IMBSIR 78-1428

Survey of the Occurrence of

Mercury, Lead, and Cadmium

in the Washington, D.C. Area

E. P. Scheide, J. J. Filliben, and J. K. Taylor

National Bureau of Standards

Department of Commerce

Washington, D.C. 20234

September 1977

Final Report

Prepared for The Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Toxic Substances

Washington, D.C.

NBSIR 78-1428

SURVEY OF THE OCCURRENCE OF

MERCURY, LEAD, AND CADMIUM

IN THE WASHINGTON, D.C. AREA

E. P. Scheide, J. J. Filliben, and J. K. Taylor

National Bureau of Standards

Department of Commerce

Washington, D.C. 20234

September 1977

Final Report

Prepared for The Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Toxic Substances

Washington, D.C. 20234

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, Juanita M. Kreps, Secretary

Dr. Sidney Harman, Under Secretary

Jordan J. Baruch. Assistant Secretary for Science and Technology

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS. Ernest Ambler, Acting Director

I—I

(Nl

t'O

^

Lf)

iO

ts

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

Introduction 1

Approach 2 Sampling Strategy 4

Measurement Methodology 6

4.1 Sampling Methodology 6

4.1.1 Container Cleaning Procedure 6

4.1.2 Sampling Procedures 7 4. 1.2.1 Air Samples 7 4. 1.2.

2

Water Samples 7 4. 1.2. 2.1 Sewer Samples 7 4. 1.2. 2.

2

River Water 8

4. 1.2. 2.

3

Drinking Water 8

4. 1.2. 2.4 Stagnant Water 8

4. 1.2. 2.

5

Hot Water 8

4. 1.2.

3

Soil Samples 8

4 . 1 . 2 . 3 .

1

Topsoil 8

4 . 1 . 2 . 3 .

2

Subsoil 8

4. 1.2. 3.

3

Street Dust 8

4. 1.2. 3.

4

Bottom Sediment 8

4. 1.2. 3.

5

Soil Particle Sizing 8

4. 1.2.

4

Miscellaneous Samples 9

4.1.3 Chain-of -Custody 9

4.2 Analytical Procedures 10

4.2.1 Sample Preparation 10

4. 2. 1.1 Soil Samples 10

4. 2. 1.2 Water Samples 10

4. 2. 1.3 Air Filters 10

4.2.2 Analysis 10

4. 2.2.1 Mercury 10

4. 2. 2.

2

Cadmium and Lead 11

4.3 Reporting Results 11

4.4 Reduction of Data 11

Summary of Data 16

Discussion of Data 17

Recommendations 19

7 . 1 Sampling 19

7.2 Homogenizaton of Samples 20

7.3 Record Keeping 21

8 . Conclusions 21

9. Acknowledgements 22

10. References 24

Appendix I - Sampling Locations 27

Table 1 42

Table 2 43

Table 3 44

Table 4 45

Table 5 46

Table 6 47
Page

List of Figures 48

List of Maps 50
The Occurrence of Mercury, Lead and Cadmium

in the Washington, D.C. Area

E.P. Scheide, J.J. Filliben, and J.K. Taylor

ABSTRACT

This report describes the development of a plan to

comprehensively survey the occurrence of potentially toxic

substances in a defined geographical area and its application to the determination of the concentration levels of

mercury, lead, and cadmium in various aspects of the environment in the Washington, D.C. area. It describes the basic

philosophy of such a survey, the development of a sampling

plan, and the identification of analytical methods adequate

to obtain the required measurements. Methods of data reduction using the NBS computer are also described. The data

are presented in tables and unique computer-generated plots

which show the overall concentration profiles and spots of

elevated concentration levels. Based on the current study,

no significantly hazardous conditions were found to

exist. The approach followed and the data reduction

techniques developed should be useful to surveys of these

elements in other areas and also for surveys of ubiquitous

hazardous materials in general.

KEY WORDS

Environmental surveys; toxic materials, lead; cadmium;

mercury; environmental data; computer techniques for environmental data.

1. INTRODUCTION

The control of toxic substances demands a number of

approaches and often requires a variety of analytical measurements. For those substances resulting from a limited number

of sources, control at the source is the obvious approach

and specific measurements at the source may be all that is

required. For ubiquitous substances, the control process

is ill-defined and may be multi-faceted and the analytical

data may need to be derived from a variety of measurements

over an extended period of time.

1
The distribution of heavy metals, particularly mercury,

lead, and cadmium, is an example of the latter type. Low

levels can be found almost everywhere and the distribution

is heterogeneous and random. Accordingly, analytical data

on a few samples can be meaningless or misleading, so that

many samples may need to be examined over a considerable

time period. Furthermore, such measurements must be made

over the full range of the environment, e.g., air, water,

sewer, soil, sediments - to fully interpret any environmental

threat

.

Although many measurements have been made of heavy

metals in the environment, relatively few have been made in

comprehensive, planned programs to assess potential environmental

impacts. Because of the increasing interest in these and

other ubiquitous substances, both from the standpoint of

present distribution and future trends, the present project

was sponsored by the EPA Office of Toxic Substances. The

objective was to develop and demonstrate an analytical

methodology for ascertaining the distribution of specific

toxic substances in a defined metropolitan area. The techniques and rational developed are believed to be applicable

to the accumulation of data for mass-balance evaluation of a variety of toxic substances.

This report discusses the philosophy for development of

an area-wide environmental survey, the methodology necessary

to obtain the required data, and the interpretation of the

results. The techniques were originally developed for

measurement of mercury but the scope of the project was

later broadened to include lead and cadmium. However, the

general approach, with suitable modifications of the measurement methodology should be applicable to surveys of a wide

variety of hazardous substances ubiquitously distributed in

the environment.

2 . APPROACH

The intent of the present project was to develop and

demonstrate methodology necessary for a comprehensive

overall survey of a well-defined geographical area. The

area designated for study was that within the municipal

boundaries of the District of Columbia. A comprehensive

understanding of any specific toxic substance requires a knowledge of the overall distribution and the identification

of any areas of elevated level. Such data needs to be taken

over a period of time to identify trends and also to minimize

the chance of false conclusions - either positive or negative

- resulting from large random errors of sampling and/or

measurement. A knowledge of the pathways of entrance and

2
egress of specific substances is needed to provide guidance

in selection of measurement situations and locations as well

as to aid in prediction of possible environmental problems.

Washington, D.C. is essentially a light industrial area,

with government operations as a major source of employment.

A survey of possible large industrial users and/or producers

of the three metals was undertaken but none was found within

the area. If present, each would have to be considered

as a point source and suitable measurements would have

been made. The only potential point sources within the

area appeared to be two electric power generation plants

and facilities concerned with the disposal of solid waste

and with sewage treatment.

The drinking water and sewage distribution systems were

considered to be primary potential pathways for distribution

of heavy metals within the area, as were the natural waterways

within the area. The Potomac River forms one boundary of the

area and the Anacostia River traverses the area as does Rock

Creek. Accordingly, the analysis of river and stream waters

and sediments was considered to be an important aspect of

the data base.

The Potomac Electric Power Co. has two generation

plants in the area. These are oil-fired plants. Sampling

sites were selected in the area of the plants to include

soil, river water, sediments, and drinking water.

A number of discussions were arranged with engineers

responsible for operation and maintenance of the public

water system, the sewage system, the waste-water treatment

facility, and the solid waste disposal plants not only to

obtain detailed information on their operational characteristics but also to facilitate collection of samples for

analysis. These discussions provided the basis for construction of the diagrams shown in Figure 1 and Figure 2.

Figure 1 describes the major pathways for water including the fresh water supply and sewage disposal. The city

of Washington, D.C. obtains its drinking water from the

Potomac River, as do the bordering counties of Prince

George's and Montgomery in Maryland. The river also serves

as a partial supply of water for neighboring Virginia areas.

The Blue Plains sewage treatment plant receives waste-water

from D.C., Maryland and Virginia. The sludge is disposed of

in Maryland and Virginia for landfill, hence leaves the

Washington area. The treated effluent is discharged into

the river.

3
The flow diagram for solid waste disposal is shown in

Figure 2. The city is subdivided into 9 service areas for

residential disposal. Private haulers pick up solid waste

from large sources such as business establishments. Here

again, the incinerator ash and/or untreated waste are

trucked to landfill areas outside of the District of Columbia.

3. SAMPLING STRATEGY

The area of the District of Columbia amounts to

approximately 70 square miles (181 km 2 ). In addition,

there are many miles of sewer and water lines. The rivers

and streams flow for some 30 miles through this area.

Accordingly, even the measurement of one environmental

substance - water - has many problems. It is evident that

any sampling and analysis program must be a compromise

between what is desirable and what can be done under the

constraints of time and funding. Accordingly, such programs

must be planned with care to maximize the information output.

From overall considerations of available funding and

cost of sampling and analysis, a maximum number of approximately 4000 samples was decided upon. Because potential

trouble spots in this case could not be identified in

advance, the sampling program needed to be designed to

maximize the coverage. Duplicate samples were provided

for at selected times and locations, and split samples

were also issued to the analytical laboratory to evaluate

the measurement process.

A large scale map was used to lay out the area in a grid

pattern, with the intention of developing a systematic

sampling plan. An immediate conclusion from study of such a scheme is that all areas are not equal from a sampling point

of view. For example, a significant part of the area is in

parkland and/or covered by water. A relatively few samples

of such would appear to be indicative of a wide area.

With respect to soil and dust samples, the former

are of course more predominant in the outer city while

information from the latter would be expected to be more

important in inner city locations.

Another sample constraint is in the taking of air

samples. The need to connect equipment to a power source

and to protect it from vandalism during relatively long

unattended periods dictates that public buildings and/or

established air sampling stations be utilized. The latter

was the course of action chosen in this case.

River and stream sampling sites were chosen near the

banks or on bridges so that samples could be obtained

4
without the use of watercraft. Such samples have the

advantage that they are more representative of the environmental impact of the population as compared with midstream samples. Sediment samples were collected at the

same location as those from the body of water.

Samples of waste-water were taken from sewers with

access by means of man-holes. Both trunk lines and branch

lines were sampled. A practical problem was encountered,

in that man-holes are most often located at street intersections and their access may impose traffic impediment

problems. The cooperation of the Bureau of Waste, Water

and Sewer Services minimized this problem.

In any event, the exact sampling site cannot be

selected from a map but needs to be identified in the

course of personal inspection of sampling localities.

The course of action followed was as follows: The person

developing the sampling plan and the one expected to take

samples inspected prospective sites together and the

actual site was established by mutual agreement. The

site location was then described and entered into the

sampling protocol.

Waste-water samples and sludge samples were taken at the

Blue Plains Waste-Water Treatment Plant. There is no

problem in obtaining samples from almost any location in

such a plant, but the cooperation of operating personnel

is necessary.

The full description of the sampling sites was

incorporated into the sampling protocol and is given in

Appendix I. Air sampling stations are listed in IA and

indicated on Map 1. Sewer sites are listed in IB and

indicated on Map 2. All other sampling sites are listed

in IC and indicated on Map 3. Each of the sampling sites

was assigned a permanent number. Furthermore, they were

identified by coordinates (used for data processing) and

were given a characteristic name.

The District of Columbia was originally laid out as

a square with sides equal to 10 miles in length. The

corners of the square were precisely oriented to the four

points of the compass. The land area was taken from the

states of Maryland and Virginia, with about two-thirds

from the former. The Potomac River crosses the area,

entering approximately in the middle of the northwest

boundary line and exiting at the southern apex of the area.

The area to the west of the Potomac River was returned to

Virginia (it is now Arlington County) so that the District

of Columbia now consists essentially of the area originally

belonging to the state of Maryland.

5
The grid system used for data processing was adapted

from one already laid out on a map drawn and published by

the Alexandria Drafting Co., Alexandria, VA. The map, based

on USGS 1:24,000 quadrangles, contained sub-grid markings

on a scale of 1"=2000 ft. These grid lines were arbitrarily

marked so that the southern corner of the D.C. had a y

coordinate of approximately 0 and the western corner of the

original D.C. (now in Virginia) had an x coordinate of 0.

4 . MEASUREMENT METHODOLOGY

The Interagency Agreement specified that EPA methods

for sampling and analysis should be used insofar as they were

applicable to the present problem. The NBS role was to

specify the methodology to be used and to critically examine,

process, and interpret the analytical data. The actual

sampling operations and the analytical measurements were

done by personnel of the District of Columbia Department of

Environmental Services under the terms of a separate contract

with EPA.

NBS developed a protocol which specified the sampling

program, the sampling techniques, preparation of samples

for analysis, and the analytical methodology. NBS personnel

cooperated actively in the sample collection, particularly

in the early stages, to identify any problems. NBS personnel also rendered consultation and advisory services in

connection with the analytical work and provided quality

control samples to evaluate the data. Accordingly, all of

the methodology used was approved by NBS as to its adequacy

to provide valid data. However, the D.C. Department of

Environmental Services had the responsibility for the

accuracy of the analytical measurements.

The following sections outline the methodology developed

and used. Detailed information on the procedures used will

be reported independently by the D.C. Department of Environmental Services under the terms of their contract with EPA.

4 . 1 Sampling Methodology

4.1.1 Container Cleaning Procedure

The polyethylene sample containers were cleaned

each time they were used. The soil containers were scrubbed

to remove any particles adhering to the surface, rinsed twice

with distilled water and air dryed. The same procedure was

followed for the water containers except an acid rinse (dilute

HN0 3 ) was performed before the last distilled water rinse.

6
4.1.2

Sampling Procedures

Described below are the various types of samples that

were taken and the various sampling procedures that were

used. The sampling was done only by personnel that had been

trained and approved by the NBS project officer.

4. 1.2.1 Air Samples

The air samples were taken at established EPA air

sampling sites on two consecutive days each month for five

months. Also, the air samples were taken on days when there

was zero precipitation. The sampler was run for approximately

24 hours with an exact notation of the time ON and OFF recorded in the field notebook. The sampler consisted of three

parts: (1) a 0.45 ym filter for particulates, (2) a silverwool collector for elemental mercury, and (3) a precalibrated

pump. The sampling train was assembled in the above order

with the silver-wool between the filter and the pump. Protective

caps were placed on the filter and silver wool sampler inlet

and exit ports at all times when they were not in use.

4. 1.2.

Water Samples

4. 1.2. 2.1 Sewer Samples

The sewer samples were taken at the designated sewer

sites once each month for four months. Duplicate samples

were taken. These were monthly grab-samples that were taken

using a polyethylene bucket sampler. The sampler was rinsed

with the flowing sewer sample twice before the actual sample

was taken. One liter of the sewer sample was placed in the

sample bottle and immediately 10.0 ml of concentrated reagent

grade nitric acid was added as a preservative. The sample

and acid were then well mixed. If the sample could not be

analyzed within 30 days from the date it was taken, it was

discarded

4. 1.2. 2.

River Water

The river water samples were taken in the same manner

as the sewer samples, making sure that the sampler was rinsed

beforehand and that nitric acid was immediately added to the

sample and that they were well mixed. All water samples were

to be analyzed within 30 days from sampling.

4. 1.2. 2.

Drinking Water

The drinking water samples were obtained directly from

the faucet after letting the water run for one minute. As

with all the water samples, nitric acid was added as a preservative .

7
4. 1.2. 2.

4

Stagnant Water

The stagnant water samples are samples that were taken

to indicate possible leaching from the water pipes. These

samples were taken from the hot water tap without running

the water prior to taking the sample.

4. 1.2. 2.

5

Hot Water

Hot water samples were taken from the hot water tap after

letting the water run for five minutes. The difference between this sample and the stagnant water sample taken from

the same tap should give indications of possible leaching

of heavy metals from any galvanized pipe in the water system.

4. 1.2.

3

Soil Samples

4. 1.2. 3.1 Topsoil

The topsoil samples consisted of composites taken from

the top one inch of the soil. The sample was placed directly

into the bottle and was sieved and dryed in the laboratory

prior to analysis, following the EPA recommended procedure [1],

4.1. 2.3.2 Subsoil

Subsoil samples were taken below 6 inches in depth, using

a clean trowel. They were composited and treated the same

as topsoil samples.

4. 1.2. 3.

3

Street Dust

Street dust samples consisted of sweepings from the

edge of the street. These usually consisted of wind-blown

dusts, abraded rubber from automobile tires, and miscellaneous

other particles.

4. 1.2. 3.

4

Bottom Sediments

The bottom sediment samples were taken from the bottom

of streams and rivers and consisted of the top one inch of

the sediment. Some of these locations had "dry" spots at low

tide and could be sampled relatively easily, while others

had to be sampled near the river bank under water.

4. 1.2. 3.

5

Soil Particle Sizing

In order to increase the reproducibility in the analysis

of the soil samples, the samples were sieved prior to analysis.

The following procedure was used: first the samples were dried

at 60 °C overnight. The dried samples were sieved using a No.

8
30 sieve. The fraction that passed through the sieve was retained for analysis and the other portion discarded. Both

fractions were weighed and this information was recorded in

the notebook.

4 . 1 . 2 . 4 Miscellaneous Samples

There were a few other samples that were taken each

month that do not fit under any of the headings above.

These were sludge and liquid samples taken at various processing points at the Blue Plains Treatment Plant.

The miscellaneous solid samples were treated the same as

the soil samples. The liquid samples taken from Blue Plains

were treated in the same manner as the previously described

water samples.

The solid samples were taken back to the laboratory

where they were dried and then sieved using a No. 30 sieve.

Just prior to analysis the samples were re-dried and then

analyzed using the EPA recommended procedures.

4.1.3 Chain-of- Custody

The following instructions were given to the sampling

and analytical groups in order to provide maximum integrity

of the samples and analytical data, as far as identity was

concerned

"Accurate recordkeeping and routing information should be kept on all samples from the time

they are collected until they are analyzed. The

samples should be taken only by authorized personnel

and the field sampling notebook should be kept according to established procedures. Extreme care should

be taken in labeling and notebook entries in order

to prevent recordkeeping ambiguities. Once the

day's sampling is finished, the samples should be

delivered to the laboratory and checked in by the

analyst - in-charge . A logbook should be kept containing data establishing when samples are checked

into the laboratory, by whom,. when the samples are

analyzed, and by whom. Blanks and controls obtained

from NBS should also be entered into this logbook.

Certain samples may be checked out by the NBS project

officer for splitting in order to obtain duplicate

analyses. Records should be kept as to which samples

are split and the new sample numbers. The samples

should be handled by a minimum number of persons,

and it should be easy to locate exactly where each

sample is at any point in time. Samples remaining

after analysis should be retained until permission

for disposal is given by the NBS project officer."

9
4 .

2

Analytical Procedures

The samples were prepared and analyzed according to

guidelines published in the EPA manual "Methods for Chemical

Analysis of Water and Wastes," [1].

4.2.1 Sample Preparation

4. 2. 1.1 Soil Samples

The soil samples were dried overnight at 60 °C and then

mixed thoroughly. A 0.5 gram sample was taken and digested

according to the procedure given in the EPA manual on pages

134-138 and pages 118-126 [1].

This digestion procedure is summarized as follows: A

weighed portion of the sample is digested in aqua regia for

2 minutes at 95 °C, followed by oxidation with potassium

permanganate. Mercury in the digested sample is then measured

by the conventional cold vapor atomic absorption technique,

while lead and cadmium are analyzed using the graphite furnace

atomic absorption technique.

4 . 2 . 1 .

2

Water Samples

The water and sewer samples were also prepared according

to the digestion procedure given for the soil samples in

order to convert any organo-metallic species into the inorganic

f orm

.

4. 2. 1.3 Air Filters

The air filters were digested in the same manner as the

soil samples (see 4. 2. 1.1).

4.2.2 Analysis

After the samples were digested and filtered, the

solutions were split into two fractions; one for mercury

analysis, and the other for lead and cadmium analysis.

4.2.2 .

1

Mercury

The mercury analyses were done by the flameless cold

vapor technique described in the EPA manual.

The mercury samples that were collected on silver wool

(air samples) were heat desorbed and analyzed according to

the procedure described by Long, et al [2],

10
4 .2. 2. 2 Cadmium and Lead

Cadmium and lead can be analyzed by either flame atomic

absorption or the graphite furnace technique depending upon

the amount of Cd and Pb in the sample. The graphite furnace

technique is much more sensitive than the flame mode. Cadmium

and lead were determined according to procedures given in the

EPA manual and the Perkin-Elmer manual ["Analytical Methods

for Atomic Absorption Spectroscopy Using the HGA Graphite

Furnace," (1975)] [3].

4 .Reporting Results

The samples were comp

analyzed in the same manne

samples were reported in p

pg/g; for liquids, yg/ml)

reported in units of yg/m 3

4 . 4 Reduction of Data

The objective of the data analysis was three-fold:

1) to make modifications and deletions as

needed to the original "raw" data set so as to

arrive at one which is a valid representation

of the data as taken in the field;

2) to determine which (if any) variables influence

and affect the concentration values; and

3) to summarize the data in such a manner that

the conclusions of the analysis are easily

supported and communicable.

ared to standards that were

r. Results for water and soil

arts-per-million (for solids.

The results for air samples were

The first step (arrival at a valid data set

due to the nature and size of the original

original data set was in fact a physical me

basic data sets--one having to do with air

with water samples, and a third with soil s original raw data acquisition for these 3 g

often performed manually by different peopl

recording forms with the net result that tr

were introduced both from the original reco

the data merging.

) was a problem

raw data set. The

rging of several

samples, another

amples. The

eneral areas was

e and on different

anscription errors

rding and during

The response variable of interest is of course, concentration. However, there were several other possibly influential variables to be recorded along with a given concentration :

11
1

.

container number

2. element (Hg, Pb , Cd)

3. site identification

4 . collection month

5 . collection day

6 . type of sample (air, water

,

7 . collector

8 . analysis month

9 . analysis day

10 . x-coordinate for the site

11

.

y-coordinate for the site.

Inasmuch as there were originally

values measured and each concentration value was accompanied

by values of the 11 other variables, this required the

construction (for subsequent analysis) of a computer data

file with (3874 x 12 =) 46488 values therein. With such a large original data file, a number of transcription and

keypunch errors are certain to occur. The first step (and

a continuing step throughout the analysis) was to ’’clean up"

the data file to detect and remove errors due to transcriptions or other reasons. Weeding out such errors in a judicious

fashion so as to avoid allowing such biases to affect the

conclusions was clearly the first priority.

Corrections to the data file were applied at several

stages of the entire analysis -- as one or another aspect

of the data examination was carried out, and when the subsequent data anomalies were uncovered. The original data

file, consisting of 5874 concentration readings plus

associated variables, were iteratively corrected and reduced

to a final "cleaned up" file of 3735 concentration readings

and associated variables.

In toto, about a dozen computer programs were written

and applied to the data file for the data correction, data

analysis, and data summarization stages. The purpose of

any given program often overlapped into 2 and sometimes all

3 areas (correction, analysis, summarization).

12
The following is a brief description of the various steps

(programs) that were applied in the analysis. As will be

noted, many of the techniques applied were graphical in

nature -- such graphics have proven to be the most effective

way of uncovering (and correcting) suspected (and unsuspected)

anomalies in the data. All of the programs utilized made

use of the ANSI FORTRAN data analysis solution library

DATAPAC [29].

The initial step in the analysis consisted of generating 12 run sequence plots -- one plot for each of the 12

variables of interest (concentration, container number,

element, site ID, etc., ...) A given run sequence plot

consisted of 3874 points and plotted the variable of

interest Xi (vertically) versus the dummy index i (i = 1,

2, ..., 3874) horizontally. The vertical axis limits were

examined on each plot and often revealed keypunch or

transcription errors which were reflected in data minima

and maxima several orders of magnitude from what they

should be. This of course led to the correction of those

particular values in the data file which produced such

discrepancies

The second step in the analysis consisted of a simple

rearrangement and grouping of the data file so as to

facilitate (both from a time and computing expense point-ofview) all remaining steps. The original data file was

ordered according to the day and month collected. A more

efficient ordering however is one based on the 3 elements

(Hg, Pb , Cd) and on the 11 sample types (silver wool,

air filters, sewer, etc.) The resulting secondary file

consisted of the same number of lines but was arranged

into (3 x 11 =) 33 distinct blocks of data. This modularized data file greatly facilitated the examination of

individual element sample type combinations.

Having isolated the 33 primary subsets of interest,

the next step in the analysis consisted of applying various

statistical techniques to each subset to exhaust information regarding the distribution of concentration values

for each cell. Specifically, this was accomplished via

frequency distribution enumeration, histograms, normal

probability plots, and various summary statistics (subset

means, modes, medians, minima, maxima, ranges, standard

deviations, etc.) At this point in the analysis, an

initial feel is obtained as to how the concentration values

are varying for each element - sample type combination.

13
The next step in the analysis consisted of determining

if the concentration values varied as a function of (collection) time. To achieve this end, plots of concentration

versus collection time were examined for the following

combination of factors:

all 3 elements

4 (out of the 11) sample types

12 (out of the approximately 120) sites

On the basis of the above, it was concluded that no

significant drifting in concentration values existed as a function of time.

The above analysis was followed by a similar but more

global look at the time dependence problem -- this consisted

of plotting average (over all sites) concentration versus

collection month. The usual 33 plots were analyzed for such

time dependency -- one for each of the element - sample type

combinations. The earlier conclusion of no significant time

dependence was corroborated.

Yet another step in this same direction was taken by

examining average concentration versus collective month

plots for the following 9 combinations of 2 factors:

3 elements

3 general sample types (air, water, soil)

A given average concentration value that appeared on a plot

consisted of the average of all concentration readings over

all sites for that particular element, general sample type,

and collection month. Again, no time dependence was detected.

The next steps in the analysis shifts attention from the

time factor to the site factor. Analyses were carried

out for each of the following combination of factors:

3 elements

11 sample types

120 sites

For a given element and sample type, the concentration

values for each site were isolated, enumerated, and the

appropriate summary statistics (mean, median, minimum,

maximum, range, standard deviation, etc.) computed.

14
All of the above summary statistics were computed

over (i.e., without regard to) the collection months

inasmuch as this latter variable was seen to have a negligible effect. Summary tables were generated and

examined which contained all of the above concentration

statistics as a function of each site, element, and sample

type. Plots were formed which plotted above-average concentration versus site for each element sample type combination . The next step in the analysis was to determine (for

a given element and sample type) if a given site had an

unusual reading relative to all of the other sites. To

determine such, the concentration averages of all the sites

were grouped from which a grand average x and the group

standard deviation was computed and tabulated. The individual

site averages were then compared to this grand average and

it was determined how many standard deviations away from the

grand average were the individual site averages, x.. Sites with

extreme deviations from x were flagged and noted. The

number of site averages in the following categories were

computed

:

x . < x

1 —

x < x . < x + a — 1 —

x + a£x^<^x + 2a

x + 2 a —

< x • <x+3a

l —

x < 3a < x

.

— — i

A special statistical procedure was then applied to automatically flag extreme site averages. These were examined

for credibility, using the criterion that real values

would be supported by other data obtained at the same location . The final step was to geographically summarize the

above comparison of individual site averages to the grand

average. The 33 (3 elements x 11 sample types) plots

were generated on the Tektronix 4014 display terminal by

use of software developed for such graphics. An outline^

of Washington was first produced and a coded (in terms of

a) value representing the relative value of each site

was superimposed. The coding values utilized were as

follows

:

15
Value Code

x^ £ x 0

x £ x_^ £ x + a 1

x+a<x. <x+2a 2 — l —

x + 2a £ x^ £ x + 3a 3

x + 3a < x. 4 — i

Hot spots in the city are identified on corresponding maps by

relatively large (e.g., 3 or 4) coded values. The coded (in terms

of a) representation of the results allows one to graphically

summarize the results in a clear and concise fashion.

5. SUMMARY OF DATA

A total of 3787 data points were obtained as a result

of the measurements described above. Of these, 49 were

considered to be invalid, based on credibility considerations

outlined in Section 4.4. Accordingly, 98.7 percent of the

data was judged to be valid and used in the following discussion.

Tables 1, 2 and 3 contain a summary of the data,

classified according to measurements of mercury, lead,

and cadmium, respectively. The data are classified into the

following arbitrary groups:

for e the r stand

sites

limit

Group Concentration Range

0 X < X

1 x < x < x + s

2 x+s<x<x+2s

3 x+2s<x<x+3s

4 x + 3s < x

The tables list: sample type, the number of sites s ach type; the total number of samples for each type;

ange of values obtained; the mean concentration, x;

ard deviation, s; the number, n, and percentage of

with average values in each group, and the upper

of concentration for each group.

Histograms were generated by the

distribution of measurement for each s sentative diagrams for lead in air, me

lead in street dust are given in Figur

pectively. The distribution in each c because of cut-offs on the low side of

comput er to show the

ample type. Repre

rcury m water, and

es 3,4 , and 5, resase is not ' ’normal"

each histogram, due

16
to sensitivity limitations of the analytical methods.

Analytical values below the instrument detection level

were not interpreted as zero, but as the detection limit value.

Figures 6 to 14 show summary plots of monthly average

concentrations with respect to time for the three elements

for air, water, and soil samples as indicated. Not all of

the sample types were measured throughout the entire

period, therefore these plots are useful only for indication of general aspects of the data.

Maps 1 to 25 show yearly average concentrations found

at the indicated locations, for the three elements and eight

sample types. The symbols 0,1, 2, 3, and 4 indicate concentration groups defined above and quantitatively given in

Tables 1,2, and 3.

6. DISCUSSION OF DATA

Some interesting inferences may be drawn from consideration of the data of Tables 1,2, and 3, and these will

be discussed in that order.

The following observations can be made from consideration of the data for mercury of Table 1.

(a) As can be seen when comparing x for

mercury in the elemental form (silver

wool) and the particulate form (air

filters) , most of the mercury in the

air is elemental mercury, rather than

particulate mercury.

(b) Even though the mean value of the

mercury content of sewer water is below

the permissible drinking water standard

indicating no significant emissions of

mercury into the waste water system, the

sewer water has a much higher range

indicating that mercury input is quickly

diluted to an acceptable level.

(c) The hot and stagnant water samples are not

enriched, indicating no leaching of mercury

from the distribution system.

(d) The mercury concentration appears to increase in the order street dust < topsoil < subsoil, suggesting a general movement downward of

mercury into the soil or possibly surface depletion by volatilization.

The following general observations can be made concerning the data for lead in Table 2.

17
(a) The lead enrichment from drinking water to

sewer water was not significant indicating no

major input of lead into the sewer system.

(b) The stagnant water lead concentration was greater

than the hot water lead concentration which was

greater than drinking water concentrations in

locations especially selected to test leaching

characteristics. This is consistent with the

known ability of water to extract metals from

plumbing systems. However, the highest lead

levels found were still significantly below those

permitted by the drinking water standards, indicating no imminent hazard.

(c) Lead concentrations in street dust exceeded that

of topsoil which in turn exceeded that found in

subsoil. This supports the findings of others

that lead pollution is largely from the air and

probably arises from automotive sources [7-10, 26-27].

The data of Table 3 for cadmium suggest the following:

(a) The near identity of concentrations of cadmium

in drinking water and sewer water indicate no

major input of cadmium into the latter.

(b) No leaching of cadmium from plumbing systems

was observed.

(c) A slight enrichment of cadmium in comparison

of street dust with topsoil is similar to that

observed by others and explained as resulting

from abrasion of cadmium-containing rubber from

automobile tires [26].

A general conclusion from the three tables is that bottom

sediments contain significant concentrations of all three

elements . Further work would be required to determine

their source, i.e., whether the sediment is acting as a sink or whether the metals result from transport from

other areas.

Computer-generated profiles, such as those shown in

Maps 1 to 25, provide a convenient means to intercompare

environmental data on a geographical basis. They present

an overall view of the pollution levels in the area of

display and identify the locations of any abnormalities.

In the present case, the overall conclusion is that

levels for any of the three elements are not at an alarming

stage either area-wide or in any specific location for any

type of sample. However, spots have been identified which

are clearly above average level and these should be the ones

subjected to continued study.

18
Tables 4, 5, and 6 contain a comparison of some of

the analytical values found in this work with those reported

by others. The only marked difference noted is the value

for lead in air particulates of 0.19 yg/m 3 which is lower

than that usually reported in urban atmospheres. More work

would be required to determine whether this is a real

difference and whether there has been a significant improvement in the lead concentration as compared to the earlier

values reported for the Washington, D.C. area [8].

7. RECOMMENDATIONS

7 . 1 Sampl ing

The development of a suitable sampling plan is a major

problem in an environmental survey and merits all the effort

that can be devoted to it. Experience has shown that redundancy is the best insurance to maximize confidence in the

results. Enough replicates of sub-samples need to be made

to identify analytical variance while replicate samples

need to be measured to assure credibility to any reported

data

.

Credibility is increased by using the technique

described by J.W. Bewers et al (28) in a paper entitled

"Data Are for Looking At or Quality Control Through

Interpretation". In it, they recommend inspection at all

stages for credibility based on the sampler's idea of

what a representative sample looks like, on the analyst's

feeling for the measurement process and knowledge of what

result is expected, and on the environmentalist's ability

to detect anomalies. Corrective feedback action can be

taken at any one of the stages to determine whether the

particular item - sample, measurement, data - is credible.

Obviously, incredibility needs to be detected in its

earliest possible stage.

Such a chain of examination was followed in the present

case. The samplers were thoroughly trained by NBS to

minimize taking useless samples. The analytical work was

done by a competent analyst who was given special assistance

by NBS experts in the use of the specific analytical techniques.

Data inspection was used as mentioned in Section 4.4

to eliminate "outliers". The philosophy was followed that

data must be repeatable to be meaningful. Values showing

large deviations from the mean, e.g., greater than 3 standard

deviations, were individually examined and retained only if

other data were found to support them. As the result of

19
this practice only 49 values were excluded out of 3,787

data points, and these appeared to be clearly outliers.

For example, a drinking water sample was found to have a mercury content many times that of waste water. Even if

the data were real, the explanation of this solitary event

- contamination, foreign object, etc. - could hardly be

environmentally significant. All excluded data has been

retained for further reference should it recur, and this

was the policy adopted here. However, the data should not

be included in averages, or otherwise interpreted unless

validated by additional work.

7.2 Homogenization of Samples

Soil samples, in the broad sense of the term, provide

major problems, ranging from when to take the sample,

what constitutes a representative sample, and what pretreatment should be undertaken before analysis.

The designated spot may contain little or no material

generally recognized as the sample type. In such a case, the

sample site must be moved to a more significant spot, or

eliminated entirely. The major decision will be concerned

with what is the sample at a spot recognized to be appropriate for sampling. Some arbitrary decision may need to

be made. The sampler should avoid including any "foreign"

objects or material with what is otherwise known to be the

sample. For example, rocks, discarded trash, animal or

vegetable matter should be excluded, since these may disintegrate during transport or storage and be unknowingly

incorporated into the analytical sample. A general rule

is to exclude all matter which is obviously foreign but

to note such an exclusion on the sample label.

Because of the variabilities in moisture content,

sample pre - treatment ordinarily includes a drying step.

On the other hand, vigorous drying can cause loss of

constituents sought. If volatile or labile materials,

such as pesticides and organic constituents, are of interest,

the analysis may need to be made on "as is" samples with

moisture content determined on a separate sample.

Whenever possible pre-drying of the sample is

preferred to facilitate the mixing process. Gross sieving

is a recognized method of eliminating foreign material

and this, preceded by breaking up of clumps, will facilitate mixing of the sample.

For the most representative sample from a given lot,

it is preferable to remove a number of small portions from

the sieved lot, and to mix these to form a composite before

taking a subsample. The largest sample possible, consis20
tent with the analytical method should be taken. It is

better to take replicate subsamples from replicate composites.

However, more information is gained from replicate

samples than from replicate subsamples. In dealing with

heterogeneous material such as soils, it is wise to increase

the number of samples and to analyze by a method of adequate

reliability than to use the most sophisticated (and correspondingly more expensive) technique on a small number of

samples

.

In the work reported here, the sample treatment plan

consisted of drying the samples for 8 hours or more at

60 °C followed by sieving with a #30 mesh screen. All

weights were recorded including loss on drying and loss

on sieving. This procedure eliminated some glaring inconsistencies in the early data.

The analysis of soil samples is complicated by the

question of bioavailability of the substance measured.

Obviously all of the material may not be biologically

significant. Procedures used by others have ranged from

"total" element resulting from quantitative solution of

the sample to an equilibration with the receiving water.

In the present case, the EPA procedure for digestion with

nitric acid was used and probably represents the upper

limit of bioavailability. No problems were encountered in

using this procedure.

7 . 3 Record Keeping

Record keeping is a major problem in an extensive

survey such as the one undertaken here. Accordingly, a carefully considered "Chain- of -Custody" needs to be developed

and followed. A detail which would be followed if further

work were done, would be to assign a -permanent number

to a sample container, but a different unique number to

each sample. Computer programs could then be used to

identify any cross-contamination that might be suspected.

Data should also be recorded in a format that would

simplify its use in data reduction, e.g., its transferral

to punch cards. The data analyst should be helpful in

devising a suitable format. This was not done in the

present work and additional labor was expended as a result.

Such a format would also minimize the chance of error in

data transcription.

8. CONCLUSIONS

The distribution of toxic substances in the environment

may be due to their origination from localized sources or

21
from multiple sources widely (often randomly) located within

the area. The latter results in ubiquitous distributions,

the concentration level of which must be ascertained by

widespread sampling over an extended period of time.

The concentration levels found may be high enough for

considerable concern and attention, they may be within

generally considered safe levels, or they may indicate

continued surveillance to determine whether adverse trends

are in progress. The present results appear to indicate

the middle situation. However, continued surveillance of

the few spots where elevated levels were found would be

prudent

.

The techniques developed during the course of this work

should greatly facilitate continued surveillance of this

area as well as similar studies undertaken in other areas

and/or with other ubiquitous toxic substances. The computer

techniques should greatly facilitate data reduction and

analysis and provide a convenient means to obtain both an

overall level of a given toxic substance as well as to

locate areas for further study or continued surveillance.

The recommendations given in Section 7 should be useful

for continuation of the present survey or to those planning

similar surveys.

9. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This work was done under one of two agreements with

EPA, Office of Toxic Substances. The NBS work was done

under an Interagency Agreement EPA-NBS IAG D6-0686 and

involved planning, advising, and interpretation of data.

The actual sampling and analysis was done under an independent contract #68-01-3546 between EPA, Office of Toxic

Substances and the D.C. Government Department of Environmental Services.

We are grateful to acknowledge the assistance, advice,

and helpful information provided to us by many individuals,

named and unnamed, during the course of this work. The

sampling service provided by Mr. Charles Barnhart and the

analytical services of Dr. Ibraham El-Barbary, both of the

D.C. Department of Environmental Services, was essential.

Ms. Sharon Strothers and Mr. Obie Kinnard of that organization also were very helpful in analytical work and in

card punching, respectively. Mr. T.C. Rains of the National

Bureau of Standards provided advice to the authors and also

to Dr. El-Barbary on various technical problems concerned

with the analytical measurements.

22
Various officials and operating engineers of the D.C.

Water and Sewage Disposal Department and the Potomac Electric

Power Company were very cooperative in informing us of many

pertinent details and provided data of an engineering

nature which helped us design the sampling scheme and

interpret the data.

We are especially grateful to the several project

officers of the Office of Toxic Substances, Environmental

Protection Agency, which sponsored this work, namely: Mr.

David Garrett, Mr. Frank Maxey, Dr. George Seminuk, Mr.

Edward Brooks and Mr. Elbert Dage.

23
10. REFERENCES

1. "Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes,"

EPA- 6 2 5/6 - 74 - 003 , Environmental Protection Agency,

Washington, D.C. (1974).

2. Long, S.J., D.R. Scott and R.J. Thompson, "Atomic

Absorption Determination of Elemental Mercury Collected

from Ambient Air on Silver Wool," Analytical Chemistry,

45_ (13) , 2227 (1973) .

3. "Analytical Methods for Atomic Absorption Spectroscopy

Using the HGA Graphite Furnace," Perkin-Elmer (1975).

4. Tucker, A., "The Toxic Metals," Ballantine Books, New

York (1972).

5. Kopp , J.F. and R.C. Kroner, "A Five Year Summary of

Trace Metals in Rivers and Lakes of the US," US Dept.

of the Interior, Federal Water Pollution Control Admin.,

Div. of Pollution Surveillance, Cincinnati, Ohio.

6. "EPA Water Programs: National Interim Primary Drinking

Water Regulations," Federal Register, 4_0, 59566 (Dec.

24, 1975).

7. Faoro, R.B. and T.B. McMullen, "National Trends in

Trace Metals in Ambient Air, 1965-1974", EPA-4S0/ 1-77-

003, Research Triangle Park, NC (1977).

8. "Proceedings, International Symposium on the Environmental

Health Aspects of Lead", Amsterdam, Netherlands (Oct.

2-6, 1972).

9. "Lead: Airborn Lead in Perspective," National Academy

of Sciences, Washington, DC (1972).

10. Griffin, T.B. and J.H. Knelson, eds., "Lead,” Academic

Press, New York (1975).

11. "Mercury and Air Pollution: A Bibliography with

Abstracts," Environmental Protection Agency, Research

Triangle Park, NC (1972).

24
12. Klein, D.H., "Mercury in the Environment," EPA-660/

2-73-008, Office of Research and Development, US EPA,

Washington, D.C. (1973).

13. Garrett, D. , "Materials Balance and Technology Assessment of Mercury and its Compounds on National and

Regional Basis," EPA 560/3-75-007, EPA, Office of Toxic

Substances, Washington, D.C. (1975).

14. Friberg, L. and J. Vostal, "Mercury in the Environment,"

CRC Press, Cleveland, Ohio (1972).

15. D’ltri, F.M., "The Environmental Mercury Problem,"

CRC Press, Cleveland, Ohio (1972).

16. Hartung, R. and B.D. Dinman, "Environmental Mercury

Contamination," Ann Arbor Science Publ., Ann Arbor,

Mich. (1972).

17. Friberg, L., M. Piscator, G.F. Nordberg and T.

Kjellstrom, "Cadmium in the Environment," 2nd Ed.,

CRC Press, Cleveland, Ohio (1974).

18. Wroblewski, S.C., T.M. Spittler and P.R. Harrison,

"Mercury Concentration in the Atmosphere in Chicago;

A New Ultrasensitive Method Employing Amalgamation,"

JAPCA , 2_4 , 778 (1974) .

19. Eriksson, E., "Mercury in Nature," Oikos Supplementum

,

9, 13 (1967).

20. Williston, S.H., "Mercury in the Atmosphere," Journal

of Geophysical Res., 7_3_, 7051 (1968).

21. Spittler, J.M., "A System for Collection and Measurement of Elemental and Total Mercury in Ambient Air,"

165th Nat ’ 1 ACS Meeting, April 1973.

22. Ke , P.J. and R.J. Thibert, "Analysis of Total Mercury

in Biological and Water Samples by an Ultrasensitive

Kinetic Method," ASTM STP 573, p. 112 (1975).

23. Roth, I. and H. Horning, "Heavy Metal Concentrations

in Water Sediments, and Fish from the Mediterranean

Coastal Area, Israel," Environ. Sci. § Tech.,

265 (1977).

25
24. Durum, W.H., J.D. Hem and S.G. Heidel, "Reconnaissance

of Selected Minor Elements in Surface Waters of the US,"

Geological Survey Circular 643 (Oct., 1970).

25. Klein, L.A., et . al . , "Sources of Metals in New York

City Wastewater," Journ. WPCF, 4_6, 2653 (1974).

26. Solomon, R.L. and J.W. Hartford, "Lead and Cadmium

in Dusts and Soils in a Small Urban Community,"

Environ. Sci. $ Tech., 10_, 773 (1976).

27. Duggan, M.J. and S. Williams, "Lead in Dust in

City Streets," Sci. of Total Environ., 7_ y 91 (1977).

28. Bewers , J.M. , I.D. Macaulay, Bjorn Sundby, and D.E.

Buckley, "Data are for Looking at, or Quality

Control Through Interpretation." p. 550 in "Water

Quality Parameters" ASTM Publication STP573,

Philadelphia, PA 19103.

29. Filliben, J.J., "DATA PAC : A Data Analysis Packing Proceedings of the 9th Interface Symposium on Computer Sciences and Statistics", p. 212-217 (1976).

26
APPENDIX I

IA. Air Sampling Stations

Al. Fourth District Police Headquarters

Georgia Avenue § Peabody Street, N.W.

A2 . Catholic University, Biology Building

7th § Michigan Avenue, N.E.

A3. St. Elizabeth's Hospital, Guard House No .

3

Martin Luther King Avenue, S.E.

A4

.

DC General Hospital, Doctor's Residence Hall

19th § Massachusetts Avenue, S.E.

A5

.

National Arboretum

24th § R Streets, N.E.

A6

.

801 N. Capitol St., N.E.

A7 . Tenley- Friendship Library

Wisconsin Avenue 5 Albemarle Street, N.W.

A8 . West End Library

24th $ L Streets, N.W.

A9

.

CAMP Station

427 New Jersey Avenue, N.W.

A10.. Cleveland Park Library

Connecticut Avenue § McComb Street

The locations of these air sampling stations are

shown on Map- 1

.

27
APPENDIX I

IB. Sewer Sites

The sewer collection sites are given below

shown on Map 2 .

No. Location

- 210 Nash $ Fairlawn Streets

-200 First § "0" Streets

-190 Connecticut § Upton Sts.

-180 Military Road

-170 Luzon § Aspen Streets

-160 Near National Aboretum

-150 9th § Maine Ave.

-140 Near GW Univ.

-130 22nd St $ "P" St.

-120 Canal Road near GU

-110 42nd § Edmund St.

-100 Reno Road

-90 Mass Ave. § Tilden St.

-80 5th § Ingraham St.

-70 Brookland Ave. near C.U.

-60 Georgia Ave at H.U.

-50 Michigan Ave § Park Place

-40 North Capitol 5 M E" St.

-30 Anacostia Ave. S. of

Benning Rd.

-20 Front entrance of DC Jail

-10 Suitland Parkway

28

and are

Coverage

SE Residential

SW Residential

Old NBS Area

Rock Creek Park

Walter Reed Hosp.

NY Ave . Industrial Area

Maine Ave. Boat

Marina

Various Hospital

Labs

Dupont Circle

GU Medical Ctr.

NW Residential

NW Industrial

American Univ.

Riggs Rd . Industrial Area

Catholic Univ.

Howard Univ.

Wash. Hosp. Ctr.

Union Station

Incinerator-PEPCO

Area

DC General Hosp.

St. Elizabeth's Hosp.
APPENDIX I

IC. Soil and Water Sampling Sites

The sampling sites are listed below and shown on

Map 3 .

1. BLUE PLAINS

# 1 Soil samples were taken in front of the

"Heat Exchange" building; drinking water

was taken from the drinking fountain inside the lab. Hot and stagnant water

samples were taken from the hot water tap

inside the lab.

# 3 Soil samples were taken between the trees

and the railroad tracks at the point where the

tracks cross the entrance road.

# 4 Soil samples were taken near the front gate.

#102 Bottom sediment samples were taken from

the Potomac near the new Administration

Building. River water samples were taken

from the same location.

#112 "Makeup water for elutriation" was taken

from the first open vat next to the lab.

# 83 "Primary water" was taken in the basement

of the heat exchange building. The left

hand lever is for primary water.

# 84 "Secondary water" was also taken in the

basement of the heat exchange building. The

right hand lever is for secondary water.

#109 The "Primary in" water was taken from one

of the center tanks in the new aerated brick

chamber

.

#110 The "Primary -> Secondary" water was taken

from any of the four tanks near "E" or "F"

house

.

29
2 . CONGRESS HTS

.

# 6 Soil and street dust samples were taken at

the corner of Alabama and Randle Place.

3. ST. ELI ZABETH"S HOSPITAL

#700 Soil samples were taken in front of the

WW Eldrige Building, while water samples

were taken from the water taps inside the

visitor's restroom.

#710 Soil samples were taken near the old incinerator site.

4. ANACOSTIA

# 9 Soil samples were taken in back of the

McDonald's restaurant on the corner of Good

Hope Road and 16th Street. Water samples

were taken inside.

5. FT. STANTON PARK

# 8 The soil samples were taken between the

street and the baseball field. The water

samples were taken from the drinking fountain.

6. FT. DUPONT PARK

# 10 The soil samples were taken between the

street and the tennis courts. The water

samples were taken from a nearby drinking

fountain

.

7 . DEANWOOD

# 12 The soil samples were taken on the corner

of 49th Street NE and Sheriff Road. The water

samples were taken from the nearby Exxon

gas station.

8. BENNING HTS.

# 11 The soil samples were taken on the corner

of 44th and Blaine Streets, SE. The water samples

were taken from the nearby Sunoco gas station.

30
9. PEPCO

# 31 The soil samples were taken from the corner

of Benning Road and 34th Street, NE . The water

samples were taken from Phil's Gulf gas station.

# 32 The soil samples were taken between the side

walk and street across from the Pep Boy's Store

on Minnesota Avenue near Benning Road.

# 33 The soil samples were taken on the corner of

Foote Street and Kenilworth Terrace.

#118 The oil sample was obtained from the PEPCO

plant manager.

# 26 The "discharge water" sample was taken from

a manhole just inside the fence near the front

gate.

#260 The drinking water sample was taken from

inside the PEPCO office building.

# 27 The "decant water" sample was taken from the

ash settlement tank inside the PEPCO fence.

10. INCINERATOR

# 18 The soil samples were taken in front of the

office parking lot. The drinking water samples

were taken inside the administration building

and the sewer samples were taken from the

manhole where the ash wash water is discharged

into the sewer.

# 19 The soil samples were taken near the weigh

station

.

# 20 The soil samples were taken in the southeast

corner next to the PEPCO fence.

# 21 The soil samples were taken near the front

entrance at the PEPCO parking lot.

# 22 The soil samples were taken near the basketball - tennis courts and the water samples

were taken from the drinking fountain.

31
11 . RIVER TERRACE

# 16 The soil samples were taken on Anacostia

Avenue near the River Terrace tennis courts.

The drinking water samples were taken from

a nearby drinking fountain.

# 96 The bottom sediments were taken from the

Anacostia River near the park. The river

water sample was taken next to the park

upstream from the PEPCO discharge.

# 29 The river water sample was taken on the bank

near the point of discharge from PEPCO into

the Anacostia River.

12. THOMAS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL

# 23 The soil samples were taken in the play area

near the back of the school. The water samples

were taken from a nearby water faucet.

13. ABORETUM

# 37 The soil samples were taken under the large

tree across from the parking lot. The water

sample was taken from the drinking fountain

nearby

.

14. LINCOLN PARK

# 34 The soil samples were taken between the street

and sidewalk on E. Capitol Street, near the

center of the park. The water samples were

taken from the fountain located within the park.

15. RFK STADIUM

# 17 The soil samples were taken from the grass

island directly in front of RFK Stadium.

16. DC GENERAL

# 15 The soil samples were taken near the reserved

parking lot. The water samples were taken

inside the visitor's center.

32
17. ANACOSTIA RIVER

# 97 The soil samples were taken near the river at

the end of "M" Street. The bottom sediment and

water samples were taken from the river at the

same location.

# 98 The soil samples were taken near the wharf at

the end of "N" Place. The bottom sediment and

water samples were taken from the river at the

same location.

18. BP PEPCO

#1180 The oil sample was obtained from the PEPCO

plant manager.

#1221 The fly ash sample was obtained from the PEPCO

plant manager.

#1220 The drinking water sample was taken from the

drinking fountain located inside the PEPCO

administration building.

#

#

#

#

#

122 The soil samples were taken

First and "V" Streets, SW.

on the corner of

123 The soil samples were taken

Half and "S" Streets, SW.

on the corner of

124 The soil samples were taken

"T" and Second Streets, SW.

on the corner of

125 The soil samples were taken

Second and "V" Streets, SW.

on the corner of

120 The water samples were taken from the Potomac

River bank near the point of intake into the

PEPCO plant. Bottom sediment samples were

taken from the same area.

# 121 The water samples were taken from the Potomac

River bank near the point of discharge into the

Potomac. Bottom sediment samples were taken

from the same area.

33
19. BOAT MARINA

#128 The soil samples were taken underneath the

overpass near the boat marina on Maine Avenue.

Drinking water was taken from a faucet nearby.

River water was taken in the same location.

#135 River water was taken at the point of discharge

into the river by the power plant.

20. HAWTHORNE H.S.

# 35 The soil samples were taken on the corner of

6th and "I" Streets, SW. The water samples were

taken from the nearby fountain.

21. U.S. CAPITOL

# 36 The soil samples were taken underneath one of

the large trees at the rear of the Capitol

Building. The water samples were taken from

a nearby faucet.

22. UNION STATION

# 38 The soil and street dust samples were taken

in front of Union Station. The water samples

were taken from the restroom inside.

#39 The soil samples were taken on the corner of

"I" Street and First Street, NE . The water samples

were taken at the nearby Sunoco gas station.

# 40 The soil samples were taken on the corner of

Patterson and First Streets, NE

.

# 41 The soil samples were taken on the corner of

"K" and Second Streets, NE between the sidewalk and

the wall

.

# 42 The soil samples were taken on the corner of

"G" and Second Streets, NE

.

23. TRAIN YARD

# 45 The soil samples were taken in the parking lot

on the corner of 4th and Penn Streets, NE

.

# 47 The soil samples were taken from the empty lot

across from the Police Station on the corner of

Bladensburg and "T" Streets. The water samples

were taken from the Police Station.

34
# 46 The soil samples were taken near the railroad

tracks on the corner of 14th and "W" Streets, NE

.

# 44 The soil samples were taken on the corner of

"W" and 5th Streets, NE

.

# 43 The soil samples were taken on the train yard

side of the street on the corner of "Q" Street

and Eckington Place.

24. BRENTWOOD PARK RESERVOIR

# 95 Bottom sediment and water samples were taken from

Brentwood Park Reservoir.

25. NE GARAGE

#136 Street dust samples were taken from the pile

of dumpings at the Northeast Garage where

Washington, D.C. street sweepings are dumped.

26. ECKINGTON

# 51 Soil samples were taken on the corner of First

and "S" Streets, NW.

27. HOWARD UNIVERSITY

#129 Soil samples were taken across from the Physical

Plant Building on 6th Street near the corner of

6th and "W" Streets, NW. The water samples were taken

from a nearby water faucet.

28. McMILLIAN RESERVOIR

# 94 Water samples were taken from McMillian Reservoir.

29. WASHINGTON HOSPITAL CENTER

#130 Soil samples were taken near the main entrance

parking lots. Water samples were taken inside.

30. CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY

# 50 The soil samples were taken in the wooded area

near the tennis courts parking lot. The water

samples were taken from a nearby faucet.

35
31. BROOKLAND

#48 The soil samples were taken on the corner of

18th and Monroe Streets, NE . The water samples

were taken from the Shell station nearby.

32. TERRA COTTA

#49 The soil samples were taken on the corner of

South Dakota and 13th Place, NE

.

33. MANOR PARK

#60 The soil samples were taken on the corner of

Blair Road and Sheridan Street.

34. WALTER REED

#61 Soil samples were taken on the corner of

Butternut and Georgia Avenue on the hospital

side of the street.

35. NORTH GATE

#62 Soil samples were taken near the Metrobus

sign in front of the Washington Ethical Society

Building (7750 16th Street, NW)

.

36. BRIGHTWOOD PARK

#59 Soil samples were taken between the sidewalk

and street on the corner of 8th and Longfellow, NW.

37. GRANT CIRCLE

#58 Soil samples were taken at Grant Circle near

5th Street, NW. Water samples were taken from a fountain inside Grant Circle.

38. CRESTWOOD1

#56 Soil and street dust samples were taken on

the corner of 16th and Upshur Streets, NW.

39. CRESTWOOD2

#57 Soil samples were taken at the end of Upshur

at Rock Creek Park.

40. COLUMBIA HEIGHTS

#55 Soil samples were taken on the corner of 13th

and Euclid Streets, NW.

36
41. LOGAN CIRCLE

# 53 Soil and water samples were taken inside Logan

Circle

.

42. DUPONT CIRCLE

# 54 Soil and water samples were taken inside Dupont

Circle. Street dust samples were swept from the

street

.

43. ELLIPSE

# 52 Soil samples were taken between Constitution

Avenue and the Ellipse. Water samples were taken

from a nearby fountain.

44. TIDAL BASIN

# 99 Soil, bottom sediment and water samples were taken

at the tidal basin near the Jefferson Memorial.

45. POTOMAC3

#104 Soil, bottom sediment and river samples were taken

near the tidal basin outlet to the Potomac on the

West Potomac Park side of Ohio Drive.

46. HAINS POINT

# 13 Soil, bottom sediment, river water and drinking

water samples were taken at Hains Point.

47. WASHINGTON CHANNEL

#100 Soil, bottom sediment, street dust and water

samples were taken from or near the Washington

channel at the parking lot across from the Ft.

McNair Smoke Stacks.

48. T. ROOSEVELT ISLAND

# 82 Soil, bottom sediment and river water samples were

taken near the end of the walkway onto T. Roosevelt

Island. Drinking water samples were taken from

the fountain at the monument.

37
49 . COLUMBIA ISLAND

#134 Soil, bottom sediment and river water samples

were taken on Columbia Island near George Mason

Memorial Bridge.

50. GEORGETOWN

# 81 Soil samples were taken on the corner of

31st and "N" Streets, NW.

51. ROCK CREEK - 4

#133 Soil, bottom sediment and river water samples

were taken underneath the bridge at 26th and "M"

Streets, NW.

52. POTOMAC - 6

#107 Soil and river water samples were taken at the

Potomac River at the end of Wisconsin Avenue.

53. GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY

# 80 Soil and street dust samples were taken at

Georgetown University across from the Medical

Center on Reservoir Road. Water samples were

taken from a nearby faucet.

54. U.S. NAVAL OBSERVATORY

# 79 Soil samples were taken on the corner of

Observatory Circle and Massachusetts Avenue

across from the British Embassy.

55. CLEVELAND PARK - 1

# 72 Soil samples were taken on the corner of 36th

and Ordway Streets.

56. CLEVELAND PARK - 2

# 73 Soil samples were taken on the corner of

Connecticut Avenue and Rodman Street.

38
57. FT. RENO PARK

# 68 Soil samples were taken in Ft. Reno Park on

the corner of Chesapeake and 40th Streets.

Water samples were obtained from a nearby

drinking fountain.

58. BARNABY WOODS

# 65 Soil samples were taken on the corner of Utah

and 32nd Streets.

59. ROCK CREEK - 1

# 63 Soil, bottom sediment and river water samples

were taken from Rock Creek at parking area #10.

Drinking water samples were taken from a nearby

drinking fountain.

60. ROCK CREEK - 3

#131 Soil, bottom sediment, and river water samples

were taken near the bridge on Beach Drive at

the Montgomery County line.

61.

ROCK CREEK - 2

# 64 Soil and street dust samples were taken at the

parking lot near Military Road bridge. Bottom

sediment and river water samples were taken from

Rock Creek at this location. Drinking water

samples were taken from a fountain near the log

cabin

.

62. LITTLE FORREST PARK

# 66 Soil samples were taken on the corner of 30th

Street and Military Road.

63. TENLEYTOWN

# 69 Soil samples were taken on the corner of 38th

and Warren Streets.

64. LISNER HOME

# 67 Soil samples were taken in the park on Fessenden

Street between 46th and 47th Streets, NW. Water

samples were taken from a nearby fountain.

39
65. AMERICAN UNIVERSITY

# 71 Soil samples were taken in front of the

Chemistry Building. Water samples were

taken from a nearby faucet.

66. WESLEY HEIGHTS

# 74 Soil samples were taken on the corner of

Dexter Street and 49th.

67. MT. VERNON J.C.

# 77 Soil samples were taken near the Science

Building. Water samples were taken inside

the Science Building.

68. GEORGETOWN RESERVOIR

# 78 Water samples were taken from the Georgetown

Reservoir

.

69. PALISADES

# 76 Soil samples were taken on the park side of

Arizona Street near Klingle.

70. POTIMAC HEIGHTS

# 75 Soil samples were taken on the corner of

Potomac Avenue and Newark Street.

71. DALECARLIA

# 70 Soil samples were taken near the main gate at

Dalecar lia

.

#7000 "Raw Water" samples were taken inside the

Dalecarlia Chemistry Laboratory.

#7001 "Treated Water" samples were taken inside the

Dalecarlia Chemistry Laboratory.

72. CANAL - 2 #132 Soil and street dust samples were taken on Canal

Road 0.8 miles south of Chain Bridge. Bottom

sediment and water samples were taken from the

canal at the same location.

40
73. CANAL 1 #1030 Soil, bottom sediment and water samples were

taken from the canal on the Washington, DC side

of Chain Bridge.

74. POTOMAC - 2

#103 Soil, bottom sediment and river water samples

were taken from the Potomac River on the Virginia

side of Chain Bridge.

41
^Silver

Wool

and

Air

Filter

concentrations

are

yg/M 3;

all

other

concentrations

are

ppm.
Table

2.

Summary

of

Lead

Data P3oo

<D *H p e p -h 2 -}

p3Oo M 4~» 03 *H a s P *H

33 -J 0

T3O

p -tH CO 4J TJ «) (0 C *H

03 > U 0J CO Q

§1

X

03 X ooo

QJ

03 .O *4-4 P 0 o ir 3 03 2 co

<U co »P UH 0) 0 0 4-1 3 *H 2 CO

a)

r-i 0) P Pi 0 H 03 H

CO

CO

u

03 CO

a> 4-1

M 3

•u 03 00 4-J <13

O

rHa e 4-> rH rH

03 03 *H *H 4-» pH U H 3 5 O O 03

<u 03 e 00 CO CO 03 5 > 03 4J p ^3 U

<D

h 4-» o o 3 4J < CO P6 Q CO 2 H CO CO

L
Table

3.

Summary

of

Cadmium

Data

-oc

co m

Cl o

I ON

O rH O O

m O'

cma

o

ouo

cl

0) *H

CL 6 a *h

C3 hJ

o co O O r** m

m

Oo m

o

o

CO

CN1 o

o

CMo

o

mi—

i

o

o

oo oo r«- rH O' O o m cm O O' 00 CO CO

Csl

"3- sO

-O’

i£>

o

00-Tm

co

O

o

m

vo m

O rH

so

r-. vo m mco <r

vo <r

v£> 00 in cm r- m vo

m

c

o

3-4 *H

co 4J "O CO 03 C -H> H 0) CO Q

m

rHO

O'

rHo

o

00o

oo

<ro

o

o

vOoo

o

v£> o

o

o

-Tm

CO

ra| k v

x;

vOCNrHOOOOOfH<T CO 00 CO in \£) CM CM o OOOOOOMJ-COCO MJ- OOOOOOvOinO cmo

rH iH CM rH OOO'VOO'OOOOOO CO<T»-HrHCN|rHOOO o ooooooooo O 000000<rao<r m

cm m <r <r *h incMOOOOcMr^-o i i i i i i i i i i rHOOOOOO'vOO O OOOOOO-d-lHO o OOOOOOl o

— rHOO CO

0a

a

03u

CO

03co

COcH

c

03o

co

u

u

0/ >co

co

03 H 03

03 rH

,0 in a

0 O 0

C CO Z C/3

<ui °

3Z

03

3-* CO

03c

o

CO

3-< 4Jc

0)o

c

oo

3-i 03

03 3-i 4-1 •H

3-i 03 0) Pl

03 4J 3-4 3 (0

03 4-1 CO 00 4-1 03 a 4-3 3* rH 03 rH c c 4-1 rH rH c a a •H cO CO *H *H 4-1 0 03 <

0 > Ch 3-i 3-i C3 3 O O 03 O 0

cO H 03 03 c 00 03 03 0) 4-1 *H

C/3 3-i * > •H CO 4-1 O- X3 3-i 4-1 T3 •H 03 •H 3-4 4-1 o o 3 4-1 O 03 < C/3 Q CO K H CO CO CQ CO
Table 4. Comparison of Present Data with Values Found by Others — Air

.

Location Reference Hg Pb Cd

Elemental Hg

Washington, DC This Work . 021

Chicago, IL 18 .022

World Average 19 .020

San Francisco 20 .001- .050

World Wide 21 . 003- 2.00

Particulates

Washington, DC This Work . 0015 .19 .0026

Chicago 18 . 0040

World Wide 21 . 0005- . 0150

Nation Wide 7 . 9000 . 0004

Nation Wide 9 1-3

U.S.A. Urban 8 1.1

U.S.A. Nonurban 8 0.10

Washington, DC 8 1.08-2.34

All values, yg/M 3

4 5
Table 5. Comparison of Present Data with — Water.

Values Found by Others

Location Reference Hg Pb Cd

Drinking Water

Washington, DC This Work . 0002 . 0035 .0004

Permissable

Level - 7 5 5 .002 . 050 .010

Windsor, Ontario 22 . 0001

River Water

Washington, DC This Work .0003 . 0123 . 0008

Windsor, Ontario 22 . 0003

Michigan 12 .0001- .0002

Nationwide 15 . 00002- . 0007

Israel 23 .0064 . 0009

Nationwide 24 0- .005 . 001- . 050 . 001- .010

Sewer

Washington, DC This Work . 0017 . 0525 . 0013

New York City 25 .001- .007

All values, ppm (mg/L)

46
Table 6. Comparison of Present Data with Values Found by Others - Soil.

Location Reference Hg Pb Cd

Topsoil

Washington, DC This Work . 3800 301 1.6406

Michigan 12 . 0102 1.46

Nationwide 15 .020- . 920

Netherlands 8 555

Champaign, IL 26

Street Dust

20-1060 1.0

Washington, DC This Work . 3297 715 2.0342

Champaign, IL 26 240-6640 vO 1 00 London 27

Subsoil

1200

Washington, DC This Work . 5944 160 1 . 5312

Bottom Sediments

Washington, DC This Work .3016 76 1 . 0240

Israel 23 8.4 0 .

7

Michigan 12 .1100 11

All values, ppm (yg/g)

47
LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Schematic flow of water in the Washington

D . C . area

.

Figure 2. The overall movement of solid waste in the

Washington, D.C. area.

Figure 3. Histogram for measurements of lead on air

filters

.

Figure 4. Histogram for measurements of mercury in

drinking water.

Figure 5. Histogram for measurements of lead in

street dust.

Figure 6. Monthly average concentrations of mercury

in air plotted with respect to time (numerical value is month)

.

Figure 7 . Monthly average concentrations of mercury

in water plotted with respect to time

(numerical value is month)

.

Figure 8 . Monthly average concentrations of mercury

in soil plotted with respect to time

(numerical value is month)

.

Figure 9. Monthly average concentrations of lead in

air plotted with respect to time (numerical

value is month)

.

Figure 10. Monthly average concentrations of lead in

water plotted with respect to time (numerical

value is month)

.

Figure 11. Monthly average concentrations of lead in

soil plotted with respect to time (numerical

value is month)

.

Figure 12. Monthly average concentrations of cadmium

in air plotted with respect to time

(numerical value is month)

.

48
Figure 13.

Figure 14.

Monthly average concentrations of cadmium

in water plotted with respect to time

(numerical value is month)

.

Monthly average concentrations of cadmium

in soil plotted with respect to time

(numerical value is month)

.

49
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

LIST OF MAPS

Air Sampling Stations.

Sewer sites.

Soil and water sampling sites.

Area-wide distribution of average concentration

of elemental mercury in air.

Area-wide distribution of average concentration

of particulate mercury in air.

Area-wide distribution of average concentration of

mercury in sewer water.

Area-wide distribution of average concentration

of mercury in river water.

Area-wide distribution of average concentration

of mercury in drinking water.

Area-wide distribution

of mercury in topsoil.

of average concentration

Area-wide distribution

of mercury in subsoil.

of average concentration

Area-wide distribution of

of mercury in street dust.

average concentration

Area-wide distribution of average

mercury in bottom sediments.

concentration of

Area-wide distribution

lead in air.

of average concentration of

Area -wide distribution

lead in sewer water.

of average concentration of

Area-wide distribution

lead in river water.

of average concentration of

Area-wide distribution

lead in drinking water.

of average concentration of

Area-wide distribution

lead in topsoil.

of average concentration of

Area-wide distribution

lead in subsoil.

of average concentration of

50
Map 19 Area-wide distribution of average

lead in street dust.

concentration of

Map 20 Area-wide distribution of average

lead in bottom sediments.

concentration of

Map 21 Area-wide distribution of average

cadmium in air.

concentration of

Map 22 Area-wide distribution of average

cadmium in sewer water.

concentration of

Map 23 Area-wide distribution of average

cadmium in river water.

concentration of

Map 24 Area-wide distribution of average

of cadmium in drinking water.

concentration

Map 25 Area-wide distribution of average

of cadmium in topsoil.

concentration

Map 26 Area-wide distribution of average

of cadmium in subsoil.

concentration

Map 27 Area-wide distribution of average

of cadmium in street dust.

concentration

Map 28 Area-wide distribution of average

of cadmium in bottom sediments.

concentration

51
Figure 1. Schematic Flow of Water in

the Washington, D. C. Area

ILLLQOil
Total DC Solid Waste = 950 + 400 + 500 100 + 50 = 2000 tons/day

AIR

A

600 INCINERATOR

V

SEWER

Figure 2. Solid Waste Movement in the Washington,

D. C. Area

ASH

LANDFILL
Figure

3.

Histogram

for

Lead

on

Air

Filters
Figure

4.

Histogram

for

Mercury

in

Drinking

Water
Figure

5.

Histogram

for

Lead

in

Street

Dust
0402857=MAX I a

*— ! < IiI \r. 1 IT Ita

>-

frit,' _j

Cl i—1 5 d 03

l/>

a

•H

>1u

03 3 6 O 3

>- 3 2

a:

0) z>o

<r 4-) • LJ* ° 03a

81 03 •9

ItJ Q_

Co H

>- *H

O *" 4-1 4J

fr- 2

a)3 4J

UJ 4J

O 5" c 03 UJ

_J a) ex

UJ

a (0 1 c 3 ' o (L X

fr- o 2 X o 03 4-1 />->. 2£ to •H X 2 CJ 12 -3 O d d M a *3 O fr- (J > 03 2

UJ < 4-1 _J 4-1

W

_J >»

O -H ou 1

{ rH x Pu 03 LA 4-1 3

Cn

cr

d 3 r-( o •H (3 UJ>2 2 <$ > O l/l * »- cr

fr— UJ MD

-r fr- ee _j 03

frd 2 U 3

UJ 60 o a: 2 »- -H O <t O

II

l/> f\j UJ

fr- LA ._j o

or o

Ui i >O cc — UJ>

UJ _J o< i/j a:uj m

fj-(

III I
0006250=MAX

*4i

ii i *- -iIliiii I M l~. • I

:*

ii o LT c 4 c Cl o > om K

U* • _J

Ol3

SA

>-

ce

uOVu

<u s

4-1 o 1 cr w 1l o

Ul2F

d 4-1 1 o o O I o II -H a) • e LJ

Q_

4J CX 1 o1 o a) to

X i in >- u <U 4-1 — • - 4-1 PS d 1 CNi l- d o z (1) x

IU o 4-> > c -H

M :

LJ

_JLJ oo

-H 1 T3 0) i 1 a> 0) d i *-• h- co 4-1 i—i i Z d 4J d o V4 o > !

>' QJ i—4 | I z > Pi •H 1 o o <c d 1 o M V4 CJ 1 O• o1 c

h- o o

L' I

>, rH

<D

4-> •H i in -I rC d <l) M1 OJ• _J II 4-1 e 11 oo r- do d d 1 in •H 1 ^ — 1 in hcr z

LJ < > z 1 c 11 z < o >- <i) P~t *- l/V H 1 *- 3 J1 < II CC co 1 7 1 o LJ 1 o o — 1 o z o 1 o O Z • o O •- 1 o * 1 o ^ z

*-« • lj cr :

hQ M

in ii 1

(OVER

R15

LJ . LJ > o< cr

crU 11 >< ^
1.0000000 =

M/\X II om

l/l aoa- to z

Ll' z > ll UJ >' _J —

UJ

QI L I CT. X

h- 5 z c o »- X »-o z cr c

*-» II c - o *-

</> 3 X o

l/i cr

k

UJ Ul > u

h- II <

cr o

b-Z

UJ

—

O _J z *- c o o cnc ^ z>

tnt/> u

»- ii

*—« cn

a

a

uj

— > _J o *-« w O

tn

uj Cl o o

cr ( Ul II i < 03 l

Figure

8.

Monthly

Average

Concentrations

of

Mercury

in

Soil

Plotted

With

Respect

to

Time.

(Numerical

Value

is

Month)
3040000=MAX

tre

bJ

II

Cc L o C o > o K

lT f j <\j• U

•J 03

O' CLa 2 c •H

<.40 •H V4

a>s

flj 3

QJ 2 J

VM • O Q)

C

<. to •S o

kJ

CH o o o II -H O o 4-1 4-1 oo Ua rt 40 > }-i 4-1 K 4-1 o <£ »-:z a

<y

QJDL_ o cn

IF c 0) UJ

_J

UJ oo

Pi 1 -3 1 a) 4J - oo •H c

2t 0) T3 2 > a) o C < 4-1 o *-* 4-1 ooo

V—uu

>.

i-h o1—1 40 _J X p-i O' 4-1

r~. co co

V-. -H

tn 2 < a

UJ • > CTi o <Du K 3

cr oo

-H Z U-, o U- o o o x* o o o o oo• 40u

h-

¥—40 1 crUJ I r»o 1 —

i Li i o i <. 1 crUJ j >< Co2w

-H

0)3*—I

oJ >
XVWrOOOOOCO

10.

Monthly

Average

Concentrations

of

Lead

in

Water

Plotted

With

Respect

to

Time.

(Numerical

Value

is

Month)
1396.0000000=MAX i , <2D fOm

CC

Csj

<\J

O ' O'

ajCO

O'o

COo

Cn, r*

in

in

in

m

rccfO

CM

CVJ O'sO

r-- ! • H

ITM

X I II I c

U'

II

CTL0.

>- in 2” »-

_J

—

UJ oI L_ i in 1

>- ^ T O O K- 2 >-C r a c— it —uL — e - o h-in m 3

z: c

in

cl >- uj lj > l.Q Z — o in <

cr o —z

Li

—

O _J c c O cr(3 ^ Z> in m

LJ

>- II in a a 1 LJ — > -J O -• ^ o

in lj a O o < H

cr

LJ || > I < cO

T)

<D

CO

cj

V-i a;£32

cu sH

cO ±-> Pi CJ 4_i <y C Cc

<UW

O CJ C Pi o

CJ

Xi-J GJ *H ^ K)^ £ a i-> p "a c o a o > -u S < -UO w i— *H i—I P-t JZ 0) •Ur-13 3 t~C i-H 0 0 3 L « >

<DPi3M
0041250=MAX I

ii

iiI ( Ii ! iw® :

I!iI I i

S!Vi ; 1 1 •

t!ii• i ii :

SiI ! ~lI I •IIIII : • .

ilII , I , I • IiiII8 *-•I ' III8iIIII Ccooo

IT

CV

crcooocm

hlOoocoocc

tna

bj

u.

CL

88 Lau—i

CL

<.

S'3

L.a

>-2

L~5

LJ

-JLJI8Xosa

-j

-Jco

in

crZoa-U • ooo

l*J

la

UJ>o

LJo

orUJ>•<

d r-lcdo e •HU

•H a) 6 0

T3 2

cd O > '

<4-4 • o a)

CS co •5 d H o O

4->

u

<d

V-i 4-»

4->

O

d 0)

<y Cl. o CO d a o pi o X

<d s CO *H ,d O 3 4-4

V-J

d

a) n3 o > 0) S < 4-1 4J CO >,. O *H

i-H rH X eu 4) 4J d d u i—c O cd s <C >

CN

0)3

a£>

pH
0029971

-MAX I I I | ^ M *- M I •- •— « 9 | |

•J ooo

sO

CM o

(Ni NOCM

cuo,o 5; O' | oo !l M Io*-• 5: ii vO

<DCMm

tt t L

p- h- 1 < 1 * 1 II 1 c in 1 c U 1 o a 1 o >- 1 o K 1 IT rH 1 (V. uj

_j

d 1 df a d o t x •H 1 < 3-1 1• in e a) 1 3 £ 1 •H 3 1g . £ SC 1 V-/ 1 o3

•-* 2 a • 1111

—<

s:c

u-io

03 •S 11 o c H 1 O1 o u

II

tnd

O 1 o o .u » c UJ -H 1 oI in a

>- 4-> 4-1

—« • - <0 CJ 1 m 34 a) 1 - 4J aUJ d CO • 5 cu <D UI o PS 11•

-JUI1 co « 1 a

u

M1 X -H | - C3 1 o C0

X 1 03 'a •u 1•1

3-i <u

d 1 1 o c O u o 1 o > 4-1 2 • ° K- >- < o 1 o 1 o i i in o o u X

_j

r“H

PL,

CO •H i r- .j ii i—l *T * O x 34 <u 1 o. i c r- •u (U 3 m d 4-1 r—H ! i o 03 03 in —

or 2 3 >

UJ < ; i > 2 i i c* • 2 < rO 1 *-• i l O H- - lA

*- rH 1 • < II <D i ' J, a.»- ^ 34 l z 3 1 l o UI CO 1 o o — •H 1 o Z IS r. 1 o c z

K>

dfO'oo

<\i

-*!

in m,

lj ct v- o M

LD || a in ui>o - — ctUi

LJ > 0 *-• <t CL

CLu: il >< * 1
1007500

-» IZ O

IS)

l/- L

CL>- 1 IT. I r- L- • _j t-H i <r q d d 1 5 1 < I to *H CJ •H 1 E d 1 3 CU 1| •h e E 3 1 TJ 2 1 cd v—

V § o 1 *~ « * <-w a) • Cj 1 c 1 o u o B

•H 1 o U) H 1 O II d 1 o1 O LJ 1 CL o o

-H 4-1 I in > 4-1 *- • - d 4-J I r- i h- m d CJ 1 7 - 4-J (U 1 LJ Z d a, 0 ^ Li <u cn 1 LJ 3F 1 JM a a) LJ Q d Pd • 1 b_ o 1 1 to 1 X

•-i - 7 U .d

4-1 1 7 O QJ -H a G h 00 rs • ^ »- d 4J 1 2 CL d d 1 C O a) cu o I1 Oo -

11 > 4-> S 1 o o <; 4J 1 O LJ ~ o w i m _i i—( 'H » C\J _J i—! pH • o — i in o y- jp a) l to O H 3 1 to 3 d *H rH 8 3 O o o d I to I cr k- 2 W > 1 LJ LU 8 > LJ 1 or 1 z — 1 O to <r M M *—i 1 »- II 1 < a) 1 cr o 1 k d 1 z d 1 O LJ — 00 1 O LJ J •-4 I o z »- i o o o P-< 1 o G to 1 O CD 1 3 M • to to

K) LJ

II

M

to O' crLJ — > -J O ~ — o

in l* a o o < — i cr 1 LJ II r>

co
Map 1. Air Sampling Stations
*COLLEaj£/

IUU UUlmd

I wist'

.Uftivwitty

* P»h <

RilStm

>KJrUwood Vj OvMM

if OimU

ShgnJdi

Sp«*»*fb«oc4 , Tunics j

Dsiasvcsd

tSiV,

O'SUftllU ' J| Csbcai Viftigs,

Cspilot Heights

TON

hbSttiri

WASHINGTON D.C

AND V!CINTTY

Hap 2. Sewer Coverage
n

at*

Map 3. Soil and Water Sampling Sites
o

00 I ©

CD©©

ru©©

aii oao

•H

4-J 03UuC

0)oaoa

<D00

03n

a)

M-lO

•H

a cd o

•H

•M3

X>U

CO •Hnd

QJ 03

•H

O*T

03

03

34 <

a.

03 JS

©

CO

©

CD

©

elemental

mercury

in
©

CO

4-1o

Co

•H

cOuP

c

CL) a

c

oo

<y00

cOu

0)>

• 4-1 p

O -H

CO G

O G

•H *H G

rO P

•H G

P O

4-) P

CO <D •H e

TO

0) P

(!) CO TO iH

•M G

I -H

CO P

0) P

P cO <0 a.

lO

a.

cO S
Area-wide

distribution

of

average

concentration

of

 00o

CD©©

OJ©©

nji © & ©

00

©

CO

©

rr

©

OJ

Area-wide

Distribution

of

Average

Concentration

of

Mercury

in

River

Water
Area-wide

Distribution

of

Average

Concentration

of

Mercury

in

Drinking

Water
o

COo

COo

^ro

cu




nji o

co


 co o

’T o

OJ

Map

9.

Area-wide

distribution

of

average

concentration

of

mercury

in

topsoil
Map

10.

Area-wide

Distribution

of

Average

Concentration

of

Mercury

in

Subsoil
CO CO Tj' OJ o

00o

COQ

<S> OJO


 OJI

Map

11.

Area-wide

Distribution

of

Average

Concentration

of

Mercury

in

Street

Dust
o

00

Map

12.

Area-wide

Distribution

of

Average

Concentration

of

Mercury

in

Bottom

Sediments
©

CO

Map

13.

Area-wide

Distribution

of

Average

Concentration

of

Lead

in

Air
00

Map

14.

Area-wide

Distribution

of

Average

Concentration

of

Lead

in

Sewer

Water
o

00

Map

15.

Area-wide

distribution

of

average

concentration

of

lead

in

river

water
Lead

in

Drinking

Water
Q

CO

00


 CO

o

"T

o

ai

Map

17.

Area-wide

distribution

of

average

concentration

of

lead

in

topsoil
Map

18.

Area-wide

Distribution

of

Average

Concentration

of

Lead

in

Subsoil
CD co nj

<s* COQ

COO

"T

<S> ru


 Q

rui

Map

19.

Area-wide

Distribution

of

Average

Concentration

of

Lead

in

Street

Dust
Q

00

Map

20.

Area-wide

Distribution

of

Average

Concentration

of

Lead

in

Bottom

Sediments
<s» 00

Map

21.

Area-wide

Distribution

of

Average

Concentration

of

Cadmium

in

Air
Map

22.

Area-wide

Distribution

of

Average

Concentration

of

Cadmium

in

Sewer

Water
Map

23.

Area-wide

Distribution

of

Average

Concentration

of

Cadmium

in

River

Water
00

of

Cadmium

in

Drinking

Water
Map

25.

Area-wide

distribution

of

average

concentration

of

cadmium

in

topsoil
of

Cadmium

in

Subsoil
co

COuu

c

(1) CJa

oo

<1) CO

COVJ

<3

<i

•+4 -U O CO3 a q

o

•H

•U3

J3

u

0) 3

>4 •U M CO U

CO c

-H -H Q

e

QJ 3

t3 “H *H S ^ -a

i co cO O

<0Vi V4 < o

r>* cm

Cu
Area-wide

Distribution

of

Average

Concentration

of

Cadmium

in

Bottom

Sediments

NBS-114A (REV. 7-73)

I

U.S. DEPT. OF COMM. BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA

SHEET

1. PUBLICATION OR REPORT NO. NBSIR 78-14282. Gov’t Accession

No.

3. Recipient’s Accession No.

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE

Survey of the Occurrence of Mercury, Lead, and Cadmium

in the Washington, D.C. Area

5. Publication Date September 1977

6. Performing Organization Code

7. AUTHOR(S)

E. P. Scheide, J. J. Filliben, and ,T . K. Taylor

8. Performing Organ. Report No.

9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20234

10. Project/Task/Work Unit No. 553-5150

11. Contract/Grant No.

12. Sponsoring Organization Name and Complete Address (Street, City, State, ZIP

)

The Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Toxic Substances

Washington, D.C. 20460

13. Type of Report & Period Covered Final

May 1976 - July 1977

14. Sponsoring Agency Code

15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

16. ABSTRACT (A 200-word or less factual summary of most significant information. If document includes a significant

bibliography or literature survey, mention it here.)

c This report describes the development of a plan to comprehensively survey

the occurrence of potentially toxic substances in a defined geographical area

and its application to the determination of the concentration levels of mercury,

lead, and cadmium in various aspects of the environment in the Washington, D.C. area. It describes the basic philosophy of such a survey, the development of a sampling plan, and the identification of analytical methods adequate to obtain

the required measurements. Methods of data reduction using the NBS computer

are also described. The data are presented in tables and unique computer- generated plots which show the overall concentration profiles and spots of

elevated concentration levels. No significantly hazardous conditions were found

to exist. The approach followed and the data reduction techniques developed

should be useful to surveys of these elements in other areas and also for surveys

of ubiquitous hazardous materials in general.

17. KEY WORDS (six to twelve entries; alphabetical order; capitalize only the first letter of the first key word unless a proper name; separated by semicolons) Cadmium; computer techniques for environmental data;

environmental data; environmental surveys; mercury; toxic materials.

18. AVAILABILITY (3T

1 Unlimited

For Official Distribution. Do Not Release to NTIS

|

I Order From Sup. of Doc., U.S. Government Printing Office Washington, D.C. 20402, SD Cat. No. C 1 3 E 0rder From National Technical Information Service (NTIS)

Springfield, Virginia 22151

19. SECURITY CLASS 21. NO. OF PAGES

(THIS REPORT)

UNCL ASSIFIED 97

20. SECURITY CLASS 22. Price (THIS PAGE)

UNCLASSIFIED $ 6.00

USCOMM-DC 29042-P74