PAH

6

24.00%

0

0.00%

>100mg/kg
Total PCS

37

10

PCS

16

43.24%

4

40.00%

>1 mg/kg
PCS

1

2.70%

0

0.00%

> 10 mg/kg

Metals

The northern Boston Harbor area (north and northwest of Long Island) exhibited
higher bulk metal contamination of sediments than did the southern harbor. Over
80% of the samples collected in the northern harbor and tributaries exceeded either
Categoiy II or Category III sediment criteria used for judging disposal of dredged
material. Less than 40% exceeded either of these criteria in the southern harbor.
Highest concentrations tended to occur in the Inner Harbor and Mystic River
drainage.

Organic Compounds

Organic compounds were found in elevated concentrations at a number of stations.
PAJIs were analyzed at 25 stations in the northern harbor and over 70% of these
exhibited concentrations in excess of 10 mg/kg; most of these stations were located
in the Inner Harbor and Mystic River system. None of the stations analyzed in the
southern harbor exceeded 10 mg/kg total PAH.

PCBs were analyzed at 37 stations in the northern harbor and 10 stations in the
southern harbor. The percentage of locations at which PCB concentrations
exceeded 1 mg/kg was about the same (40%). Only one station, in the northern
harbor, exhibited a PCB concentration in excess of 10 mg/kg.

180

i

i
■I

■I

M
•I

H

9

■f

V
P
*

5.8.3 The Bav

Description

The bay is bounded on the east by a line from Cape Ann in the north to
Provincetown at the tip of Cape Cod. On the east it is bound by the Massachusetts
Coast and a line from Winthrop to Hull. Data are particularly sparse for Cape Cod
Bay and the coast south of the Weymouth River Basin. We were, however, able to
obtain some data for Wellfleet Harbor from the USACE. These data are
presented in Appendix B along with the data for the bay.

Metals

One hundred and one samples were collected in the bay. Of these fifty-six were
classified as category III, forty-two were classified as category II and thirteen as
category I. There was a concentration of contaminated sediments at the
Massachusetts Bay Disposal Site as weU as at the mouth of Boston Harbor. The
highest concentration of each measured metal and its sample location is given in
Table 90.

181

Table 90. The distribution of liigh metais concentrations in the bay

subarea.

Metal

Number of

Maximum

Location

Samples

Concentration
rmg/kg>

Ag

7

8

Mouth of
Boston Harbor

An

6

3

Mouth of
Boston Harbor

As

21

17

Mass Bay
Disposal Site

Be

7

7

Mass Bay
Disposal Site

Cd

78

4

Mass Bay
Disposal Site

Co

2

22

Mouth of
Boston Harbor

Cr

81

134

Mass Bay
Disposal Site

Cu

81

75

Mass Bay
Disposal Site

Hg

67

1

Cape Cod Bay

Mo

2

4

Mouth of
Boston Harbor

Ni

79

56

Mass Bay
Disposal Site

Pb

81

161

Mass Bay
Disposal Site

Se

6

7

Mouth of
Boston Harbor

Th

6

16

Middle of bay

Va

6

99

Mouth of
Boston Harbor

Zn

79

3121

Middle of bay

182

Organic Compounds

Sixteen PAH samples were taken in the Bay. The highest concentration of PAH, 14
mg/kg, was found outside the mouth of Boston Harbor. This \fc-as the onJy sample
with a concentration of PAH exceeding 10 mg/kg.

PCB and Pesticides
No pesticide samples were taken in the Bay, but 86 PCB samples were taken.

S.8.4 Data Quality and Quantity

Uncertainty

Sediment sampling programs conducted throughout the Massachusetts Bays systems
have had varied objectives and have been conducted across several years. Thus,
some of the data may be out of date. Also, there is considerable variability in the
degree to which samples represent conditions. Much of the sampling is biased
toward examining conditions thought to be contaminated or located near sources of
pollutants (e.g., outfalls). Therefore, the data and statistics derived from them
should not be viewed as representative of the system as a whole. Their value is in
providing broad overviews of conditions in selected areas and in providing a basis
tor identifying potential sources of in-place sediment contamination. The
identiiScation of such areas is consistent with the generally biased nature of the
sampling performed to date in the system.

A second source of variability and uncertainty in the data is the fact that we have
collected the results of a large number of studies and the techniques used for
sampling and analysis will differ. Such differences can result in differences in
apparent contaminant concentrations from samples taken in the same area.

Finally, the level of effort among sampling areas varies greatly. Thus, there are
many more samples in some areas than in others. The probability of locating in-
place sediment contamination is related to some degree to the amount of efmrt
expended. Because some harbors and near-shore areas have been sampled more
extensively than others, there is a greater likelihood of identifying contamination in
those areas.

183

6.0 CONTAMINANT LOADING AND ASSESSMENT

This section of the report provides a tabular and graphical comparison of the
relative magnitude ot the pollutant loadings from all sources. Implications of
the data, qualifications of the data, and data gaps are also identified and
discussed m this section.

6.1 Comparison of pollutant sources

The following are compared for various sources to the Massachusetts Bays:
freshwater flow, total suspended solids, biochemical oxygen demand, total
nitrogen, total phosphorus, oil and grease, PAHs, PCBs, cadmium, copper,
chromium, lead, zinc, and mercury.

In several cases, we have used two approaches for estimating and comparing
overall loadings. The main difference between the methods is in the way
inland discharges are handled. One method (A) estimates loads as the sum of
all discrete loadings to the drainage basins. The other (B), estimates loads as
a combination of discrete sources discharging directly to coastal waters and
river loads which presumably reflect inland loadings. These two approaches
provide a rough basis for checking estimates.

Method A involves estimating loads by drainage area as the sum of (1) all
NPDES discharge loadings to the drainage area, (2) all runoff to the drainage
area, and (3) groundwater discharge to the drainage area (estimated for
selected parameters for Cape Cod and Boston Harbor). Atmospheric loadings
and disposal of dredged material are added to the loadings calculated from
Method A to provide overall loadings to the Massachusetts Bay system.

Method B involves estimating loads by drainage area as the sum of (1)
NPDES discharge loadings for coastal facilities only within each drainage area,
(2) river/tributary discharge within each drainage area, (3) runoff from the
coastline (within 0.5 miles of shore) except for Cape Cod for which total runoff
was used because no river discharge is calculated, and (4) groundwater
discharge as described above. As with Method A, atmospheric loading and
dredged material disposal are added in to provide an overall estimate.
Estimates for each of the components are presented in tabular form. In
addition a series of bar and pie charts are used to illustrate the data.

184

6.1.1 Freshwater Flow

Freshwater flow to Massachusetts Bay was calculated using Method B (Table
91). Groundwater flow estimates are presented for two of the drainage areas:
Boston Harbor and Cape Cod. POTWs were judged to dominate the coastal
dischargers and are used to estimate freshwater input from point sources.
Many of the coastal industrial NPDES permits are for cooling water systems,
llie total freshwater flow to Massachusetts Bay from the sources identified in
Table 91 averages 462 m3/s. Much of this flow includes that of the Merrimack
River (244 m3/s). The i>ercent distribution of freshwater flow by drainage
area is depicted in Figure 41 both with and without inclusion of the Merrimack
River dramage area.

The Merrimack River drainage area could account for 52% of the freshwater flow
to the system. Rainfall accounts for 28% if the Merrimack is included and 58% if
the Merrimack is excluded from the estimate. Nonpoint sources dominate the
freshwater inflow for aU drainage areas except the boston Harbor system which is
dominated by the NPDES outfalls from the Deer and Nut Island POTWs. If the
Merrimack River is excluded the Boston Harbor drainage area accounts for 27% of
the freshwater flow to the bay.

Groundwater also appears to be important. Estimates were made for the Boston
Harbor and Cape Cod drainage areas. For the latter, total groundwater inflow to
Cape Cod Bay is estimated to amount to 4.1 m3/s. This discharge dominates over
runoff for Cape Cod and is equivalent to one-half the riverine inputs estimated for
the South Shore Drainage Area.

Our estimates did not include estimates of freshwater inputs from the Gulf of
Maine. This source may in fact provide the greatest inputs of freshwater to the
system, so this exclusion is significant.

Even for this most basic measurement, data are subject to uncertainties. Annual
river flows were estimated by several methods, depending upon whether gauge
measurements were available. Seasonal and year-to-year variability is also high for
flow. Where seasonal variability was measured, flow tended to be high during
March-May than in other months. Annual variability can also be substantial. This
variability affects not only the measurements of flow but the measurements of inputs
of the pollutants.

185

(0
CO

g

>>

(0

CQ

(A

3

O
CD
(0
«
CD

I

CD
(0

9

2

' '

■■■

■""■

■^"

■■^"

' '

,f-

Q CM

y-\ , CVJ

O Q

o

a

o

O

i o

lO O

+

+

+

LU
O
00

+

+ + . i

0)

LU

LU

LU

LU

LU LU

«

3

g

CM
CO

88

O

CM

CO

CO

oi

CO

|0,0

I

8

CMi

ICM, 1

o ;o

+

+

+

^

LU

UJ

'LU

Q.

X

8

O)

o>

IT

2

CM

|CM

D

5

1

o

"^

-! '3

Z

o

8

8

1 !

1

,8, 3g

%

LU

o

+

+

+

Sd +

S.

•o

LU

8

LU
CM

UJ
CM

05 LU

O CD

o

o

o
o

V)

2

CO

"^

•^

1

o

o

8

8

8

1

3

o

o

c
o

LU
CO

LU
CO

+

LU
00

+

LU

+

LU

CO
«

o

(0

(A

CO
o

s

-^r

00

O)

o>

n

n

c

i

o

+

LU

8

+

LU

o

+

LU

o

UJ

o

+

LU

O

+
LU

<
o

CD

X

o

T3

C
CC

<

c

h.

®

CM

O

o

00

CO

CO

«l. ■«t

en

e

CO

o

O

ic

o

CM

(O

Oi

o>

o o

o

CO

c

eg

CM

CO

o>

in

in

a: cc

Q. Q.

ffl

c

1

CD

X

CO

3

< <

I I

CJ

2

8

O

o

o

0|

CO

5

+

LU
Oi
ID

+

+

+ ! 1- t-

o

S

o

LU
CO

LU

UJ

LUi >

CO

C

o

z

M

*

\a

■^

■^

'" >

>
<

m

CO
CO

<

2

E

o

c
c
.^
re

E

O

8

■flD

E

1

o

LU

in

CO

+
LU

"^
CM

+

LU
CM

2.44E+02

MASS b;

S

1 ' cr

a:
o

U-

.2

m

1 ^

5

>>

_i

_j

c

c

m

< <

flj

o

o

CD

\— 1—

a.

s

CD

o o

c

CD

CO

O

s

1

rf on

^ ^

o
m

3
U

3

o

O

u

o
uZ

s

«

1

CO

s

CB

«B

C/)

o

CO

CO

^

->

s
s

<

O
§

s

c

03
LU
O
0.

CO

o

1

3

0)

1

i

3

m

o

O

3

g

(0

a

>

1

3

2

•

3

1

2
«

E

1

9

o
a.

Q.

<

2

Q.

<

o

1

3

o

E

3
O

o

«

c

2

II

(0
CO

o

•
CO

c
2

S

C
CO

II
CO
<0

o

CO ■ ■

H

Dtals with
3tat8 with

IL

<n

^

&

ZICC

^

1-

PP

o

OjCC

Oj

1-

^

Oi < Q H K

"^

I

I

186

(0

rio

■

CO

>

_o

c

M^Hi

■ ■■■

O

i_

c

0)

o

03

■ Mas

^

3

n

CO

k.

Q)

■♦■^

C

H—

o
O

O

lO

CO

CM

O

CD

3

igur

O
CO

u.

03

o

CO

>

®

®
o

D
O

CO

187

i
i
i
I

6A2 Total Suspended Solids

Lx)adines of total suspended solids are presented in Table 92 and Figures 26 and 27.
Methods A and B yielded loadings estimates of 555,000 mt/yr and 299,000 rai/yr
respectively. Atmospheric loadings are not included.

The disposal of dredged material was a major contributor to loadings and accounted
for 31% of the Method A estimate and 60% of the Method B estimate. These solids
are added to one site within the system and would not be expected to affect the
system in the same way as loadings from discharges and runoff. NPDES discharges
accounted for 27% of the Method A estimate with Boston Harbor discharges
comprising 60% of this source of loadings.

Loadings delivered to the system via runoff amounted to 41% of the Method A
estimate. Loadings associated with rivers accounted for 26% of the Method B
estimate. Because suspended solids are expected to settle out to some extent within
the drainage basins, the nonpoint source loadings provided in Method B (primarily
direct river discharge) may be a better estimate than those in Method A.

1S&

3
O

"O,

«
o

c

E

•o
e

CO

s

s

g

8

^

S

&

g

8

8

8

+

+

^

^

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

•

UJ

ID

UJ

UJ

LU

LU

LU

UJ

lU

LU

UJ

1

«

S

8

IS

OO

S

8

8

S

i2

•

esj

o

CO

CO

CO

f^

o

'-

O

■^

s

8

8

v.-

8

8

+

+

+ \ +

+

i

LU

UJ

UJ . UJ

UJ

8

8

00 ' 00

g

s

o

o

T-

"^

•^

s

8

s

1

8

8

8

8

8

+

^

+

+

f LU

+

+

+

LU

UJ

UJ

UJ

UJ

UJ

lU

UJ

s

§

•

s

00

•

00

A

•

00

•

in

(A

csi

s

8

8

s

s

8

8

8

8

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

_c

e

(0

lU

lU

UJ

UJ

LU

UJ

LU

UJ

UJ

8

CNJ

s

CO

csi

in

CM

-

CO

CM

II

<
X

II

CO

I

&

o

s

&

s

&

o

j

8

o

1

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

LU

LU

UJ

UJ

LU

lU

UJ

LU

LU

9

o

<

a

k

;s

U)

8

U)

fx.

CM

U)

CM

<

<

o

1

•

X

00

f^

U)

CM

h-

r«-

1*".

o

o

C

00

00

iT"

CVi

^

▼-

CO

^~

CO

cc
a.

Q.

cc

Q.

<

I

S

o

g

o

^

^

s

8

o

o

o

i

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

H

H

^

S

o

UJ

LU

LU

LU

LU

LU

UJ

UJ

lU

CD

CO

i

s

9

S

?

o

CVJ

It
CO

S2
o

CM

S

8

CM

^

o

S

s

s

&

O

CO

o

g

x

+

+

+

+

+

+

1

+

+

(0

(/)

S

LU

LU

LU

LU

lU

UJ

UJ

UJ

C/3

C/3

1

•

CM

^

s

CNJ

s

00

iri

1

^

in

00

<

2

<

S

CC

o

U.

oc

o

LU

t\

— 1

^

C

c

m

<

<

o

o

ffi

K

H

S

5
u

s

3
O

•
•
a

S

<

m

O

I-

O

•

s

5

<

•

ED

(0

S

o

(0

f

1

&
I

3

i

It

i

c

CO

LU

o

5

CO

3

9
3

I

S

c

5

LU
O
Q.

Z

«

1

1

3

cc

1

1

1

3

m

3

S

o

C ■

1

1

1

1

1

3

•

«
c

C

1

«
^

•

«
c

C

■

7>

(0

f

3

3

Z

cc

(D

K

D

3

o

oc

G

1-

Q

5

o

K

f-

189

miifiiw*»inww»i»i>iww<tiwfW»t»wrr¥ti4T>iM?wtimwit»fiiiin'>t»nwwmw»tw>>w»ii'iiiiimn

o E

<D
O

o

€0

(1)

E

■D
<D

CO >

0) CO

C CO

Q) CD

CO 0)

CD ^

^ O

m (0

£- CO

3 CO

O) CO

(0

CO
CO

c
o

o

o

E

o
o
o
o
o
o

o o o

O O -r-

O T-

^

CD

o
o

CD

CO

LU

o

CO

0)

0

O

CO

o

o

c

GC

CO
UJ

o

Q.

I

o

a

CO

o

E

ce

E

E

^^ OB

eo c
*^

O <8

190

CO

c

•

O "O

• m^

(0

_o

JLJ

.,_,

i3

c

C

0

o

E

o

• ^^

"D

Q)

0

>

(0

ca

73

Rei

nde

a

0

r^

a

CM

CO

D

0)

CO

s^

D

O)

U-

©

Q.
>

O

D
O

C/3

o

c

GC

191

6.1.3 Biochemical Oxvgen Demand (BOD)

Loadings of BOD to the Massachusetts Bay system are summarized in Table 93 and
Figures 28 and 29. The estimates do not mclude inputs from the atmosphere,
dredged material disposal or groundwater. Methods A and B gave almost identical
total loadincs of BOD to Massachusetts Bay at approximately 180,000 mt/yr. Most
of this (90%) was due to NPDES dischargers witn approximately 10% due to runoff
or riverine inflow. The Boston Harbor m*DES outtsQls accounted for
approximately 56% of the coastal NPDES BOD inputs to the bay.

192

o

CO

>»
n

n
ffl

I

(0

3

O

(0

«

(0

S

CO

o
o

O

CO

i2

00

o

o

8

00

o

00

o

in

o

o

8

§

8

8

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

(0

LU

LU

UJ

UJ

LU

LU

UJ

UJ

LU

LU

LU

5

;s

s

s

^

<B

m

CO

8

^

8

8

i2

-^

'-

o

T-

"^

-^

'-

O

"^

o

o

8

8

8

8

+

+

+

+

•«

LU

LU

LU

UJ

1

8

8

8

8

o

O

O

i^y/A

o

O

in

in

in

in

in

in

00

00

o

o

o

o

O

o

o

o

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

LU

UJ

LU

LU

LU

UJ

LU

UJ

IB

O

o

O

O

O

o

O

o>

1

CO

CO

CO

CO

CO

CO

00

1^

o

o

■^

T-

'"

■^

T-

^

■^

■^

lA

in

in

in

s

in

in

'

in

in

O

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

^

S

o

LU

LU

LU

LU

LU

LU

LU

LU

LU

3

00

s

oo

§

8

3

?2

00

GO

S

(0

"^

<D

co-

00

ai

<6

o>

II

<

II

CQ

N.

S

r>-

r*.

in

8

fv.

*>-

r^

s

O

o

o

o

o

o

o

X

o

X

o

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

lU

LU

LU

LU

LU

LU

LU

UJ

UJ

<

c

o

1

o

§

s

O

tn
in

5

CO

<

o

<

o

9

^

a>

1^

o>

o>

CM

CO

o>

O)

o>

cc

cc

«B

o

«

LL

LL

C

2

CD

CL

<

<

r*-

<o

<D

h»

1^

in

8

o

r<-

t>'

h.

o

o

o

"D

o

o

o

"O

o

o

o

X

X

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

H

1-

S

UJ

LU

p

UJ

LU

LU

LU

J*

LU

LU

LU

$

^

c

00

O

^

CN

00

CM

r«-

^

CM

CM

CM

o

O)

^

(0

C\

O)

CO

C\J

0}

CM

i

(0

<D

cJ

i

®

ts:

<d

i

r>:

1^

h-'

CD

^

s

$

8

z

^

o

8

^

c^

+

+

s

+

+

+

s

+

J5

S +

+

rn

rn

E
fc

UJ

LU

c

UJ

LU

LU

c

LU

c

E UJ

UJ

w

(J)

^

lA

to

S

CM

CM

1

s;

(0

5 ^

CM

<

<

o

CO

•^

o

h-

T—

o

^

^

^ r-

^

S

z

z

o

®

u.
O

LL

_J

u.

£

-J

e

c
o

e

0

f

1

(0

E
1

i

c
•

S

5
u

%

«

s

o

z

i

<

m

o

1-

O

1-

3
O

CO

O

1

a

<

D

05

2

1

1
f

?

?

o

1

E
1

8

i

1

§

S

c

tu
o

Q.

5

0)
O

1

3

o

1

3

i

o
S

C

CO

LU
Q

z

(0

«5

1

3

cr

0)

o
5

1

3
O

w

1

2

Q.

Q.

iS

1

(0

"5

3
O

9

a
c

I

II
i2

"5

•

CD

c

1

II

iS

a

(0

3

3

z

cc

o

P

D

3

O

O

cr

O

H

o

<

O

H-

H

193

194

c
o

o

T3

o

CO

o

d)

ativ

Q
O

<D

m

cc

o

0)

CM

0)

D

O)

U.

CO

o

CO
O

I
CD

03
©

<

CD
CD

C

"cD

Q

Q.

©

o

D
O

CO

195

6.1.4 Total Nitrogen

Loadings of nitrogen to Massachusetts Bay are summarized in Table 94 and Figures
30 and 5l. Estimates were developed for all sources although groundwater
estimates were made for Boston Harbor and Cape Cod only. Methods A and B
yielded comparable results with estimates of 28,000 mt/yr and 36,000 mt/yr.

Much of the nitrogen load is due to NPDES discharges which account for 66% of
the Method A estimate and 43% of the Method B estimate. Our flow-based low
and high measurements of nitrogen inputs were very similar, about 18,000 mt/yr.

For Method A, runoff (11%) and atmospheric deposition (16%) were other
important sources, using our high estimates. Estimates of nitrogen input from the
atmosphere ranged from 1,600 to 4,500 mt/yr, and no range in measurements of
runoff was calculated. For Method B, river dischau-ges accounted for 37% of the
estimate.

Groundwater discharge appears to be an important local near-shore source of
nitrogen for Cape Cod. Loadings via groundwater from the Cape are estimated at
224-322 mt/yr as compared to 31 mt/yr due to runoff from the Cape. Groundwater
discharge of nitrogen mto Boston Harbor is about an order of magnitude lower than
that for the Cape. This difference reflects the smaller drainage area of the Boston
Harbor system for direct recharge to the harbor.

196

^

o

3
O

I

3

O

ID

8

o

o

1

f

z

s

2

+

?

?

+

^

?

1

1

1

8

•

HI

UJ

UJ

UJ

UJ

UJ

UJ

UJ

UJ

UJ

UJ

1

S

▼-

2

s

\&

!§

s

s

00

?

CM

iS

'-

«

CO

C«J

'-

00

"-

CO

CM

'«•

▼"

8

8

8

8

■M

8

8

+

+

+

+ « +

+

1

5

UJ

UJ

UJ

Ui m\n

UJ

8

d

8

d

?

^

CM

p
■p

?2

s

8

8

?

8

8

8

8

^

&

+

+

^

+

+

lui

+

+

+

UJ

UJ

UJ

Ui

UJ

UI

UI

UJ

UJ

2

1

eg
co

Si

CO

CM
CO

CO

CO

fm

CO

CO

CM

43
u>

CO

3

8

s

s

g

1

8

8

8

+

+

+

+

^

+

^^'' +

+

^

1

LU

UJ

UJ

Ui

UI

UJ

UJ

WyMi

UI

s

00

s

<
z

§

00

CO

<
z

tn

-^

§-•

f

00

•

Si

•

II

<
I

II
CD

&

s

s

&

&

s

8

S

&

&

&

2

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

' +

+

5^

LU

UJ

UJ

UJ

UJ

UJ

UJ

UJ

UJ

UJ

UI

^

<

c

^

^

^

in

-^

o>

(O

1**

CM

vn

CM

<

.^

0

1

•
X

C>i

1^

CO

(O

I^

U)

CO

CO

CO

o

u

#

C

s

s

'"

CO

■^

'"

CM

■*"

^"

'"

*"

^^

Q.
Q.

<

X

tr

Q.

<

X

S

o

s

s

8

8

s

8

8

8

8

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

»-

h-

^

e
i

(0

UJ

UJ

UJ

UJ

UI

UJ

UJ

UJ

UJ

CO

1

2

8

<

z

8

o

s>

<
z

s

•

8

•**

Jtf

8

s

8

s

^

^

- 8

^

CD

JE

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

C/>

f/)

S

UJ

UJ

UJ

UJ

UJ

UJ

' UJ

UJ

C/)

f/)

c

f^

r;

^

lA

▼»

^

, "^

T~

^

<

1

q

<

CVJ
CO

CM
CM

•

<

^

CO

T"

2

2

S

z

z

a
O

UL

s,

^

-J

C

o

e

o

i

f

?

S

3
u

C

8

<

CD
o

o

1-

ti

3

2

CO
O

J

i

<

1

C

i

(0
UJ

o

z

O

(0

5

I

<
•

I

n
1

e

5
D

CO

UJ

o

Q.

z

CO

3

1
s

M

a

1

GC

2

3

1

s

S
5c

1

1

t

1

f

1

1

1

it

1

z

1

2

•

c
c

i

1

iS

1

N

1

197

(0

m

(0
CO

(0

CO E

c <i>

o o

^ CO

o

CO

O)

• ■IB

U-

(0
CD

o
o

CO

c
o
O

CO
CO

0)

o
o

CO

CD

CO

O
CO

o

o

c

3

cc

9
(0

:e

®
0)

CO

<0
LU
Q
Q.

LU

a

CO

o

E

2 <

o

ID

198

CO

o

o

T3

0}

o

O

o

>

c

■ aiBB

o

(0

O)

<D

o

CO

■ i^B

■

c

CO

0)

^_

=3

O)

UL

CD

2

CD
®

<

CD

CD)

CD

C

"cD

Q

®
\—

CD
O

D
O

CO

o

199

6.1.S Total Phosphorus

Loadings of phosphorus to Massachusetts Bay are summarized in Table 95 and
Figures 32 and 33. No estimates have been developed for dredged material. Total
loadings are estimated to be 3,880 metric tons using Method A and 4,100 metric
tons using Method B.

NPDES discharges account for 82% of the load using Method A and 71% using
Method B. Our low and high measurements of these inputs were essentially equal,
3,100-3,200 mt/yr. The Boston Harbor drainage area accounts for most of the
NPDES load (81% of the Method A estimate for this source). River discharge
accounts for 27% of the Method B estimate.

Atmospheric deposition does not appear to account for significant loads of
phosphorus.

200

a
o
m

o

CO
«0

«B
ID

s

o
o

3

O

8

+

S

+

8

+

?

1

s

1

8

1

8

•

UJ

LU

UJ

LU

UJ

LU

Ul

Ul

Ul

Ul

UJ

§

S

O

8

3

3

CM

o

8

8

o

1—

8

i2

CO

(0

o

CO

CM

T-

T-

O

^

u>

6

8

+

f

3

♦

i

1

S

i

LU

8

$

Imui

^

S

o

o

U)

PI

U)

(A

8

s

8

8

8

8

8

8

+

+

+

^

^•:£:: ^

^

+

-I-

LU

LU

UJ

UJ

^*LU

UJ

UJ

UJ

5

1

<
z

CM

<

z

8

cvi

-

I

* *

o
5 ,

8

8

csi

8

CO

8

s

z

3

S

8

8

s

s

s

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

V \ +

+

jjj

e

(0

HI

m

UJ

UJ

UJ

UJ

UJ

>^^'UJ

LU

s

£

o

•

•

<
z

s

CM

o

•

CM

•

•

CO

<
z

s

CM

CO

•

II

<

II

CD

8

s

8

8

S

8

8

8

8

I

+

+

-♦•

+

+

+

+

+

+

y

o

LU

UJ

LU

UJ

Ul

UJ

UJ

V UJ

LU

<

c

o

1

S

8

8

S

^ 0>

<D

§

<

o

t

CM

CO

CM

CM

h*.

U3

CM

' CM

CM

cc

cc

«

o

«

<

<

^

U.

u.

c

s

CD

z

z

<

<

in

lA

in

lA

CO

z

lA

lA

lA

a

o

O

o

O

o

O

o

O

X

X

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

H-

K

^

&

UJ

111

UJ

UJ

UJ

Ul

UJ

UJ

UJ

i

^

o

m

U)

o

^

8

u>

U)

lA

o

(0

cr>

CNJ

<
z

CO

CO

CO

<
z

CM
CO

^-K

CO

CM
CO

CO
CD

CO
CD

Jtf

S

s

8

8

8

8

i

i 8

8

3E

+

+

+

+

+

+

o

.^- +

+

CO

(0

s

lij

LU

UJ

UJ

LU

Ui

$

f UJ

UJ

(0

(0

•E

1

CM

<
z

8

CO

s

<
z

8

•

1

S

(1)

8

•
r-

<

cc

2

<

cc

£

1

e
o

S

c
o

5
o

s

CO

O
(0
O

1

8

a
S

B

1
1

8

<

OD

i

K

3
O

3

<

m

m
E

1

1

CO

LU
O
Q.

Z

5

CO
P

2

1

s

CO
LU
O
Q.

z

1

3

cc

3

2

2

1

%
%

•

"5

n

•

n

0.

1

«

c

S

3

cn

c

m
D

3

o

a

.5

i

I

c
9

1

1

1

o

1

cc

o

J9

1

1

S

;e

1

1

1

201

(0

m

€0
CO
CO

CO >:
5 E

CO "^

O S?

Q.
CO
O

O
CO

cvi

CO

(0

a>

>

3

CL

O)

CO

• aiB

c

u.

o

o

E

(0
CD

O
O

CO
CO

0)

o

D

o

CO

CD

CO

z

LU

03

q;

JC
Q
«9
O

E
<

CO

O

CO

o

o

c

GC

CO
LU
O

a.

z

o
*5

1

L

03
w ^

O "D

"^ C

o o

^■!

CO S

B •
« E

s °»

o£

Z "O

202

CO

o

■D
CO

*^

o

3

CO

^

D

+^

CI

o

o

o

Q.

ive

hos

CO

a

CD

>»

CC

CO

■

m

CO

CO

CO

CO

CO

o

s

3

C3)

o

■ ^^

^^

U-

CD
®

<

®

CD

C

"cD

Q

CD

CO

o

£1

CO

a

O

CO

.^»

o

e

o

'

<

c

3

^

"^^^^

Source ype

203

6.1.6 Oil and Grease

Loadings of oil and grease to Massachusetts Bay are summarized in Table 96 and
Figures 34 and 35. No estimates have been developed for atmospheric loadings.
Total loadings are estimated to be 13,000 metric tons usine Method A and 6,100
metric tons using Method B. The reason for the two-fold oiffercnce is that no
estimate was developed for river discharges in Method B. Method B is therefore
considered an incomplete estimate.

Based on the available estimates, it appears that nonpoint source runoff dominates
the loading of oil and ^ease. Inputs from CSOs are estimated as 1,700 , and
nonCSO inputs are estimated as 5,300 metric tons annually. Unfortunately, we have
no measurements of variability or uncertainty in these estimates.

Dredged material disposal is also a maior source for this poUutant category and
accounts for 19% of tne load estimated using Method A.

204

o

3
O
CO

fO
CD

CO

CO

3

(0 .

o
o

CO

cs

c

CO

s

2

8

8

8

o

8

o

8

8

8

8

8

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

«

UJ

UJ

LU

LU

LU

LU

UJ

LU

UJ

LU

LU

5

o

CO

8

Z

5?

CVJ

8

8

8

(O

i2

IJ

>
li

r

CO

(O

o

CO

o

o

CO

d

cvi

8

8

8

8

8

1

+

+

+

+

+

t;

UJ

LU

LU

UJ

LU

1

<

3

8

8

CO

CO

CO

o

n

O

O

CM

CM

CM

Z

s

s

5

z

z

z

o

8

J

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

z

LU

LU

LU

UJ

LU

UJ

LU

LU

__

II

00

00

^"

00

T-

O

00

5

L

•^

<

T-

o>

<

O)

y—

o>

CO

o

o

o

15

00

z

00*

"^

Z

""T

00

"^

■^

CO

3

o

in

o

s

z

z

in

o

z

3

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

^

o

<0

XJ

lU

LU

LU

LU

UJ

LU

LU

LU

s

s

r
r
D
J
II

r^

S

<
z

8

CO

h*

?5

cvi

<

z

CO

8

CO

CO

II

<
I

o

II

CD

I

1

s

8

8

5

3

O

8

8

x>

+

Hi

+
LU

+
LU

+

UJ

+
LU

+
UJ

+
LU

+

LU

<

e
o

hi

1

J

S

<o

CsJ

^

(O

z

<

o

<

o

1)

/)

^

CO

CO

CO

I^

^

CO

1—

:l

cc

m

o

CD

:^

<

<

u.

IL

c

£
o

CD

z

jj
ij

2

z

z

LL
<

U.
<

I

g

8

8

8

z

8

8

8

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

K-

K

^

2

o

(0

u

LU

LU

LU

LU

UJ

LU

LU

UJ

CO

CD

CO

CD

^

§

2

CO
CO

CO

•

<
z

CO

•

8

CO

o

•

<
z

CO

CO

j£

5

8

8

s

s

8

§

JC

r

+

+

+

+

+

"a

+

+

CO

CO

S

^

LU

LU

UJ

LU

o

LU

X

LU

LU

CO

CO

•

5

^

<

^

S

<

CO

5

^

CO

1

<

s

z

z

z

•s

o

u.

cc

o

u.

1

<D

^

_l

-J

c

c

«

^

<

<

0

o

^

CD

IB

s

2

$

1-

p

o

(B

a

5
o

a
O

co
O
CO

()

1

8

1

<

u

CD

1

1-

1-

3
O

5

<

m

S

2

o

•o

c
•

i

•o

O

(0

o

i

S

UJ

a

1

(1>

i

f

1

1

1

3

o

a
c

S

S

e

CO
LU

o
a.

CO

o

1

3

3

2

II

o

a
c

1

s

C

z

g

cr

1

3

2

11
CO

3
O
(0

^

o

(0

f

1

iS

(0

1

(0
(0

O

^

(/>

D

3

z

cc

O

{-

D

3

o

o

cr

o

K

o

<c

O

H

1-

^

205

206

UJ

2 ^

CD

o

H ^\ ^

®

(0

0
(0

<

f~

CO

CD

o

0

CO ^^^^m

f^

3

O)

\S88wNwwM^

o

—

CO

CD

c

X2

T3

CO

CD

C

"C

CO

I

Q

o

• ■■■

CD

o

o

<D

o

"5

■ aiaB

5

(0

■D
CO

X5
C3D

0)

o

CO
UJ

QC

®

■

>

z^^H

^Bl—:::^::!:-::-!!!^^,^

d

^^■:n=_:n::u:::::::j^.

CO

CO

CQ

B™-=T ;:r~::::::~K

>^

■=^^A

0)

(0

^^p^,.

®

CO

o

Igu

CO

"5 V
5 \

c \

D
O

u.

O ^v^

O

CO

o

CO

o

o

c

3

CTD

cr

207

iLLZ_EAHs

The loadings of PAHs to Massachusetts Bay arc provided in TaWes 97 and 98 and in
Figures 36 to 38 Loadings estimates for PAHs are provided for several cases
involving Methods A anoB and higher and lower estimates. We present this range
to illustrate the kind of variability (i.c^ range) there exists in the estimates.
Because of uncertainty in the data we used and the estimates we made, the lower
and higher values should not be considered a complete range.

For the NPDES discharges, our higher estimates assume that concentrations of
PAHs in municipal effluents average 10 ug/1, and the lower estimates assume
average concentrations of 1 ue/1. In fact, average concentrations may be even
lower. Prehminaiy analysis of one grab sample from Deer Island effluent and one
from Nut Island effluent has indicated that no individual PAH compound is present
in concentrations greater than 10 ng/1 (personal communication, D. Shea, BatteUe).
MWRA plans greater, representative sampling and analysis of effluents to confirm
these data.

Estimates for loads in runoff and rivers were also estimated, based on assumed
concentrations of 0.1 and 1 mg/1 in runoff and 50 ne/l in river water. The low
estimate for runoff is based on Menzie et al. (1991 J. The higher estimate was
selected as moderate but still low. This level is lower than v5ues found in typical
urban soils but may be considered representative of levels that occur in open field or
suburban areas. As a basis for comparison, the levels of PAHs in road dust can
typically be on the order of 100s of mg/kg. Thus, even though our calculations do
not indicate that runoff is a dominant or important source ofloadings, had we used
somewhat higher values for runoff (i.e., typical or urban areas), runoff estimates
could have been a substantial fraction of tne total. These value for rivers was
selected as typical, assuming that 10-100 ng/1 are typical concentrations of PAHs in
urban river systems (Menzie et al., 1991).

Using the higher estimates. Methods A and B give approximately the same result,
13,700 and 13,100 kg/yr. These higher estimates are dominated by NPDES
dischaj^es (81%) and the discharges to the Boston Harbor drainage area account
for 76% of the NPDES load. Using the higher estimates, atmospheric inputs and
dredge material disposal are about an order of magnitude less than the NPDES
inputs.

If the lower estimates are used the following results are obtained (Table Error!
Bookmark not defined.). The total estimated loads are 1,810 kg/yr for Method A
and 2,200 kc/yr for Method B. NPDES discharges account for 45% (Method A)
and 34% (Method B) of the total load. The potential importance of the atmosphere
as the dominant source emerges when lower estimates are employed: 52% of tne
load for Method A and 43% for Method B.

208

J^

o
o

3
O
(0

12

c

CO

o
X

<

a.

o

E

to

o

o

o
2

CO

s

g

O

s

z

8

g

o

5

CO

o

CO

o

+

+

III

+

+

+

+

LU

8

+

+

+

«

LU

LU

LU

LU

UJ

LU

LU

LU

LU

LU

1

S

8

CO

s

^

o

CM

<o

i2

'-■

cj

CNJ

^

"^

CO

"^

CM

"^

■^

8

8

CO

CO

CO

CO

o

o

o

o

+

+

+

+

+

+

1

LU

LU

LU

UJ

m

LU

8

8

CM

fO

^

^

Q

d

d

•^

"^

CM

CM

8

8

8

8

8

8

z

z

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

LU

LU

LU

LU

LU

m

m

LU

s.

«B

^■B

CO

CO

<o

<o

<o

<o

h*

?

O)

<

O)

a>

<

o>

•

o>

CO

CO

o

o

■^

z

^"

^

Z

■^

■^

■^

■^

■^

CSJ

s

CM

CM

^.

^.

CM

CM

CM

O

O

o

o

o

O

o

O

+

+

+

+

UJ

+

+

+

+

J^

o

(A

lU

LU

LU

LU

UJ

LU

LU

LU

3

&

^

<
z

S

^

<
z

•

LA

s?

II

<

II

CD

CO

^

T-

CO

CO

8

^

.^.

CO

CO

CO

i

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

«=

+

LU

+

lU

I

LU

+

LU

+

LU

+
LU

+

LU

1

LU

+

LU

+

LU

+

UJ

<

C

o

1

5

s

8

s

CO

in

s

8

s

in

<

o

<

O

E

09

CO

00

csi

00

00

T-^

U)

Csi

00

oo'

00

cc

cc

c

«
c

i

CB

CL

i

^"'

i:^§^

<

<

&

CO

^

CO

CO

8

,»

CO

CO

CO

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

O

o

X

I

(J

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

1-

h-

e*

2

o

(0

LU

UJ

LU

LU

lU

LU

LU

LU

LU

CO

CQ

CO
CD

o
«

c

I

o

•

<

z

s

•

o

CM

SI

CM

<
Z

•

1^

o

^

s

o

§

8

s

3

3

g

g

CB

+

+

+

+

1

LU

8

Csi

+

+

+

+

CO

CO

<

S

LU

m

LU

LU

UJ

LU

LU

LU

CO

CO

Q.

•E

•

00

o

<

o

CO

<

00
CO

o

00
CO

<

<

z

z

z

cc

o

u.

CC

o

UL

E

T-

^

_J

-J

"o

c
o

c
o

<
1-

<

c
o

b^

s

^^

CO

o

o

•2C

•

CB

E

S

3
o

S

8

S

<

o

CD

h-

1-

2

c

3

o

1

•

O)

• •

5

<

__^

ED

CO

o

o

i

i

c
o

•a
o

o

S

CO
LU

O
CO

o

1

3

1

O
JC

S

CO
LU
O
Q.

Z

(0

Tn

3

1

3

cr

o

b

1

M

3
O
W

2

1

1

JZ

Its

<o

(0

£

3

k

§

•

CB

c

II

•

a
c

II

iS

X

<

I:

3
O

S

c

Q
CL

i

(0

o

2

c

f

3

2

CO

^^

?

(0

■5

o

Q.

f

V)

3

3

z

QC

C3

£_

Q

3

o

o

(£

CD

P

a

<

a

1-

1-

21.

209

a
o

CO

n

C3I

8

<

Q.

B
B

(0

E

i

a>

n

^■'"*

^"^

^^Mi

CO

T—

^r-

CO

CM

y-

CM

,_

""""

8

cm:-»-

o

o

o

o

O

o

0

0

0

0

1

+

+

1

+

+

+

1

+

■♦•

+

«

LU

liJ

LJJ

UJ

LU

LU

LU

LU

LU

LU

UJ

in
o

^

8

^

•^

^

CO

8

CO

2

CO

o

CM

CM

^

O)

CO

^

CM

'-

o>

'-

8

8

CM
0

0

s

s

+

+

+

+ r/^' +

+

1

Q

LU

LU

LU

LU := LU

LU

8

d

8

2

1.16
9.65

in

CO

^_

.r-

.^~

^.

W^ ^.

V.

CO CO

o

o

o

0

#■:-' 0 ' 0 ' 00

?

LU
(0

<

UJ

LU
CO
O)

<

LU
O)

+ + + +

LU UJ LU LU

g 00 00 , in r^

O

O

z

z

<<>>,'■

^^ --;

y^

^

,_

y^

CM

y.

y^

^.

o

o

o

o

o

0

0

?;»:■;■ 0

0

+

1

+

+

+

+

!:;::-■:; +

+

jj

o

lU

LU

UJ

UJ

LU

UJ

LU

X LU

LU

s

00

§

in

CM

00

^

s

:. in

Wy CM

2

j;

<A

cm"

h-

<
z

CM

CM

in

<

z

CO

CM

CO

H

II

8

CM

8

^

CM

CM

7.

y^

T—

CM

CM

CM

< 03

o

o

o

o

0

0

0

0

"am 0

0

•^

0

i

i

+
LU

LU

+

LU

+

LU

uu

+

LU

LU

+
LU

s:^ LU

+

0

d

<

c
o

1

^

S

8

^

in
in

s

8

•

in

r^ in

<
0

<
0

c

•

^

r^

00

csi

b-

r^

'"

in

CM

h>-

S;:;-.;::: n!

r*.

iCC

CC

a
e

s

CD

z

il;!

U.

E

s

1

CM

o

8

s

8

0

0

3

11 §

8

iiii

s

+

+

+

+

m
0

CM

+

+

;sa:^;^ +

+

Il-IK

r

2

o

LU

UJ

<
Z

UJ

LU

UJ

SI

CM

<

z

LU

K: :: LU

UJ

0503

c
0

I
<

JX

g

8

3

CO

0

s

8

ym: CM

S

CD CD

Je

+

+

+

LU

8

CM

+

+

ffm^ +

+

05103

Q.

c

lU

LU

LU

UJ

UJ

;;r LU'LU

en en

a

1

8

<

in

•

CO

<

CO

in

CO

< <

IS S

F

S

z

0 iO

U. LL

0

CO

^ —1

0

r

p

a

< <

c

o

o

GD
S

CB

s

1- K
00

.2

A

CB

3
u

«

8

<

0

CD
0

t- t-

(0

c
0

1
1

1

• •

m
X
<

3

<
1

c

03

lU
Q

CO

O
(0
O

1

3

3

2

«

•

S

C

CO

UJ
Q
Q.

z

05
0

1

3
CC

2

0
Q

1

0

5

C0

§

3

s

1

-

1

1

3

1^

CO
05

a>

E

3

1

1

i

o

o

CB

c
S

II
iS

s

o

o

«
c

g

«

II

(0
■5

otals with
otals with

Q.

^

(0

3

3

Z

cc

O

h-

°

5

o

0

QC

0

K

0

<

Q

\-\\-

"^

210

(0

ffl

CO

,0'^

0)

^■4

a>

CO

CO

E

3

■«■■

ach

CO

(1)

CO

4^

CO

0)

CO

^

IE

o

o

■»

klB

>

"O

^>^

CO

O)

o

^

■^"

^*— ^

X

0)

<

o

£

D

•

o

CO

CO

CO

0) iD

X

(0
CD

O
O

CO
CO

0
O

D
O

CO

OQ

CO

illl I

UJ

CO

c

3
O

O

CO

O
CO
O

o

c

3

(0

V.

0>
CO

9

o>
a>

CO
UJ

o

a

CO

o
E

CO i
2 <

I

O

o
o

o
o

211

<

Q.

o

CO

0)

(0

(0

c

E

o

■ w^at

a Mi^

■4>^

*-»

CO

3

Q>

Si

a an^

0

C

JZ

o

O)

o

■ ^^

Q>

c

>

a ^a^

o

^^

<0

TJ

o

0

cc

(0
CO

•

^

CO T5

CO

0)

O

3

D)

U.

CD

CD

<

0

CD
CD
C

'cD

Q

(D
Q.

CD
O

Z5

O

CO

212

ID

<

Q.

O

0)

+"^

O

ima

• ai^B

•4-^

3

CO

^

0)

• ^BiB

^_

o

o

o

Q)

CO "D

Rel

0

CO

CO

■

^

00

CO

■D
CO

0)

o

O)

<D

CO

CD
C3>

•o

CO

®

5 <

CD
CD
CD

C

"cD

Q

O

c

213

6.1.8 PCBs

Loadings of PCBs to Massachusetts Bay are summarized in Table 99 and Figures 39
and 40. Total loadings are estimated to be approximately 2,600 kg/yr for both
Method A
and B.

The reason that Methods A and B give almost identical results is that the loading is
dominated by atmospheric inputs which account for about 85% of the total load.
The estimates of atmospheric load are based on data collected during the mid
1970s, and, therefore, may be substantially higher than current levels. Because
production of PCBs declined in the late 1970s, it is likely that concentrations of
these compounds are declining. Still, Atlas et al. (1986) point out that the
atmosphere is the major source of PCBs to the oceans and they estimate that 98%
of the PCBs entering the oceans is currently being deposited from the atmosphere.
For the oceans as a whole their estimate is 1,700,000 kg/vr or about three orders of
magnitude greater than our estimate for Massachusetts Bay.

Our estimates of inputs from NPDES discharges ranged from 416-468 kg/yr. Using
the higher of these estimates, point sources accounted for about 20% of the inputs
to the bays. These estimates are probably too high however, because they are based
upon data that were below detection limits. These estimates are likely to decline,
when the MWRA completes analyses of additional effluent samples. Preliminary
data from the MWRA mdicates that no individual PCB compound is present in
effluent at concentrations greater than 10 ng/1.

214

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

215

g

o

8

s
g

o

n
o

8

+

o

+

?

8

+

1

^

?

9

8

■f

8

O

t»

UJ

UJ

UJ

UJ

UJ

UJ

UJ

UJ

UJ

UJ

UJ

a

s

f>.

8

o

s

8

^

8

f^f

o

s

i2

•^

lA

o

\n

"^

'-

t^

ca

•^

CNJ

CVI

8

8

8

o

m

8

8

+

+

+

+

li -^

■♦'

1

s

UJ

UJ

UJ

UJ

m\n

UJ

8

d

8

d

o

J8

W
W

CVI

eg

8

8

8

8

88

+

+

WM +

+

+ -f

ut

UJ

^UJ

UJ

UJ UJ

5

2

<
z

8

d

<
Z

8

d

£

%^{:-

8

d

8

to CO
Csj CVJ

s

8

8

s

8

8

8

+

+

+

(

+

i^'.? +

+

_c

s

i

0)

LU

UJ

UJ

LU

8

d

UJ

!>/' UJ

UJ

s

s

•^

<
z

^

'a-

t

in

^

U)

a

<

I
O

H

CD

I
O

Ml

3

O

S

3

8

s

o

8

8

8

1

+
LU

+
UJ

+
UJ

+

UJ

+
UJ

UJ

1

UJ

UJ

UJ

UJ

<

e

o

1

«

8

T—

•^

JS

8

8

8

8

o

^

O

t

g

•

e

i

■^

C3

<
z

-^

•^

T—

"^

cvi

-^

^

"^

CC
Q.

%

I

CC
Q.

<
X

O

O

o

O

S

o

O

o

+

+

+

+

1

+

f +

•f

h-

H

r

e

o

(0

(6

UJ
00

o

<
z

UJ

1^

UJ

d

LU

8

<
z

UJ

d

UJ

UJ

d

>

^
5

J«

8

+

8

+

UJ

o

+

UJ

8

+
UJ

8

+

UJ

o

+

8

UJ

CD CD
C/5 "1

1

•

o

<

SI

•

rs.'

<

o

o

<

2

<

2

S

z

z

CL

£

CL

O
U.

t

-J

^

c

c

«

< <

o

o

ffi

K K

S

5
o

^

o

•

8
«

S

<

m

o o

3

«

m

ro

o

9

9

1

<

1

S

C

(0

UJ
Q
0.

S

[J

3

I

ID

1

oa
c

m

(fi

UJ

o

Q.

z
2

o

3

1

a
1

•

3

2

9

1

«

f

1
f

1

«
CD
O

k

i

•

CO

c

1

H

•
c

1

a

U

If

1

JS5

(0

Q.

f

3

D

z

(I

o

H

3

o

o

CC

CD

h-

o

<

Q

K

•-

216

(0

CD

€0

€0

(0

•

:e

>

o

v^

**

^

"D

^

CO

■"^^

O

0)

^■~

o

CD

D

O

O

Q.

CO

39.

>

a>

3

O)

u.

(0

o

CD
O
CL

O)

iiini i I

liiiii

liili

(0
CD

O
O

^ 2

CO CO

m

o
o>

CO

CO

o
o
o
o

o
o
o

o
o

III

O CQ

CO 2

i S

o I

CL a

CO £

2 <

o

a

I

o

a

75

o

c

E

UJ

217

o

CO

c

o

•^ CO

z a.

So

<D CO

> o

"cc >

• CO
O CO

^ CO

a>

O)

CO

CO

o

LU

CO

Q

O

CL

'"^

Z

«^

^

o

.^fl

c

^^H

3 A

^^^H

CL A

^

CD
O

a>
•D

0)

CO
(D

<

CD

O)

CO

c

'co

Q

(D
d

CD
O

O
CO

218

6.1.9 Metab

We selected the followingmctals for presentation: cadmium, chromium, copper,
lead, zinc, and mercuiy. These appear to be six of the more important metals from
a human health and/or ecological standpoint in the system and have been observed
at elevated levels in the Massachusetts oay system.

Cadmium

Loadings of cadmium are summarized in Table 100 and in Figures 41 and 42. There
is considerable uncertainty in the cadmium estimates because there are few
measurements for point sources. We have addressed this lack of data, in part, by
estimatinecadmium concentrations for various POTWs based upon the
cadmiumrrSS ratio in Deer Island efQuent We feel this is reasonable because
Deer Island effluent integrates a wide variet}^ of inputs. TSS is generally measured
for these effluents. WitB the TSS-based estimates, the our estmiates of cadmium
entering the bays ranged from 2,260-2,620 kg/yr.

Using the higher estimates for all sources we obtain cadmium loadings of 8,020
kg/yr and 14,700 kg/yr for Methods A and B respectively. NPDES discharges
account for 34% and 17% of the Method A and B estimates. Most of this load is
associated with the Boston Harbor drainage area (78% of the Method A NPDES
load).

Nonpoint sources appear to be relatively important sources. Runoff in Method A
accounts for 30% ot the load and river discharge in Method B accounts for 66% of
the load. The runoff estimate was made using the NCPDI, with values for CSO
inputs corrected for concentrations measured by the MWRA. CSOs accoimted for
most of the cadmium inputs. Our estimate of inputs from rivers assumed an average
concentration in river water of 1 ug/1. Values reported in the literature ranged from
0.01-7 ug/1, so our estimates of total contribution for rivers would vary substantially
if we selected a different value.

The atmosphere contributes 31% for Method A and 17% for Method B. Very few
data were available upon which to base the estimate of atmospheric inputs, and our
estimate, the only one we made, is considered to be high.

Groundwater discharge to Boston Harbor was estimated to be about 15% of the
point source load, using our higher estimate of 320 kg/yr. Our lower estimate was
only 10% that value.

219

o

3
O
10

<0
CO

(0

o

E

3

E

(0

O

I

2

|2

^^^

""""*

CO

CO

CM

CO

CO

y-

CO

8

3

CO -.-

: i

o

o

O

o

o

o

o

o o

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+ +

«

Hi

LU

LU

LU

LU

LU

LU

LU

LU

LU LU

1

^

O

O
CNJ

CNJ

u5

O

s

8

oj

OOO
LOCO

i2

csj

csi

CO

iri

CNJ

CO

O)

d

'-'

CNi|r^

8

8

CO -.-

,•;-<■

COiCO

OIO o o

-♦-

+

+ + + +

1

LU

lU

LU LU LU LU

8

8

O 00 00 00

in ] 00 in in

o

d

d

CNJ

r».

CVICNJI

y^

y^

^-

8

^

•r- f- CO •^l

o

o

o

o

OiO o O

+

+

+

+

+

+ + 4- +

UJ

LU

LU

lU

LU

LU LU LU LU

1

8

CNJ

<

Z

8

CNJ

8

CNJ

8

d

<
Z

8

csi

2.00
2.00

8.02
1.47

8

O

o

8

8

g

CNJ

o

•.-CNJ
OiO

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+ 1 +

^

s

LXJ

LU

LU

LU

LU

LU

LU

LUiLU

*;

O

O

O)

O

8

(d

h*

^

Oi.-r-

3

O

o>

1^

CJ>

<

(0

1^'

to

CNJ

<

z

00
CNJ

00

Csi

II

n

CO

CO

CNJ

CO

CO

^r-

CO

CO

CO CO

< mi

1

o

o

o

O

O

o

O

o

O O XX

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

LU

LU

LU

LU

LU

LU

LU

LU

<

c
o

1

"*

CNJ

O

CNJ

?2

o

o

-^

CO
CNJ

r^ CNJ; lO O

9

^

CNJ

T^

CO

CO

CNJ

T-'

t-'

CO

CO CO ice cc

«

o

«

<

IQ. Q.

c

&

m

X

z

' ■ a. Q-
< <

CNJ CNJ

CNJ

CNJ

CNJ

CNJ

y-

CNJ

CNJ

O

O

O

O

O

o

O

o

O Oi i i

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+ + 1- 1-

S

o

(0

LU

LU

LU

LU

LU

LU

LU

LU LU =: =:

O
CO

CO

<

z

00
1^

O
CO

8

in

<
z

in

00

od

00 in ^5
2 5 ^ ^

Jte

s

s

g

8

8

§

3E

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+ i C/J C/5

S

lU

LU

LU

LU

LU

LU

LU

111' ^*rf . >**

LU : rn fo

;o

<

00

8

C3>
(0

<

CO

s

z

z

I '

O O

5.

LL U.|

-J _j

c

c

«

< <

o

o

CD

!l— h-

s

C0

O O

s

3

o

«

2

<

CD
u

>- t-

3
O

v>
O

5
J

1

c

LU
Q
0.

<0

o

C/3
O

1

3

a>

1

"S

3

2

"5
o

CD

s

CD

•a
o

£

S

m

c

«

CO

LU
Q

Q.

Z

2
to

g

03
O

5

s

m

3
O
(0

1

2
o

a

o

"5

i

i2

(D

"5

s

1

E

3

E

I:

3
O

•

«
c

S

II
(0

"5

•

CB

1

II

iS
(0

f

.•tr

a
"5

o

^

(0

3

3

Z

cc

CD

K

D

3

o

u

QC

K

Q

<C

O

KK 1

220

221

CO

c
o

^~t

■D

c

CO

o

O

o

<u

E

>

3

03

E

"D

O

OJ

ZL

o

42.

o

<u

^_

3

O)

u.

o

CO

^"\ ®

®

N. Q

^__

\

<

\

0

U^

%pHn5rr,J

CO

^fajii'

r

^Ik^ O

/^ ^

CO

^y^ CO

i^_

-^ CO

n

00

2

G

o

c

oc

0

Q.

CD
O

O
CO

222

Chromium

Chromium loadings are summarized in Table 101 and Figures 43 and 44. We have
presented the higher estimates of loadings for the sources. In the case of NPDES
dischargers we have mad estimates for a number of the POTWs by applying a
Cr:TSS factor derived from averaging data for several other POTWs in the
Massachusetts Bay system.

Methods A and B yielded total loadings of 84,000 kg/yr and 120,000 kg/yr
respectively. NPDES dischargers accounted for 53% of the Method A estimate and
35%) of the Method B estimate. Our estimates of inputs from NPDES discharges
were essentially the same.

Dredged material disposal accounted for 14% and 10% of the two estimates.

Nonpoint sources of runoff accounted for 24% of the load for Method A and rivers
accounted for 47% of the load for Method B. Runoff estimates were calculated
using the NCPDI, as corrected for concentrations measured in CSOs. NonCSO
urban runoff accounted for more than half the total estimate of runoff.

Inputs from rivers accounted for about one half of the Method B estimate. This
estimate assumes an average concentration of chromium in river waters of 6 ug/1.
Values reported in the literature ranged from 1-30 ug/1.

Using our higher estimate of atmospheric deposition of chromium, 5,110 kg/yr, the
atmosphere accounted for only a mmor contribution to the total load. Our lower
estimate of atmospheric deposition of chromium was only 145 kg/yr, so the
contribution is probably minimal.

223

a
o

CO

0

CO

S
2

<0

o
E

3

E

o

n

I
I
|l

II

s

S

8

S

3

8

S

CO

o

in
o

.8,3i

, , , 1

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

«

LLI

LU

LU

LU

LU

UJ

LU

UJ

LU

lU

LU

a

in

s

s

in

T—

r^

CVJ

8

^•

▼-

CO

^

"^

<o

CVJ

o

r^

9

»-

CVI

^

^'

CNJ

'-

to

■^

cvi

in

'-

-^

ih

-^

8

8

8*3 3 3

+

+

+ . -♦- + ■♦-

?

UJ

LU

lu:lu UJ LU

8

8

^

CO -^ "^

CVJ fM f^ :

O

d

d

ih

"^

-i-; I 1 1

CVJ

CVJ

CVJ

CVJ

CVJ

CVJ 5 in

O 'O o

o

o

o

o

o

+

+

+

+

.. ♦

+ 1 + +

LU

LU

UJ

UJ

LU LU' LU LU

CB

o

?

8

<-

8

8

8

s,s --

•^

z

'-

•»-

'-

^

^i "^-l

CVJ

CNi

CVJ

CVJ

,-

CO

CO

CVJ

CO

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

4-

^

o

lu

LU

LU

UJ

LU

UJ

UJ

UJ

LU

3

8

ID

<

z

in

00

o

CO

O
00

o

8

m

8

O
(A

•^

CO

h-'

"^

cvj

•^

cvi

r^icvjl

1

<
I

■

CD

I

i

s

s

8

5

5

o

8

8

s

3i3i

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+ i +i

UJ

LU

U.I

LU

LU

LU

LU

UJ

LU

Qj LU' v-/'»-/|

<

c

k

o

in

o

rv.

o

CVJ

8

CVJ

■^ CVI < <l

Jgk

o

1

(O

<o

O)

in

"^

00

-^

Oi -^

o o

t;

1-^

<^

l-i

cvi

<r^

o>

CO

^

cvj

cvi

CVJ

|cr cc

CB

o

CB

• Q. Q.

c

S

Q

ffi

X

a. Q.
< <

I I

s

8

5

s

o

CO

o

z

3

3

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

'K H

^

S
o

HI

LU

LU

UJ

LU

LU

LU

LU

LU

> >

8

Csj

cvi

<
z

00

cvi

s

cvi

s

cvj

00

cvi

CO

cvi

00

cvi

J£

CO

o

CO

o

8

O

5

3

§iSi ,ss

X

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+ itn cfi\

S

ID

LU

LU

UJ

UJ

LU

UJ LU' 'o5 cri\

•

o

Csj

in

<

8

(0

Jo

CO

fO

< <

s

z

m^

u. u.

t

_l _J

c

c

CB

'.< 51

o

o

m

H el

S5

f0

1 I

O O

S

S

«0
«B

s

<

o

ffi

1- 1-

3
O

3
O

CO

O

UJ

U

E

3

E
1

5
J

1

<

9

o>

(B
C

s

<
o
§

s

c

W

LU
Q
Q-

O
w
o

1

1

2

1

m
1

•

s

c

w

LU
Q
0.

Z

(0

«

CO

o

1

3

cc

15
«5

s

9

5

1
1

o

C0

§

3

1

9

3
O

II
0)
(0

"5

•

(B
C

S

H

o

« 0> CO «

£ S loo

1

o^

^

(0

5_

D

Z

DC_

o_

h-

p

D

o

o^

5^

o

^

5

< Q IH Hi

II

224

225

226

CQppgr

leadings of copper (higher estimates) are provided in Table 102 and Figures 45 and
46. Because we had data for many of the POTWs for copper, we elected not to
estimate loadings for those few for which data were lacking.

Methods A and B gave good a^eement for total loadings with 150,000 kg/yr and
190,000 kg/yr respectively. Pomt and nonpoint sources were both important
contributors to the overall loads.

NPDES dischargers accounted for 57% and 37% of the loads for Methods A and B
respectively. The Boston Harbor Drainage Area accounted for about 76% of the
NPDES load under Method A. Our estimates of total copper inputs ranged from
76,300 to 86,700 kg/yr.

Runoff amounted to 25% of the load for Method A while riverine inputs amounted
to 50% of the load under Method B. NonCSO urban runoff accounted for most of
the inputs from runoff. Our estimate of inputs from rivers assumed an average
concentration in river water of 10 ug/1.

The atmosphere contributed to 12% and 9% of the load for the two methods, using
our estimate of about 20,000 kg/yr. Dredged material contributed 4% of the load
under Method A. We have no range of estimates for these inputs.

227

3
O
(0

(0
OQ

(0
CO

(0

S

a

•a

(0

o

o

Q.
Q.
O

o

o

o

n

CO

I-

s.

S

8

o

3

C\J

o

s

8

in
o

5iS,

1 1 i 1 1

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

•¥

«)

LU

LU

LU

UJ

LU

LU

UJ

LU

LU

UJ

LU

?s

in

CO

2

8

in

CM

§

3

8

in

s

CO

i^

00

CO

o

-^

<o

h~

o>

o

"^

"^

<o

8

8

5|co
OiO

ss

+

+

+

•f M;V + +

1

UJ

LU

UJ

LU i^x: LU

LU

8

d

8

d

^

00

P

(O

c>i

csi

o

s

S

o

s

S

3

3

S

S

+

+

+

+

+

+

^<^ +

+

+

•f

LU

LU

LU

LU

LU

LU

^ UJ LU'

LU LU

8.

o

8

8

to

8

s

«; <X> , <0 O O 1

CO

■^

-*

m

"*

"<^

m

^1^! ^^

C\J

CO

CO

CM

CVJ

CO

CO

CO CO

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

K? O'Oi , , 1

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

#• + +

.e

£

LU

UJ

LU

LU

UJ

UJ

LU

i$:: LU LU

«■«

O

CVJ

r-

s

o

1^

in

M?i r^

U)

3
O
(0

o

0)

iq

(£>

CO

<o
cvi

cvi

If

II

<
I

II

CD

I
O

i

s

s

s

s

g

z

s

ss

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

m:-:: + ' +

LU

LU

LU

LU

LU

UJ

LU

g;; ; : LU ! LU

<

c

o

1

8

U5

in
in

8

§

•*

00

mMn : CO

<
o

<

o

ff

«

o

(O

"^

00

(O

CO

■^

r^

III CO

h*

cc

Q.

cc

c

1

ffl

X

a. Q-
< <

8

8

5

8

g

CO

o

CO

o

s

8

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

■^W- +

+

h- t-l

^

S

o

(A

LU

LU

LU

LU

LU

LU

LU

f^lUJ

LU

> ==

c\i

5o

s

8

in

CO

p?

eo

CO

CD

CO

CD

Ji!

S

8

5

o

z

z

z

H

+

+

+

+

+

+

'"' +

+

C/}

CO

S

LU

lU

UJ

UJ

UJ

LU

UJ

LU

fO

CO

1

•

1^

c\i

o
csi

<o
1^

1^

CVJ

cvi

<

<

2

7

^f~

cc cri

^ •

O Ol

(0

LL

u.

_l

— 1

c

r

a

<

<

o

o

ffi

1-

h-

s

*rt

gi

O O

CB

«

s

(B

s

<

CD
u

;l-- 1-

3
O

3
O

O

1

CB

i

<

1

s

CR

c
«

W

LU
Q
Q.

Z

(0

O
w
o

1

1

ED

%

S

c
«

C/)
LU
Q
Q.

CO

o

Si

3

cr

a

1

1

i

CD

2

CO

i

3
O

i/i

i

5

CO
<

1

Q

i

1

1

1

1

i

3
O
(0

O

cs
c

s

3

1

3

2
CD

II
i2

(0

i2

•

CB
C

2
Q

II

iS

(0

CO
(0

,2

1

CO

(0

5

228

(0

ffl

€0
CO
CO

2 >

"O O)
CO ^

o ^-^
CL O

o CO

C3)

H ■■<■■»■■■ WlllM>W—WWWltlHH«WiWlWWttlllH>—»WH»WIWWW

(0
00

o
o

(0

o

3

o

C9

O
O

o

o
o

o
o
o
o

o
o
o

o

o

CO

o

♦*

O

10

CO

2

O

>*

-o

0)

«^

o»

o

T3

5 £
oc o

b 5

» I

CO i

2 <

I

o
^^

C CO

a> CO

"O CO

.E o

CO $

ii

ujO

229

c
o

£1

o to
o o

> 0

'^ a
(0 a

U-

CO

®

CO

<

U)
CO

c

'co

a>

CB

sz

■D

a

CO

o

o

e

r

^

ype

230

Loadings of lead are provided in Table 103 and Figures 47 and 48. In the case of
NPDES dischargers we have made estimates for a number of the POTWs by
applying a Pb:TSS factor derived from averaging data for several other POTWs in
the Massachusetts Bay system.

Estimates for Methods A and B agreed fairly well yielding loads of 470,000 kg/yr
and 540,000 kg/yr respectively. Loads were dominated by nonpoint sources. CSOs
and other urban runoff accounted for most of the estimate of inputs from runoff.
These values were calculated using the NCPDL Concentrations of lead in CSO
discharges were assumed to be 92 ug/1, as measured by the MWRA, rather than the
474 ug/1 used in the NCPDL

NPDES discharges accounted for less than 10% of the loads using either Method A
or B. Runoff accounted for 42% of the load under Method A and river discharge
accounted for 54% of the load under Method B. The estimate for river discharge
assumes an average concentration of lead in rivers of 30 ug/1. Had an average
concentration of 1 ug/1 been used, lead inputs from rivers would total 9,540 kg/yr,
or only 4% of the total inputs.

Atmospheric inputs were also found to be a major contributor to the total load and
accounted for 45% of the Method A estimate and 39% of the Method B estimate,
using our estimate of lead deposition, 213,000 kg/vr. Higher estimates of lead
deposition have been made for Long Island Sound, so our values may be low.

231

O)

9

2

3
O

m

(0

CO

s

o

CO

o

•a
n
o

o

s

in
o

CO

o

in
o

5

CO

o

in
o

8

in
o

;in CO 1

iO;Ol 1,1 1

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

«

ID

LU

LU

LU

LU

LU

UJ

LU

LU

UJ

UJ

s

CO
O

8

5

cvj

o

s

8

el

CO

.2

cri

cvi

-^

Csj

CO

cvj

eg

d

CO

cvi

n:

8

1 —

8

in

o

8

in in
o o

1

+

+

+

+ ./ ■♦■ +

i

LU

LU

LU

LU '- LU

LU

8

8

CO

^ eg

C^

5

d

^___

d

ej

1^'

'■■//?:■ ■■

eg

eg

' 1

m

CO

CO

CO

CO

CO in in

o

o

o

o

#>/<=>

o o o

+

+

+

+

m- +

+ + -t-

LLl

LU

LU

UJ

'«'-'' LU LU ' LU LU

s.

00

00

00

00

00 00 r^ -^

^3

o>

O)

o>

o>

% Oi Oi <£) -rt

m
O

5

T—

w^

▼»

^"

TT inl

.,_

00

CO

T-

eg

CO

CO

CO CO

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

O O

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+ +

£

o

LU

LU

UJ

LU

LU

UJ

LU

LUiLU

3

4^

O

in

00

00

O

in

CO

eg
o

2

05:C0
001(0

O
(0

v^

<6

<d

<d

<o

in

od

00

'Ay/'

CD 00

II

n

^

z

5

CO

o

in
o

z

CO

o

z

z

SIS

< CD
T -r 1

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

?<-«? +1 +

/ N / N 1

m

LU

LU

LU

LU

lU

LU

LU

LU'lU

if s^

<

c

k

o

<o

s

-*

O

o>

"«r

^ "^

S. S.

o

1

"^

00

"^

eg

5

o>

O)

o o

ts

r^

o>

t-'

I-'

W

1-'

CO

•^

T^

-^

CCiCC

a

o

OS

'"',

Q.IQ.

c

CD

I

'{M,

C^ CL

1

Q

< <

z

S

5

5

s

5

z

zz

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+ , »- »-

^

o

LU

LU

LU

LU

UJ

UJ

LU

LU

UJ| :::= = l

CO

in

O
00

in
1^

^

eg

CO

CO

in

CO

^ 5

CO CO

>- >
< <

CD CD

Jtf

§

z

s

s

S

§

5

in

O'

B

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+ 1 ^ to

s

LU

UJ

LU

UJ

UJ

LU

LLI.LU c/5 CO

c

O

CO

"^

CO

y—

'"T — ZJ-Z<\

"E

•

r^

eg
<6

o

CO

cvi

eg

(b

Si 2 2

s

I CC cc

o o

«

U_ LL

—1 —1

c

c

•

< <

o

o

m

J- h-

w

OiO

S

a

(0

<

CD
o

i-'k

3
U

3
O

s

S

1 !

1

1

S

i

<
1

s

c

CO

UJ

Q

V)

O
O

1

3

1

3

2

1

m
1

s

Ol

c

(/)

LU

Q
Q.

Z

CO

■<I5

CO

o

3
CC

"to

g

o

Q

>

1

3

2

5

«

3
O
(0

i

2

o

a

1

f

f

(0

2
o

1

I

0)

2

!

i

1

1

3
0

o

CO

c

s

II
«

"5

«

a
c

S

II

0)

2
o

-£

iT

(0

a

D

Z

cc

o

H

D

D

o

_CJ

cc_

o

K

5

<C

O

P

»2

! 1

232

(0

m

€0

€0

CO

9

:s.

o

>

O)

-o

J^

€0

^-^

o

0

o

-o

CO

D

o

o

CO

0)
O)

(0
CL

Ji

' — ■— ■■,

(0
CD

O
O

CD

0
O)
CO

CO

UJ

iiiim

milllH^IIIIIIIB^IIIIIIIBHI

c

3
0

C5

O
CO

o

•1-

0

c

3

c

0

Q.

k.
0

1

«

CO
(0

o
•a

Q
«

c

CO
0

E
<

1

L

o
o
o
o
o
o

o
o
o
o
o

o
o
o
o

o
o
o

o o
o ▼-

c >.

o c
a o

ii

c CD

:^

a> ~

Is
Is

is

:;: o
o» ^

UJ o

233

CO

c

o

3

^

4»^

c

■

o

73

o

(0

o

0

>

■ ■■■

"D

lat

(0
<D

<D

cc

O

00

-^

<D

3

O)

LL

CO

CO

CD

CD
®

S <
CD

c

'cD

Q

234

Zinc

Loadings of zinc are provided in Table 104 and Figures 49 and 50. Estimates for
Methods A and B gave agreed fairly well yielding loads of 419,000 kg/yr and
536,000 kg/yr respectively. Nonpoint sources exceeded point source loadings.

NPDES discharges account for 35% of the loads using Method A and 25% of the
load using Method B. Our estimates of zinc inputs from NPDES discharges, based
solely upon DMRs, were essentially the same, about 145,000 kg/yr.

Runoff (including river discharges for B) account for 38% of the load under Method
A and 53% of the load under Method B. NonCSO urban inputs accounted for most
of the estimate of inputs from runoff. River inputs assumed an average
concentration of zinc in rivers of 30 ug/1. The range of concentrations of zinc in
U.S. rivers varies widely, from 2 to 50,000 ug/1, so our estimates are subject to
considerable uncertainty. Using an estimated 1 ug/1 concentration, for example,
9,540 kg/yr enter the system, rather than the 28,600 kg/yr used in our analysis.

Atmospheric inputs and dredged material disposal combined contributed 26% of
the load for Method A and 20% of the Method B estimate. Our estimates of inputs
of zinc from the atmosphere ranged from 5,000-88,000 kg/yr.

235

3
O
CO

ta

M
(0

CO

s

2

'a

CD

O

«

s

i2

r

o

in
o

8

in
o

in
o

CO

o

in
o

8

in
o

5

s

1 1 1 1 i

1

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

CO

LU

LU

LU

LU

LU

LU

LU

UJ

LU

UJ

LU

5

00

8

§

CO

00
CM

in

00

8

CM

8

s

{^

^

^

o

CO

'-

CO

CM

o

'^

00

"^

8

8

s

s

in LO 1
o o

+

+

+

+

■♦- +

1

LU

UJ

LU

LU

LU LU

8

8

o

00

00

00 00
o o

5

O

o

00

^ 1-1 1 I

CO

CO

CO

CO

co:co; uo in

o

o

o

o

o o

o o

+

+

+

+

+ +

+ -f

LU

LU

LU

LU

LU LU UJ LU

2.

O

O

o

o

o o o) CO

Csj

<

z

CM

cvj

CM

cvi

<

z

CM

cvi

CM
CM

CM| T- CO

z

CO
O

z

z

CM

o

CO

o

z

5:5 . .

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+ +

^

o

UJ

lU

LU

LU

m

LU

LU

LU LU

s

o

8

CO
00

O

8

8

CO

CO <o
CO 1 o>

j;

(0

^

r^

<
z

^

(d

00

<

z

^ ^

II ' II

in

z

in

in

CO

z

in

in

in

<;m

i

o

o

o

o

o

o

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

liJ

LU

LU

LU

LU

LU

LU

LU

<

c

k

o

O

T-

O

o

o

s

V-

^ i5^

o

1

C\J

▼-

O

CM

<£>

-^

o

ini iO O

9

^

y-

00

C\J

^—

f-

CO

f-

CM

^ icc:cc

c

2

Q

s

Z

<
z

<
z

[^..CL

8

z

z

§

s

z

z

Z\Z ,1 X

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+ 11- 1-

^

2

o

LU

LU

LU

LU

LU

LU

LU

LU

Lu' '^ =;

O

O

eg

CO

<

z

CO

O

<6

s

o

CO

<

z

z

cvi

CO CM >- >•

1 — ' — < :<

Z oi iCDiCD

iC

5

z

z

s

in
o

in
o

as

+

+

+

+

+

+

+ +

i^kn

S

LU

LU

LU

UJ

UJ

LU

LU

LU! :C0 CO

1

•

9

O

<

CO

iri

o

CO

o

CO

cvi

<

8

CM

CO

in

^! ill

s

z

z

(X CL
o 1<^ 1

5.

LL

-J

-J

n

c

(B

<l<

o

o

m

bit-

*rt

CO

0;0

S

3
O

a

CO

1

<

CO

KlK

3

u

(0

o

u

i

<

§

S

c
w

CO

LU
Q
CL

(0

O
V)
O

1

3

<

m

O
O

S

OS

c

CO

LU
Q
Q.

Z

«
to

s

CO

o

1

3

2

a

5

1

"2

3

2

5

CO
3

o

2

SI
Q.
CO

1

9
<D

1

i

1

(0

?>

i

1

0)

s

o

o

c

1

3
O

O
O)

cc

c

S

i

3

2

II

(0

(C

"6

•

«

c

S

II

s

o

N

i?

0)

3

3

Z

cr

O

K

D

s

o

o

oc

o

h-

Q

<IQ

1-

K

236

237

CO

c

o

o

T3

o

(d

o

Q)

>

o

<0

c

Q)

N

cc

O

o

lO

o

=}

O)

u.

o
o

en

CO

CO

CD

<

(D

O)

CO

c

"co

Q

0

Q.

CD

O

O

CO

o

c

238

Mercury

leadings of mercury are provided in Table 105 and Figures 48 and 49. Because so
few data were available for mercury, we calculated loading using only Method A.

Our calculations indicate that NPDES discharges account for about one half the
mercury entering the system. There were no data for mercury concentrations in
NPDES discharges, except for values that were below detection limits for MWRA
effluent and sludge. We therefore developed worst-case estimates, based upon the
detection limits for effluent and the TSS content of other POTWs discharging into
the system. Our estimates of total mercury entering the system from point sources,
231 and 257 kg/yr, are almost certainly high.

Runoff accounts for 27% of our estimate of mercury loading. This estimate was
based entirely upon data from the NCPDI.

Estimates of inputs from the atmosphere ranged from 24 to 73 kg/yr. However,
there are no data on the concentration of mercury in the region, the deposition
velocity of mercury, or its washout ratio. Therefore, these values are very uncertain.

239

O)

o
o

%m

3
O
(0

JQ

(0
OQ

(0
(0
CO

CO

o

o

S

id

o

2

CO

i

to

(0

o

+
LU

r-

IT)

csj

CsJ

o

+

LU

8

+

LU

8

d

1

LU

8

Si

-♦-

LU

8

d

8

+

UJ

8

d

8

+

UJ

8

d

8

LU

8

d

8

+
UJ

8

d

O

+
LU

O

+

UJ

i

b

•1

s

8

+
LU

8

d

8

+

LU

8

d

o

LU
O
CO

LU'

00

00

• 1

•WS

CM

o

UJ
CM

CM

LU'

CM

wo

O

o

8

+
LU

8

+

LU
o>

O

8

+
UJ

8

d

88
+ +

UJ LU

88

-r^ d

UJ

in

<
Z

x:

5

2

C/3

o

lij

8

8

+

LU

in

CO

8

+

LU
CVJ

8

+

LU

8

d

88
+ +

UJ LU
CVJiO

^ d

N

<
I

o

<
o

GC
Q.

Q.

<<

N

i

<
•

«
c

S

Q

c
o

1

ffi

8

+

lU
csi

o

+

LU
<N

<o

00

+
LU
CVJ

CO

8

+

LU

8

d

CM
O
+
LU
CVJ

CO

8

LU

8

d

cs

I
O

<

o

cc

Q.

x:

2

CO

o

+

LU
CNJ

O

+
LU

S

c6

O

+
LU

ih

8

+
LU

8

d

O

+
UJ
CO

8

+

LU

8

d

I
»-

CO

cs

CO
CO

<

QC

LL

— 1
<

1-

I

CO

>
<
CD

(0
CO

<

cc
o

LL

<

o

o

g

+
LU

c6

o

+

LU
00
00

cvj

o

+

UJ

CVJ
CO

8

+
LU

8

o

;|i

O
+
UJ

Si

CO

8

+

lU

8

d

c
o

c
o

1

s

s

o

m

3

o

<

1

1

1

3

u

CO

D

<
o

o

S

Oi

c

M

D

CO
LU
Q
Q.

2

o

CO
O

1

3
DC

<D

1

3

s

3

o

75
o
«
S

m

■D
O

s

en

c

«

3

CO

UJ
Q
Q.

Z

2
w

s

o

(0

O
CO

O

1

3
GC

"(5
o5

g
O

b

o

3

2
O

o

1

2
o

CO

c
2

Q

II

(0

o
o>

(B
C

2
D

II
iS

(0

5

ex

CO

<

1

G

£1

%

CO
«

o

flO

O

1-

240

>

CO

m

CO

CO

CO

^

s

>

^v.

o

O)

*^

J^

^^^^

"D

CO

0

o

O

^_

O)

I

3
O
CO

•

>

iO

^

O

D

O)

u.

(0

C?)

X

CO

00

mil I I I

CO

LU

liilLLL

O
O

o

o
o

CO

O
CO
O

3

oc

(0

CO
LU

o

Q.

z a

CO £
2 <

ID

241

242

6.2 Identified Poilutant Problems in Nearshore Waters

The Massachusetts Division of Water Pollution Control (DWPC, 1988) has
published information on the environmental conditions of rivers and coastal areas of
the state. This information is included in the DWPC (1988) Appendix HI -
Basin/Segment Information, Commonwealth of Massachusetts Summary of Water
Quality for 1988.

The data presented by DWPC was examined as part of this study near the mouths of
rivers (within 10 miles) and along the coast for the five drainage areas. This material
is presented in Appendix D for 85 locations identified in these areas.

A summary of the DWPC data for the 85 coastal and river mouth locations is
provided in Table 106. High coliform bacteria levels was the most common
problem identified, with 86% of the areas exhibiting these conditions. Shellfish bed
closures were identified as problems for 21% of the areas and low dissolved oxygen
was identified as a problem in 19% of the areas.

Sediment contamination by metals and organic compounds was reported as a
problem in 21% and 10.6% of the areas respectively. Eutrophication/nutrient
problems were identified in 9.4% of the areas.

A broad range of nonpoint and point sources was identified as sources of the
problems in coastal areas and within river mouths (Appendix D). In many cases the
source of the observed problems was unknown but in others the sources have been
identified along with specific abatement needs. In many locations additional
studies are recommended.

The information presented in Appendix D underscores the importance of examining
local sources of pollutants in assessing pollutant abatement needs. The material
also indicates that there are a number of water quality problem areas along the
Massachusetts coastline and within the mouths of estuaries and rivers.

243

(0
(0

a>

Is

(0

M
(0

o
V

(0

CO

E

o
o.

9
(0

B

CO

s

<

O O

Is

•2

UJ

•»
« c

N £

1'

IS

0)

o

-I o

2 8
|<

z o

i

<

OH

C

s

CO

CO

CNi

CD

«2 '«t

f- ca CM <o

OJ

•»- in ■^
cvj •»- '-

lO U) (O

CM

U) 00 o>
CM ■»- -^

i

4C

«
e

Q

s

o

CO

E

Q

I

a
X

c
o

o

CD

O)

«

c

&

O

S

o

t/i

I
o

CO

CM

X<¥.

CM CO g

f~ CM R

fill

o o

244

6.3 Qualifications and Data Gaps

This report provides estimates of loadings from a broad range of sources and at a
range of spatial scales. However, several factors must be considered with regard to
using the data presented in this report for risk assessment or risk management
purposes:

1. There are many uncertainties associated with estimates. These stem
from lack of data. In many cases we estimated loadings based on
literature values or by extrapolating from similar systems. These
estimates provide an overview of the relative magnitudes of sources
and provide insights into the potential for discriminating among
sources. However, the ranges in estimates are broad and thus, the
estimates provided in this report should not be viewed as precise.

2. The fate and effects of chemicals or biological agents in the
environment will depend on where and how the materials are
introduced to the system. The loadings presented in this report differ
in their "delivery systems". For example, atmospheric deposition is
spread out over a large area and represents a large but diffuse source.
On the other hand, an NPDES discharge is locahzed, as is the
disposal of dredged material. The manner in which chemicals are
introduced is especially important with regard to potential receptors.
For example, atmospheric deposition will occur directly to the sea
surface and may directly affect the sea surface microlayer. Subsurface
diffusers from outfalls are typically located on or near the bottom and
are initially mixed with seawater or river water upon discharge;
groundwater discharges to nearshore regions and may be important
sources at near shore local scales. Inasmuch as delivery systems are a
critical part of exposure assessment for marine risk assessment,
compansons of ma^tudes of sources should not be the sole basis for
evaluating the relative importance of the sources.

3. Sources will vary somewhat based on seasonal factors. We identify
two kinds of seasonal variability. First, there are sources that vary
because of natural periodicity. Examples include river flow, nonpoint
source runoff, and groundwater discharge. These vary both seasonally
and as a result of storm events. TTius loads associated with these
dischargers will be higher during certain times of the year and may be
relatively "more important" at those times. Straight comparisons of
aimual means does not provide a complete picture of the
characteristics of these loads. In the case of stormwater runoff, short
term events are especially important if there is the potential for short-
term acute effects resulting from suspended sediment, nutrient, or
chemical loads.

Second, relatively constant sources such as the major NPDES outfalls
will result in short-term and seasonal variability in receiving waters as
a result in natural variations in the hydrodynamics of the receiving
water. Thus, concentrations of materials discharged from an outfall
may be higher in receiving waters during low river flow periods as

245

compared to high flow periods. This "apparent" temporal variability is
important in evaluating the loadings from point sources.

Data Gaps

Many data gaps emerged during the course of this study. However, the occurrence
of data gaps ooes not necessarily mean that studies are needed to address them. We
suggest that data gaps be addressed as part of the risk assessment. This would
involve (1) identifying the those marine resources that represent "receptors" ;
(2) identifying the water quality conditions that are thought to pose hazards to the
receptors; (3) quantifying the magnitudes of the exposure conditions; (4) assessing
risks; and (5) identifying sources that may be contributing to the exposure
conditions on a local, regional (drainage oasin), or bay-wide basis. Once this
framework is in place and an initial effort has been made to assess risks, it should be
possible to identify which "data gaps" are most important to address from a risk
assessment and management basis.

We have not attempted to generate an exhaustive list of data gaps. However, there
are several areas that have emerged which should be considered on a preliminary
basis:

• Sources of PAHs to the marine environment - few data were available on
PAHs.

• Elevated levels of contaminants in sediments. Although heavily
contaminated sediments have been identified in the report, and we have
summarized available data, we have not determined how to consider them as
sources. Resuspension from the sediments has not been considered in our
comparison of relative magnitude of sources of contaminants to the bays.

• Varying spatial scales. We assessed loads from sources that vary in spatial
scale. However, we have not determined appropriate how the different
spatial scales affect the fate and effects of various contaminants.

• Oil spills. Oil spills and other infrequent, large-scale events were not
considered.

• Marine pump-out facilities. We did not consider pump-out facilities or other
discharges from marinas.

• Groundwater. Loadings of nitrogen from groundwater appears to be an
important source of nutrients to embayments alon^ the snores of Cape Cod.
Concentrations of nutrients should be measured within these embayments to
verify this source.

• Synthetic organic compounds. Few data are available on pesticides and
other synthetic organic compounds, and their loads were not evaluated in this
report.

246

APPENDIX A
BIBLIOGRAPHY

247

POINT SOURCE REFERENCES

TITLE; EPA Permit Compliance System, NPDES permitted Dischargers in
Massachusetts. (Includes Effluent Data Statistics for 1988-1990 and Facility
Reports . )

DATE; May 30, 1990

AUTHOR; A database maintained by United States Environmental Protection Agency

DATA; Wastewater discharges to all surface waters in the Oonmonwealth, are
regulated by permits v^ch co- issued by U.S. EPA and MA DEP in accordance with
guidelines established by National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System. This
system sets levels of effluent quality to be maintained by the POTWs and the
industrial dischargers and designates implementation schedules for meeting
effluent limits for discharges that contribute to water quality standards
violations. NPDES permits are usually reviewed and reissued every five years.

EPA Region I Resource Information Center performed a retrieval from PCS. This
retrieval cc«sisted of two reports for each Massachusetts Major NPDES
discharger; an effluent Statistical Surmary Report v^di sumnarizes effluent data
on an annual basis for 1988, 1989, and 1990;and a Facility Informatioi Report,
v^ch provides general permit informaticxi cai the facility (the discharger) .

TITLE; Massachusetts River Basin Water Quality and Wastewater Discharge Data
Survey Reports

DATE; 1983-1990 depending on the year that river basin was surveyed.

AUTHOR; Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, Division of Water
Pollution Control

DATA; The Massachusetts Divisicai of Vfeter Pollution Ccmtrol provides wastewater
discharge data for streams and rivers. The wastewater discharge data are
presented in survey reports for a designated river basin. Often these reports
include data on the effluent discharge characteristics of the industrial and
municipal discharges in that particular river basin. Data were available for
1986 to 1990 for sane NPDES outfalls depending hew often the drainage basin was
surveyed. Typically, the Massachusetts Division of Water Pollution Control
surveys report results fran grab sanples taken at vcirious outfalls within a
particular River Basin. Massachusetts DEP Division of Water Polluticn Control
periodically analyzes wastewater discharges for contaminants that are not
specified in the NPDES outfell s permit in addition to typically miiHiitored
pollutants .

As part of duties and responsibilities of the Massachusetts Divisicxi of W^ter
Pollutioi Control, periodic examinaticns of the water quality of various coastal
v^aters, rivers, streams and ponds of the OoniroTwealth are required. The water
quality surveys are conducted periodically within the various coastal river
basins. Typically, the Massachusetts Division of Wciter Pollution Control
surveys report results fran grab sanples taken within a peirticular River Basin.
These surveys are used to develop state surface water standards and devise water
quality management plans for a particular river basin. Water quality parameters
v^ch are comoily analyzed for, are dissolved oxygen, pB, dissolved metals,
alkalinity, biochemical oxygen demand, total phosphorus and total Kjeldahl
Nitrogen, etc.

TITLE: U.S. Geological Survey Gazetteers of Hydro logic Qiaracteristics of Streains
in Massachusetts- Coastal River Basins of the Itorth Shore, Massachusetts Bay,
South Shore, Buzzards Bay, and Merrimack River Basin

DATE; 1984

ALTTHOR; United States Geological Survey

lATA; Daily stream flew records are inaintained for all US Geological Service
gaging stations and the data are available by the gage number. In 1984, the US
Geological Service prepared three Gazetteers of hydrologic characteristics of
Massachusetts streams categorized by Coastal River Basins in the South Shore and
Buzzards Bay, Merrimack River Basin, and the North Shore in cooperation
>fessachusetts Division of Vfeter Pollution Control.

TITLE; Metal distribution in a major urban estuary (Bostoi Harbor) iirpacted by
ocean disposal. Chapter 7 in Wolfe, D.A. and T.P. O Gcnnor (eds.)/ Urban Waste
in Coastal Marine EInvironments , Volune 5 of Oceanic Processes in f-laririe
BDllution. Kreiger, Malibar FL.

DATE: 1988

AUTHOR: Wallace, G.T., J.H. Waugh and K.A. Gamer.

C>ATA: Water quality saitples fran Mystic, Chelsea, Nepcnset, and Weymouth Fbre
River. Collection of sanples were made at lev/ tide on 17 and 18 of August and at
high tide 6 days later on 23 and 24 of August. Sanples were collected at a depth
of 10 an and 13 feet. Water quality analysis included dissolved metals and trace
□etals in particulate form.

TITLE: Draft Final Report: Assessment of the Chemical Outiipositiai of The Pox
Point CSO Effluent and Associated Subtidal and Intertidal Eiivironments : Analysis
of CSO Effluents and Surficial Sediments for Trace Metals Prior to CSO
^t)dification and. Assessment of the Chemical Conposition of the Pox Point CSO
Elf fluent and Associated Subtidal and Intertidal Envircranents : Analysis of Water
Cblumn Sairples for Trace Metals Prior to CSO Modif icaticn . Massachusetts
Department of Environmental Protectioi

DATE; January 9, 1990

AUTHDR; Vfellace, G.T. et al.

DATA; Water samples and surface sediment were collecteod at the mouth of
tfepcxiset River (intertidal area). Concentrations of dissolved and particulate
metal concentrations were determined.

TITLE: Storet

DATE: December 1990

ALflHDR; A database maintained by United States Environmental Protection Pqency
(EPA) Office of Water

DtYTA: STORET, located at EPA s National Computer Center in Research Triangle Park
stores, retrieves, and analyzes v;ater quality information. STORET assists state
and EPA officials in making pollution control decisiois. Itie retrieval consisted
of water quality data which was collected at the mouths of the various coastal
rivers of Massachusetts Bay. Data collected within the last 5 years \<.ere
retrieved .

TrTT.K: U.S. Geological Survey Vfeter Resources Data Massachusetts and FQiode Island
Vfeter Annual Reports

DAZE; 1986, 1987, 1988, 1989

ALTIHOR; United States Geological Survey

DAZA; These annual reports include records of stage discharge, and water quality
of streams. The individual gaging station informaticxi includes its location
(latitude and longitude); drainage area; period of reocard; gage description;
average disciharge; extremes for the period of discharge; extremes for period of
record; extremes outside period of record; extremes for current year and monthy
mean discharge values for that year. Additional water data are collected at
various sites, not involved in the systonatic data-collection program and are
published as miscellaneous discharge measurements. Water quality parameters
included dissolved oxygen, tenperature, specific conductance cind pH.

TITLE; National Estuarine Inventory Data Atlas
DATE: January 1987

AUTHOR; National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National
Ocean Service

DATA; A summary of land use from the USGS Land Use Data Analysis
(LUDA) system and the USDA Soil Conservation Service 1082 National
Resource Inventory (NRI) . LUDA provided the basic delineation of
land-use types. NRI data were used to disaggregate the LUDA
agricultural acreage into cropland and pasture, to distinguish
between irrigated and nonirrigated cropland, and to determine the
specific crops. NRI data were also used to subdivide forest land
into areas with good and poor cover. Data were reported by USGS
cataloging unit and by county.

(Additional, unpublished information was provided by NOAA which
compiled some data by cataloging unit x county.)

TITLE: Ground-Water Resources of Cape Cod, Massachusetts. USGS
Atlas HA-692

DATE: 1986

AUTHOR: LeBlanc, D. R. , J. H. Guswa, M. H. Frimpter, and C. J.
Londguist.

DATA: Recharge, precipitation and stream flow measured throughout
Barnstable County. Contains the general flow system of groundwater
for Cape Cod, broken up into six cells.

TITLE: Eutrophication of Buttermilk Bay, a Cape Cod Coastal
Emt>ayinent : Concentrations of Nutrients and Watershed Nutrient
Budgets

DATE: 1988

AUTHOR: Valiela, I., J. E. Costa

DATA: Assessment of nutrient concentration and loading data into
Buttermilk Bay. Nitrate and ammonia levels were measured in
precipitation, groundwater, streams and surface runoff.
Contributions from different input sources were calculated, such as
septic system input.

TITLE: Universal Atlas of Cape Cod & Southern Massachusetts

DATE: 1988

AUTHOR: Universal Publishing Company

DATA: Barnstable County town areas

TITLE : none

DATE: 1989

AUTHOR: Personal communication, Cape Cod Planning and Economic
Development Commission

DATA: Nitrogen application rates for golf courses.

TITLE: Land Use Update for Cape Cod and the Islands with Area
Statistics for 1951, 1971 and 1980

DATE: February 1984

AUTHOR: MacConnell, W. , D. Swartout, J. Stone

DATA: Land use data broken down by town. Categories used include
golf course and cranberry bog land use data for 1980.

TITLE: None

DATE: October 1990

AUTHOR: Phone conversations with town clerks and assessors.

DATA: Number of residential units and winter (and estimated summer)
to%m populations for the following Cape Cod towns: Sandwich,
Barnstable, Yarmouth, Dennis, Brewster, Orleans, Eastham,
Well fleet, Truro, Provincetown, and Bourne.

TITLE: Mass-Balance Nitrate Model for Predicting the Effects of
Land Use on Groundwater Quality in Municipal Wellhead Protection
Areas.

DATE: July, 1988

AUTHOR: Frimpter, M. H. , J. J. Donohue, IV, and M. V, Rapacz

DATA: Estimates of nitrate leachability, average lawn size, and
typical lawn fertilizer use.

TITLE: The Relation of Ground-Water Quality to Housing Density,
Cape Cod, Massachusetts

DATE: 1986

AUTHOR: Perskey, J. H.

DATA: Summary statistics of nitrate and ammonia groundwater samples
from private wells throughout Barnstable County. These samples
were taken between 1980 and 1984, some by Barnstable County Health
Department, and the remainder by DEQE. The sampling may contain a
slight bias, since some samples were taken in new housing
developments, where septic systems have not affected groundwater
yet. Still other samples are collected when an owner suspects a
private well to be contaminated.

TITLE; Ten- Year Bostcxi Harbor MDnitoring Program First Report March 1987 - July
1989

DATE: August 15, 1990

?iJJBDR: New England Aquarium

DATA; Water sanples were taken at the mouths of Chelsea River (depth of 12 m) ,
the Weymouth Pore River ( 7 m) and the Neponset River (7m). Total nitrogen and
tjotal phosphorus coicentratiais, averaged for 15-17 samples taken over 2 years
(1987-1988). Nitrogen was measured as amnonia, nitrate and nitrite. All three
-were primarily measured as the dissolved inorganic ion. Total phosphorus was
also measured. The data was reported in units of umoles/liter. For our purposes,
«s converted the units to mg/ liter.

TITLE; List of Confirmed Disposal Sites and Locations to be
Investigated

DATE; 1990

AUTHOR; Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection
Bureau of Waste Site Cleanup

DATA; Includes an index of all 4,148 locations and disposal sites
that have been identified in Massachusetts. The document
identifies the 1,486 sites where releases of oil and/or hazardous
substances have been confirmed. The list of both confirmed sites
and sites to be investigated was used to identify sites within 500
ft of Massachusetts coastal waterways and the Merrimack River (to
Pawtucket Dam) .

TITLE; National Estuarine Inventory Data Atlas

DATE; January 1987

AUTHOR; National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National
Ocean Service

DATA; A summary of land use from the USGS Land Use Data Analysis
(LUDA) system and the USDA Soil Conservation Service 1082 National
Resource Inventory (NRI) . LUDA provided the basic delineation of
land-use types. NRI data were used to disaggregate the LUDA
agricultural acreage into cropland and pasture, to distinguish
between irrigated and nonirrigated cropland, and to determine the
specific crops. NRI data were also used to subdivide forest land
into areas with good and poor cover. Data were reported by USGS
cataloging unit and by county.

(Additional, unpublished information was provided by NOAA which
compiled some data by cataloging unit x county.)

TITLE: National Coastal Pollutant Discharge Inventory (NCPDI)

DATE; 1987

AUTHOR; A database and computational framework developed by the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Strategic
Assessment Branch.

DATA; The NCPDI calculates runoff by separate methods for urban
and nonurban land-use types. For urban land, runoff was calculated
separately for areas with CSOs and areas without CSOs. For areas
with CSOs, estimates of flow were based on the capacity of the
wastewater treatment plant. Pollutant loads were calculated by
multiplying total flow by typical concentrations of pollutants in
CSOs. For areas without CSOs, daily precipitation was summed for
each land-us type. The total annual precipitation for each land-
use type was multiplied by a land-use-specific runoff coefficient,
and these values were summed. Loads were calculated using mean
urban runoff concentrations by land use compiled by the National
Urban Runoff Program (NURP) (EPA, 1983) and Stenstrom et al.
(1984) .

Nonurban runoff was calculated using the Simulator Model for Water
Resources for Urban Basins (SWRRB) which was developed by the U.S.
Department of Agriculture Agricultural Research Service (USDA ARS) .

ADOITIOMMi REFERENCES

ARS. 1976. Control of Water Pollution form Cropland. Volume 1,
A Manual for Guideline Development, and Volume 2, An
Overview. U.S. Department of Agriculture. Agricultural
Research Services.

CH2MHill. 1989. Combined sewer overflow facilities plan.

Prepared for the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority.

EPA. 1983. Results of the National Urban Runoff Program.
Executive Summary and 2 Volumes. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. Monitoring and Data Support Division.
NTIS Nos. PB84-185545, PB84-185552, PB84-185560.

Forstner, U. and G.T.W. Wittmann. Metal pollution in the aquatic
environment. With contributions by F. Prosi and J.H. van
der Lierde. Second Revised Edition. Springer-Verlag.

Helsel, D.R. 1978. Land Use Influences on Heavy Metals in an
Urban Reservoir System. Department of Commerce. NTIS No.
PB-296724.

Hruby, T. , S. Cotter, and K. Barnes. 1988. Land use in the

coastal drainage area in and around Boston Harbor. Prepared
for the Massachusetts Audubon Society.

Lorenz, W.D., Jr. 1978. Heavy Metal Partitioning in a Stream

Receiving Urban Runoff. U.S. Department of Commerce. NTIS
No. PB-296725.

McElroy, A.D., S.Y. Chiu, J.W. Nebgen, A. Aleti, and E.

Vandergrift. 1975. Water pollution from non-point sources.
Water Res. 9: 675-681.

Metcalf and Eddy. 1990. Facilities Plan. Prepared for the
Massachusetts Water Resources Authority.

Menzie-Cura Associates Inc. 1991. Boston Harbor: Estimates of
loading. Prepared for the Massachusetts Water Resources
Authority .

Neff, J.M. Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in the aquatic
environment: Sources, fates, and biological effects.
Applied Science Publishers Ltd.

NOAA. 1987a. The National Coastal Pollutant Discharge

Inventory. Urban Runoff Methods Document. National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration. Strategic Assessments
Branch .

NOAA. 1987b. The National Coastal Pollutant Discharge

Inventory. Nonurban Runoff Methods Document. National

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Strategic
Assessments Branch.

Shacklette, H.T. and J.G. Boerngen. 1984. Element

Concentrations in Soils and Other Surficial Materials in the
Coterminous United States. U.S. Geological Services
Professional Paper 1270.

Stenstrom, M. and others. 1984. Oil and Grease in Urban
Stormwaters. J. Environmental Engineering 110:58-72.

Alpert, D J. and P.K. Hopke. 1980. A quantitative determination of sources in the
Boston urban aerosol. Atmos. Environ., 14: 1137-1146.

Applied target transformation factor analysis to the data of Hopke et al. (1976) to
apportion the observed aerosol concentrations to various sources. 90% or V was
attributed to oil combustion and 90% of Pb and Br was attributed to auto emissions.

Atlantic Environmental Services. 1988. Management of Manufactured Gas Plant
Sites. Vol III. Risk Assessment.

Provides a compilation of PAH concentration levels in air by compound and by
environment (i.e., residential, rural, urban and specific locations and seasons).

Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection. 1987. Report on Long
Island Sound Study Activities (Draft)~III. Pollutant leadings to Long Island Sound,
pp. 25-54. Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection, Water
Compliance Unit.

Estimated atmospheric loadings of nutrients and heavy metals to Long Island Sound
based on local measurements and on the scaling, by area ratios, of loading estimates
for Chesapeake Bay and the Great Lakes.

DeWiest, F. 1978. Any factors influencing the dispersion and the transport of heavy
hydrocarbons associated with airborne particles. Atmos. Environ., 12: 1705-1711.
44% of aerosol-bound fluoranthene was associated with particles > lum while no
benzopyrenes were associated with that size fi-action; the cause mav be
redistribution of volatile compounds to larger ambient particles, while the less
volatile remain on the particles on which they were emitted.

Doskey, P.V. and A-W. Andren. 1981. Modeling the flux of atmospheric
polychlorinated biphenyls across the air/water mterface. Environ. Sci. Technol.. 15:
705-711.

Aerosol deposition velocity of PCBs is estimated as 0.5 cm/s. Vapor phase, defined
as fraction passing 0.3 um filter, may actually be bound to submicron particles.
Other measurement difficulties: desorption of PCBs fi'om filter, adsorbents are less
efficient for the more volatile congeners, usual analytical chemical methods are
inadequate to identify and quantitate compounds.

Fogg, T.R. and W.F. Fitzgerald. 1979. Mercuiy in southern New England coastal
rains. J. Geophys. Res., 84: 6987-6989.

Hg concentration in rain was measured at Centervdlle, MA (Cape Cod) during
Sep/Oct 1975; notes the complex nature of scavenging of Hg by rain, that Hg
behaves as a vapor rather than as an aerosol.

Galloway, J.N. and D.M. Whelpdale. 1987. WATOX-86 overview and western North

Atlantic Ocean S and N atmospheric budgets. Global Biogeochem. Cycles, 1(4):

261-281.

Provides estimates of deposition velocity of NOx, N03, and HN03 and N

concentration measured by aircraft 50 km east of Boston.

GaUoway, J.N., D.M. Whelpdale and G.T.Wolff. 1984. The flux of S and N eastward

from North America. Atmos. Environ., 18: 2595- 2607.

NOx concentration for the east coast is reported as a function of latitude range.

248

Galloway, J.N., J.D. Thornton, S.A. Norton, H.L. Volchok and R.A.N. McLean.
1982. Trace metals in atmospheric deposition: A review and assessment- Atmos.
Environ., 16: 1677-1700.

Summaries of toxic metal concentration in wet deposition for urban and rural areas.
No studies for Be, Se, Sn, Te, Tl.

Gladney, E.S., W.H. Zoller, A,G. Jones and G.E. Gordon. 1974. Composition and
size distributions of atmospheric particulate matter in the Boston area. Environ. Sci.
Technol., 8: 551-559.

Estimated the concentration of heavy metals in aerosols as a function of aerosol size
for two locations in the Boston area, using instrumental neutron activation analysis.

Graham, W.F. and R.A. Ehice. 1982. The atmospheric transport of phosphorus to
the western North Atlantic. Atmos. Environ., lo: 1089-1097.
Atmospheric phosphorus concentrations were measured off the eastern coast of
North America, with one station located near Cape Cod. Concentration decayed
exponentially with distance from the coast; this relationship was used to estimate a
total deposition velocity which includes both wet and dry fallout

Gschwend, P.M., and R.A- Hites. 1981. Fluxes of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
to marine and lacustrine sediments in the northeastern United States. Geochim.
Cosmochim. Acta 45: 2359- 2367.

PAH flux in Boston Harbor (off Calf Island, an urban area) and at remote areas off
the coast of Maine was estimated based on concentrations in core samples and
*210Pb activity. Flux reached a maximum in 1950 (5 to 10 times that in 1980), attri-
buted to coal combustion. No temporal resolution for Boston Harbor due to
bioturbation of core samples. Greater concentrations in urban areas is attributed to
nmoff.

Harvey, G.R. and W.G. Steinhauer. 1974. Atmospheric transport of

Polychlorobiphenyls to the North Atlantic. Atmos. Environ., 8: 777-782.
CB concentration in aerosols and in the vapor phase was measured at Vineyard
Sound, Georges Bank, Bermuda, and the Grand Banks.

Hites, R.A. and K. Bieman. 1972. Water pollution: Organic compounds in the
Charles River, Bostoa Science, 178: 158-160.

Water samples collected weekly from the Harvard Bridge were analyzed for
naphthalene. Concentrations were successfully fitted to a runoff model which
assumes an exponential dependence on rainfall. A likely source of this naphthalene
is auto exhaust condensate washed directly from streets into the Charles River.

Hopke, P.K., E.S. Gladney, G.E. Gordon, W.H. Zoller and AJB. Jones. 1976. The
use of multivariate analysis to identify sources of selected elements in the Boston
urban aerosol. Atmos.Environ., 10: 1015-1025.

Concentration of trace metals in aerosols from samples collected in 1970 from
locations around Boston Harbor were analyzed using instrumental neutron
activation. Identified an incinerator in Somerville, auto emissions, and oil-fueled
power plants in East Cambridge and Charlestown as sources.

Jaffrezo, J.-L. and J.-L. Colin. 1988. Rain-aerosol coupling in urban area:
Scavenging ratio measurements and identification of some transfer processes.
Atmos. Environ., 22(5): 929-935.

Washout ratios of Zn, Fe and other elements were calculated firom measurements
taken in Paris. Power law relates concentration in rain to concentration in air.

249

Keeler, G J. and P J. Samson. 1989. Spatial representativeness of trace element
ratios. Environ. Sci. Techno!., 23(11): 1358-1364.

Quantitative transport bias analysis was used to infer the source areas for trace
elements measured in aerosol samples taken at six locations in the northeastern
United States during August, 1983. The nearest location to Massachusetts Bay was
Narragansett, RI. Se and Zn were associated with coal combustion in the Midwest;
Zn was also associated with incineration, smelters, and the iron-steel industry. V was
associated with oil combustion in the northeast. As was associated with the Midwest
and with smelters in the Sudbury region of Canada, Sb was associated with coal
combustion, incineration and antimony roasting along the east coast firom
Washington, D.C. to Connecticut.

Kertesz-Saringer, M., E. Meszaros and T. Varkonyi. 1971. On the size distribution of
benzo[a]pyrene containing particles in urban air. Atmos. Environ., 5: 429-431.
Half of B[a]P measured in Budapest is in the size range < 03 um (median
diameter); distribution may be bmiodal, extending to 12-14 um diameter.

ligocki, M.P., C. Leuenberger and J.F. Pankow. 1985a, Trace organic compounds in

rain-n. Gas scavenging of neutral organic compounds. Atmos. Environ., 19: 1609-

1617.

Table of gas scavenging ratios is presented for PAHs.

Ligocki, M.P., C. Leuenberger and J.F. Pankow. 1985b. Trace organic compounds in

ram~in. Particle scavenging of neutral organic compounds. Atmos. Environ., 19:

1619-1626.

Table of particle scavenging ratios is presented for PAHs.

Lowenthal, D.H., K.A. Rahn, G.D. Thurston and J.D. Spengler. 1987. A cjuantitative
assessment of source contributions to inhalable particulate matter pollution in
metropolitan Boston. Discussion. Atmos. Environ., 21(1): 257-265.
Discussion between L/R and T/S regarding apportionment of observed aerosol
concentrations to sources.

Mackay, D., S. Patterson, W.H. Schroeder. 1986. Model describing the rates of
transfer processes of organic chemicals between atmosphere and water. Environ.
Sci. TechnoL, 20: 810-816.

Fugacity model for PCBs is presented which includes volatilization, absorption, dry
deposition of particles, wet deposition (washout) and dissolution in rain. Observed
washout ratios for PGBs are given.

McMahon, Tj\- and P. Dennison. 1979. Empirical atmospheric deposition
parameters-A survey. Atmos. Environ., 13: 571-585.

Particle velocities and washout ratios for trace metals from Gatz (1973), Cawse
(1974) and Chamberiain (1960).

McVeety, B.D. and RA. Hites. 1988. Atmospheric deposition of polycyclic aromatic

hydrocarbons to water surfaces: A mass balance approach. Atmos. Environ,, 22:

511-536.

Estimates aerosol deposition velocity for PAHs based on measurements taken in the

region of northern Lake Superior. Gives ratio of dry to wet deposition.

250

Measures, C.I., B. Grant, M. Khadem, D.S. Lee and J.M. Edraond. 1984.
Distribution of Be, Al, Se, and Bi in surface waters of western North Atlantic and
Caribbean. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett., 71: 1-12.

Enrichment of Be in North Atlantic waters with respect to North Pacific appears
dominated by fluvial sources; atmospheric deposition is negligible.

Misanchuk, B.A-, D.R. Hastie and H.L Schiff. 1987. The distribution of nitrogen

oxides off the east coast of North America, Global Biogeochem, Cycles, 1(4): 345-

355.

Measured the concentration of NOx from an aircraft located 50 km east of Boston.

National Atmospheric Deposition Program. 1989. Annual and seasonal deposition
totals for Barnstable County, MA and Middlesex Coimty, MA. Personal
communication, W. Gary Williams.

Measurements of nutrient wet deposition by season and by year for the period 1981
through 1988.

Nicholson, K,W. 1988. The dry deposition of small particles: A review of
experimental measurements. Atmos. Environ., 22(12): 2653-2666.
Notes an unaccceptable disagreement in the measured values of the depositional
velocity of small particles. One confounding influence is high humidity.

Rahn, KA. 1981. The Mn/V ratio as a tracer of large-scale sources of pollution
aerosol for the arctic. Atmos. Environ., 15: 1457-1464.
Measured concentration of total and non-crustal Mn and V at a rural site at
Narragansett, RI.

Rahn, KA. and D.H. Lowenthal. 1984. Elemental tracers of distant regional
pollution aerosols. Science, 223: 132-139.

Monitored remote site at Narragansett, RI for arsenic, antimony, selenium, non-
crustal vanadium, zinc, non-crustal manganese and indium. Boston source aerosol
was measured during favorable winds.

Scudlark, J.R. and T.M. (Thurch. 1988. The atmospheric deposition of arsenic and
association with acid precipitation. Atmos. Environ., 22(5): 937-943.
As flux (dry and wet deposition) was measured at Lewes, DE. As identified as a
tracer ot coal combustion.

Sehmel, GJi. 1980. Particle and gas dry deposition: A review. Atmos. Environ., 14:

983-1011.

Compilation of deposition velocities for an extensive list of elements. In many cases

the range of Vd given is very large.

Shiaris, M.P. and D. Jambard-Sweet. 1986. Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in

surficial sediments of Boston Harbor, Massachusetts, USA Mar. Pol. Bui., 17: 469-

472.

Measured PAH concentration in core samples taken from 24 locations within and

near to Boston Harbor. Areas of highest concentration were the Inner Harbor, and

offshore of Logan Airport and Moon Island. Urban runoff is attributed as the source

for the first two areas, sewage overflow for the third.

Swackhamer, D.L^ B.M. McVeety and RA Hites. 1988. Deposition and evaporation
of polychlorobiphenyl congeners to and from Sisldwit Lake, Isle Royale, Lake
Supenor. Environ. Sd. Technol., 22: 664-672.

251

Measured concentration of PCBs in air, rain, snow, water and sediments during
winter and summer. Dry deposition velocity was given. Wet deposition is 3X greater
than dry, dominated by particle washout. PCBs are associated with submicron
particles in air.

Thurston, G.D. and J.D. Spender. 1985. A quantitative assessment of source
contributions to inhalable particulate matter pollution in metTopolitan Boston.
Atmos. Environ., 19: 9-25.

Measurements of trace metals in Watertown, MA for fine (<2.5um) and coarse (2.5
to 15um) fractions. Absolute Principal Component Scores plus regression were used
to estimate sources: Soil (Si, Fe, Ca); Auto emissions (Br, Fb); Coal combustion,
non-local (Se, S); Residual oil (Ni, V); Salt (CI). Se is associated with As, traceable
to Ohio Valley.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1990. Aerometric Information Retrieval

System, Air Quality Subsystem, Quick Lx>ok Report. Personal communication, Ms.

Bonnie Potocki.

Data table of concentration of Benzo[a]pyrene measured at locations in the Boston

area.

Wallace, G.T. Jr., G. Hoffinan, and R.A. Duce. 1977. The influence of organic
matter and atmospheric deposition on the particulate trace metal concentration of
northwest Atlantic surface seawater. Mar. Chem., 5: 143-170.
Major mass of Cu, Zn, Pb, Cd is associated with particles of < lum. A single
estimate of dry deposition velocity is provided for these elements.

Walsh, P.R., R A. Duce and J.L. Fasching. 1979. Tropospheric arsenic over marine
and continental regions. J. Geophys. Res., 84: 1710-1718.
Measurements at Providence (urban), 1.7(1.7) ng/m3 particulate and 0.21(0.23)
ng/m3 vapor; Narragansett (rural coast); and Bermuda, Oahu, Samoa (marine).
(Sn't distinguish natural and anthropomorphic sources.

Windsor, J.G. and RA.Hites. 1979. Poly^clic aromatic hydrocarbons in Gulf of
Maine sediments and Nova Scotia soils. Geochem. Cosmochim. Acta, 43: 27-33.
Sediment samples collected along a line trendingNE from Boston Harbor showed
an exponential decrease in PAH concentration. The source of PAH in
concentrations >50 ppb is attributed to urban runoff of large particulates which
settle rapidly. Low level concentrations are due to long- range aeolian transport of
smaller particulates. Size distribution of PAH aerosols was noted to be bimodal,
with modes at 1 um and > 10 van.

Whitby, K.T., R.E. Charlson, W.E. Wilson and R.K. Stevens. 1974. The size of
suspended particle matter in air. Science, 183: 1098- 1100.
Discussion. Whitby et al. (1972^ showed atmospheric aerosols to have a bimodal,
rather than a unimodal, mass distribution. One mode is < lum, another in the 5 to
15 um range; each mode has different sources.

Wood, J.M. 1974. Biological cycles for toxic elements in the environment Science,

183: 1049-1052.

Identified toxic or potentially toxic metals.

Zoller, W.H., and G.E. Gordon. 1970. Instrumental neutron activation analysis of
atmospheric pollutants utilizing Ge(Li) gamma- ray detectors. Analyt Chem., 42:
257-265.

252

Concentration of trace elements in aerosols was analyzed in samples collected in
Cambridge, Boston, and Wellesley. V was observed in very high concentrations,
perhaps resulting from the burning of residual oil.

2S3

APPENDIX B
SEDIMENT DATA FOR MASSACHUSETTS BAYS

KJorihfihofo

GLOUCESTER HARBOR, personal communication Dr. Alan Michael

State

Stall

Sed Class 1

1

Arsenic

2.10

2.80

Cadmium

0.48

0.28

Chromium

0.22

11.00

Copper

10.00

11.00

Lead

18.00

8.60

Mercury

0.091

0.032

Nickel

6.70

5i0

Zinc

35.00

19.00

All measurements in mg/Kg wet weight

SALEM HARBOR from Tier II - Chemical Evaluation Report 1 991

BW1 BW2 BW3 BW4 BW6 S2 S3 S6

Sed Class

3

1

1

1

1

3

3

3

Arsenic

12.00

6.00

1.00

3.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

7.00

Cadmium

2.80

0.60

0.04

0.04

0.60

0.05

2.00

2.20

Chromium

87.00

36.00

16.00

9.00

14.00

320.00

660.00

770.00

Copper

170.00

11.00

21.00

4.00

5.00

31.00

64.00

110.00

Lead

520.00

16.00

95.00

4.00

6.00

59.00

110.00

260.00

Mercury

2.40

0.04

0.12

0.04

0.04

0.25

0.54

1.00

Nickel

24.00

21.00

8.00

7.00

12.00

16.00

2.30

24.00

Zinc 340.00 50.00 69.00 14.00 21.00 65.00 110.00 200.00

Total PAH 32.00 0.00 4.60 0.30 0.70 4.90 7.60 22.60
Total PCS BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL

All data in Ug/g dry weight BDL - Below Detection Limits.

NATIONAL STATUS AND TRENDS PR0GRAM,1 98? Rne sediments
STATION SAL CASI

Sed dass

3

3

Ag

2.83

0.32

As

19.24

20.91

Cd

9.79

0.51

Ct

3373.98

103.42

Cu

125.67

33.38

Hg

1.68

0.25

Ni

46.03

41.79

Pb

260.1

108.9

Sb

5

7.03

Se

1.48

0

Sn

19.14

8.61

Zn

342

155

METALS IN ug/g DRY WEIGHT

Pagel

North Shore

DISTRIBUTION OF POLiUTED MATERIALS IN MASS BAY, NE A, 1 97B

Stations

CIA aB

C2A

C2B

C3A

038

05A

C5B

sed dass

2

3

3

2

3

3

3

2

Cd

0.89

1.05

1.52

1.88

2.25

2.82

0.65

0.69

Cr

73

87

382

157

1042

545

96

68

Cu

32.8

34.3

18.3

16.3

26.7

55.2

36.7

20.4

Hg

98

227

203

146

150

135

184

58

Ni

9.8

8.2

2

9.2

11.9

36

38.7

16

Pb

0.55

55

45

23

71

76

35

21

Zn

78

70

42

34

117

161

113

44

METALS IN ppm dry -weight

PCBppb

22.5

16.1

23

6.6

26.1

30.5

21.6

22

Page2

Myeiic

NATIONAL STATUS AND TRENDS PROGRAMS 98J Fine sediments
STATION BHDI
Sed dass 2

Ag

4.64

As

11.62

Cd

1.68

Cr

284.99

Cu

155.27

Hg

1.05

Ni

41.23

Pb

166.44

Sb

10.01

Se

0.87

Sn

22.56

Zn

213
METALS IN ug/g DRY WEIGHT

ORGANICDATA IN NQ/G DRY WEIGHT

Tot DDT

36.59

Tot Chip

17.88

TotPCB

357.24

Tot PAH

6546

BOSTON HARBOR SURVEY, MASS DEP, 1 990

1987 SURVEY 1986 SURVEY 1985 SURVEY

Station

BH01 Station BH01 BH01A Station

BH01

sed dass

3 sed dass 2 3

3

Al

10800 Ag 1.6 1.2 Ag

1

Cd

2.3 Cd 2 5.2 As

12

Cr

140 Cr 52 156 Cd

1

Cu

320 Cu 85 400 Cr

40

Ni

24 Hg 0.36 1.176 Cu

90

Pb

220 Ni 19 60 Ni

17

2n

360 Pb 172 440 Pb

230

Zn 212 640 Zn

235

METALS IN mgrtcgDPY WEIGHT

TotPCB

0.44 TotPCB 1.04 2.98 Tot PAH

67.54

TotPAH 54.51 8.26 TotPCB

0.63

ORGANICS IN ug/g DRY WEIGHT

ORGANIC POUHTAI^ BIOGEOCHEMISTRY STUDIES, BATTEU£,1 984
Stations 6H-2

Total PAH (ug/g) 880

Total PC8(ng/g) 139

Pagel

MysHc

APPUCATION FOR WAIVER 301 (hi NUT & DEER ISUNDS,1984, METCAU & EDDY
FROM DWPC 1972

Station

96

97

sed dass

2

3

Cd

1.5

3.2

Cr

68

38

Cu

63

170

Hg

1.45

1.2

Ni

24

38

Pb

140

640

Zn

130

650

Units mg/kg dry weight

SAMPUNG,1979

Sampling '82

Station

1

4

6

7 Stations DIA

DIG

DIB

DGA

3

2

2

2 sed dass

1

2

2

2

Ag

13.7

7.8

4.7

7.3 Ag

0.1

001

0.1

1.6

Od

11.1

4.5

3.5

3.8 An

2

2

2

3

0

0.257

0.292

0.224

0.21 As

4

3

4

4

Cu

0.367

0.134

0.116

0.139 Be

5.1

3.9

3.1

8.1

Hg

4.9

5.9

8

4.7 Cd

0.6

4.1

3.5

2.6

Pb

0.7

0.123

0.115

0.122 Cr

35.9

101

84

216

Zn

0.803

0.233

0.194

0.216 Cu

29

331

259

142

Units mg/g dry weight

Hg

0.45

1.2

0.63

0.82

Station

1

6

7Ni

9.9

19.5

25.5

269

PCBs(ng/g)

889

137

94 Pb

2

69

87

3

Se

2

2

2

3

Th

3

3

3

5

Zn

67.4

224

190

207

Units ug/g

SAMPUNG'8^

1

Stations

3

4

5

sed dass

2

3

2

Ag

0.4

1.3

0.2

An

7.7

26

4.8

As

11.5

38.9

7.2

Be

6.9

26.4

2.2

Cd

1.5

10.4

2.6

Cr

188

852

71.4

Cu

92.7

397

129

Hg

1.24

4.5

0.49

Ni

23

87

11.3

Pb

77

130

72

.

Se

1.9

6.5

1.2

Th

15.3

51.9

9.6

Zn

156

758

281

IMsug/g

Page2

Mystic

htrsnc, MALDEN AND ISLAND END RIVERS, DEQE

Metals in ug/g dry weight

STATION

28

23

44

39

41

34

seddass

3

3

3

3

3

3

AntJnf)ony

6.9

13

3.9

6.8

8.1

7

Arsenic

27

340

2.7

44

25

12

Berylliunf)

0.57

1.1

0.32

0.57

0.67

0.58

Cadmium

11

12

1.2

9.5

6.5

2.1

Chromium

97

150

9.4

140

49

34

Copper

150

200

24

250

150

55

Lead

270

390

130

220

380

350

Mercury

0.41

0.777

0.121

0.982

0.605

0.244

Nickel

45

64

13

77

37

23

Selenium

6.1

11

3.2

5.8

6.5

6

Silver

1.1

2.2

0.65

1.1

6.3

1.2

Thallium

0.61

1.1

0.32

0.58

0.57

0.6

Zinc

850

1700

95

430

870

250

TOTPAH ug/kg

23000

2000

68000

44000

463000

35000

PCB ug/g

6.7

4.3

1.6

1.8

0.3

STATION

6

5

4

7

17

3

seddass

3

3

3

3

3

3

Antimony

9.6

4.9

7.4

14

15

6.1

Arsenic

26

37

25

26

130

26

Beryllium

0.8

0.41

0.62

1.2

1.2

0.91

Cadmium

8.5

5.8

3.9

16

12

4.4

Chromium

96

61

70

130

96

72

Copper

330

84

120

740

560

67

Lead

790

89

170

1400

350

160

Mercury

1.78

1.02

0.892

1.71

1.25

0.521

Nid^l

35

18

25

56

110

0.2

Selenium

2.6

1

1.2

2.4

2.9

1.2

Silver

5

0.82

1.2

7.7

7

1

Thallium

1.6

0.81

1.2

2.4

2.4

1

Zinc

630

310

230

1400

660

250

TOTPAH ugrt^g

1610000

4000

42000

789000

561000

110000

PCB ug/g

3.3 NO

0.66

4.7

2.2

1.1

Page3

Mystc

TRACE METAL ANALYSIS OF BOSTON HARBOR WATER SEDIMEMTSJ 972
Surface concentrations in ppnr).
DF2 DF3 DF4
3 3

OUTER HARBOR

STATION DF1

sed dass

3

Cadmium

13.4

Chromium

165

CobaK

11

Copper

108

Lead

102

Mercury

0.9

Molybden

3.5

Nickel

25

Vanadium

49

3.3 2.5

Zinc 171

DF5

DF6

IH2

IH1

IH3

3

2

3

3

0

J

J

7.6

08

48

10

33

78

402

109

179

144

174

18

29

9

13.9

13.6

6.8

206

63

105

310

226

357

151

44

91

675

161

411

2.4

03

4

1.5

0.92

233

9.4

4.7

9

12.3

5

75

38

65

23

45

44

87

111

74

52

510

416

1110

400

126

188

1230

445

985

Page4

Charla«

NATIONAL STATUS AND TRENDS PROGRAM,! 988 Fine sediments
STATION BOS
Sed dass 3

Ag

11.65

As

16.98

Cd

3.24

Or

419.32

Cu

256.13

Hg

1.7

Ni

53.9

Pb

207.37

Sb

12.32

Se

1.29

Sn

42.86

Zn

452

METALS in ug/g DRY WEIGHT

ORGANICS in ng/g DRYWEIGKT
Tot DDT 34

TotChP 47.87

TotPCB 11218.76
Tot PAH 57778

BOSTON HARBOR SURVEY, MASS DEP, 1990
1986 SURVEY 1985 SURVEY

Station

BH04A Station BH04 BH05

i 1

3H06

sed dass

3

3 .

3

3

Ag

1.2 Ag

1.5

2

1.5

Cd

4.4 Ai

21100

Cr

220 As

9.3

19

22

Cu

296 cd

8

6

2.5

Hg

1.288 0

115

245

210

Ni

0.39 Cu

295

265

160

Pb

300 Ni

40

38

30

Zn

392 Pb

250

305

110

Zn

550

330

220

METALS IN mq/kq DRY WEIGHT

ORGANICS

in ug/g DRY WEIGHT

05-S

(

)6-S

Tot PCS

2.57 TotPCB

7

0.68

0.27

Tot PAH

10.83 Tot PAH

16.6

24

ORGANIC POUUTAKT BIOGEOCHEMISTRY STUDIES, BATTEUf ,1 984
Stations BH-1

Total PAH (ug/g) 2.7

Total PCS (ng/gj 70.4

Pagel

Chartes

APPUCATION FOR WAIVER 301 (hL NLTT & DEER ISL^NDS,1 984, METCALf & EDDY

HHOM DWPC 1 972 SAMPUNG 79, M&E.

SAMPUNG '84

Station

98 Station

2

3 Stations

1

2

sed class

3 sed dass

3

2 sed dass

3

3

Cd

6Ag

9.2

0.133 Ag

3.5

1.9

Cr

240 Cd

8.8

0.081 An

6

6.4

Cu

220 Cr

0.418

0.16 As

8.8

9.6

Hg

2.2 Cu

0.339

0.084 Be

8.85

8.9

Ni

37 Hg

6.3

7.5 Cd

5.3

3.2

Pb

260 Pb

0.402

2.8 Cr

350

274

Zn

350 Zn

0.506

6.8 Cu

287

188

Units mg/kg dry weight Units mg/g dry weight

Hg

1.79

1.58

Ni

41.5

31.1

Pb

235

128

Se

1.5

1.6

Th

12

12.8

Zn

406

252

UNITS ug/g DRY WEIGHT

PCBsfng/

414

170

POST DREDGING STUDIES ATTHE CHARLES RIVERDAM SrTE,^EA 1973

Station

1

2

3

4 5

6

sed dass

3

3

1

3 3

3

Cd

2.4

20.1

1.1

4.1 4

4.8

Cu

279

449.2

74.3

369.2 299.5

252.3

Hg

0.99

2.84

0.48

1.59 2

3.52

Pb

1051.8

1024

58.4

465.6 410.6

409.3

Zn

497.8 1189.4

95.4

416.6 751.1

628.3

Units ppm dry weight

COI^AMINANT LEVELS IN BOSTON HARBOR, ZDANOWICZ

STATION

BT1 BT2

sed dass

1

2

Cadmium

0.95

3.31

Chromium

43

227

Copper

37.6

134

Lead

37.8

107

All measurements in ug/g dry weight

Page 2

Charles

PROGRESS REPORT BOSTON HARBOR STUDY OF SOURCES.,1 990
Data Pram Core X, Inner Harbor. Date in ug/g.

sed dass

3

Aluminum

69.34 From top .5 cm.

Cadmium

2.27

Chromium

325.46

Copper

284.03

Iron

49.17 mg/g

Lead

485.94

Manganese

420.02 mg/g

Nickel

48.11

Zinc

345.92

TRACE METALANALYSIS OF BOSTON HARBOR WATER SEDIh€NTS,1 972

STATION IH4

sed dass

3

Cadmium

29

Chromium

116

CobaR

17.5

Copper

494

Lead

595

Mercury

5.7

Molybdenur

14

Nid^l

75

Vanadium

600

Zinc

1360

Page 3

Neponset

NATIONAL STATUS AND TRENDS WOGRAM,! 988

STATION BHDB

Sed dass

2

Ag

As

16.71

Cd

1.87

Cr

265.25

Cu

157.39

Hg

1.09

Ni

40.28

Pb

175.8

Sb

9.43

Se

0.7

Sn

20.87

Zn

242

METALS IN ug/g DRY WEIGHT

ORGANIC DATA IN NGA3 DRY WEIGHT

Tot DDT

62.39

Tot Chip

31.06

TotPCB

876.67

Tot PAH

8901

BOSTON HARBOR SURVEY, MASS DEP, 1 990

1987 SURVEY

1986 SURVEY

1985SURVE>'

Station BH10A 6H10B 6H10S Station

BH09 BHIOA BHIOB Station

BHK

)

sed dass 3

2

3 sed dass

2

2

3

2

Al 10400

7700

6400 Ag

2.4

1.6

1.6 Ag

2

Cd 2.2

2.9

ICd

1.6

2.8

2.8 As

12

Cr 150

140

70 Cr

100

132

92 Cd

2

Cu 540

130

150 Cu

96

128

96 Cr

124

Ni 22

16

15 Hg

0.784

0.856

0.44 Cu

128

Pb 180

200

420 Ni

19

20

17 Hg

1.3

Zn 330

260

130 Pb

120

196

204 Ni

22

Zn

148

220

212 Pb

160

METALS IN mgfl(g DRY SNtlGHT

Zn

192

TotPCB 0.85

2.4

1.12 TotPCB

0.83

0.86

5.47 TotPCB

1.7

PCB'S IN ug/g DRY WEIGHT

Tot PAH

1.16

^47

5.82 Tot PAH

3.43

Page1

Neponset

AFRICATION FOR WAIVER 301 (hi NUT & DEER ISLANDS,1 984, METCALF & EDDY

F

TOM DWPC 1972

FROM DWPC 1972

Sta&on 153

154

155

156

157

158

159

160

161

3

3

3

3

3

2

1

3

3

Cd 4.1

1.8

1.4

2.2

2.2

1.7

0.3

6.8

7.1

Cr 220

48

160

190

130

69

14

230

210

Cu 170

38

120

150

120

82

14

180

180

Hg 3

1.1

1.8

2.1

1.9

1.2

0.14

2.3

2.4

Ni 46

20

38

44

38

25

12

47

43

Pb 200

58

170

170

150

150

34

160

330

Zn 340

490

220

750

210

300

190

280

290

Units mg/kg dry weight

Station 162

163

164

165

166

sed dass 3

3

3

3

3

Cd 3.1

2.4

3.6

9.3

6.9

Cr 130

38

95

190

66

Cu 110

92

80

150

270

Hg 2.1

0.95

1.5

2.7

1

Ni 35

17

27

38

25

Pb 160

400

120

220

1000

Zn 180

240

170

270

570

COM 79 Survey

Station A B

C

D

E

sed dass 3 1

33

1

Cd 32

22

2

Cr 79.1 72

73110

36

Cu 123 59.5

64115

31.5

Hg 0.75 0.34

1.6 0.78

0.36

Ni 27 23

23 37

24

Pb 280 96

100 200

78

Zn 220 84.5

75195

80

Units mg/kg dry weigtrt

Station F G

H

J

K

L

M

sed dass 3 3

33

3

3

3

Cd 43

59

8

9

7

Cr 230 205

170 96

155

13

260

Cu 210175

170 255

190

200

230

Hg 1.5 1.3

0.65 1.5

1.3

1.7

Ni 45 43

8156

40

39

52

Pb 300 280

280 1950

500

260

320

Zn 300 240

405 830

345

250

265

Units mg/kg dry weight

Page 2

Neponset

SAMRJNG,1979

Stabon

11

17

24

25

29

sed dass

2

2

1

1

2

Ag

5.1

4.6

7

3.1

9.2

Cd

1.4

31

1.8

1.3

2.16

Cr

0.184

0.129

0.07

0.068

0.113

Cu

0.121

0.102

0.057

0.046

0.087

Hg

4.7

5

3.7

1.7

4.53

Pb

0.144

0.144

0.059

0.065

0.125

Zn

0.173

0.198

0.105

0.085

0.171

Units mg/g dry weight

Station

11

PC8s(ng/

243

SAMPLING'S^

1

Stations

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

sed dass

2

1

2

2

2

3

2

Ag

0.1

0.1

0.1

0.2

0.3

2.4

0.3

An

2

2

1

2

6

7.9

3

As

3.2

2.4

2

4.2

8

11.9

2.2

Be

6.58

5

5.08

7.21

9.29

14.9

8.94

Cd

1.4

0.4

0.9

0.6

1.4

4

1.1

0

167

62.6

98.5

73.2

217

358

20.3

Cu

87.9

39.1

67.9

50.6

154

292

126

Hg

0.76

0.4

1

0.57

0.56

2.64

1.45

Ni

19.9

12.2

17.6

17.7

28.4

46.2

24.8

Pb

92

55

11

73

142

237

142

Se

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.6

1.4

2

0.8

Th

5

4

3

5

11

15.8

6

Zn

146

79.2

140

105

214

427

177

Units ug/g

ASSESMENTTOFTHE CHEMICAL COMPOSmON OFTHE FOXPOINT„,1990

STATION Savin Hill Cove Thonfipson Island Neponset River

sed dass

3

3

2

Mir

Max Min

Max Mir

1 Max

Aluminum

51.6

83.5

58.3

88.6

52.8

91.6

CadnrHum

1.96

2.6

0.43

4.55

0.69

1.4

Chromium

196.7

247.9

63.4

308.7

64.8

121.9

Copper

163.5

206.3

43.2

257.9

32.3

76.6

Iron

39.2

55.4

33.5

45

23.2

34.9

Lead

202.7

279.6

63

234.7

66.5

121.4

Mangane*

0.521

0981

0.415

0.796

0.433

0.58

Nid(el

31.1

42.9

21.9

41.9

15.7

28.4

Zinc

213.1

338.8

42

279.6

34.4

210.2

Min max data expressed in ug/g for top .5cm of core.

Page 3

Neponset

TRACE METAL ANALYSIS OF BOSTON HARBOR WATER SEDIMENTS,! 972
OLfTER HARBOR Surface concentrations in ppm.

STATION Ul

T12

TL3

U4

TL5£

I T15B

TL6

sed dass

3

3

3

3

3

3

3TL8

QB1

Cadmium

5

5.4

2

3

Chromium

145

141

229

3.6

11.2

Cobalt

15

12

92

433

Copper

117

129

265

12

37

Lead

116

199

153

35

363

Mercury

2.8

4.1

3.5

2.3

1.8

1.8

3.8

52

256

Moiybden

8

4.6

6.7

1.4

3.9

Nickel

31

9

38

8.9

4.9

Vanadium

57

40

38

36

57

Zinc

258

427

336

79
205

48
455

STATK)N QB2

Q63

QB4

Q65

DB1

0B2

DB3

sed dass

2

3

2

2

2

3

2DB4

Cadmium

2.4

2.7

1

2.9

2.7

14.9

2

Chromium

4

312

254

57

122

125

2.7

Cobalt

0.2

24

1

18

9

15

19

Copper

48

212

57

35

120

88

4

Lead

20

241

72

56

60

128

24

Mercury

1.1

3.5

0.9

0.8

0.2

1.2

21

Moiybden

4.8

8

4

7.3

3.9

1.9

0.5

Nid<ei

19

51

28

22

34

35

0.8

Vanadium

51

100

42

50

68

53

14

Zinc

130

312

112

108

261

213

19
61

STATION DB5

0B6

DB7

DBS

D69

DBK

1 DB11

sed dass

2

3

3

3

3

2

2DB12

Cadmium

3.7

5.2

8.6

0.9

3

Chromium

135

225

274

38

Cobalt

18

23

34

•

14

Copper

40

118

129

25

Lead

136

130

172

13

Mercury

1.5

2.7

2.6

2.7

2.6

1

0.7

Moiybden

4.2

4.5

It

6.4

1.8

Nid(ei

23

33

43

33

Vanadium

64

103

129

32

Zinc

223

195

288

131

Page4

Neponset
STATION DB1 3 DB14 DB15 DB16 DB17

sed dass

3

1 2

3 2

Cadmium

6.3

3.3

4.4

Chromium

128

168

97

Cobalt

6

11

22

Copper

108

97

102

Lead

117

177

Mercury

6.7 0.4 1.1 2.1 1.3

Molybden

6

2.2

2.1

Nickel

35

29

35

Vanadium

43

45

60

Zinc 183 194 245

Ps^eS

Wpirmnnih

NATIONAL STATUS AND TRENDS PROGRAM,! 98f Rne sediments
STATION BHHB
Seddass 2

Ag

5.28

As

7.77

Cd

1.29

Or

260.87

Cu

119.61

Hg

0.92

Ni

65.28

Pb

162.23

Sb

19.74

Se-

0.96

Sn

16.29

2n

265

METALS IN ug/g DRY WEIGHT

ORGANIC DATA IN NG/G DRY WEIGHT

Tot DDT

34.22

Tot Chip

20.35

totPCB

329.11

TotPAH

4142

BOSTON HARBOR SURVEY, MASS DEP, 199G

1987 SURVEY 1985 SURVEY

Station

BH12 Station BH12

BH12A

seddass

1

3

2

Ai

5750 Ag

3

1

Cd

0.5 As

53

9.4

Cr

84 Cd

2

1.5

Cu

60 Cr

50

150

Ni

13 Cu

90

120

Pb

67 Ni

20

20

Zn

83 Pb

60

145

Zn

165

180

METALS IN mg/kg DPY WEIGHT

TotPCB

0.23 TotPCB

0.44

PCB'S IN ug/g DRY WEIGHT

ORGANIC POaUTANrr BIOGEOCHEMISTRY STUDIES, BATTEU£,1 984
Stations BH^ BH^ BH^

Total PAH (ug/g) 6.5 6 2.4

Total PCS (ng/g) 330 100 60.6

Pagel

Weymcw^

APPUCATION FOR WAIVER 301 (hi NUT & DEER ISLANDS; 984, METCALf & EDDY

SAMRJNGJ 979 SAMPUNGJ 982 SAMFUNG '84

Staiion

30 Stations CH

Stations

21

22

23

sed dass

1

1 sed dass

1

2

1

Ag

6.8 Ag

0.1 Ag

01

0.2

0.1

Cd

2.5 An

2 An

2

3

2

0

0.081 As

2 As

3

5

4.2

Cu

0.061 Be

7 Be

5.81

6,52

5.11

Hg

6Cd

0.3 Cd

0.6

0.5

0.4

Pb

0.074 Cr

75.5 Cr

71.8

137

74.2

Zn

0.143 Cu

42.8 Cu

42.9

81.3

40.4

Units mg/g dry weigh- Hg

0.24 Hg

0.48

0.76

0.24

Ni

16 Ni

23

24.7

13

Pb

2Pb

87

152

75

Se

2Se

05

0.8

0.5

Th

4Th

4

6

4

Zn

26.9 Zn

109

146

88.1

Units ug/g

Unit!

iug/'g

A HISTOPATHOLOGiCAL AND CHEMICAL ASSESSMENT.., EPA, 1 988

STATION QBAVa QBAY3 QBAY4 06X1 QBX2 08X3 QBX4

sed dass

1

1

1

2

2

2

1

Cadmium

0.81

1.68

0.64

0.51

0.4

1.87

0.61

Chromium

45.8

73.3

56.7

117.6

117

157

67

Copper

44.5

316

51.2

83.4

72.5

139

56.4

Lead

46.8

147

43.7

86

83.9

134

54.9

Mercury

0.442

0.784

0.391

0.805

0.04

0.0O6

0.1

Metals measured in u/g dry weight

From top 2' of core.

TOT PAH

5810

6650

18400

3150

TOTPCB

5.91

4.65

5.38

3.6

Organics measured in ng/g dry weight From top 2* of core.

CONTAMlNAm" LEVELS IN BOSTON HARBOR ZDANOWICZ
STATION BT4 BT5 BT6

sed dass

1

2

1

Cadmium

0.58

3.01

0.69

Chromium

65.9

146

86.2

Copper

43.7

119

68.4

Lead

58.5

138

69.6

All measurements in ug/g dry weight

Page2

Weymoufti

TRACE METAL ANALYSIS OF BOSTON HARBOR WATER SEDIMENTS,1972
Surface concenfralions in ppm.

STATION HB1

HB2

HB3

HB4a

I HB4b HB5

H66

seddass

2

2

3

1

1

2

2

Cadmium

2.2

2.2

3

1.1

3.3

1.6

3

Chromium

88

43

36

29

19

222

Cobalt

9

11

5

3

23

5

13

Copper

33

41

105

44

20

9

77

Lead

59

70

347

20

18

21

133

Mercury

1

0.51

1.61

0.04

0.07

1

Moiybden

3.9

2.5

2.7

3.9

0.5

7.3

Nickel

18

22

42

15

38

11

39

Vanadium

45

63

51

23

40

14

73

Zinc

81

118

215

154

77

30

170

Page3

Ha/bor

BOSTON HARBOR SURVEY. MASS DER 1 990
1986 SURVEY 1985 SURVEY

Station BH11A BH11B Station BH1U

seddass 3 3 3

Ag 1.6 2.8 Ag 2

Cd 3.2 2 As 19

Or 80 76Cd 6

Cu 304 108 a 245

Hg 1.032 3.01 Cu 265

Ni 27 17 Ni 38

Pb 560 200 Pb 305

Zn 520 204 Zn 330
METALS IN mg/kg DRY WEIGHT

TotPCB 2.16 Tot PCS 0.32

APRXATION FOR V^AIVER 301 (h), NUT & DEER ISUNDS,1 984, METCAU= & EDDY

SAMPUNG,1979

Sampling '82

SAMPLING '84

Station

14

15

21

22 Stations 0

NIB

NO

Stations

11

sed class

3

2

3

1 seddass

2

1

2 seddass

2

Ag

7.73

7.8

14.3

3.8 Ag

0.1

0.1

0.1 Ag

0.3

Cd

4.4

2.9

3

1 An

2

2

2An

22

Or

0.255

0.259

0.302

0.054 As

3

3

6 As

4.7

Cu

0.239

0.143

0.192 ,034

Be

4.3

5

.7.4 Be

7.3

Hg

6.1

5.7

9.4

4.7 Cd

0.1

0.3

0.2 Cd

1.4

Pb

0.215

0.157

0.234

0.07 Or

23.4

52.9

35? Cr

176

Zn

0.317

0.197

0.242

0.107 Cu

15

40.9

21 Cu

125

Units mg/gdf>' weight

Hg

0.59

0.46

0.92 Hg

1.1

Ni

7.3

10.4

14.9 Ni

224

Pb

2

2

2Pb

94

Se

2

2

2Se

08

Th

3

4

4Th

6.3

Station

14

Zn

53.7

94

82.4 Zn

183

PCBs{ng/

365

Units ug/g

TRACE METAL ANALYSIS OF BOSTON HARBOR WATER SEDIMENTS,1 972

STATION 01

1 012 013 014

015

016

017

seddass

3

3

3

2

2

2

1

Cadmium

7.9

2.6

2.1

4.8

4.8

2

Chromium

167

31

109

108

150

256

26

Cobalt

10

12

8

27

28

17

Copper

360

39

70

48

73

116

16

Lead

112

82

89

87

42

168

18

Mercury

2.3

2

1.6

0.4

0.8

1.1

0.3

Molybden

0.5

10.2

11.4

1.9

1.8

3

0.8

Nid^el

40

25

8

18

27

44

32

Vanadium

48

31

56

37

43

80

25

Zinc

200

188

191

107

157

218

63

*

Pagel

Bay

STTE EVALUATION STUDIES OFTHE MASS BAY DISPOSAL SFTE,

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS 1 988

Station REF REF OF ON ON

JUN85 JAN86 SEP85 SEP85 SEP85

seddass 2 2 2 2 2

As 11.3 12.1 10 12 13.3

Cd 3 3 3 4 3

Or 70.3 84 72 134 102

Cu 18 27 23 75 84

Hg 0.1 0.01

Ni 33.3 24 24 31 26

Pb 41.3 97 58 151 161

Zn 95.3 110 105 233 206
METALS IN ppm dry weight
PAH,ppm 3

PCBppb 75 48 495 1240 ' 329

DISTRBUnON OF POLLLJTED MATERIALS IN MASS BAY, NE A, 1 976

Offshore Stations

Stations 1A

IB

2A

2B

3A

3B

4A

4B

5A

5B

sed dass

2

1

1

2

2

2

2

2

3

3

Cd

0.45

0.37

0.29

0.45

0.95

1.21

0.46

3.59

0.34

0.65

Cr

0.41

35

15

17

48

82

29

49

64

122

Cu

7.2

8.1

2.6

3.4

14.2

19.8

4

6.1

10

14.3

Hg

112

23

76

85

105

57

102

319

310

Ni

13.5

13.4

8.1

7.2

21.2

24.3

10.6

12.5

22.4

Pb

0.18

16

9

10

31

40

14

21

36

29

Zn

43

24

20

162

95

41

42

101

METALS IN ppm dry weight

PCBppb

2.4

2.7

02

4.4

1.8

2.7

0.3

2.3

3.3

1.8

Stations 6A

66

8A

8B

9A

9B

10A

10B

11A

11B

SedGass

1

1

3

3

3

3

2

3

3

3

Cd

0.31

0.29

1.08

1.01

1.99

1.03

0.28

1.19

0.49

Cr

10

28

121

82

126

55

97

93

85

69

Cu

1.9

4.9

29.1

16.2

27

16.3

14.9

36

17.9

16.2

Hg

22

457

196

172

288

89

264

162

177

Ni

8.1

9.9

32.4

11.9

26.8

44.5

14

55.9

34.7

17.8

Pb

6

12

50.03

71.92

44.27

73.49

34

49

51

91

Zn

26

28

2495

51

108

216

97

110

541

68

METALS IN ppm dry weight

PCBppb

1

3.1

3.6

2.1

1.2

0.32

1.3

2.3

4.7

7

Pagel

Bay

Stations 12A 12B 13A 13B 14A 14B 15A

seddass 3 2 1 3 2 3

Cd 0.12 0.19 2.14 0.6 0.38 0.9

Cr 94 91 104 83 26 15

Cu 21 10.4 24.5 19 114 14.6

Hg 323 107 132 409 111 167

Ni 29.6 31.3 45.6 35.6 28.9 15.4

Pb 38 44 65 106 33 14

Zn 119 80 110 116 332 304
METALS IN ppm dry weight

PCBppb 11.8 11.8 5.8 15.2 0.9 1.1

15B

16A

16B

2

37
11.5

50
16.7

16

68

0.9

2
0.29

46

9.8

121

23.1

46
245

1.4

017
74
157
168
8.4
35
20

18

3

0.64
51
99
236
144
46
84

15.1

Stations

17A

17B

18A

18B

I9A

19B

20A

20B

21 A

21 B

sed dass

3

3

3

2

1

3

3

2

3

2

Cd

1.05

0.47

1.13

1.77

0.57

1.66

0.26

0.46

045

072

0

105

39

73

92

71

61

70

74

91

87

Cu

20.6

9.9

19.8

21.1

14.2

9.9

15.9

15.5

23.6

m

Hg

262

294

151

71

33

568

341

125

161

126

Ni

29.4

15.9

27.9

46.1

??1

40.1

15.7

17.9

38.8

29.1

Pb

71

24

50

61

43

34

52

67

149

38

Zn

146

23

131

131

96

108

29

123

172

151

METALS IN ppm dry weight
PCBppb 3.1 0.9

2.1

2.1

3.3

6.5

7.9

12.8

Stations

22A

22B

23A

23B

24A

24B

25A

25B

26A

288

sed dass

3

3

2

3

3

2

2

2

3

2

Cd

0.13

0.79

0.66

0.32

0.14

0.74

0.45

0.38

0.35

0.43

Cr

57

90

47

46

45

45

59

18

76

32

Cu

20.3

19.1

13.7

10.3

10.5

17.5

9.6

7.2

16.9

39

Hg

4240

544

130

333

273

101

129

109

108

88

Ni

32.4

26.7

23.9

19.9

14.8

21

14

9.3

22.3

5.5

Pb

38

35

32

28

22

38

41

16

41

22

Zn

88

106

78

189

62

65

51

103

3131

10

METALS IN ppm dry weight

PCBppb

10.7

17.7

Ul

1.6

3.3

13.9

2.5

0.8

0.31

Stations

27A

27B

28A

28B

29A

29B

30A

30B

31 A

31B

sed dass

2

1

3

2

2

2

3

2

3

3

Cd

0.69

0.54

0.79

0.94

0.76

0.1

0.1

0.59

097

Cr

42

41

48

41

66

44

37

48

66

58

Cu

18.4

16.4

8.5

9.6

16.5

10.7

10

1^5

163

15-2

Hg

80

42

186

80

103

94

159

53

160

172

Ni

15.8

16.8

15.3

13.3

225

19.3

15

11i

32

23.5

Pb

37

27

29

38

41

25

31

35

62

34

Zn

48

78

124

60

195

248

110

96

271

270

METALS IN ppm dry weight

PCBppb

0.7

4.9

0.37

5.6

2.1

11

3.5

7

P8ge2

Bay

Stations

32A

32B

seddass

3 -

3

Cd

1.3

0.93

Cr

0.73

66

Cu

14.6

21.7

Hg

234

156

Ni

24.6

26.3

Pb

52

45

Zn

390

324

METALS IN ppm dry weight
PCBppb 4.3 4.8

ORGANIC POLLUTANT BiOGEOCHEMISTFY STUDIES, BATTELLE,1 984

Stations BH-7 MB-1 MB^ MB^ MM MB-7 MM MB-9 MB-10

Total PAH (ug/g) 0.8 14.3 2.3 0.6 3.5 1.3 0.3 0.2 1.5

Total PCB(ng/g) 14.5 39.3 21 4.6 82.9 24.7 23.4 2.3 25.3

Stations MB-11 MB-13 MB-14 MB-16 CC-1 CO-2

Total PAH (ug/g) 1.9 0.5 0.7 0.6 1 1.4

Total PC8 (ng/gj 7 6.7 10.3 5.1 31.3 26.9

APRXATION FOR WAIVER 301 (hi NUT & DEER ISLANDS,1 984, METCAU^ & EDDY
SAMRJNai979 Sanripling '82 SAMPUNG'84

Station 9Stafions CS PD Stations 6 7A 8 24

seddass 1 1 2seddass 12 11

Ag 2.4 Ag 8 5.9 Ag 0.1 0.07 0.1 0.1

Cd 0.7 An 0.062 0.56 An 2 12 3

Cr 0.018 As 0.1 0.1 As 4 2 7 4

Cu 0.014 Be 0.1 0.1 Be 5.59 3.24 4.82 6.97

Hg 3.7 Cd 2 2 Cd 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1

Pb 0.011 Ct 2 2Cr 11 16.6 12.3 25.3

Zn 0.043 Cu 2 2 Cu 4.6 2.4 1.5 2.8

Units mg/g dry weigh Hg 48.7 89.4 Hg 0.15 0.71 0.05 0.14

Ni 4 4Ni 5.3 3.2 9.1 15.5

Pb 3 3Pb 19 7.1 20 15

Se. 6.5 4.1 Se 0.9 0.4 0.5 0.7

Ttl 11.7 16Th 5 3 4 6

Zn 27 22.6 Zn 26.5 37 37.3 53.1

Units ug/g

Page 3

Bay

DISPOSAL AFE A MONfTORJNG, USACOE, 1 990

Station

1

5

3FG2:

t FG9

SE

sed dass

2

2

2

2

2

2

Arsenic

16.7

13.3

15

13

16.3

14.3

Chromium

16.7

Copper

21.7

29

23.7

18.7

23.3

19

Lead

46.2

62.4

51.8

40

46.7

46.3

Nickel

32.7

31

30.7

32.7

29.7

31.3

Zinc

94.9

104.6

93.2

95

94.3

84.7

PCB 0.05 0.22 0.06 0,04 0.08 0.04

All measurements in ppm. Means for top 2cm of cores.

RNAL EIR FOR THE IDENTIFICATION OF DFEDGED
MATERIAL DISPOSAL SfTES IN CAPE COD BAY. 1 990

SfTI B

C

D

E

sed dass

2

2

2

2

Arsenic

14

16

15

15

Cadmium

0.7

0.9

0.9

0.8

Chromium

43

48

39

30

Copper

18

20

20

16

Lead

40

36

38

31

Mercury

0.3

0.4

0.6

0.6

Nidcel

22

27

26.92

22.78

Varmdium

92

98

20

16

Zinc

84

88

108

87

All measurements in ug/g dry weight and averaged from four stations.

TRACE METAL ANALYSIS OF BOSTON HARBOR WATER SEDIMENTS,1 972
Surface concentrations in ppm.
STATION 018 019

sed dass

1

1

Cadmium

3.3

2.4

Chromium

74

63

Cobalt

22

12

Copper

36

40

Lead

16

40

Mercury

0.2

0.2

Molytjden

1.9

4

Nid(el

39

16

Vanadium

99

42

Zinc

110

99

Page4

Qay

WelHIeetHarbc

)r Dredging Project 1 987, U.S. A.C.O.I

Station

1

2

3 5

Sed Class

2

3

3 1

As

17.8

23.6

27.3 8.5

Cd

4

4

9 3

Cu

28

31

69 17

Hg

0.3

0.2

0.71 0.2

Ni

18

18

49 11

Pb

37

4B

126 26

Zn

107

114

306 66

Metals in ppm

PC8

13

13

13 13

PCBinppb

Pages

APPENDIX C

CONFIRMED HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES WITHIN 500' OF COASTAL
WATERS OR THE MERRIMACK RTVER

M»nzi»-Cun &A)9octuts, Inc.
KF FMdy, inc. Project No. 90108-B

Much 9. 1991
P»9t$or39

2.0 Sites Within SOOFeet Of Massachusetts Coastal
Waterways And The Merr/madt River To Pawtucket Dam

2.1 Coastal

Amesbury

OEPSit« DEPNMoand
Number Stta Ltcalion

Sili H-H«zMil DrainM* Manzit-Ciirt

CtaM P-PtI Batin Amm. SileNe.

3-02M B^ey$ Pond Parcel

Memmeck It Beacon Sb C

H

ME

3-0528 Former Merrimack Halt

Merrimack l( Beacon Ste 6

H

ME

M615 Property

Merrimack Street

H

ME

Salisbury

DEPSite DEPNtnawd
Nwnbar Stta Ltcatian

Site H-HazIM OffiinM» MMizle-Cm

Otss P-Pet Basin Aiaac. SitaNa.

3-1181

Exxon Station
591 No. End Blvd.

NS

218

Newburyport

DEPSita DEPNMiaand
Nunbar Stta Lacatlan

Sila

H-Haz Mat Drainaf a Manzia-Cart
P-Pat Baaki Aaaac. SRa Na.

3-2837

Bank of Nev England
345MefflmackSt

H&P

ME

2t3

3-2947 FormerCa^DOICo.

115 VMer Street

HaiP

ME

214

Menzle-Cura S( Assoctatas, Inc.
KF FWddy. Inc Pro)»cl No 9010e-B

MarcM 1991

Newburyport (continued)

DEPSHt DEPNanewid
Number Stte Locdien

Cl4M P-Ptt bukn AMM.SAiNt.

3-2425 Gould Asaociat 63

374Men1iTUCkSt

B

ME

217

3-1295

Motor Shop
37 Liberty a

\MK

ME

3-1771

Property(Gas Station)
189Me(Timac)(St

ME

3-1965 Property

MenlmeckatKentSts C

ME

3-0919 Tovr^eSHverCo

260MerHrrAckSt

B

iMK

ME

216

3-2883 WEAtkirwonCo

27W8^efStreef

B

ME

21S

RowUy

DEPSttt

DEPNMietfitf

Sit

H-HttkM

DnlrMi*

Uenzit-Curt

Number

SReLecatien

CItst

P-Pek

B«sin

Amm. Sllf Ne

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

UIA

NVA

Ipswich

DEPSRe
Number

DEPNMieani
SReLecaUen

SRe

H4taz
P-Pet

Dnintfe ytrude-Cun
Aseec. SReNe.

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

hVA

N/A

M*nzt»-Cun & Assodat*). Inc.
KF FWddy, Inc. Project No. 9O10e-B

Mvcn5,1991
P»9*7cr99

Newbury

DEPSttt
Numbtr

DEPNamstfid
Stto Localion

Sttt H-HttlMt Dfyntft Mtnzie-Cwi

CltM P-Ptt Bttin A«9M. SRo Nq.

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N^A

N/A

Essex

OEP SHe
Number

DEP Name and
Site LocatiMi

Sttf H-H«ziyM DrainMt Mtnzit-Cwi

CItM P-Pet Bttin Assoc. SRe No.

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

f«A

N/A

Gloucester

DEPSile
Number

DEPNomemi
SttoLociUon

Stto
CliM

3-0752

>^ eric old

159 E»Mn Street

B

3-0753

Mietfeoid
69Roger9St

6

3-0134

C&pe>knn Forge
WhittemoreSt

B

3-2130

Exxon Station
IHoRySt

C

3-0841

FormerGae Station
134ViteNngtonSt

C

H-fiez iuW DfiiiMmo Monzio^iiiio
P-Pit BiHn Atow.SRoNo.

UNK

UNK

H

NS

NS

NS

IP

IP

172

173

10

12

174

3-2890 QoucesterHerborCove

27 Rogers Street C

3-2172 Qouceeter Marine ReiKi«y9

9HarborLoop C

NS

NS

175

9

Merut»-Cura & Assodalts, Inc.
KF R»ddy, Inc Project No. 90106-8

P»9»«of39

Gloucester (continued)

Number

3-3017

3-2305

3-1152

3-2678

OEPHtmttni
SHe LoceUtn

SItt
Clesa

H4U2M^
P-Pet

OrainM*
Betin

AestC. SAtNt

L 0 b$t er C ove Mkt a^ Marlrta
33RiverR(MK)

C

IP

11

Mass Electric
26Rog6f9St

C

NS

176

Mobil Station
Rogere&MdnSt

C

NS

7

Propwty
8 School Street

C

NS

8

Rockport

DEPSHe DEP Name and
Nufflber Site LaeaMon

Sita
Ctaaa

3-1090 Cape^^nnTool
Pigeon Co>/e

B

3-1091 TerrSchool
School Street

C

Manchester

DEPSRe DEPNMieane
Nwabtr Silt LteiHtfi

SKt

CItM

3-3248 Marine Storage Asen
1 2 AsNend Avenue

c

H-HazIM DralnMe Mtnzle^vt
P-Pat Beam Aaaac.StteNa

H&P

N5

NS

tHtazltel Dr^naff

13

H

NS

y*nzJe<i
Amm. SRt Nt.

15

M»nzl»-Qjn & Assodatts, inc.
KF Rtddy, Inc. Ptoj/kA No. 90109-B

Mirch5,l99l
P»9*9or33

Beverly

DEPSIIt
Nimibtr

DEPNMtand
Silt Location

Sfto

Cltao

H4telMt
P-Pot

Boiin

Ivlonzlo-Cort
Aoooc. Sito No

3-1568

Be3t Petroleum
437RflntouiSt

C

P

IP

51

3-0234

Beverly Chemical Co
W«er Street (Tuck'eR)

B

H*P

NS

16

3-2451

BeveriyDPWYerd
148 Pert: Street

C

P

IP

52

3-3185

OiPlero"e Boon
472^74 Rentoul St

c

P

ip

56

3-2585

FomterMerinaVerd
llCabotSt

c

P

IP

58

3-0608

GetevayTovers
58-60 Rentoul St

c

HkP

IP

57

3-1938

Previous BuldkiQ
190-200 Rentoul
end 31-33 Park

c

H

IP

55

3-2887

Morton TMokol

YentronDMeion

12Conor6ee

c

P

NS

234

3-0100

Property
123 Part: St

c

P

IP

59

3-1811

Property
n-25VMerSt

c

P

NS

60

3-3027

Property
324-326 Rentoul St

c

UNIC

IP

53

3-3285

Richdale Store #64
74 Rentoul St

c

P

IP

54

M0n2to-Cura & Associaws, Inc.
KF n*ddy, Inc PTo)*ct No. 9O10e-d

MarctiS. 1991
P»9>10of}3

Beverly (continued)

DEP SiU

DEP Name tf)4

SHe

H-Ha2iMlil

Dramaie

Utnat-Cure

Number

Site Lecttien

Cleee

P-Pet

B«iln

AMec.StteNe

3-1585

Shore Saies

97Riv«rStrert

C

P

IP

233

Salem

DEPSite
Number

DEPNiaeend
SiteLecatien

Site
Clau

3-1709

Boston Gas-Sdem Lng Ptt
RerceAve&VMtSt

A

3-1212

DarbioLandinoMahna
lOWWeSt

C

3-2135

FwrnarTanlcFanTi
S7Whafa

C

3-04 2S

Grit & Grease Chambers
50 Fort Avenue

C

3-0433

GTES>4v«rM
71 Lorino Avenue

B

3-0918

Jeff'aAutoSefvtta
65 Bridge St

C

3-2898

MassBedric
Derby 3iH«»<home

C

3-0865

Nev England Pover
24 Fort Avenue

C

3-1359

Property
285DarbySt

c

H-Htzyet DrtiTMge Uenzfe-Cura
P-Pet Bttiin AsaecSiteNe.

HikP

UNK

HaiP

H

H

UNK

UNK

MS

NS

NS

NS

NS

NS

NS

NS

NS

17

44

45

46

50

48

18

47

21

M»nzto-Cun St AssxtaMs, inc.
KF R»<«y, Inc, Pfojtd No 90106-B

Mvcft5.1991
Pa9»110f39

Salem (continued)

DEPSitt DEPNtmetfitf
Nunbif Silt Localion

Sil9

Cltti

3-1776 Property

3 11 Derby Street

c

3-2084 Property

281Derbya(
24-26 Conpreee

c

3-1710 Salem Warehouse
12FranfclinSt

c

3-1480 SoutMandCorp
CongreesltDerby

B

Marblehead

DEPSit8 DEPNMieantf
NMiber Sttt LecitiMi

Sttt

H-tItt kM IMntf f Mtnzit^irt
P-Ptt BMin Amm. SRt Nt.

UNK

H

NS

NS

NS

NS

22

19

49

20

H-Htz Mat Driimie ytnzlt-Ciiri
P-Ptt Beain Attw. SttaNa.

3-0830

3-0605

3-3235

3-2300

3-2122

3-1683

Ooutman'e Boat Yard
CirfaiCommonveaKh C

Former Excon Station
27AtlanticAye C

Mobil Station
IIAUanticAve C

PhiMpsJi Lee Gulf Stab on
28AtianticAve C

Property

Doalc'e Lane C

Star of the Sea
OO/t^antlcAye C

NS

NS

NS

NS

NS

NS

24

61

62

63

25

64

Mtn2l»-Cun & AssocM«9, inc.
KF R»<«y, Inc. Projwa No. 901 0$-©

MVCfiS 1991

Swampscott

OEP Site
Number

DEP Name and
Site Location

SMa
Cltaa

H-HazMat
P-Pe(

OrainM*
Basin

Man2ifr-Cva
AMac SAtNa

3-2440

BP Service Station
441 Humphrey SI

C

NS

66

3-0438

FomierGw Station
646 Humphrey St

C

NS

67

3-2008

GdsStetlon
545 Humphrey St

C

NS

68

3-1433

kCmg's LandNig
Humphrey St

C

NS

65

3-2306

Mot)it Staitlon
620 Humphrey St

C

NS

69

Lynn

DEPSKo
Number

DEP Name and
Site Location

Stte

Claas

H-HiZlMt
P-Pat

Dralntie
Basin

yenzle-Cvi
Amoc. Site No

3-1678

Eastern Smeling
37-39 5ut)ier St

B

UNK

NS

26

3-1308

fonnerCoal
Gaaeirication Piant
RUeyWay

A

HtiP

NS

27

3-2379

GE, Cooper St Lots
Cooper&FVver Std

C

P

NS

26

3-2180

GERIvef Works South
Commercial St

B

HdiP

NS

70

3-3047

Property
lOOMflilneBlvd

C

HdiP

NS

71

M»nzt»-Cura & AssodaMs, inc.
KF RKWy. Inc. ProjKt No. 90106-B

Mvcn5,1991
Pli9*13or33

Saugus

DEPSi(e
Number

DEPNMiem4
Site Lecitien

Site

CitM

3-0044

DeveyD&ooett LandTi
Route 107

C

3-1599

GELendn
Route 107J 100
Western Ave

B

H-Haz Mtf OrainM« Menzie-Cwi
P-Pel BMin AtsocSfteNe.

H

H

NS

NS

177

178

Nahant

DEPSfte
Nrniber

DEPNeneentf
Site Lecation

Site H-HazIM Drainaie Uenzle-Cart

Class P-Pet Basin Assoc. Site Ne.

NtfA

N/A

N/A

N/A

WA

N/A

Revere

DEPSIte

DEP Name and

SRe

Ntmber

Site LKaklen

Oass

3-1568

Beet Petroleutn

1781 No Shore Rd

c

3-2032

Meitin'e Auto Body

1456 No Shore Rd

c

3-0770

Property

460 Revere Beach 6M

c

3-1467

Revere Property

6460ceenAve

c

H-Haz Mat Drainaie Menzle-Cvra
P-Pet Basin Assoc. Site Ne.

UNK

MB

MB

MB

MB

72

73

74

75

Menzto-Cuni & AssodaMs, inc.
KF FWddy, Inc Pro^ No 90106-B

P»7»14ofJ3

Chelsea

DEPSttt
Numbtr

DEPNMittfid
Stte Ltc«titn

Silt

Citts

H4te2lM
P-Ptt

Drilna|t
Bttm

Mtnzit-Ctrt
Aattc. SAtNt

3-2645

99MergJna/S(

C

P

MB

99

3-2298

Chelsea Creek

HeadwortofMViRA)

340M«rgin8<St

c

P

MB

100

3-0163 CumbertandFamw Oil Term

123 Ewtem Avenue C

HkP

MB

101

3-2211 GuirOII

281 East em Avenue

MB

102

3-0821 Northeast Petroleum

324-264 Marginal St

3-1795 Property

29SEaatemAve

3-0291 Samuel Cabot; bic.

229 Marginal St

AliB

HkP

UNK

Hk?

MB

MB

MB

106

103

10S

Winthrop

DEPSKt DEPNMittritf
Numbtr Sftt LtcaUtn

Silt

CItM

3-1283 Daarlaland Treatment Plant

Daerbiand C

H-HtzMtl OninMt Mtruit^irt
P-PtI Bftiin Atatc. SSaNt.

MB

149

M»nzt»-Qjn & A$9ociai«$, inc.
KF FWddy, Inc. ProfKi No. 90106>8

Much 5, 1991
P»9»1$of33

Everett

DEPStte
Nymber

DEP Name end
SHe LocaUen

Stte

CtMf

3-0308

Bo9t on G» Plant
Rover St

C

3-0309

FofmcrCod
GflMftofltion Fecity
Market ^BeahanSts

A

3-1395

bidependant Cam^
CofnmsicWSt

C

Somerville

\

DEPStte
Nynber

DEPNametfid
StteLecitlen

Stte
Claee

H-Haz Mi CMntf e Menzie-Ceri
P-Pet Betin Aeaec. Stte Ne.

UNK

H

H

H^tezIM
P-Pal

MB

MB

MB

146

H7

148

Oriinafa Menzie-Cm
Baain Aaaac. SReNe.

3-0434

3-0951

Cambridge Mac hina Prod
100 Foley St 6

<3ffrityOSCo
100Sturtr»«ntSt 6

HAP

MS

MS

30

31

3-0S49

3-1096

HKPortarCo
74 Foley St

PannOiCo
St urt event St

B

MS

MS

29

32

Chartestown (Boston)

DEPSRa DEPNanawii
Nanbar Stte Lec^an

Stta

H-HazMal IMnt|a Manzie-Cm
P-Pat Baain Aaaae.SieNe.

3-0923

Boston Ed^ilyatic Sta
176 /Word St

HaiP

MB

40

Menzi»-ajrai & Assodalts, Inc.
KF n*<Jdy, Inc. Pm)»ct No. 901<»«

Chartestown (Boston - continued)

Nimber

3-2039

3-0244

3-2057

3-2058

3-1307

3-0694

3-2551

3-2910

3-2530

3-0040

DEPNMitand

Sit

SfteL»ctUon

Otsa

BunkarHIReflnety

423MecirordSt

C

Federal Metai Finishing

18DarrenceSt

B

Fomncr Dry Cleaner

Che)«ea3i<3raySt5

C

Loop Viadud

169Portiend

C

Mtrapoit

333MedrordSt

e

Ma99poit, Former

SchiavoneStte

lOOTarminfliSt

c

Moran^jtysbc Pier

TennirMt St

c

Ryan Field

>4rordSt

a

NavChar1eatov«n

Pump Station

MordSt

c

WMmoreVAight

62>WordSt

6

H-HtzIM CMnM* Mtnadt-Cwi
P-PtI Btain AMtc.SitNa.

H

H

Hit,?

H

H«cP

UNK

MB

HB

HB

MB

MB

MB

MB

MB

MB

MB

33

37

41

42

34

39

36

35

36

43

M»nzi»-Cun & Assodaits, inc. Much 5, 1991

i(FR«Jdy,tncPTO)tctNo.9010e-B Pa9»17of33

East Boston

OEPStte DEPNametntf Site H-HaziuM Dninage Manzia-Cara

Number Stte Locatian Clate P-Pat Baain Aeaac.StteNe.

3-1935 AvwRantACar

375McaelianHvy C P MB 114

3-1577 BetcherNev England

vjH I orniinei
McOdiflnHvy C P MB 115

3-2841 Constnictlon Lot

480McaeiaiHvy C P MB 116

3-1486 CovenA Service Co

73Addi3onSt B H MB 110

3-3068 EeetBoetonCentniPier

OydeSt C P MB 106

3-0700 FoiTnerAT^oco

470MeHdlenSt C P MB 117

3-0177 Loef:pottMeni^6Ctuflng

99RCondorSt B UN< MB 111

3-1116 M4d$port

256Mergin8fSt C P MB 109

3-1558 MotdOaCorp

580Chel3eaSt C P MB 112

3-0528 Old Natvy Fuel Depot

McOeienHwy C P MB 119

3-1923 Property

175McQel8nHvy C P MB 118

3-1906 Servtee SteUon

52MeHdlen C P MB 107

M9nzt»-Cura & Assodatos, Inc.
KF Rtddy, Inc. Projta No. 901 06-B

MirctiS 1991
P»9»ieof39

Boston

DEPStta
Nmnbtr

DEPNMieani
Sttt Location

Silo

ClOM

P-Pot

Oroina|t
BMin

M»n2ft-Cva
Amoc. SRiNo

3-2297

Colunbus P«1(
Columbus Pflfk

c

p

MB

119

3-0248

PornierMoM Station
425 Summer St

c

p

MB

123

3-2809

Harbor G0tev«y
hduathalPark
Drydock Avenue

B

p

MB

122

3-1819

Property
324MarQinaiSt

C

UNK

MB

121

3-2S74

Property
285McaelianHVfy

c

P

MB

120

3-2169

USNftv/
BoatonNavBiSNpyard

B&D

H

MB

124

Dordiestar (Boston)

DEPSRe
Nimbor

DEPNmoani
SMoLocaUon

Sio

CtaM

H-Htt
P-Ptt

3-0152

BIW Cable Systems
65 Bay Street

6

H

3-2656

Boston Globe
135Mo(TtoseyBtvd

6

H«iP

3-2706

Commercial Property
725Mom$sey6ivd

C

P

3-2478

Merinfli
24Bi(sonSt

C

P

IMnM* Monzle-Cvt

Amoc. SNiNo.

138

MB

MB

MB

MB

139

140

141

M»nz)t-Cun & A$)odii»s, inc.
KF Rt<My. Inc. PTOjtct No. 9010e«

M»cn5,1991
P»9t19or39

Dorchester (Boston - continued)

DEPSMt
Nuinber

DEPNtmetfid
Stte Lwatiwi

SKt
Ctass

3-1430

MNeRdDump
CoJumbiaPt

C

3-0182

Puritan MaK
741MonlM0yBlvd

c

3-0252

Recordngand
SSMorrineyBivd

B

3-3239

SheNSUtfon
SSSMorrtaseyBlvd

C

South Boston

DEPSite
Hmkm

DEPNMtantf
StttLeciftien

8Ne

dm

H-H«z Mi DrainMt Mtnzje-Cift
P-Ptt BMin AMec. Stte No.

UNK

H

MB

MB

MB

MB

142

143

144

145

H-HtzlMt Driintft Mtnzlo^«n
P-Ptt BMin Attte. Stte Ne.

3-1447 Atlantic SaaCova

400-408C8t

MB

125

-1901

DaconTranaportaUon
329W2ndSt

MB

126

3-0996

Eastern IndexCorp
206W2ndSt

MB

127

3-0636

r owt ar rafnavoiT n

RbarCo

24 Famavorth St

B

MB

128

3-0045

jaiBPtasticaCo
314W2ndSt

8

UNK

MB

129

3-0056 KingTarminal

Summer, Elat&KSta

MB

190

Menzle-Cura & Associates, inc.
KF «•<**/, Inc. Protect No, 9010e-B

MVCt)S. 1991
P»9t20o<r3

South Boston (continued)

DEPSita OEPNMtantf
Numbtr Stte Ltc«titn

Silt
CtaM

3-2702

LStBathHouse

LST^iDcyBtvd

C

3-0839

LaidtavWhdte Systems

S30El8tSt

C

3-H16

NorcrossCo

401Wl9tSt

B

3-3077

So Boat on Yacht Gub

1849Coiumt)l&Rd

C

3-1918

South PoatiJ^nn ex

135ASt

C

3-05S5

South Station Foundeti on

Summer St

c

^0257

TexBco South Boston

TenrtneJ

900 E let St

c

H4te2Mal OrMnAft Mtrmt^art
-Ptt B«»ln Aaetc.SAeNe.

MB

MB

MB

MB

MB

MB

131

132

133

134

135

136

UNK

MB

137

Quincy

DEPSitt
NuBktr

DEPNttntMi
SfttLieiUMi

att

3-0915

Captain'eCove
Cove Way

c

3-2192

CofTvnerdal Property
399 E Squentum St

c

3-0966

Frank's Tre

678 Southern Mery

c

H-HkIM DnririM* Mtnzlt-Cvt
P^tt Buin AMtc.SltNt.

HkP

MB

MB

MB

92

91

Mtnzto-Qn & AssoctMs, inc. MvchS, 1991

KFn«Jdy,lncPTOJ*dNo.90106-e Pa9*21c09

Quincy

DEPSJIt
Nuinbtr

DEPNMieind
sue LaciUon

Sile
Clus

3-1016

GtsofineSpi

199 Commander Shea

C

3-0971

Getty Statton

665 Quincy Shore Dr

c

3-2252

Jordan Marsh

500 Commander Shea

c

3-2427

McLeo(f$ Surfelda Station
305 CXincy Shore Dr

c

3-1859

MaHna Bay Complex
333yictoryRd

c

^2766

PompeoMotore
666 Southern >ftery

c

M443

Property
57^593 Southern

c

M7D4

Property
542ESquantum

c

3-3222

OuJncyOPW Garage
55 Sea Street

c

3-0117

Quinoilnduetried
726 Southern >ktery

c

3-1291

StopNShop

495 Southern >Wefy

c

3-0005

Suioco Station
555 Southern Mery

c

H4taz Mit Dreintie Mtnzit^iri
?'?9K toin AMoc.SitNt.

MB 93

MB 94

MB 95

H&P MB 96

MB 97

HliP MB 69

MB 86

UNK MB 98

MB 84

MB 88

H MB 85

MB 67

Men2l»-Cura & AssodiMs, Inc.
KF RwJdy, Inc. Pn\/KA No. 90106-B

Braintree

OEPSHt
Number

DEPNMitand
Site Location

Site
CItoe

H-haziM
P-Pot

DniriMO
Btttln

MtnzJe-Ciirt
Aeeoc.StteNe

3-2893

444QuirtcyAve

C

P

WF

150

3-2389
3-1799

Arrow Rivet Co
G en ereil C h 6rnic8d C 0
60CoiumbiaTetT

B
B

H
H

WF
WF

151
151

3-0260
^0529

CKgo Breintree Iwrind
a een Herb ore, Inc.
385QuJncyAye

C
C

HAP
HliP

WF
WF

153
153

3-1605

PHbotte'sAutoSeivaQe
ColumbiaTerraiCif St

C

P

WF

154

3-2085

MetropotttfiYechtOub
30 Vinedde St

C

P

WF

155

3-0145

PlyvoodRench
288 Quincy Avenue

c

P

WF

156

3-2010

Property

431-441 Quincy Ave

c

P

WF

157

Weymouth

DEPSAo DEPNMomtf
Number SRe Loc«tien

SRo

H-Hazyat Dnlnaie yonzio-Cun

P-Po( Duski A890C.9ReNe.

3-tS71

3-2387

Best Petroleum
520 Bridge St

BoetonEdtoon
Edgar Stetion
1 Bridge St

WF

W6

152

159

M»nzt^Cun & AS)odat«$, inc.
KF R^Jdy, Inc. ProfKi No. 90106-6

Mucn$.1991
P*9*29 0O3

Weymouth (continued)

DEPSilt OEPNMietnd
Number Sfta Locition

Silt H-HizMtl

Clttt P-Pti

Drtintft Mtnzit-Ciri
Bttin Aaaoc. Stta Nt.

3-1314

3-3146
3-3227

3-1547

Propwty
770-780 BHdge St

Shel Station
ShHI Station
351 Bridge Street

Short Stop Auto

525 Bridge St

B

WF

WF

WF

161

162

163

Hingham

DEPSttt
Number

DEP Nine and
SRe Lec^en

3-0037

BeareCoveViaoe
BeeTdCoveRd

3-1310

Former Sunoco
223 Lincoln St

3-0648

Lincoln Plaza
LincolnliBeelSte

^2788

MotiStttlon
24 Summer St

3-0570

Property
IIOBealSt

3-1513

ShavSaab
425 Lincoln St

Stte H-HizMat DnlnMt Menzle-Cura

aase P-Pet Besin Aseec. StteNe.

HkP

H

WB

WB

WB

WB

WB

WB

158

164

165

168

167

168

MBn2t»-Cun & Assoclitos, Inc.
KF n^tty, Inc. Pio)Kl No. 9010$-B

Hull

DEP Site
Number

DEP Name and
Site Location

Silo

CItoo

3-1767

Hull Fire Dept
671Ntn(e9ket

C

3-0337

HutlMunUohtino Plant
EdgevBier Avenue

C

3-0661

NeeTs Service
268AAtlenticAve

c

3-302S

Property

7-1 31/2 Nentesket Ave

c

3-3114

Property
6 A Street

c

3-3153

Wftveiend Marina
7 A Street

c

3-0907

Waveland Service Station
663 Nantasket Avenue

c

H-HazMat Drainafo Mtnzie-Cvt
P-Pot Btoln Aaeoc.SAeNe.

UNK

UNK

MB

MB

MB

MB

MB

MB

MB

76

32

7i

79

60

77

61

Cohasset

DEP Sito

DEPNainomd

Sito

Nunbof

Sito Location

Claoo

3-1814

Old State Houae

40 Border St

c

M478

Realdence

52JeruMiemRd

c

3-2552

ReatauTMi

44 Border St

c

H^ltzlkltt Drynaso Monzio-Cwi
P-Po( Baoin Aoooc. SiteNe.

169

SS

SS

SS

170

171

Monzi»-Cun & A$)odMs, Inc.
KF R^ddy, Inc Proftct No 90106-8

Much 5, 1991

Scituate

DEPStte DEPNMietnd
Nwnbtr Silt Location

Stto H-HozIhM Dnim%$ Monzio-Curt

Cku P-Pot Btiin Aootc. SiloNo.

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Marshfield

DEPSito OEPNonoond
Numkor Stto Location

Sito H-HaikW Drakiaio Monzlo-Cm

CloM P-Pol Daoin Aaaoc. SlloNo.

4-0466 Green HarbofMaflna
Route 139

SS

160

4-0378 Tft^orMailneCorp

95 Central St

SS

179

Duxbury

DEPSito OEPNanoand
Nimbor SRo LocoUon

Silo H^lazMal Drilnaio Monzlo^m

Oaao P-Pot Baiin Aaaoc. SRo No.

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Plymouth

Nanbor

4-0445

4-0140

4-0293

DEP Mmio and
SRo LocoUon

SRo

Claaa

H4la2iMW
P-Pat

Drainaio
Baam

Uofizio-Cara
Aaaac. SRaNa

Bradley Automotive
23 Sen<Mch Street

C

HiiP

N/A

184

Cw)on EnQb^eetlno
Cordage Pvk

e

HAP

r«A

181

Cterk'e Sunoco
StateRo&d

c

P

N/A

187

M>nzl»-Cura & AssoctMs, Inc.
KF R*dd/, Inc. Project No. 9010(-B

MVCf)5,1W1
P»9»2eo03

Plymouth (continued)

DEP 3tt9
NiMBber

DEP Name and
Site Ltc^ion

sua
CJaas

4-0272

Eagle Snacks
SendriDr&HedgeRd

C

4-0539

GettyGas SUtion
724 Stdte Road

C

4-0446

102 Court Street

c

4-0600

Property
115S«idM<chSt

c

4-0770

Revere Copper d( Brass
VMerStPflcJtty

B

4-0418

Souaa'e Garage
11 1 Sandsiteh St

C

Sandwich

DEP Site
NiMiber

DEPNtntani
Site Licatian

Stta
Claaa

H-HazMal Dnrinafa Manzia-Cvt
P-Pat Basin AnacSfttNa.

H3(P

HliP

H

UlA

HiA

N/A

WA

N/A

N/A

182

188

183

186

167

185

H-HazMttt Dralnafla yanzta-Cara
P-Pal Stain Aaaac.SiaNa.

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Barnstable

DEPSita DEP Nana and
Nanfcar Stta LaciUan

Sita
Claaa

4-0732 Property

84HerborRd

C

4-0624 Le>i«e BayMotel
53 South Street

C

H4tezMiA Drainafa Uanzia-Carm
P4>at Baain Aaaac. SttaNa.

235

UNK

HtA

UlA

236

M»nzt»-Cun & Associatts, inc.
<F Rtddy. Inc. Pfojtct No 90106-B

Mvcf)5,1991
P»99 27of33

Barnstable (continued)

4-0609

Property

335 Eel River Road

UlA

237

Yarmouth

DEPSRe
Numbar

DEPNwieantf
Site Lecitttn

SRe H-HttMit Dnrintf* Mtnzl0<wi

OtM P-Pet Satin Attte. SRtNt.

4-0867 Greg's AUtoSded

12Deiiver/Road

H

hVA

238

4-0519

SNp Shope

130 PI eeeant Street

UNK

N/A

239

Dennis

DEPStte
NviDber

DEP Name and
Site Lecatitn

SMe H-HazIM Drainafa Menzie-Cwa

Oast P-Pat Batin Aatae. StteNa.

f^A

WA

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Brewster

DEP Site

NIHn Vvi

DEP Name and
SilaLacatian

SRa
Clatf

H-ttaz
P-Pat

Dialnafa Manzit-Cira
Baain Aatac. SRa Na.

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Harwich

DEP Site
Naiabar

DEP Name and
SttaLaciUan

SRa

data

H-Haz
P-Pal

Dnrinafa Manzia-Cara
Baain Aaaw. SRaNa.

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

M0nzt»-cura & AM9OCM0S, Inc.
KF n»ddy, Inc. Project No. 90106-B

\MlCt\Z 1991
P»f9»2«or33

Chatham

DEPSitt
Numbtr

DEPNiMtand
sua LtcaUtn

Sftt

Clatt

H4tezlyUt
P-PtI

Ofiinait
Bttm

Utnzit-Cva
Atatc. SRtNt

4-0264

OldMHIBoatywd
608 Stage Harbor Road

C

UNK

KVA

240

Orleans

DEPSat
Number

DEP Name and
Site LacaUan

Sila H-HazMal Drtfrtaoe ManzJa-Cm

Clua P-Pat Basin Aiaac. SItaNa.

4-0136

Property
HAxhorWay

UNIC

UlA

241

Eastham

DEPSNa
Numaaf

DEP Nana and
Slla LaeaUan

SRa

Qaaa

H-Haz
P-Ptt

DnInMi klanzla-Cvi
Aaaac. SItaNa.

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

HiA

N/A

WdKieet

DEP SRa
Numbar

DEP Name and
Stta Lacatian

SRa
Claaa

H-Haz
P-Pal

Dralntfla hlanzie-Cva
Basin Asaae. SRaNa.

UIA

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Truro

DEP SRa

DEP Name and

SRa

H-HtzMat

Drainaoe

Manzlt-Care

Numbar

SRa Lacatian

Clasa

P-Pat

Basin

Asa ac. SRaNa

4-0172

USAF No Truro
hataUtionSTP

•

OrfAldrichfld

C

UNK

UlA

203

M»nzl»-Cura & AS90ctat»$, inc.
ICF Rtddy, Inc. Pro^ No. 90106-6

Mvct)9,1991
Pa9929of93

Provincetown

DEPStte DEPNMi9tfid
Hmbw Stte LmiUm

Stte
Ciua

H-H«z IkM DrwMie Menzit-Cwt
P-Ptt BMin AssM.Stt^Nt.

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

r«A

N/A

^,^ Inland Memmack fflrar To Pawtucket Dam
Menimac

DEPStta
Nmbtr

DEPNMi0Md
Stt« LocaUtn

SNt

CitM

H-Htz
PHPtI

Dnintie Mtnzif-Cin
Aaaoc. Silt Nt.

N/A

N/A

N/A

r«A

N/A

N/A

West Nevrbury

OEPSite DEPNMiWitf
Nimibtr Sit0 LtctUm

Stt9 H-HtzIM OriinMe Menzft^vrt

CIm P-Ptrt Biiin AMOC.StttNt.

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

r«A

N/A

Haverhill

DEPSSe
NMiibtr

DEPMMtmd
SRtLocalitn

Sit H-HazMat Drairaft Htnzit-Ciin

Ctett P-PtI BMin AMM.SRtNt.

3-2324 OeafyOnnera

205 VMer Street

H

ME

189

3-2396 Cumbertand Farms

Fiver and Lowel Ste.

ME

190

3-1541

DeiryQueen
454 River Street

ME

191

Monzl»-Cura & Assodatos, Inc
KF n*<My, Inc. Pro)»ct No. 9O10e-e

P»7»30ofJ3

Haverhill (continued)

3-2189 HtverhlGftzette

417WwtLovelAve

ME

192

3-2771

Menlrracyaley
Regiond Transit
85RaflroadAv6

ME

193

3-1312 Memrmclndustrta)

Rfwhew
33Railro&dAv6nue

6

H

ME

m

3-1448 Metal Rake, Inc.

10 15 Western Ave

B

H

ME

195

3-1324

Pap eitoard Corp.
100 South Kimbali

B

ME

196

3-1672 Property

310 East Bro&dvBy

UNK

ME

197

3-1838 Property

285 South Hvar Street C

UNK

ME

180

3-1852 Property

1 63 Menimack Street C

UNK

ME

199

3-2940

Property

261 River Street

ME

200

3-3157

3-2323

Property

25-35 RfllroadSq.

ShelyMotorCo.
229 VMer Street

H

ME

ME

201

202

It4*nzi»-Cun & AssoditiM, inc.
KF R9ddy. Inc. Piojtd No. 90106-B

Mlkrcns.1991
P»9»91 0(33

Groveland

OEPSHe DEPNamaand

sue

Nuiiibtr Site Locatiwi

Ctais

H-H«z Mat Drainaf • Manzla-Cart
P-Pet Baiin Assoc. Sita Na.

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

hVA

Methuen

DEPSila
Nankar

DEPNaiaeand
Stta Lacatian

Sita
Clasa

H^tezMat
P-Pat

Drainaia
Basin

Manzia<ari
Asaac.SftaNa

3-2879

Merrlmac Valley
Wood Products
476 Loves Street

6

P

ME

219

3-1685

Methuen Dump Site
6umhsm3(Rlvereide

C

UNK

ME

222

3-0142

Middle East Bakery
miRiverBide

C

P

ME

220

5-0179

Old Colony Gas Stelion
460 Level Street

C

P

ME

221

North Andovar

DEPSita
Naaibar

DEPNanawid
SitaLac«Uan

SKa

Claaa

H-HazMal
P-Pal

Drainaia
Basin

Manzia-Cara
Ass ac. Sita Na

3-0870

&ocon Station
141 Sutton Street

C

P

ME

223

3-30S4

Property

231 Sutton Street

C

Hk?

ME

224

3-2253

Sendee Chamical Co.
221 SUtton Street

B

H

ME

225

M0nzi»-Cun & AssodU0S, inc.
KF R»<«y, Inc. ProjtcJ No. 901 Oe-B

Mrcfi5,1W1

Lawrence

DEPSitt

DEPNantMd

Sit

Number

Sfte LocttiM

CtaM

3-0330

Onal Street >m

Cand Street

B

3-1013

C>rOiCo.

1 00 VMter Street

C

3-2420

FrstMutud
Benk of Boston

360Men1mack9reet

C

H-HazU^ DrrinMt Utfuit^wm
P-Pet Btiln AMtc.SlttNi.

Hk?

ME

ME

206

227

H

ME

228

3-3140 Qbco-ureTechnoiOQies

421 Merrtmeck Street 8

ME

229

3-2934

L«yrerx;e Pumpe
37 ]M«1( at Street

B

H&P

ME

232

3-0935

Propefty

3 IMeirimttk Street

C

UNK

ME

230

Andover

DEPSttt
Nmber

DEPNtaaw^
Silt LocaUtn

Silt

H-HttIM
P-PtI

DrUntit

Bttin

Mtnzlt<iri
AMtc. SXtNt

WA

N/A

N/A

N/A

HiA

N/A

Dracut

DEPSKt
Nimber

DEP Ntat Mii
Sit Ltcititn

SRt

H-Haz
P-PtI

Mat Dnmaft

ytnzlt-Cva
Asstc. SitNt.

3-2364

Property

888 Menimeck Avenue

ME

231

Mtnzl*-Cura & Assodiits, Inc.
KF n*ddy, Inc. Pro|*d No. 90106-B

Mvcn5,1991
P»9t33or33

Lowell

OEPSttt
Numbtr

DEPNamewitf
Stte LectUw)

Site
CtaM

^0487

Cjtgo Station
745 >* en Avenue

C

3-0601

Jetllne-Geochem
283Hor!rdSb'eet

C

3-2609

WnnyjTexBCO
262 Pa^lAucket St.

c

3-1610

Property
Rtverby Street

c

3-2066

Property

160 Martin Street

e

3-1809

Property

1 29 Mflrtin Street

c

^2928

St. John's Property
E Merrimack JcNesmfth

c

3-0852

Staff Reaty Property
43LakeMev^tv/enue

c

Tewksbury

DEPSite
Number

DEP Nflne ani
Site Laeatitn

SRe
diet

H-Htz luUt IMntf e Menzie^en
P-Pet Bttin Ateec.SfteNe.

UNK

H

H

H

ME

ME

ME

ME

ME

ME

ME

ME

204

205

203

206

207

208

209

210

H-Hazlial
P-Pet

Driinaoe Menzie-Cvm
Batin AMec.StteNe.

N/A

NVA

N/A

N/A

MA

KVA

APPENDIX D

WATER QUALITY PROBLEMS IDENTIFIED

IN MASSACHUSETTS COASTAL WATERS

AND WITHIN THE MOUTHS OF

ESTUARIES AND RIVERS

DISCHARGING TO MASSACHUSETTS BAY

s

3; O 0)

i<

UJ

<n

3
X
O

<
<

>

CD

(/>'

CE
UJ

Ul

>
S

Q

z
<.

<
<

O
o

<

UJ

o

UJ

iZ

UJ

9

(0

o

s

UJ

(0

u.
O

Suj

O CD
fiC O
9 OC
O o.

(0

(0

S

UJ

OC oc

UJ Q.

<

3

o

Q.
Q.
3
(0

(0

(0

z
UJ O

OC o

OC (0

UJ UJ

ui ^ =

UJ o.

Sff

o o

!S

25 5 «• 0>

<S -S P- <« ®

E S
I i^

D

Hi

s

^ « o u. —

5 1 s I

O ^ ss c
CO

1 <^ 'S
' J .2

(0

(0

Ql

0}

0}

ffl

CO

CD

<
(0

o

o
d

6

CO

o
d

I

e

(0

2

Jfr CO S- "-ii-

III!

•l-aaa

s

tu

UJ

z
tu

s

• i"

i<

«0

UJ?

z

O

o

uu

(0

UJ
CO

CO
€0

<

>-
CD

CO'

s
lii

c
111

>

S

Q

u.
O

(0

UJ

<0
UJ

o m
oc O
3 c
O 0.

(0

UJ a.
t

co

<

O
o

oc

<

UJ

o

UJ

UJ

9

CO

s

UJ

o

c

CL

op

UJ

z
o

^ <
o

o

UJ

!<

9

UJ Q.

!S

{further
Igation

1 S
z c

ll

1 s

J

1
I

2
1

2

1
8

&

To

c
3

c
D

= E
li

Ml

c
D

c

S Q X t_ S C

1 1 g- i i .i

g o «

1$ S s

S I -S '^

• ^ 2 c
u. 2 I

ri

CO

< f

8 «-^|

o u a c

o *

s *

5?S

<

v>

en
2 c

E E

O
d

ri

0}

9

o>

CD

CO

CO

CO

z

(0

CO

CO

o

I

CO

CD
CO

CD
CO.

CD
CO

C (0

o

o

<D

o

o

o

tu UJ

o

o

o

o

o

Ss

6

6
cvi

CO

•

A

lll

oc 2 5

6 = 1
O 2 oc

&

>
c
c
O

!k CD ?

OC

2 O «)

^ S

€0

t

UJ
09

(0
CO

>

CD
(0<

c

UJ

tu

>

S
o

(0

<
o
o

cc

<

UJ

o

UJ

UJ

9

(0

s

UJ
CO,

o

c

o

cc

UJ

u.

O (0

UJ

o

(C

m
o

flC
O o.

(0

is

UJ Q.

<

Eg

Oh

(0

UJ O
CO c

oc o
gtZ
< oi

C CO
UJ UJ

> ^

^ UJ a

2 C

o o
cog

>
c

CO

c

(0 P>

s s>

c

CO

c
3

nil

I pill

i P

(0 c

I r|

^1

£ CO ^

iS

u.

CO

o

O)
<9
Q.

CO

CO

CL

CO

Q.

CO

Q.

CO

CL

CO

z

CD
CO

CD
CO

CD
CO

<
CO

<

CO

o

<

CO o

CO -r^

o

i

o
6

d

o

o

o

o

I

<6

-*

CO

s

J

oc

I

5 -c

oc o

E 2

S o

s

z

3E O (0
lUH- <

i<
£ —

CO

<

(0
(0

<
s

GO
UJ

flC
UJ

>

c

o
z

o
o

c

<

UJ

o

UJ

§ fe

OL

i

o

Ul

O V)

CO
3 S

O a>

<
O

cc

(0

S

UJ

a
o

s

Q.

op

3 (0
(0

z
UJ O

^ <

flC o
^ to

CO

UJ

9

CO

S

UJ

A,

o

UJ

o

CO

IS

I

t: ^

zl

« -2
■^ E

8-1

s

c

I

D

c
D

5

^ "2 ^

-o % E ^

"5 Q. 5

1-2

8 ^

i <^

^ ^ P CL I

J S « 8

CD C

u. o ■"

0.

S2

9.

(0

z

CO

CO

Q.

CO

CD

m

CO

CD
CO

<
CO

(S
CO

CD
<0

CD
CO

C CO

CO o

o

^

s —

^

^

UJ UJ

> :J

.6-4
.3-0

o

4

2

1

E

1

Ss

eo ^

(O

o

Ol

CM

"^

o

CM

O

s

X

UJ

I

a
X

s

UJ
Ui

Is "

CO

UJ
<0

(0
CO

<

u.
O Ui

52,3

O CD

c o

O 0.
(0

(0'

cc

UJ
UJ

S
o

is

(0

<

O
o

c

<

UJ

z

o

UJ

UJ

9

CO

s

UJ

O

fC

&
<

a

a

UJ

op

(0

(0

UJ O
(0 c

cc o

^ <

' -J
o

UJ a

as
o o

(0 UJ

o

CO «
UJ !g

c/) 2

Ci - >s

CO 5 "5

2?

1-1 ®

|1?

S £

8-1

Q _•

CO 75

UJ ^

CO 5

12

O
CO
LU
CO

Q
CO
LU
CO

CO JL,

O ST

1 i-Si

sill

CO c ^ c
-» -o S

_« I &

1

^

O

CO

^ii

sill

^ X CD ^
§ 2 CO iS

£ il

CL i

CO

I- i
111

1

1

CO

^ M O

ij-i

U W mS

i25 I

in
Q.

CO

CO

Q.

CO

CO

Q.

CO

CL

CO

Q.

QQ
CO

CD
CO

<

CO

CD
CO

<
CO

CD
CO

CM

CM

CM

CM

CM

(C (0

£

UI UJ

E

E

E

E

£

> ^

S S

?5
d

•

d

d

CM

o

•

o

X

I _

c

I

I

2

S

I
I

s

liJ
liJ

UJ 2
SO

> CD

o
o

0>

3

(0

f

Ul
(0

3
X

o

<

(0
<0

>-

CD
W

a,

UJ

!<

O 0)

Ui '

o

c

o

(0

ffi
o

c

UJ

>

a

o
z

<

o

a:

UJ

(0

S

UJ

CD
O

OC
Q.

o
o

s

<

UJ

o

UJ

iZ

i

UJ

9

(A

o

a.
3

(0

(0
09

UJ
0)

3

CC
UJ

!«

o

O

(0

<

UJ =s

(0,

o

c

0.

<

3

o

oc

UJ

i

oc

UJ

>

s

UJ

s
o

UJ
(0

oc
o

(0
UJ

o

1^

? o
8 2

ii

UJ

n

o
o

go

3 CO

ccp

o B

O 2| 5

i

•Q >
P O

I

I

I

^ £ -S

•is®

•2 I

£ Q ^

111

5 « 2 ^
S -c c o

O a 9)

§ -2 Z
LL

o •
u. ^

«

Q.

0)

z

0)

(/i

€0

€0

CD
CO

CD
(0

UJ

<
z

<.

flC

o

flC
O
CD

flC

<
z

z

e

(0

O

a

o
cvi

00

o
d

i

o
d

t

CM

O
CO

o

l»li

o

§

(A

!S

til

z

UJ

I:

UJ

e

o
o

(0

(0

3

u.
O

X

o

(0

<

UJ

(0

o

(0

tL

<

3

CD
(/)

UJ

flC
UJ

>

c

o
z
<.

<

(0

<

O
o

flC'

<

UJ

o

UJ

il

UJ

9<

S

UJ

a,
o

a

<

3
O

CE
UJ

O

(0

(A

s

UJ

ffi

o

c

Q.

<
3

o

IE
UJ

i

(0

2

UJ

flD
O

CC
0.

(0

o

Q.
O.
3
(0

<

(0

UJ
(0

3

CC
UJ

o

<
o
iZ

(0

<
-J
o

CC
UJ

(0

UJ

CCS

UJ

s
o

UJ

o

Q.
S

o

(0

2

00

o

^

^

^ «» ? i2
$1= (0 I. 2 '^

$ « £ (Q

T3

111

CO

i

o

"• © O ©

^ S Q CO (9

^ 8< I

^2§

c

o

II

8 ^

o

OS

Q.

CO
OL

CO

CL

CO

CO

CL

CO

Q.

CO

o

CO

CD
CO

<

CO

CD
CO

CD
CO

CD
CO

1

CO

1
to

1

1

o

¥

sis

I

E

o»

c

s

tu

UJ

so

z
o

o

il
(0

«0

t'

UJ
10

CO'

cc

UJ

flC
UJ

S

Q

o

o

flC

<

UJ

o

UJ

UJ

9

CO

S

UJ

-J

o

o

UJ

O (0

O w

CO
(0

(0

uT
o

a

o

(0

UJ
CD

o

Q.

ii

is

Eg
op

3 (0
(0

UJ O
CO c

flC o
< ^

> (0

^ <
o

C CO
UJ UJ

> d

i s

o

o o
cog

5

2

o

2

(0

i

S «

to

si

8 ^

o
o

Q.

cn

z

CO

Q.

CO

z

CO

03

<
(0

CQ
CO

m

CO

CD
CO

G

<

CM

1
CO

CM

¥

(A

E

1

1

&

^

s

3

X

^

CM

CO
I

■

Ul
0

I

d

S
I

S

CO

C

« 5
S «

S

«
>

I

s

ui

UJ

Q<
(0

UJ
(0

<

(0
0)

<

CD

</)

flC
UI

flC
UJ

>
£

u.
O (0

Suj

^ SJ
O CD

ceo

OQ.
(0

(0

UJ

<

is

UJ Q.

<

o
o

CC'

<

UJ

o

UJ

iZ

UJ

9

(0

s

UI

-I
CD

o

CC
CL

3 (0
(0

UI

flC
UJ

z
o

<
o

(0

2

o

§ g

<

O

CC

o

p

UJ 0.

S£

o o
^^

(0 UJ

o

S o
UJ

I I
I ^

UJ

i

5 5

« o

III
lit

S § 5

I i2 .3
s ^ "o

si

s: o o

1

I
1

c

f^ l>

l-sll
2 1 1 1

I

o

1

_ s

8 ^

I I

0}

li

(0

(0

(0

CO

Q.

CO

CO

CO

CO

CL

CO

CO

CO

a

i

CO

<
u.

u.
O

<

CO

<

CO

X (0

(O

C\i

o

o

•

^ 05

o

E

UJ UJ

2

o

o

CO CNJ

9

£s

<6

•

•

o ^
1^^ «

5?

CO

e

I

TI O -2

e

I

ml ffiS

o ^

O (0

UJ
CO

3
X

o

<

(0
€0

(0'

(C
Ui

C
UJ

>

o
z
<.

-I
<

<
o
o

<

UJ

o

UI

i

UJ

9'

2

UJ

O

s

3

o

flC
UJ

u.
O

(0

Htuj

o to
s o

3 CC

O a.

0)

3
O

UJ

(0

s

UJ
CD

o

flC
Q.

o p
ft ►-

UJ O

c o

^ <
-J
o

§ ^

o

Q.

UJ

S

o o

s

° A C S

i S -^ "■ 5 5

llli

J 2

8* £
- ? fc

J. CO

(0
Q.

(0

(0

€0

CO

<
CO

<

CO

o

<

CO

o

<

CO

c <0

^

1

1
1

o

o

1

UJ UJ

E

t

o

o

> d

£s

Jo

1

1
1

1

<6

c«i

o

(L (L

Q. Q.

UJ
UJ

z
o

lU* s

o

CO

f

u

CO

<

CO
CO

<
s

ffl

CO'

CE
UJ

!;

c

UJ

s

o
z
<.

UJI- ^

o

CD

<

O CO

O CD
CO

0&

is

c c

CO

<

O
o

CE

<
Ul

o

UJ

iZ

z

UJ

9

CO

^3

Oh

3C0
(0

Z
UJ O
<o c

CC o
ujq:

< CO

o

flC CO
UJ UJ

UJ g^

cs
o

CC
CL

§ g

<
o

CC
UJ

UJ

o

Co

(Og

If

II

CL 2

Ql

m

1 s

2 8

I CD

if s

« Z -o
i2 <§ ^

CO

(O

^ I

q) CD

CO
I

o
o

(0

o 5

8

l|

si

is

8 42

1^
81

l-Sl

8 9 O

s5l

I

81

CO
Q.

CO

(0

CO

CL

CO

CO

CL

CO

CL

CO

(L

CO

I

CO

CO

CO

CO

CO

<c>

o

o
d
6
esi

CM

3

d

CM

eg

o
o

ih

d

s

II

OQ «

oO

|o I

^ f (0

mo a

3

<

UJ

CC

<

.UJ,

<
z

<

CC

.o.

<

o
o

Q

o
o

UJ

(0

¥

evi

I

£

22

tu

UJ

z
o

2 O (0
<0

UJ
(0

!S

S

>-
a

c
til

s
tu

>

s
o

o
o

tu

o
tu

E

z
tu

9'

S
tu

-I

O

oc

<

o

oc

UJ

O (0

O CD
CC O

O o.

(0

s 1^

Q.

<

Eg

Oh

z

UJ O

^ <
s o
luc

< <o

> in

> <

a (0

UJ UJ

> d

Ss

^8

UJ Q.

Sff
(0 tu

o

CL

OL

CL

Q.

Q.

a.

CL

Q.

CL

CL

2

2

2

s

2

2

2

2

S

s

CD

OD

CD

CD

ca

CD

CD

CD

CD

CO

9

t:

(0

I

3
CO

I

3
CO

I

3
CO

E

o

I

3
CO

I

3
CO

«
o

CO
"C
3
CO

9

t
3
CO

3

(O

t:

3
CO

•5*^ I
IF

?

^ CO =

111

IF

S5 ^ 2 o g
— wy !fe CO 5£ *C

ffl • « ffl s

U. ^ LL

II

^5

CM

9
O
es
Q.

CO
Q.

CO

CO

Q.

CO
CL

CO

CL

CO

(L

CO
OL

CO

Q.

CO
Q.

CO
CL

<
CO

I

CO

CO

i

<

CO

CO

<

CO

Q

<

CO

o

<

CO

<

CO

1

9

1

CD

I

a.

I

11

m (3

u

&

I

8 ^

CD 1

^ I

OC OD

11
O OD

I

If

(0 o

I

CO O

s

UJ
UJ

S O (/)

<^ b

2

u

Ul

O

CO

O CD
(CO
3 CC
OO.

Ul

C
Ul

is

Is

Ul 0.

-J t?

(0

o
o

(C
Ul

o

Ul

3^

Ul

z
o

Ul

o

(c o

Si

o

Ul

a,
O

C (0

Ul Ul

> d

CD

Q.
CD

Q.

Q.

Q.

Q.

Q.

0.

s

2

z

2

2

2

CD

CD

CD

CD

CD

CD

ffi

o

o

s

s

t:

t

3

3

CO

0)

2 CO

CO

I

(S CD
t '
3
CO

Woo

0)

I

3
CO

S
I

3
CO

CO

t

3
CO

i'i
I?

CO

I

3
CO

8«

81

il

l^gi^si-s

2 «

CO S

i S :§ €

8 .g 5 8 5 ^ 8 5" 5 II 1 ^" 5 8 5 5 8 I

U.2 u-2 U.2 U. U.2 U.2 u-

E ®

8.g

III
£5

s

CO
Q.

CO

CO

CO

CO

Q.

CO

CL

CO

CL

CO

(L

CO

CO

Q.

I

CO

CO

CO

CO

^

CO

a

i

CO

o

I

CO

CO

CO

CM

1
Si

CO

CM

CM

Q

s

II

II

CL Q.

8

I

CC

I

n

11

o I
2:^

I
I

CO
9

Q.

II

M BREDPORT 75 EA. 4/92, P850971