THEA FOSS AND WHEELER-OSGOOD WATERWAYS

Appendix KDATA VALIDATION REPORT – STORMWATER

MONITORING, AUGUST 2007 – 2008

THEA FOSS AND WHEELER-OSGOOD WATERWAYS STORMWATER MONITORING

APPENDIX K

Prepared for: DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY

Prepared by: CITY OF TACOMA

March 2009

Thea Foss and Wheeler-Osgood Waterways Data Validation Report, August 2007-2008


Appendix K Table of Contents

Page

1.0 INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................... 1 1.1 GOALS.................................................................................................................... 11.1.1 Objectives ............................................................................................................... 1

2.0 MONITORING PROGRAM DESCRIPTION............................................................ 2 2.1 SAMPLE LOCATIONS............................................................................................ 2 2.2 FIELD SAMPLING PROGRAM............................................................................... 4 2.2.1 Sampling Equipment ............................................................................................... 5 2.2.2 Baseflow Sampling.................................................................................................. 6 2.2.3 Stormwater Sampling.............................................................................................. 10 2.2.4 Stormwater Suspended Particulate Matter Sampling.............................................. 14 2.2.5 MH390 Sump Sample Collection and Cleaning Process ........................................ 16

3.0 RESULTS ............................................................................................................... 17 3.1 FIELD AND HYDROLOGIC DATA SUMMARY ...................................................... 17 3.1.1 Rainfall Summary.................................................................................................... 17 3.1.2 Baseflow Monitoring................................................................................................ 18 3.1.2.1 Hydrological Data Evaluation ...................................................................... 19 3.1.2.2 Field Data Evaluation .................................................................................. 21 3.1.2.3 Baseflow Criteria Evaluation ....................................................................... 22 3.1.3 Stormwater Monitoring ............................................................................................ 22 3.1.3.1 Representativeness of Individual Storm Events.......................................... 23 3.1.3.2 Representativeness of Storm Types ........................................................... 24 3.1.3.3 Stormwater Criteria Evaluation ................................................................... 25 3.1.4 Stormwater SPM Monitoring - Sediment Traps....................................................... 27 3.1.5 Stormwater SPM Monitoring - MH390 Sump .......................................................... 28 3.2 LABORATORY DATA SUMMARY.......................................................................... 29 3.2.1 Data Validation Summary ....................................................................................... 29 3.2.1.1 Summary of Data Validation Effort .............................................................. 29 3.2.1.2 Overall Data Quality .................................................................................... 30 3.2.2 Quality Assurance and Control Performance.......................................................... 32 3.2.2.1 Stormwater Results..................................................................................... 33 3.2.2.2 Baseflow results .......................................................................................... 33 3.2.2.3 Suspended particulate matter, and sediment (MH-390).............................. 34 3.2.3 Stormwater SSPM Interlaboratory Comparison ...................................................... 35 3.2.3.1 COT RPDs Results ..................................................................................... 35 3.2.3.2 MH390 Distribution Testing......................................................................... 36 3.2.3.3 MH390 Paired Tests ................................................................................... 36 3.2.3.4 Conclusion .................................................................................................. 37 3.3 DATA SUMMARY ................................................................................................... 38 3.3.1 Discussion of Year 7 Data....................................................................................... 38 3.3.1.1 Baseflow...................................................................................................... 39 3.3.1.2 Stormwater.................................................................................................. 40 3.3.1.3 Comparison of Baseflow and Stormwater Quality....................................... 42 3.3.1.4 Stormwater SPM - Sediment Trap and MH390 Sump ................................ 42



4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FOSS 2001 SAP REVISIONS ................................. 43

5.0 REFERENCES........................................................................................................ 48 Appendix K

Figures and Tables

Figure K-1 Construction Details of Stormwater Sediment Trap

Table K-1 Summary of Analytes, Methods, Detection Limits, Containers, Preservatives, and Holding Times for Water Samples

Table K-2 Summary of Analytes, Methods, Detection Limits, Containers, Preservatives, and Holding Times for Soil/Sediment Samples

Table K-3 Priority Order for Analyses of Stormwater SPM Table K-4 ISCO Site-Specific Settings and Enables Table K-5 List of Analytes and Split Samples for Stormwater SPM Samples Table K-6 Sample Dates for Baseflow Events Table K-7 Dates of Storm Events Sampled Table K-8 Comparison of City and MEL Stormwater SPM Analytical Data

Thea Foss and Wheeler-Osgood Waterways Appendix K-1Annual Stormwater Report for 2007-2008

1.0 INTRODUCTION

Under a Unilateral Administrative Order dated September 30, 2002, and a ConsentDecree with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) dated May 9, 2003, the City ofTacoma is implementing a stormwater monitoring and source control program for thestorm drains entering the Thea Foss and Wheeler-Osgood Waterways. The purpose ofthe monitoring program is to evaluate the quality of stormwater discharges to the TheaFoss Waterway and the effect of those discharges on sediment quality. The results ofthese efforts are being used in an ongoing evaluation of source loadings to the waterwayto help identify and manage new or existing sources and to protect sediment quality inthe years following the sediment remedial action.

1.1 GOALS

To help protect sediment quality in the Thea Foss Waterway following the sedimentremedial action, the City has developed the Thea Foss Post-Remediation SourceControl Strategy. One component of this strategy is a five-year stormwater-monitoringprogram. This program is being completed under a Washington State Department ofEcology (Ecology) Administrative Water Quality Order. Annual stormwater andstormwater suspended particulate matter (SPM) monitoring of the stormwaterdischarges to the Thea Foss Waterway will be used to evaluate effectiveness of thesesource control efforts and to provide early warning of any new problems in thedrainages, if any. The monitoring efforts, their results and evaluation, were outlined inthe Sampling and Analysis Plan (2001 SAP) for Thea Foss and Wheeler-OsgoodWaterways dated September 2001 (Tacoma 2001) approved by EPA September 13,2001.

1.1.1 Objectives

The objectives of the 2001 Sampling and Analysis Plan (2001 SAP) are:

To gather data to identify trends in the quality of water; which will allow the City tomeasure the effectiveness of stormwater source control actions and to confirmthat reductions in concentrations of COCs have been realized such thatrecontamination from stormwater sources is not occurring.To provide an early indication of any new water (baseflow or storm) orstormwater SPM quality problems associated with the storm drains; andTo trace sources of contamination to municipal outfalls using sediment traps.

The objectives were accomplished through performance of the following:

Coordinated the planning of this project with EPA and Ecology and kept themapprised of the progress.Provided Ecology and EPA with data characterizing the quality of the water(storm and baseflow) and stormwater SPM discharging into Thea Foss andWheeler-Osgood Waterways.Conducted field operations at the outfalls to collect water samples as specified inthis 2001 SAP.Conducted field operations at specified manholes to collect stormwater SPMsamples.


Monitored stormwater SPM accumulation in the sump manhole upstream fromOutfall (OF) 245 and collected samples from this sump.Submitted the water samples for analyses of selected semi-volatiles (PAHs andphthalates), selected total metals (lead, mercury, and zinc), hardness, pH, andTSS.Submitted the stormwater SPM samples for analyses of selected semi-volatiles(PAHs and phthalates), selected metals (lead, mercury, and zinc), total solids,Total Organic Carbon (TOC), Pesticides/PCBs, Petroleum Hydrocarbons byNWTPH-Dx and grain size.Produced a Field Report for each sampling event, comparing specific samplecollection parameters with the goals and criteria outlined in this 2001 SAP.Reviewed the analytical data to assure data quality.Produced a Quality Assurance Data Summary Package for each sampling event.

This attachment documents activities associated with the Year 7 sampling and analysiseffort and quality assurance review of field and laboratory data. An evaluation of thedata relative to continuing source control efforts is presented in the August 2001-2008Stormwater Monitoring Report (2001-2008 Report).

The remainder of this attachment is as follows:

Section 2 describes the monitoring program including sampling locations and thefield sampling program.Section 3 presents the field and hydrologic data and laboratory data including adiscussion of the Year 7 results.Section 4 presents recommendations for the Foss 2001 SAP protocols.

2.0 MONITORING PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

Monitoring performed under this 2001 SAP included both whole-water and stormwaterSPM sampling (in-line sediment trap and sump locations). The whole-water sampleswere collected using automated flow and time composite sampling. The whole-watersamples were analyzed for target analytes selected from the list of problem chemicalsidentified in the AOC, including selected semi-volatiles (PAHs and phthalates), totalmetals (lead, mercury and zinc), hardness, pH and TSS. The stormwater SPM sampleswere analyzed for the target analytes including PAHs and phthalates, total solids, grainsize, TOC, selected total metals (lead, zinc and mercury), Pesticides/PCBs andNWTPH-Dx. A complete listing of analytes, including analytical methods and reportinglimits, is provided in Tables K-1 and K-2.

2.1 SAMPLE LOCATIONS

Drainage Basin Description. Thea Foss Waterway is an estuarine waterway inCommencement Bay. In Commencement Bay and the Thea Foss Waterway, averagetidal fluctuations vary from 0 feet Mean Low Low Water (MLLW) to 11 feet MLLW.Extreme tides, which occur in June and December, range from approximately –4.0 feetMLLW to 14.5 feet MLLW.

Most of the outfalls discharging to Thea Foss Waterway are tidally influenced andportions of the pipe are inundated with marine water twice a day depending on the pipeelevations and the tide height. In order to distinguish between baseflow and tidal


discharge, the City and the Agencies agreed on conductivity criteria (see herein, Section2.2.2). Table 1 of the 2001-2008 Report lists each outfall, the invert elevation, andwhether the pipe is tidally influenced.

Continuous or tidal baseflow is also present in some of the outfalls. The outfalls withcontinuous or tidal baseflow are also identified in Table 1 of the 2001-2008 Report,including any information on flow rates, if available. Baseflow from Outfalls (OF) 237A,237B and 235 is continuous from former creeks that were piped.

Baseflow in OF 237A originates from seeps in two major areas: Seeps near the railroadtracks along South Tacoma Way in Gallagher’s Gulch and a seep in Nalley Valley.Baseflow in OF 237B also originates in two major areas: Seeps from the blueberry fieldson 72nd and along the railroad tracks by Highway 7, and from an artesian well on SouthTacoma Way in Gallagher’s Gulch that discharges into the old 237A pipe, which is 30feet deep and connects to 237B at Tacoma’s Dock Street Yard (conversation with TimSparling, City of Tacoma, 2004a). These locations are shown on Appendix A-7.

Investigations by City staff have not been able to find the source of baseflow to OF 230(conversation with Tim Sparling, City of Tacoma, 2004a). The baseflow originatessomewhere in the last reach of the drainage below the downtown corridor, which has ledTacoma to believe that the baseflow is mainly non contact cooling water. The source ofbaseflow in OF 235 is groundwater from an old railroad tunnel located near Jeffersonand South 25th.

The outfalls selected for this project are the major outfalls discharging into Thea FossWaterway and thus represent the bulk of the inputs. The sampling locations for eachoutfall were selected to be as close to the end of pipe as practical. In general, sampleswere collected at the first manhole upstream from the end of the outfall pipe. Someoutfalls were tidally influenced as discussed in more detail below.

Whole-Water Sampling Locations. The City collected whole-water, flow-weighted ortime composite samples at the following outfalls: 230 (15th and Dock St.), 235 (21st andDock St.), 237A and 237B (twin 96ers), 243 (21st and East D St.), 245 (19th and East DSt.), and 254 (Wheeler-Osgood). These outfall locations are shown in Figure 1 anddescribed in Table 2, both of the 2001-2008 Report. Detailed figures of each samplelocation are provided in Appendix A.

As part of the BNSF railroad realignment project, OFs 237A and 237B werereconstructed in July through September 2005 including:

Extending each outfall,Constructing a new manhole structure for each,Replacing the concrete pipe from the new manhole structures to the outfall pipes,Rerouting the 23rd Street lateral (FD2A) to connect to the new manhole structurein the 237A main trunk line.

Construction was completed within the Dock St. Pump Station yard (see Appendix A-6).The August 2004-2005 sampling was completed at the original locations. In 2005,Tacoma monitored flow and tidal conditions at the new 237A manhole. Sampling beganat the new 237A stormwater monitoring location (the new 237A manhole) in January2006. The 237A stormwater monitoring location may be moved to the new manhole


once sampling conditions are favorable. If the location is moved to the new manhole,the new location will capture contributions from the entire basin with the rerouting of the23rd Street lateral (FD2A). 237B will remain at the same location since that locationsdoes capture contributions from the entire basin. Appendix A-6 mapping of the newalignments will be updated as soon as the information is completed and available.

As part of the East “D” Street Grade separation project, 0.49 acre of impervious areawas added to the OF 243 drainage area. The project included construction of a newroad and structure that crossed over, instead of through, the BNSF railroad. The roadlength reconstructed is East 25th Street on the south to SR509 on the north which is theOF243 sampling location. The project began in 2005 and is expected to be completed in2008. Once the project is completed the reconfigured stormwater conveyance systemwill be mapped and the drainage area and conveyance system will be updatedaccordingly.

Sediment Trap Locations. Stormwater SPM samples from in-line sediment traps werecollected at manholes located as close as possible to the outfall. Five outfalls weresampled: 230, 235, 237A, 237B, and 243. In addition, a “background” sample wascollected in a residential area upstream in Basin 237A. These outfall locations areshown in Figure 1 and described in Table 3, both of the 2001-2008 Report. Detailedfigures of each sample location are provided in Appendix A. As summarized in Table 1of the 2001-2008 Report, the sediment trap monitoring location for OF 243 is tidallyinfluenced, and the monitoring location for OF 235 may be marginally influenced atextreme high tides.

With construction of the new manhole for OF 237A, a new sediment trap, labeled FD-2-new, was first installed in September 2005 for the August 2005-2006 monitoring year.FD-2-new will replace the two current locations (FD-2 and FD-2A). The existing twosediment trap locations will continue to be sampled for source control tracing purposes.

MH390 Manhole Sump Location. As shown in Appendix A-7, a manhole sump islocated immediately upstream of OF 245. This sump functions similarly to a catch basinand sediment traps (see Figure K-1). This location is tidally influenced (see Table 1 ofthe 2001-2008 Report).

2.2 FIELD SAMPLING PROGRAM

The Year 7 sampling period for the Thea Foss Basin stormwater monitoring programoccurred August 27, 2007 through August 26, 2008. Stormwater, baseflow andstormwater SPM were monitored in up to seven municipal stormwater outfalls. Thissection presents the results of this monitoring as follows:

Section 2.2.1 presents sampling equipment, decontamination procedures andmaintenance and discusses any deviations from the Foss 2001 SAP and whenimplemented.Sections 2.2.2, 2.2.3 and 2.2.4 presents baseflow, stormwater, and stormwaterSPM sampling protocols; and discusses any deviations from the Foss 2001 SAPand when implemented.


2.2.1 Sampling Equipment

Whole-Water Samplers. Since some of the outfalls are tidally influenced, it ischallenging to coordinate the appropriate tide with the appropriate storm or dry period tocollect representative samples (see Table 1 of the 2001-2008 Report). Samplingequipment was selected that was able to determine if the tide is in or out, and activateautomatically when rainwater is running off into the storm line outside of tidal influence.An additional safety check was through the use of discrete sampler containers. Thisprevented one aliquot from contaminating an entire composite sample with saltwater. Itallowed for compositing of just those samples that are most representative, by reviewingthe storm hydrograph and compositing only those samples that best represent the stormcriteria.

For this project, the City used 15 ISCO 6700 samplers with flow monitoring modules, 25sampler bases, and three conductivity probes along with support equipment (batterychargers, data modules, sampler tubs, strainers, glass jars, etc.). The samplers arecomposite samplers with sequential sampling capabilities. Each sampler base containstwelve one-liter discrete sample containers. For the purposes of this project, thesamplers were programmed to collect flow proportional discrete samples on the westside outfalls and time composite discrete samples on the east side tidally influencedoutfalls.

Teflon suction tubing, silicon pump tubing and glass bottles were used in all locations.Sampler probes were attached to a stainless steel plate. The plate was bolted usingconcrete bolts to the bottom of the pipe. Hoses and electrical cords were attached to theside of the pipe and manhole using concrete bolts and plastic ties. The sampler washung from the manhole rungs using stainless steel cable and iron hangers.

Sampler Decontamination Procedures. All sampling equipment and containers wereprepared prior to the sampling event. Decontamination procedures are included in thelaboratory’s SOPs, which are provided in Appendix E of the Foss 2001 SAP. For thisproject, auto sampling equipment was decontaminated in accordance with the existingSOP entitled Glassware Cleaning Following EPA Protocols (Section 2.3 ofgeneral\glasware.doc) with the addition of the 5 percent Nitric acid rinse. Afterdecontamination, the Teflon suction tubing, strainers and silicone tubing was wrapped intinfoil until placed in the field. The ends of the tubing were also capped with tinfoil.

Prior to installation, all automatic sampling equipment (ISCO sampler head, Teflonsuction tubing, strainers, silicone tubing and all other sampling equipment except glasssampling jars), were decontaminated according to the steps listed below. After theequipment was installed and used, the ISCO sampler head (silicon tubing only) andISCO base was decontaminated at the lab using the same steps, but the Teflon tubingwas left in place at the sample station and rinsed with one liter of laboratory pure waterbetween each sample event and during routine maintenance.

While deployed in the field, the Teflon sampler/suction hose field rinsing includedpumping (or pouring) one gallon of laboratory pure water through the Teflon samplinghose after each sampling event and during routine maintenance. After each samplingevent, the sampler silicon pump tubing was either replaced with a new silicon hose or alaboratory decontaminated silicone hose. In addition, after sampling, the base of thesampler was replaced with a different base containing sampling jars that had undergone


decontamination according to the laboratory’s SOP stated above. The sampler headsare dedicated to each sampling location and are labeled with the outfall number. Thesampler heads remain at the site if sampling is targeted within a couple of days. Thesampler heads are returned to the lab if samples are not to be collected for severalweeks or more.

Equipment rinsate blanks were performed by running enough reagent grade waterthrough a decontaminated Teflon sampler hose, strainer and silicone pump tubeinstalled in the sampler, into a pre-cleaned sampler container until sufficient volume wascollected to run the analytes of interest. The results of the rinsate blanks are presentedherein, Section 3.2.2.

The City laboratory provided glass containers for collecting samples. Glass containersand jars (ISCO 1000ml glass containers) were pre-cleaned according to the laboratory’sSOP (see SOP Section 2.5.2, Level B, of general\glasware.doc). Certificationinformation is kept in the glassware certification file and is available for review uponrequest. The same procedures were used for cleaning sampling equipment andcontainers for Selected Ion Monitoring (SIM) analysis. The containers were certified tothe reporting limits of the project.

Sampler Maintenance. The samplers were deployed when a sample was needed andthe appropriate sampling conditions were approaching. If the samplers were removedand returned to the laboratory, the samplers were cleaned and decontaminated andstored until needed for sampling. Specific samplers were deployed to the samesampling locations to reduce the amount of programming that was needed to change thesampling location name and specific sampling conditions unique to that outfall within thesampler programming. If a sampler developed mechanical problems, a replacementsampler was programmed for that specific location.

Sediment Trap Samplers. The City installed two sediment traps at each outfall locationin order to accommodate any requests for split samples. The traps were installed nearthe bottom of the junction boxes where possible. Alternately, the traps were mountedwhere eddies occur within a pipe. City of Tacoma Sewer Utility crews who are certifiedfor confined space entry installed the traps at each of the sampling locations. A diagramof the general construction details of the sediment traps is presented in Figure K-1.

Sediment trap collection bottles were one-liter Teflon bottles with Teflon lids, cleaned toEPA QA/QC specifications Glassware Cleaning Following EPA Protocols(general\glasware.doc). The bottles were placed in the traps and secured with a lockingyoke placed over the neck of the bottle. City crews periodically inspected the traps toensure that the traps and bottles were in-place and secure and to measure the amountof sediment that had been collected. All inspections were documented. If a bottle ortrap were missing, it would have been documented.

2.2.2 Baseflow Sampling

Baseflow Event Criteria and Frequency. At each of the above listed outfalls (seeSection 2.1), four samples were collected annually during baseflow conditions (if presentin the outfall). Two baseflow samples were collected during the wet season (Novemberthrough March with a minimum of two weeks between samples collected) and two during


the dry season (July through September with a minimum of two weeks between samplescollected). An acceptable baseflow event was defined in the 2001 SAP as:

Less than 0.02 inches of precipitation in the previous 24 hours (an antecedentdry period of 24 hours) and during the sampling period.A flow composited sample collected for a minimum of 24 hours where thealiquots represent the non-tidally influence of that period of time.Compositing a minimum of 10 aliquots. Ten aliquots are considered theminimum quantity for chemical analyses.Aliquots composited were not tidally influenced.

Baseflow Sampling Protocols. Baseflow samples were scheduled whenever tidalconditions were suitable. This did not require periods of extreme low tides. A tide of 1.0feet or less was targeted for sampling to maximize the length of the tidal window. Onceit was determined that a baseflow sample was needed and, if possible, tidal conditionwere favorable, the lab monitored the rain gauge at the Central Wastewater TreatmentPlant located at 2201 Portland Avenue, Tacoma, WA 98421.

Once the required amount of dry weather was achieved and no rainfall was forecastedfor the next 24 hours, samplers were deployed. The samplers were programmed to stayin the manhole monitoring water height and/or flow velocity, and activate to sample for a24 hour period of time. The samples were cooled with ice enclosed in a second plasticbag to prevent contact and possible contamination from the ice (tap water). The bottlekit was filled with ice at the time of deployment.

For baseflow sampling, samplers were deployed and programmed to sample in the flowproportional mode for 24 hours. Twelve, one-liter discrete sampler containers were usedto remain consistent with the storm-sampling program. Samplers were programmed totake a 200 to 250 ml sample approximately every 30 minutes. Over the sampling periodthe sampler should have taken approximately 48 aliquots provided the flow stayedconsistent.

At the end of the 24-hour deployment period, the sample containers were collected andreturned to the laboratory and the sampler information was downloaded. When thesamplers were removed, the end of the Teflon suction line, which remains in themanhole, was rinsed with reagent grade water and then capped with tinfoil until it wasreattached to the sampler. After sampler retrieval, samples were capped with screwclosures and kept cool (4 C) during transport from the field to the laboratory. Ice wasreplenished if necessary.

Sampler activation and programming protocols were developed for each samplinglocation. These protocols were changed as site conditions dictated. All changes in theprotocols were documented in the Field Reports. EPA, Ecology and the City met onMarch 28, 2003 and on June 3, 2004 to discuss the sampler programming and othersampling issues. The sampling protocols as agreed upon by the Agencies are asfollows. Deviations from the Foss 2001 SAP sampling protocols are noted.

For OFs 230, 235, 243, 245, 254 and 235, the ISCO samplers were programmedto calculate flow using Manning’s equation because baseflow depths are tooshallow to enable accurate velocity readings. This was a deviation from the Foss2001 SAP.


For OFs 237A and 237B, the ISCO samplers were programmed to calculate flowbased on area-velocity.For OFs 237A and 237B, which are not severely tidally influenced, baseflowsamples were collected over a 24-hour period.For OFs 230, 235, 243, 245 and 254, which are tidally influenced, baseflowsamples were collected throughout the tidal window. Pacing was adjusted tocollect as many aliquots as possible over the tidal window (4-hour minimum andat least 10 aliquots). Baseflow samples were scheduled whenever tidalconditions were suitable (i.e., tides less than one foot). This did not requireperiods of extreme low tides.A flow composited sample collected for a minimum of 24 hours where thealiquots represent the non-tidally influence of that period of time.

Sampler activation and programming protocols for the OF 237A New were developedbased on actual flow monitoring. OF 237A New location does show tidal influence onceto twice a day depending on tidal height. The sampler for this site is programmed tocalculate flow based on area-velocity. Baseflow samples for this site are collected overa 24-hour period, where there is no tidal influence.

Baseflow Sample Processing. Once back at the laboratory, the flow data obtainedfrom the samplers was downloaded. Data was downloaded electronically from thesamplers and transferred to a desktop computer for data analysis using themanufacturer-supplied software. The City’s quality assurance manager, Chris Getchell,or his designee determined whether the samples met the sampling criteria, and which ofthe discrete samples were to be composited for analysis. The following criteria wasused to determine the acceptability of baseflow water samples:

1. Sufficient Sample for Analysis. The samples were checked to determine if therewere adequate sample aliquots and volume for analysis (i.e., minimum of 10aliquots for compositing).

2. Reviewed Rainfall Data and Criteria. Upon return (or before hand) to thelaboratory, the rain gauge at the Central Wastewater Treatment Plant waschecked to verify that precipitation for the sampling period did not exceed 0.02inches (see Section 2.2.2).

3. Reviewed Flow Hydrograph, Sample Collection (time and number), andCorresponding Tide Chart. The City determined which of the discrete samplesshould have been composited that represent the baseflow by reviewing the flowhydrograph, the discrete sampling times relative to tidal stage and baseflow, andthe conductivity (salinity) of the samples (see following paragraphs).

The sampler level, velocity and flow data was also reviewed to determine if anysignificant variability occurred over the sampling period. The discrete samples werescreened for conductivity. Each sample jar was tested for conductivity to confirm that nosamples were taken that were tidally influenced. Any sample containers that showedtidal influence above the accepted criteria were discarded.

The accepted criteria for specific conductance was defined in the Foss 2001 SAP as < or= 2,000 uhmos/cm. Specific conductance in OFs 243, 245 and 254 was elevated duringtidal influence. For informational purposes, the City measured conductivities of saltwaterfrom Thea Foss Waterway, stormwater from one of the drains and several mixtures of


the two. This was established to differentiate between fresh and saline waters foracceptability of specific conductance criteria.

The conductivities of each were:

% saltwater % stormwater Conductivity, uhmos/cm

0 100 2773 97 1,6005 95 2,40010 90 4,50015 85 6,40020 80 8,50050 50 20,000

To determine which samples were to be composited for analyses the specificconductance criteria was defined by the Agencies and the City as:

< or = 10,000 uhmos/cm at OFs 243 and 254 in the wet season.< or = 5,000 uhmos/cm at OFs 245 in the wet season.

In the dry season, specific conductance in OFs 243, 245 and 254 was even higherduring tidal influence. To determine which samples were to be composited for analysis,the dry season specific conductance criteria were agreed upon by the Agencies and theCity in the dry season baseflow report as:

< or = 20,000 uhmos/cm at OF 243.< or = 25,000 uhmos/cm at OF 254.< or = 10,000 uhmos/cm at OF 245.

Both of these are a deviation from the Foss 2001 SAP. The Agencies and City agreecriteria may change if salinity conditions change from year to year.

Only those containers that show no signs of tidal influence were combined to make abaseflow sample. If enough samples were not obtained to represent at least 10 differentaliquots of sample to make up the composite, the sample was generally discarded andthe baseflow sampling was repeated. Year 7 baseflow samples were made up of morethan 10 aliquots (20 to 48 aliquots).

On Oct 3, 2005, EPA authorized the City to make it’s own decisions regardingrepresentativeness of aliquots without Agency consultation (Kris Flint, EPA, email datedOct 3, 2005). The City will continue to submit to the Agencies all field data, flow dataand aliquots composited in the Field Report as part of the Quality Assurance DataSummary Package for each event (baseflow and storm flow).

All samples were kept cool from the start of sampling. For this project, no preservativeswere added in the field. All preservatives were added in the laboratory once the discretesamples were combined to form the composite sample of interest.


The samples were then split out for the different analytical parameters. Preservativeswere added as appropriate for the analytical parameter to be performed (i.e., nitric acidfor metals, etc.) according to the laboratory’s SOP.

Deviations from Foss 2001 SAP Protocols. Ecology approved that the sample could bepreserved within 30 hours based on EPA memorandum and Manchester EnvironmentalLaboratories consultation, which was a deviation from the Foss 2001 SAP. If thesamples were not preserved within 30 hours from the start of sampling, the sample wasallowed to sit for 18 hours before metals analysis.

Once in the laboratory, the laboratory’s SOP for sample handling and storage wasfollowed. Sample container and storage requirements are presented in Tables K-1 andK-2. After analysis, the remaining sample(s) were archived according to the laboratory’sSOP. The remaining sample is kept cool (4 C) and retained for six months beyond issueof the laboratory report.

Each sample container after compositing was clearly labeled with the project name,sample identification, date and time of first aliquot collected that is used in thecomposite, initials of person(s) preparing the sample, analysis specifications, anypertinent comments such as preservatives present in the sample. A sample analysisrequest form, with the date and time of the first aliquot collected that is used in thecomposite, was generated indicating holding time constraints per the laboratory’s SOPsample login and tracking.

2.2.3 Stormwater Sampling

Stormwater Event Criteria and Frequency. At each of the seven outfalls, 10stormwater samples were to be collected annually during storm flow conditions. For themonitoring period August 2007-2008, the City sampled whenever conditions presentedthemselves with a minimum of two weeks between sampling events, provided samplingopportunities presented themselves. It was anticipated that a greater number ofsamples were to be collected during the winter months with fewer samples in the springand fall and fewer yet samples in the summer. The storms that are sampled werecollected throughout the year and representative of winter, spring, summer and fallstorms. Seasonal first flush is the first significant precipitation event that occursfollowing a dry summer period.

Deviations from Foss 2001 SAP Protocols. For the 2007-2008 monitoring year, Tacomaincreased sampling efforts to sample whenever conditions presented themselves with aminimum of two weeks between sampling events. This deviation in 2001 SAP protocolswas agreed to by Tacoma, Ecology and EPA.

An acceptable precipitation event was defined as follows:

Total precipitation of at least 0.2 inches.Less than 0.02 inches of precipitation in the previous 24 hours (an antecedentperiod of 24 hours).

Note: Measured rainfall amounts that were greater than six hours apart were consideredseparate storm events and samples from these events were not generally composited asa single storm event. Precipitation measurements were recorded from an ISCO rain


gauge at the City’s Central Wastewater Treatment Plant and used to determine thestorm and dry weather conditions.

The above criteria were considered goals. Each event sampled was evaluated inmeeting these goals but circumstances did arise where some of the criteria could not bemet. The justification for accepting samples that deviated from these criteria wasprovided in the Field Report.

At non-tidally influenced outfalls (237A and 237B), the flow composited sample was torepresent no less than 75 percent of the total volume of the storm or the first 24 hours ofthe storm, whichever was less, and contain a minimum of 10 aliquots for compositing.The flow composite sample must have been collected for a total duration of at least twotimes the time of concentration for that outfall. The duration of sampling could havebeen the addition of two separate runoff peaks as long as the peaks were less than sixhours apart, end to beginning. If the storm peaks were more than six hours apart, onlythe first peak would have been used for analyses. Subsequent peaks greater than sixhours apart were to be considered separate events and were not to be included in thecomposite sample.

For tidally influenced samples, a minimum of 10 aliquots was to be sampled over thetidal window for each event with no tidally influenced samples composited. Samplerpacing was set to attempt to collect storm samples throughout the entire tidal window tocapture as much of the event as possible. Tidal charts were reviewed and specificconductance for each aliquot was measured in the laboratory in order to minimize tidalwater contamination. Only samples that had conductivity of < or = 2,000 uhmos or lessthan outfall specific criteria were to be composited initially. Deviations from these criteriaare presented below in Stormwater Sample Processing.

For the new monitoring location, 237A new, the flow composited sample was torepresent no less than 75 percent of the total volume of the storm or the first 24 hours ofthe storm, whichever was less, and contain a minimum of 10 aliquots for compositing.However, since there is some tidal influence, only samples that had conductivity of < or= 2,000 uhmos or less than outfall specific criteria were to be composited initially. Theflow composite sample must have been collected for a total duration of at least two timesthe time of concentration for that outfall.

Stormwater Sampling Protocols. Samples were collected at a frequency of no closertogether than every two weeks. Once it was determined that a sample was needed, thelab monitored the rain gauge at the Central Wastewater Treatment Plant. Once therequired amount of dry weather was achieved the lab went on “Storm Watch.” Whenweather forecasts indicated that a storm was coming that may meet the requiredminimum precipitation, samplers were deployed ahead of the predicted storm. Thesamplers were programmed to stay in the manhole for up to seven days monitoringwater height and flow velocity, and then activate and sample for up to a 24 hour periodfrom the time sampling conditions were satisfied and the first sample was taken. Thebottle kit was filled with ice upon deployment and replenished on an as needed basisuntil a storm was captured or the sampler was otherwise retrieved.

The samplers were programmed to sample anytime storm drain conditions indicated thatrunoff was occurring and there was not tidal influence. This was determined based onthe velocity of the water in the pipe, height of the water in the pipe, and/or the


conductivity of the water in the pipe. The activation protocols were dictated by type ofsample to be collected (flow or time composite) and the site conditions, and weretherefore site specific for each location.

Once the sampler detected the appropriate flow velocity, water height, and/orconductivity to indicate stormwater runoff, a flow based sampling sequence wasactivated. Once the sampler was activated, the sampler was programmed to first collecta grab 250 milliliters (mls) aliquot in the first container and then to collect discretesequential flow proportional or time composite samples. Samples taken were based onthe flow proportional sampling criteria set (every 50,000 gallons, 200,000 gallons, orwhatever is set by the user) or based on the time composite criteria set (every tenminutes or whatever is set by the user).

Each time the sampler samples, approximately 200 to 250 mls sample was taken. Foursamples were composited into each discrete sample container. A complete samplingsequence would have been 45 samples, 44 in the 11, one-liter containers and the first250 mls grab aliquot in the first container. A minimum volume of three to six liters (12 to24 aliquots, depending on the QC that is being performed) was required to perform theselected analysis.

The frequency of the flow proportional sampling was of course dependent on themagnitude of the storm and the flow in the pipe. Flow proportional sampling criteriawere at times adjusted based on the magnitude of the storm that was being predicted.At times, a small storm may not achieve the necessary volumes to trigger enoughsampling to meet the minimum volume criteria to perform the necessary analysis. Atother times, if the flow proportioning was set too low, and a large storm wasencountered, the sampling containers may all have filled in a very short period of timesampling only a small portion (the beginning) of the storm. For all sampling conditions,the samplers were programmed to perform one pre-flush prior to taking a sample. Thesampler purges, rinses with sample water, purges and then samples.

Site-specific sampler activation and programming protocols were developed. The ISCOsampler pacing and enable settings for each sampling location are shown in Table K-4.These protocols were changed as site conditions or weather dictated. All changes in theprotocols were documented in the Field Reports (Appendix C- available upon request).

Deviations from Foss 2001 SAP Protocols. On March 28, 2003 and June 3, 2004, EPA,Ecology and the City met to discuss the sampler programming and other samplingissues. The changes in the stormwater sampling protocols were as follows:

At OFs 243, 245 and 254, the samplers were programmed to continue to collecttime composite samples.At OFs 230, 235, 237A and 237B, the sampler programs were not changed andremained programmed to collect flow composite samples using velocity-areaequations to calculate flow.

Flow paced discrete samples were collected as long as the programmed flow velocity,height conditions, and/or conductivity were met. A full sample results in one 250 mlsbottle and eleven, one-liter bottles being filled over the storm hydrograph. Where tidalinfluence was a factor, sampling was discontinued during the tidal influence period andresumed as the tide goes back out if the storm is continuing and the sampling conditions


for the auto-samplers were still being met. If at any time during the sampling sequence,the flow velocity, height, and/or conductivity conditions failed to continue to be met (i.e.,the tide coming in, or the rain stopping), the sampler paused. If the programmedconditions were met once again (i.e., tide going out, or rain starting again) the samplerresumed sampling.

The new location, OF 237A new, will follow the 2001 Foss SAP Protocols and thedeviations as stated herein.

The samplers were recovered usually 20 to 24 hours after it had begun raining or soonerif the rain stopped and no additional rainfall was predicted within the sampling windowfrom the beginning of the rainfall. When the samplers were removed, the end of theTeflon suction line, which remains in the manhole was rinsed with laboratory graderinsate water then capped with tinfoil until it was reattached to the sampler. Aftersampler retrieval, samples were capped with screw closures and kept cool duringtransport from the field to the laboratory by replenishing ice if necessary. The sampleswere cooled with ice that is enclosed in a second plastic bag to prevent contact andpossible contamination from the ice (tap water).

Stormwater Sample Processing. Once back at the laboratory, the storm data wasdownloaded from the samplers. Data was downloaded electronically from the samplersand transferred to a desktop computer for data analysis using the manufacturer-suppliedsoftware. The data was reviewed to determine the flow hydrograph and where on thathydrograph samples were taken. The storm data was compared to the storm criteria todetermine if the samples were representative of the storm. The City’s quality assurancemanager, Chris Getchell, or his designee determined whether the samples met thesampling criteria, and which of the discrete samples were to be composited for analysis.The following criteria were used to determine the acceptability of storm flow watersamples:

1. Sufficient Sample for Analysis. The samples were checked to determine if therewere adequate sample aliquots and volume for analysis.

2. Review Rainfall Data and Criteria. The total rainfall and antecedent dry weatherperiod was determined to see if the minimum sampling criteria were met usingdata from the City rainfall gauge located at the City’s Central WastewaterTreatment Plant (see Section 2.2.3).

3. Review Flow Hydrograph, Sample Collection (time and number), CorrespondingTide Chart, and Storm Criteria. The City determined which of the discretesamples would be composited by reviewing the flow hydrograph, the discretesampling times relative to tidal stage and storm flow, and the conductivity(salinity) of the samples (see following paragraphs).

The storm hydrograph was evaluated to determine the number of aliquots collected (i.e.,minimum of 10 aliquots for compositing) and which of the discrete samples werecomposited to best represent the storm criteria (i.e., minimum of 75 percent of thehydrograph volume, or 24 hours in the non-tidally influenced outfalls). The discretesamples were screened for conductivity. Samples with < or = 2,000 uhmos/cm or lessthan the outfall specific criteria were considered not tidally influenced except as notedbelow. The conductivity, time and number of discrete samples to be composited werecompared to the storm criteria to determine if the composite was representative of thestorm runoff.


On Oct 3, 2005, EPA authorized the City to make it’s own decisions regardingrepresentativeness of aliquots without Agency consultation (Kris Flint, EPA, email datedOct 3, 2005). The City will continue to submit to the Agencies all field data, flow dataand aliquots composited in the Field Report as part of the Quality Assurance DataSummary Package for each event (baseflow and storm flow).

Deviations from Foss 2001 SAP Protocols. Specific conductance in OFs 243, 245 and254 was elevated during tidal influence (see Section I.2.2.2 Baseflow Sampling –Baseflow Sample Processing). To determine which samples were to be composited foranalyses, the specific conductance criteria was defined by the Agencies and the City as:

< or = 5,000 uhmos/cm at OFs 243 and 254.< or = 2,000 uhmos/cm at OF 245.

All samples were kept cool (4 C) and were preserved within 30 hours from the start ofsampling. For this project no preservatives were added in the field. All preservativeswere added in the laboratory once the discrete samples were combined to form thetime/flow weighted composite sample to represent the portion of the storm of interest.The samples were then split out for the different analytical parameters and preservativeswere added as appropriate according to the laboratory’s SOP. The samples wereallowed to sit for a minimum of 18 hours before metals analysis was started.

Once in the laboratory, the laboratory’s SOP for sample handling and storage wasfollowed. Sample container and storage requirements are presented in Table K-1. Afteranalysis, remaining sample(s) were archived according to the laboratory’s SOP. Theremaining samples were kept cool (4 C) and retained for six months beyond issue of thelaboratory report.

Each sample container after compositing was clearly labeled with the project name,sample identification, date and time of first aliquot collected that is used in thecomposite, initials of person(s) preparing the sample, analysis specifications, anypertinent comments such as preservatives present in the sample. A sample analysisrequest form, with the date and time of the first aliquot collected that is used in thecomposite, was generated indicating holding time constraints per the laboratory’s SOPsample login and tracking.

2.2.4 Stormwater Suspended Particulate Matter Sampling

Stormwater SPM sampling was performed in general accordance with the QualityAssurance Project Plan dated January 1998 and prepared by Dale Norton of Ecology.Stormwater SPM sample processing was performed as per the laboratory’s revised SOPFoss Waterway Sediment Trap Sample Processing.

Stormwater SPM Sampling Protocols. On August 27, prior to the seasonal “firstflush,” sediment traps were deployed at each of the sampling locations shown inAppendix A and described in Table 3 of the 2001-2008 Report. The City installed twosediment traps at all outfall locations to ensure that sufficient sample was collected forsplit samples with Manchester Environmental Laboratories.


The traps were installed near the bottom of the junction boxes where possible. Picturesof a trap installation are shown in Figure K-1.

The sediment traps are to be inspected monthly starting in December until the sampleswere retrieved (Appendix C, -available upon request -Field Reports for the 2007-2008Sediment Trap Samples). The traps were not retrieved until April each year, because oflow stormwater SPM accumulation in the traps. The Agencies and City consult todetermine when the sediment-traps are to be retrieved.

At the end of the deployment period, the collection bottles were capped with screwclosures, removed from the mounting brackets, packaged and placed on ice in coolersfor transport to the City’s laboratory for processing. The samples were cooled with iceenclosed in a second plastic bag to prevent contact and possible contamination from theice (tap water). The samples were collected in accordance with the Foss 2001 SAP anddelivered to the City of Tacoma laboratory under chain-of-custody procedures asdescribed in the Foss 2001 SAP.

Deviation from Foss 2001 SAP. The City believes that the sediment traps will have toremain in place longer than the three-month deployment as stated in the Foss 2001SAP. Since stormwater SPM is only collected during storm events, no rain translates tono flow and no stormwater SPM collected.

Deviation from Foss 2001 SAP. Kris Flint, EPA, reduced the total number of MEL splitsamples in an email dated June 6, 2006. The email stated: “In comparing the results ofthese sediment sample splits (Tacoma & Ecology's Manchester Lab), Ecology and EPAhave agreed to reduce the required number of split samples from eleven to four. As longas results from the two labs remain comparable, the split requirement willbe 4. The samples that will continue to split are listed below.

1 from OF 230, at sed-trap location FD3new1 from OF 235, at sed-trap location FD61 from OF 245, at sampling location MH3901 from OF 248, at either location FD21 or FD22

Stormwater SPM Sample Processing. Processing of stormwater SPM samples wasperformed following the specific procedures developed for this project. Processing ofthe samples was accomplished using stainless steel utensils. These utensils weredecontaminated prior to use in accordance with the laboratory SOP.

Deviation from Foss 2001 SAP. Analysis of the stormwater SPM samples wereperformed on the solids fraction of the collected sample. In order to separate the liquidfraction, the 2005 stormwater SPM samples were processed in accordance to therevised March 25, 2005 laboratory SOP, Foss Waterway Sediment Trap SampleHandling. The process used was:

1. The sample containers were allowed to sit for 24 hours.2. All of the overlying water was decanted, centrifuged, and saved for rinsing. The

centrifuge is run for 5 minutes at top speed or until the decanted overlying waterwas visually clear.


3. The stormwater SPM in the field sample container were transferred to anothercontainer. These sediments, which were mostly sand, contained no free waterand did not need to be centrifuged.

4. Any remaining stormwater SPM in the field sample container was rinsed with thedecant water and centrifuged to concentrate the sediment fraction and removethe water. The overlying water was then to be discarded from the tubes. Theremaining solid portion was transferred to the appropriate containers for analysisand then submitted for analyses.

5. The decanted overlying water was not discarded until visually clear with nostormwater SPM removed during centrifugation.

No part of the sample, in particular the liquid fraction, is discarded without beingcentrifuged. All particles that can be removed are removed and retained with the solidfraction for analyses. The revised March 25, 2005 laboratory SOP, Foss WaterwaySediment Trap Sample Handling was provided to Ecology in March 2005 and wasprovided in Appendix K of the August 2001-2005 Stormwater Monitoring Report.

The stormwater SPM sample analyses were conducted in accordance with the hierarchyas listed in Table K-2. When sufficient volumes of stormwater SPM were available, splitsamples were provided to Ecology for analysis. The priority of split samples is alsolisted in Table K-3. Because of the limited amount of sample available for the full list ofanalytes and the Ecology split samples, a field duplicate was not required at any of thesample locations.

Once in the laboratory, the laboratory’s SOP for sample handling and storage wasfollowed. Sample container and storage requirements are presented in Table K-2. Afteranalysis, remaining sample was archived according to the laboratory’s SOP (see SOP insamprec.doc on QA Manual CD ROM). The remaining sample was kept frozen andretained for six months beyond issue of the Quality Assurance Data Summary Package.

2.2.5 MH390 Sump Sample Collection And Cleaning Process

A representative stormwater SPM sample is taken from the sump located above OF 245in August of each year. MH390 sump is then cleaned before August 27 to ensure thatthe sampling from this time forward represent the discrete August 27-26 annualsampling period. The depth of accumulated stormwater SPM is also to be measured.

Deviations from Foss 2001 SAP Protocols. Using the preferred method of mixing ofsampling for OF 245, the sample was collected from the sump after the stormwater SPMwere well mixed with the high-pressure truck water hose. After mixing with the high-pressure water, thirty aliquots were collected at random locations, mixed in a stainlesssteel bowl and composite placed in two sample containers. This procedure of mixingand sampling worked extremely well resulting in a well-mixed composite sample. Thisprocedure was repeated for the 2007-2008 year of sampling.

Sample Processing. Once in the laboratory, the laboratory’s SOP for sample handlingand storage was followed. The 2008 sample was analyzed immediately and not frozen.Sample container and storage requirements are presented in Table K-2.

The analytes tested are listed in Table K-5. A split sump sample was also provided toManchester Environmental Laboratory for semivolatile organic analyses. After analysis,


the remaining sample was archived according to the laboratory’s SOP (see SOP insamprec.doc on QA Manual CD ROM). The remaining sample was kept frozen andretained for six months beyond issue of the Quality Assurance Data Summary Package.

Deviations from Foss 2001 SAP Protocols. The revision to the Foss 2001 SAP wasto analyze the MH390 sample immediately after collection and not freeze and hold toanalyze with the stormwater SPM samples from the sediment traps.

3.0 RESULTS

The Year 7 sampling period for the Thea Foss Basin stormwater monitoring programoccurred August 27, 2007 through August 26, 2008. Stormwater, baseflow andstormwater SPM were monitored in up to seven municipal stormwater outfalls. Thissection presents the results of this monitoring as follows:

Section 3.1 presents field and hydrologic data including rainfall data for thisperiod, storm and base hydrology, storm and baseflow field data, andstormwater SPM field data.Section 3.2 presents laboratory data and includes the data validation summaryfor the overall monitoring data.Section 3.3 presents the Year 7 data summary for each outfall.

This project measured the quality of base and storm flows and stormwater SPMassociated with storm flows discharging to the waterway. Representativeness of thedata was assessed using both qualitative and quantitative methods. Qualitative analysisincludes review of sampling methods and field data, which is discussed in this Section.Quantitative analysis includes statistical evaluation of the analytical data, which isdiscussed in Section 3.4 of the 2001-2008 Report. Additional details regardingrepresentativeness of sample locations, collection of base and storm flows, stormwaterSPM, and the criteria used for sampling are presented herein, Section 3.1.2, 3.1.3 and3.1.4.

In order to address representativeness of baseflows, Tacoma is selecting samplinglocations, methods and times so that the data describes various baseflow drainagebasins, the hydrologic conditions within an individual event (i.e., illicit discharge), and across-section of seasonal baseflow. In order to address representativeness of stormflows, Tacoma is selecting sampling locations, methods and times so that the datadescribes various stormwater runoff over the range of land use conditions in thedrainage basins, the varying hydrologic conditions within an individual storm event (i.e.,rising and falling portions of the hydrograph), and a representative cross-section of stormtypes.

3.1 FIELD AND HYDROLOGIC DATA SUMMARY

3.1.1 Rainfall Summary

Based on a 52 year rainfall record, the 2001 SAP defines the stormwater monitoringyears from August 27 to August 26 of the following year. This analysis was presented inthe Foss 2001 SAP, Appendix G. These annual rainfall patterns for Tacoma weresubdivided into four seasons:


1. Dry-to-Wet Transition. One and one half months dry to wet transitional periodfrom August 27th to October 15th.

2. Wet. Three and one-half months wet period from October 16th through January.3. Wet-to-Dry Transition. Three months wet to dry transitional period from

February through April.4. Dry. Four months dry period from May to August 26th.

The transitional periods consist of a steady decline (wet to dry transition) or increase (dryto wet transition) in daily precipitation (see Figures 3 and 4 of the 2001-2008 Report).The average total precipitation for these periods is 10.5 inches for wet to dry and 3.3inches for dry to wet (see Table 5 of the 2001-2008 Report).

In 2009, City of Tacoma will start stormwater monitoring under Section S8 of the Phase IMunicipal Stormwater Permit, permit number WAR04-4003. For the permit monitoring,water year is reported as October-September, with wet season as October-April and dryseason as May-September. The water year is designated by the calendar year in whichit ends. Thus, the year ending September 30, 2005 is called the 2005 Water Year.

Deviation from the Foss 2001 SAP Protocols. Starting with the 2007-2008 Fossstormwater monitoring, rainfall data and seasons will be reported solely as water year.

Year 7: August 27, 2007 to August 26, 2008. The total rainfall for Year 7 was 34.89inches, which is below normal (38.09 inches for Tacoma No. 1) (see Table 4a of the2001-2008 Report). As shown in Figure 4g, the monthly averages for Year 7 weregreater than normal in September, December and August, less than normal theremaining months with the exception of October, March and June, which were similar tohistoric. The wet and wet to dry transition periods were below normal by 1.81 and 1.76inches, respectively (see Table 5a of the 2001-2008 Report).

Year 7: Water Year 2008 (October 2007- September 2008). The total rainfall for Year7 was 33.06 inches, which is below normal (38.09 inches for Tacoma No. 1) (see Table4b of the 2001-2008 Report) Both the dry and wet seasons’ precipitation for Year 7were below normal by 3.39 and 1.70 inches inches, respectively (see Table 5b of the2001-2008 Report).

Precipitation records were set at Sea-Tac airport and in Olympia for a major floodingevent on December 2-3, 2007. Tacoma No. 1 had 1.51 and 2.47 inches on December 2and 3, 2007, respectively. The 24 hour records for Sea-Tac airport was December 3 at3.77 inches and in Olympia were December 2 at 2.12 inches and December 3 at 3.19inches. On August 20, 2008, precipitation records were also set at Sea-Tac airport(0.70 inches) and in Olympia (0.68 inches)(NOAA). Tacoma No. 1 had 0.66 inches onAugust 20, 2008.

3.1.2 Baseflow Monitoring

Baseflow is the continuous daily discharge from the outfall that is not a direct result ofprecipitation, which produces stormwater runoff, and is not a direct result of tidalfluctuations. Sources of baseflow in the storm sewer may be one or several of thefollowing: Springs, creeks, groundwater infiltration, and illicit discharges. For the mostpart, baseflow on the west side of the Thea Foss Waterway (OFs 237A, 237B, 235 and230) is mostly freshwater that can contain some saltwater at higher tides, and baseflow


on the east side of the Thea Foss Waterway (OFs 243, 245 and 254) is a mix offreshwater and saltwater. The mix has a higher saltwater content from tidal fluctuationsat all high tides and from possible groundwater inundated with saltwater.

Flow rates of baseflow conditions are generally constant with little to no variation in flowrate. However, flow rates do vary in tidally influenced outfalls, which are higher duringhigh tides and constant with little to no variation during the tidal window where there isno tidal influence.

At each outfall, four samples were collected during baseflow conditions. In Year 7, twobaseflow samples were collected during the wet season of January 2008 and March2008 and two during the dry season of July and September 2008. The dates of eachevent are shown in Table K-6. Field and hydrologic data for each baseflow sample arepresented in Appendix D, Tables D-1 through D-7.

Representativeness of Baseflow Events. Baseflow samples were flow-weightedcomposite samples representing the range of discharge conditions during the samplingevent, including possible illicit discharges that may have occurred during baseflowsampling. However, the sampling of tidally influenced drains was limited to thoseperiods when the drains were not affected by tides, and therefore included only a portionof baseflow within a 24-hour window. Tidal effects were excluded from the automaticsamplers based on in-situ velocity monitoring (i.e., near zero during tidal inundation),height, and/or conductivity, and confirmed in the laboratory using conductivity (salinity)measurements prior to compositing the sample bottles from different portions of the dailybaseflow. Over the course of any year, it was expected that the tidal sampling windowswould overlap with different portions of a business and afterhours day. Thus, wouldreflect a fair range of possible source conditions that would be captured during multiplesampling events.

The following paragraphs evaluate the field and hydrologic data, baseflow event criteriaand if these events are representative of baseflow discharges.

3.1.2.1 Hydrological Data Evaluation

Hydrological data was collected at each outfall including level and velocity, whenpossible (see herein, Section 2.2.2 Baseflow Sampling Protocols). For OFs 237A, 237A-new and 237B, the flow was calculated based on area-velocity. At OFs 230, 235, 243,245 and 254, flow depth was too shallow to enable accurate velocity readings by thesensor. At these locations, the flow was calculated using Manning’s equation.

It should be noted that Manning’s equation might over estimate the flow rate at low flowsincluding baseflow in OFs 230, 243, 245 and 254 (see Appendix D, Tables D-3, D-5, D-6, and D-7). Manning’s assumes even friction factor over the depth of flow. However,friction factors are greater at low flows. Therefore, actual velocity is less than Manning’sestimated velocity for that same height.

The sampler level, velocity and flow data were reviewed to determine if any substantialvariability occurred. The level, velocity and flow data for each baseflow event wasconsistent and did not show any substantial variability. However, baseflow depths at OF230 did remain higher than what was seen in the past.


Outfall 230. In Year 7, the depth and flowrates at OF230 were once again higher thancompared to previous years 1-4. -Years 5 - 7 events were 2-4.5 inches in depth and 0.7-2.7 cfs. Previous years 1-4 baseflow depths were 0.5 inches and 0.1-0.2 cfs. Asdiscussed in herein, Section 2.1 Sample Locations, Drainage Basin Description,baseflow in OF 230 is believed to be mainly from noncontact cooling water. Tacoma willcontinue to try and locate source(s) of baseflow in Basin 230.

Outfall 235. In Year 7, the depth and flowrates at OF235 were similar to the previous 1-4 years except for one January event. The Years 5-6 and Year 7 January events were0.5 feet in depth and 3.7 cfs. Three of the four Year 7 events and Years 1-4 events hadbaseflow depths at 0.3 feet and 0.2-2.5 cfs. Tacoma will continue to try and locatesource(s) of baseflow in Basin 235.

Outfalls 237A and 237A-New. Base flowrates at 237A-New, which includes the 237Amain trunk line and the 23rd Street lateral (FD2A) continue to be higher than at 237A.The flowrates are as follows:

Depth, feet Velocity, fps Flowrate, cfs237A 0.6-1.0 1.3-1.7 2-4237A-New

2005-2006 0.4-1.2 5-6 6.3-8.4Winter 06-07 0.9-1.2 5.2-5.3 15.1-24.4

Summer 06-07 0.4-0.6 5-5.2 5.3-8.52007-2008 0.79-0.87 5.2-5.8 14.2-16.3

Additional baseflow may be present from the 23rd Street lateral (FD2A). Tacoma willattempt to locate source(s) of baseflow in the 23rd Street lateral (FD2A).

Outfall 243. Years 6-7 events at OF243 were at depths of 0.5-0.7 feet and flowrates of3-7.2 cfs as compared to 0.3-0.4feet and about 1.5-2.0 cfs in previous baseflow events.As discussed herein, Section 2.1 Sample Locations, Drainage Basin Description, theimpervious drainage area was increased by 0.49 acres. The area was also re-contoured. It is unclear how this will affect flowrates. Only continued monitoring willshow the affect.

Seasonal Variation in Flow Rates. Flow rates for all four samples were compared ateach outfall to see if there was any seasonal variation in base flow hydrology. To date,seasonal variation hasn’t been consistent from year to year and outfall to outfall.

In the previous three years, flow rates at OFs 237A, 237B, and 235 did decrease fromJanuary/February to July/August (Tacoma 2004b). Year 4 baseflow rates had noseasonal pattern, whereas, in Year 5, OFs 237B, 235, and 243 did decrease fromJanuary/February to July/August. In Year 6, flow rates at OF237A-New and OF245 diddecrease from January-April to July/August. However, seasonal flow rates at OFs 230and 254 were the opposite where flowrates were lower in January-April as compared toJuly/August.

In Year 7, flow rates at OF230 and OF235 did decrease from January-March to July-September (see Appendix D, Tables D-1 and D-7). At OF230 the winter flowrateswere 2 cfs and the summer base flowrates were 0.75 cfs. At OF235, the winter flowrate


was 3.75 cfs and the summer base flowrate were 1 cfs. In Year 7, seasonal flow rates atOF 254 were the opposite (see Appendix D, Tables D-3 and D-6). At OF 254, thewinter flowrate was 0.55 cfs and the summer base flowrate was 1.1 cfs.

Representativeness of Each Event. Because the hydrological data from each event wasconsistent with no substantial variability, Tacoma believes that each sample isrepresentative of baseflow conditions for that event. The level data will need to becorrected to actual measurements to be used for load rate calculations. This is achievedby using the level calibrations. Level calibration allows for more accurate levelmeasurements, which can be used to calculate more accurate flow data for solids andchemical load rate calculations.

3.1.2.2 Field Data Evaluation

The conductivity measurements of baseflow from OFs 237A-New, 237A, 237B, 230 and235 (i.e., westside) were generally less than 500 uhmos. OFs 230 and 235conductivities were slightly higher than OFs 237A-New, 237A and 237B (181-1,030 and224-392 uhmos/cm, respectively). The composite samples from the west side outfallswere mostly freshwater with little to no tidal influence. Therefore, these samples arerepresentative of the baseflow discharges for those outfalls.

At OF230, 44 aliqouts were collected in the January 24, 2008 baseflow event. Jar 1,containing four of the 44 aliquots, had a conductivity of 10,800 uhmos/cm. Jar 1 shouldhave been thrown out but was added to the baseflow composite. The composite sampleconductivity was 1,620 uhmos/cm. Since the final conductivity is below the conductivitycriteria of 2,000 uhmos/cm and the 4 out of 44 aliqouts is less than 10 percent byvolume, this sample is believed to be representative of freshwater baseflow for OF230.

Continuous conductivity was measured at OFs 243, 245 and 254 (i.e., eastside). Allcontainers were also measured for conductivity at the laboratory. The conductivity(salinity) of the samples was used to determine which of the discrete samples would becomposited to represent the baseflow.

The conductivity measurements of baseflows from OFs 243, 245 and 254 were greaterthan the 2,000 uhmos criteria. Based on the hydrological data, these samples wererepresentative of baseflow, which was constant flow within the tidal window (i.e., no tidalinfluence at that time). At OF 245, the four baseflow conductivities were less than12,900 uhmos/cm. At OF243, three of the four baseflow conductivities were less than19,700 uhmos/cm. The fourth baseflow, January 23, 2008, was less than 30,800uhmos/cm. At OF 254, baseflow conductivities were less than 40,000 uhmos/cm.

These samples were accepted as representative of actual baseflow conditions for theoutfall and the higher conductivities are believed to be an artifact of the extremely drysummer (see herein, Section 3.1.1 Rainfall Summary). As discussed herein, Section2.2.2, subsection Baseflow Sample Processing, the accepted criteria for conductivitywas adjusted annually and seasonally based on observed site conditions.

Baseflow on the east side of Thea Foss Waterway is a mix of fresh and salt water.Since the flow is constant with no tidal influence, the source of the water is probablygroundwater infiltration. In the tideflat area, the groundwater table is high and iscomprised of a bottom layer, which is influenced by tides and an upper fresher water


lense. In the wet season the upper lense is freshened by rain recharge and salinityaffects such as conductivity are less. In the dry season, when groundwater flow tends tobe lower, salinity affects such as conductivity tends to be greater.

3.1.2.3 Baseflow Criteria Evaluation

Each event sampled was evaluated in meeting the criteria goals as presented herein,Section 2.2.2. The justification for accepting samples was provided in the Field Reportfor that sampling event. Most of the samples met the criteria goals. However, a fewsamples deviated from the goals. The following summary provides an evaluation of thedegree to which the criteria goals were achieved as well as an evaluation of therepresentativeness of the sampling events.

Rainfall and Minimum Aliquots. Every baseflow event met the rainfall data criteria andhad a minimum of 10 aliquots to be composited (see Appendix D, Tables D-1 throughD-7). All events except one had less than 0.02 inches of precipitation in the previous 24hours (an antecedent period of 24 hours) and during the sampling period.

Representative Baseflow Composite. For each event, the City reviewed the flowhydrograph, the discrete sampling times relative to tidal stage and baseflow, and theconductivity (salinity) of the samples to determined which of the discrete samples wouldbe composited that represent the baseflow. The level, velocity and flow data for everybaseflow event was consistent and did not show any significant variability (herein seeSection 3.1.2.1). All other baseflow criteria were met (conductivity, tidal window, rainfalland aliquots). All composite samples collected during Year 7 monitoring wererepresentative of baseflow conditions for each outfall.

3.1.3 Stormwater Monitoring

Storm flow is the discharge from the outfall that is a direct result of precipitation, whichproduces stormwater runoff and is not a direct result of tidal fluctuations. The dates ofeach storm event sampled are shown in Table K-7. Field and hydrologic data for eachsample are presented in Appendix D, Tables D-8 through D-14.

Samples were to be collected at a frequency of no closer together than every two weeksand at least one per month. Once it was determined that a sample was needed, the labmonitored the rain gauge at the Central Wastewater Treatment Plant located at 2201Portland Avenue, Tacoma, WA 98421. Once the required amount of dry weather wasachieved the lab went on “storm watch.” When weather forecasts indicated that a stormwas coming that would meet the required minimum precipitation, samplers weredeployed ahead of the predicted storm. All attempts were made to sample at least onestorm event per month. Two storms were sampled if criteria were met.

The field and hydrological data was reviewed to evaluate the representativeness ofindividual storm events, storm types and criteria goals. Each event sampled wasevaluated in meeting the criteria goals as presented herein, Section 2.2.3. TheAgencies were contacted to discuss any sampling conditions that did not meet thesampling criteria. The justification for accepting samples was provided in the FieldReport for that sampling event (Appendix C-available upon request). The followingparagraphs evaluate the field and hydrologic data, storm event criteria, and if theseevents are believed to be representative of stormwater discharges.


3.1.3.1 Representativeness of Individual Storm Events

Stormwater samples were to be flow-weighted (OFs 237A-New, 237A, 237B, 230 and235) or time (OFs 243, 245 and 253) composite samples representing the range ofdischarge conditions during the sampling event, including where possible the rising andfalling portions of the runoff hydrograph. However, the sampling of tidally influenceddrains was necessarily limited to those periods when the drains were not affected bytides, and therefore included only a portion of the runoff hydrograph. The Cityacknowledged that sampling tidally influenced drains was difficult to sample given thelimit of those periods when the drains were not affected by tides.

Over the course of the three years, the tidal sampling windows randomly overlappedwith different portions of the runoff hydrograph. As shown in Table 7 of the 2001-2008Report, an evenly distributed range of rising, peak, and falling runoff conditions wascaptured during multiple sampling events. Therefore, a variety of runoff conditions weresampled in the tidally-influenced drains for these individual storm events in an attempt toaddress the Foss 2001 SAP, which recognizes the fact that storm events are variable bynature.

As discussed herein, Section 2.2.3, tidal effects were excluded from the automaticsamplers based on in-situ velocity monitoring (i.e., near zero during tidal inundation),height, and/or conductivity, and confirmed in the laboratory using conductivity (salinity)measurements prior to compositing the sample bottles from different portions of thestorm. Conductivity measurements of the aliquots composited for OFs 237A-New,237A, 237B, 230, and 235 were less than 2,000 uhmos (see Appendix D, Tables D-8through D-11). Conductivity measurements of the aliquots composited for OF245 wereless, than 2,200 uhmos/cm (see Appendix D, Table D-13). Conductivity measurementsof the aliquots composited for OFs 243 and 254 were less than 17,600 uhmos/cm,except for one event at OF243 which was less than 31,000 uhmos/cm (see Appendix D,Tables D-12 and D-14). Thus, the Year 7 storm samples are representative ofindividual storm events that are not inundated by tidal influences.

Time composite samples were collected at OFs 243, 245, and 254 (herein see Section2.2.3 Stormwater Sampling Protocols). For the most part, samples were collected every8 to 10 minutes throughout the tidal window when conductivity was below the set criteria(see Table K-4). The drainage area for OF 243 contains a storm drainage pond for theSR509 drainage. The storm hydrograph for this outfall shows two responses to rainfall:1) runoff to rainfall from the pond; and 2) an instant response to rainfall from theremainder of the drainage area. To ensure that each composite sample from all threeoutfalls represented the stormwater runoff without tidal influences, each storm wasreviewed to determine which of the discrete samples would be composited by reviewingthe flow hydrograph, the discrete sampling times relative to tidal stage, rainfall and stormflow, the conductivity (salinity) of the samples and at OF 243 review of the hydrographand the two rainfall runoff responses. Based on this review, these samples arerepresentative of stormwater runoff for that outfall (Appendix C-available upon request).


3.1.3.2 Representativeness of Storm Types

Storm events are variable in nature by runoff volume, flow rate, antecedent rainfall, andseason. This variability was evaluated by comparing the magnitude and intensity of therunoff hydrographs, where samples were collected on the hydrographs, time betweenstorm events, and time of year the samples were collected to determine whether arepresentative range of storm types was included in the monitoring program.

Storm Flow Rates. The ranges of magnitude and intensity of the runoff hydrographs areshown in Appendix D, Tables D-8 through D-14 as volume of storm runoff and flowrate for each outfall. Table 8 of the 2001-2008 Report provides a summary of theseranges. The total runoff volumes sampled were variable for Year 7 at each outfall. Avariety of average flow rates were also sampled over the course of Year 7. For the mostpart, Year 7 values were also similar to those values reported for Years 1 through 6 (seeTable 8 of the 2001-2008 Report). The highest average and maximum flowrates sinceYear 1 were measured in Year 7 at OFs 230, 235, 245 and 254. In addition, the lowestrunoff volume sampled to date was recorded at OFs 237Anew, 237A and 245.

Total Rainfall. A wide variety of storm types were sampled during Year 7. As shown inTable 9 of the 2001-2008 Report, the total rainfall of the storms sampled varied from 0.2inches up to 0.63 inches. The majority of the storms sampled were less than 0.3 inches.This is greater than the historical rainfall records where 52 percent of storms are lessthan 0.4 inches. Overall, 76 percent in Year 7 are less than 0.4 inches, ranging from 50percent at OF243 to 83 percent at OFs 230 and 235.

The yearly and overall monitoring program’s rainfall distribution for the events sampledare compared to the historic distribution of rainfall to determine whether the distributionsampled is representative of the historic distribution. Year 7 rainfall distribution was notsimilar to the entire historic rainfall distribution. As stated in the Foss 2001 SAP, Section3.3 Representativeness, year to year storm type variability was expected and that overthe entire monitoring program the variability would be similar to the historic record. Therainfall events sampled during the entire 2001-2008 monitoring program arerepresentative of the historical distribution of rainfall in Tacoma (see Table 9 of the2001-2008 Report).

Storm Duration and Intensity. Year 7 durations ranged from 2.5 to 18.25 hour storms(see Table 10 of the 2001-2008 Report). Year 7 antecedent periods broke out as:

0 at 24 hours,11 between 25 and 75 hours,0 between 76 and 99 hours, and6 at 100 hours and greater.

The longest antecedent period for the seven years of monitoring was recorded duringthe Summer of 2006 with 2,240 hours before the September 17, 2006 storm event. Thiswas more than double for any of the other monitoring year antecedent periods (nextlongest was 1,277 hours). The Summer of 2006 was only 9 days short from setting therecord for the driest summer in recorded history (NOAA).


Average rainfall intensities (total rainfall/duration) also showed a variety of storm types inYear 7. Average rainfall intensities were 0.01-0.32 inches/hour. The distribution ofaverage rainfall intensities for each year is as follows:

# of events Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 70.02 inches/hour 6 4 5 5 2 5 6

0.03 inches/hour 3 3 5 3 1 3 30.04 inches/hour 2 2 2 0 1 4 30.05 inches/hour 2 3 2 0 1 2 30.06 inches/hour 0 1 0 2 2 1 10.07 inches/hour 1 1 0 2 1 1 00.08 inches/hour 1 0 3 2 2 1 1

Seventeen total precipitation events were sampled with eight to thirteen total events peroutfall. In Year 7, the number of precipitation events sampled per Foss 2001 SAPseasons are as follows:

four events during the dry to wet transition period,eight during the wet season,two during the wet to dry transitional period, andthree during the dry season (see Table 11a of the 2001-2008 Report).

In Year 7, the number of precipitation events sampled per 2008 Water Year seasons areas follows:

eleven during the wet season (October-April),three during the dry season (May-August) (see Table 11b of the 2001-2008Report).

Seasonal first flush, the first significant precipitation event that occurs following a drysummer period, was captured in Year 7: September 3, 16, and 27, 2007 storm events.These seasonal first flush events (i.e., first major events after summer dry periods) areshown in Figure 3g of the 2001-2008 Report.

During Year 7 monitoring, a wide variety of storm types were sampled. Each storm wasdefined by the following variables, therefore, the City was able to incorporate a largeamount of variability in our sampling results.

Total rainfall;Runoff hydrograph;Intensity;Antecedent period; andSeason

3.1.3.3 Stormwater Criteria Evaluation

Each event sampled was evaluated in meeting the criteria goals as presented herein,Section 2.2.3. The criteria were considered goals. At times circumstances arosewhere all of these goals could not be met. The justification for accepting samples wasprovided in the Field Report for that sampling event (Appendix C- available uponrequest). Most of the samples did meet the criteria goals. However, a few samples diddeviate from these goals. The Agencies were contacted to discuss any samplingconditions that did not meet the sampling criteria. The following summarizes the criteriathat was not met and evaluates the representativeness of the event.


Rainfall Event. All of the events met the minimum of 0.2 inches of rainfall. All eventsexcept one had less than 0.02 inches of precipitation in the previous 24 hours (anantecedent period of 24 hours). 0.03 inches of rainfall occurred in the 24 hours previousto the November 9-10, 2007 rainfall event. However, the 0.03 inches did occur near thebeginning of the 24 hour period and the rainfall never exceeded 0.01 Inches per 15minutes (i.e., no runoff occurred).

All events meet the criteria defining two separate runoff peaks, that is, the duration ofsampling may be the addition of two separate runoff peaks as long as the peaks are lessthan six hours apart, end to beginning. If the storm peaks are more than six hours apart,only the first peak will be used for analysis.

Minimum Aliquots. Seven storm events did not have a minimum of 10 aliquots to becomposited. OF237B had 9 aliquots on January 8, 2008. The remainder of the aliquotswas collected after the storm event.

OF237Anew - 9 aliquots, September 16, 2007.OF237Anew - 8 aliquots, October 10, 2007.OF235 - 9 aliquots, October 10, 2007.OF245 - 8 aliquots, November 9-10, 2007.OF235 - 9 aliquots, January 8, 2008.OF254 - 9 aliquots, January 14, 2008.

Less than 10 aliquots were composited. The remaining aliquots were above theconductivity criteria. In all cases except 237B, the sampling stopped due to tidalinfluences. Tacoma believes that this sample is acceptable because of the difficulties ofsampling in tidally-influenced areas, and the difficulties of sampling smaller storms of 0.2inches.

Sampling Success: 10 Storms per Outfall. For Year 7, the total number of stormssampled per outfall is shown in Table K-7. In Year 7, thirteen storms were collected atOFs 237A and 237B, twelve samples at OFs 237Anew, 235, 245 and 254; elevensamples at OF 230; and eight samples at OF 243.

To measure sampling success, precipitation data for each year was reviewed to assessthe following:

The number of precipitation events per year.The number of precipitation events that met antecedent criteria and were equalto or greater than 0.2 inches in 24 hours.The number of these events that were sampled.The number of these events that were not sampled and why they were notsampled.

Year 7 had 103 precipitation events, 29 of which met storm criteria with 17 of thosesampled at one or more outfalls. 12 events were not sampled at one or more of theoutfalls. Of these 12, eleven were within two weeks of storm sample for that outfall, orone to two storm samples had already been collected during that month. 1 qualifyingevent was not sampled because it was too intense and short with 0.20 inches in onehour. In addition, 10 per year requirement for each outfall was not met only at OF 243.


There are several reasons qualifying events were not targeted or sampling wasunsuccessful at OF 243 including:

Sampling problems prevented collection of many samples due to tidalinfluences or equipment malfunctions. At OF243, tidal and malfunctionscaused by sediment buildup from soils handling activities on a nearbyconstruction site were the main problems at the site.

For the remainder of the sites, some sampling events were not successful because ofthe following issues:

Erroneous predictions affected the sampler programming or deploymentdecisions and samplers were not deployed according to the Foss SAP.

Antecedent conditions were met, rainfall quickly followed and the sampler’scouldn’t be deployed in time.

Sampling crews review weather forecast 7 days a week including holidays such thatweekend events will not be missed if the forecast changes from that Friday.

No storm events were sampled in April, June or, July 2008. In April, there were only twostorm event where antecedent and total rainfall conditions were met. The April 28, 2008storm event was two quick and intense to sample with 0.20 inches in one hour. TheJune 3, 2008 storm event occurred within two weeks of the last event sampled.Therefore, samplers weren’t deployed for the event.

Even though ten storm events have not been sampled every year at every outfall, theCity believes that the sampling program is successful in sampling precipitation eventsthat meet storm criteria, and every attempt was made to sample and get 10 storms ateach outfall.

3.1.4 Stormwater SPM Monitoring - Sediment Traps

The sediment traps are a useful tool for source tracing given the followingconsiderations:

Traps are installed at the end of the pipe in an attempt to represent thecumulative effect of sources in that particular drainage basin.Traps are left in-place for an extended period of time (three to six months) andcollect sediment from a variety of storms (i.e., a range of volume, duration andintensity conditions).Traps are above tidal influences.Traps are installed by August 26th to include seasonal first flush.Comparison of results from source tracing sediment traps will help to prioritizesource control efforts amongst Thea Foss sub basins.

It is inappropriate, however, to evaluate stormwater SPM data using sediment qualitycriteria because the storm drains provide neither habitat nor a point of compliance foraquatic life.


Representativeness. The sampling plan design, sampling techniques, and samplehandling protocols were developed to attempt to get representative samples. Therewere no deviations from the Foss 2001 SAP except as noted herein Section 2.2.4.

Sediment traps were installed annually. Year 7 was installed on August 21-24, 2007.The sediment traps were retrieved on April 3-4, 2008. As shown in Table 12 of the2001-2008 Report, total rainfall, 28.41 inches, during the sampling period was 4.4 inchesbelow normal the normal of 34 inches in Year 7 (September-April). The total volume ofstormwater runoff for Year 7 is shown in Table 13 of the 2001-2008 Report for eachsediment trap. Year 7 runoff volumes are one of the lowest amount of runoff ascompared to Years 1 through 6.

Based on the extended deployments in each year, all stormwater SPM samplescollected during the Year 7 monitoring were believed to represent storm sedimentconditions, as defined above, for each outfall.

3.1.5 Stormwater SPM Monitoring - MH390 Sump

MH390 sump above OF 245 was cleaned and sampled again in August 2008. Thesample collected August 13, 2008 represents the previous year’s stormwater SPMaccumulation, which is the Year 7 monitoring period, August 2007 to August 2008. Theaccumulated stormwater SPM was was approximately seven inches in depth. Totalrainfall for Year 7 monitoring period is 34 inches (see Table 12 of the 2001-2008 Report,as measured at NOAA Station Tacoma 1 at the Central Wastewater Treatment Plant).This was 5.7 inches below the normal of 39.7 inches. The total stormwater runoff foreach period was 30 ac-ft (see Table 13 of the 2001-2008 Report). The Year 7 runoffvolume is one of the lowest amounts of runoff as compared to Years 1 through 6.

Representativeness. Material captured by the manhole sump (MH390 sump) aboveOF 245 is representative of stormwater SPM and settleable solids which are transportedby stormwater during both storm and baseflow conditions. However, it should be notedthat a portion of this stormwater SPM and solids might represent a source other thanstormwater from this basin due to this sample station being tidally influenced. The actualsample was a composite of thirty aliquots randomly taken from the sump after thestormwater SPM was well mixed by a high-pressure truck water hose (herein seeSection 2.2.5 and Appendix C Field Report - available on request).

It was the intent of the Foss 2001 SAP to sample the sump stormwater SPM so thatmaterial sampled in the sump and collected in the sediment trap can be compared overthe same time period. Initial cleaning of the sump coincided with placement andcollection of sediment traps on this outfall line. Prior to the Year 7 sediment trap-sampling event within this basin, the sump stormwater SPM were cleaned out. Thisensured that the sampling represents the current time period and included no residualsfrom previous discharges. The 2008 sump sample represents approximately the sametime period and can be compared to the 2007-2008 stormwater SPM samples collectedin the sediment traps.

Recommended Foss 2001 SAP Revision. The revision to the Foss 2001 SAP was toanalyze the MH390 sample immediately after collection and not freeze and hold toanalyze with the stormwater SPM samples collected in the sediment traps.


3.2 LABORATORY DATA SUMMARY

Tabular presentation of validated analytical results is provided in Appendix E. Theappendix includes validated analytical results for baseflow, stormwater, rinse blank, andstormwater SPM. Also included are split samples analyzed by Ecology’s ManchesterEnvironmental Laboratory.

The remainder of this section presents a summary of the data quality assurance resultsfrom all sampling events completed during the year. This section also discusses thedata quality objectives, as outlined in Section 3.0 of the Foss 2001 SAP, if theseobjectives were met and if not, why not. This includes a discussion of precision, bias,completeness and comparability. Representativeness was previously discussed inSection 3.1 of this attachment and is not included in this section.

In addition, a total of ten stormwater SPM samples were split between City of TacomaEnvironmental Services Laboratory (COT) and Ecology’s Manchester EnvironmentalLaboratory (MEL) and analyzed at each lab to evaluate comparability of results. Whileit’s difficult to determine which laboratory is ‘right’ when a difference is determined,trends in the paired data are used to evaluate analytical methods, with the goal ofincreasing similarity of results.

3.2.1 Data Validation Summary

3.2.1.1 Summary of Data Validation Effort

The quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) review of 92 stormwater, 32 baseflow,and 28 stormwater SPM samples, certified reference materials (CRMs), duplicates,method blanks, spikes, surrogates, laboratory control samples (LCSs), and equipmentrinsate blanks collected as specified in the Thea Foss and Wheeler-Osgood WaterwaysStormwater Monitoring Sampling and Analysis Plan (2001 SAP) (September 2001 andsubsequent revisions) is complete.

COT analyzed all samples except for grain size in SPM samples, which were analyzedby Aquatic Research, Inc., Seattle. A few metals samples were analyzed by STL-Tacoma, due to salt water interferences. City laboratory personnel completed all datareview. The QA/QC evaluation performed and the resulting data qualificationrecommendations have been summarized by matrix and type of problem encountered.

The data was evaluated in accordance with the project 2001 SAP (City of Tacoma, 2001and subsequent revisions), specific method requirements, laboratory control limits, andEPA Data Validation Functional Guidelines (External Parties: EPA 540-R-08-005,January 2009; Organics: EPA 540-R-08-01, June 2008; Inorganics: EPA 540-R-04-004,October 2004). Applicable methods include the semivolatile organics by EPA SW-846Methods 8270 with sample preparation procedures: 3545, 3550, 3640, 3660G and 3620;grain size by American Society for Testing of Materials ASTM D422, total solids byStandard Methods 160.3, 20th Edition, and laboratory Standard Operating Procedures(SOPs). Recommended data qualifiers are based on the EPA Data ValidationFunctional Guidelines; a summary of data qualifier definitions are provided in thecorresponding data packages (see Appendices B and E).


The analytical methods and reporting limit goals are outlined in Tables 2a and 2b of the2001 SAP. LCSs, Matrix Spike/Matrix Spike Duplicates (MS/MSDs), surrogates, labduplicates, and method blank recoveries and frequencies are listed in the 2001 SAP,Tables 3a-3b and 7a-7b, respectively. Field duplicates of sediment and equipmentrinsate blanks are discussed in Section 10.2 of the 2001 SAP.

Year 7 stormwater SPM samples were collected in April or August (MH390) of 2008. Allstormwater SPM samples were processed at COT. Samples FD-2, FD-2A, FD-6 andMH-390 were split and provided to MEL for analysis as per the Foss Sampling andAnalysis Plan of 2001 in compliance with the Administrative Order on Consent from theEPA.

The object of performing duplicate analysis is to assess precision error of themeasurement method, in this case two laboratory procedures, which is “random” asopposed to a systematic error (e.g. calibration error). To compare the two sets oflaboratory data the use of statistics such as the relative percent difference (RPD;difference divided by the mean) can be used for duplicate measurements atconcentrations where the expected precision error is fairly constant in proportion to themean, e.g., at levels greater than 10 times the IDL.

When analytical methods are dissimilar, the comparison of duplicates and multiplereplicate samples can be used to determine systematic differences in methodperformance. COT and MEL use dissimilar extraction procedures for semi-volatileorganic analyses.

3.2.1.2 Overall Data Quality

The overall data quality objectives (DQOs), as set forth in the 2001 SAP, have been metfor Year 7 (2007-2008). Data generated from this project are acceptable for use asqualified. The completeness for the associated data is 99 percent for stormwater,baseflow and SPM samples. Detailed discussions are presented below.

Reporting limits. Historically, results for organic compounds were reported to limitsdefined in the consent decree, and updates. Starting June 2008, all analytical resultsare reported to the achievable detection limit, which is lower than previously reportedresults. Results which fall between the practical quantitation limit and the methoddetection limit are J-qualified as estimates as per superfund guidelines. The change inreporting was executed to bring Foss monitoring in-line with new stormwater NPDESmonitoring goals. The change includes

Parameter Old Reporting Limit New Reporting LimitPAHs 0.010 ug/l 0.003-0.008 ug/l

Phthalates 1.0 ug/l 0.05-0.8 ug/l

Two issues are expected with regard to changing reporting limits,Increased number of detections as a laboratory artifact. The contaminants werelikely present in the past, at lower concentrations lower than the old reportinglimit.Increase in apparent quality control issues. Quantitation at a lower level is moresusceptible to random error.


Precision. Precision measures the reproducibility of measurements under a given setof conditions. Specifically, it is a quantitative measure of the variability of a group ofmeasurements compared to their average values. Precision is measured using relativepercent difference (RPD) on laboratory duplicates and matrix spike duplicates.

Duplicate recoveries and performance are acceptable according to limits listed in Table3a of the Foss 2001 SAP.

Bias. Bias is a measure of the difference between the parameter result and the truevalue due to systematic errors. Possible sources of systematic errors are collection,sample instability (physical/chemical), interferences, calibration, contamination, etc.Bias associated with sample matrix was measured using the percent recovery (%R) onLCSs, matrix spike and surrogate recoveries. Matrix spike (MS) recoveries may providean indication of bias due to interference from the sample matrix. Surrogate recoverieswill provide an estimate of bias for the entire analytical procedure. Bias associated withcontamination will be assessed by analysis of equipment rinsate blanks and laboratorymethod blanks. The equipment rinsate blank is a measure of field contaminationwhereas the method blank is a measure of laboratory contamination.

Recoveries of surrogates, MSs, and LCSs were acceptable. As additional laboratoryinternal QC check samples for this project, the laboratory also analyzed the applicablesediment CRMs as specified in the 2001 SAP. The analyses of the sediment CRMswere acceptable for most products (see Appendix E, Table E-17). Results foracenaphthene, benzo(a)pyrene, endosulfan I, endrin and lindane were lower than theCRM prediction interval. While no samples will disqualified based on CRM control limits,CRM will be split with Manchester Environmental Laboratory and ran as duplicates in2008-2009.

Stormwater Samples. No stormwater or baseflow sample splits were collected in 2007-2008.

Stormwater SPM Samples. Split sample results were comparable between COT andMEL for solids, metals, total petroleum hydrocarbons and phthalates. PAH results forCOT were statistically lower than MEL.

Equipment Blank Samples. In seven years of sampling, the equipment blank resultsshow little to no contamination of the dedicated field strainer and Teflon suction line.Therefore, dedicated field strainer and Teflon suction line may remain in place for theremainder of the project. However, the dedicated Teflon suction lines were replaced inJuly 2008. Equipment blank samples were collected when the suction lines werereplaced and show very limited contamination (see Table E-15).

Representativeness. The City is following the approved methods in the 2001 SAP toattempt to acquire consistency and representative samples as presented in Section 3.1.Representativeness of the data was assessed using both qualitative and quantitativemethods. Qualitative analysis includes review of sampling methods and field data,which is discussed in this Section. Quantitative analysis includes statistical evaluation ofthe analytical data, which is discussed in Section 3.4 of the 2001-2007 Report.

Completeness. Completeness is defined as the percentage of measurements madewhich are judged to be valid measurements. The completeness of the data is the


number of acceptable data points over the total number of data points times 100. Atarget completeness goal for this work was 100 percent. This goal was achieved for themajority of tests conducted for stormwater, baseflow, and SPM that are presented insection 3.2.2.

Comparability. Comparability is a qualitative description expressing the confidencewith which one data set can be compared with another. The data collected from thissampling effort is expected to be highly comparable to data collected using the sameprotocols, such as flow composite sampling (stormwater and baseflow) and stormwaterSPM sampling.

When analytical methods are dissimilar, the comparison of duplicates and multiplereplicate samples may be used to determine systematic differences in methodperformance. Systematic differences may lead to reduction of data comparability. COTand MEL use dissimilar extraction procedures for semi-volatile organic analyses.Section 3.2.3, herein, presents a discussion of the interlaboratory comparison of thestormwater SPM data results from COT and MEL.

3.2.2 Quality Assurance and Control Performance

The formal data verification process is designed to detect the most common analyticalproblems that affect the quality of the results. While data are qualified for a number ofreasons, the severity of qualification is not indicated with conventional methods. That is,a detection is either unqualified, ‘J’ flagged as an estimate of concentration, ‘N’ flaggedas an estimate of identification, or rejected.

In this analysis, data have been classified into three quality categories,Tier I – results that were rejected or could be interpreted as a loss of data. Forexample, a method blank detection which results in BEHP to be quantitated at 5ug/l, the reported non-detection is 4 ug/l, and the reporting limit goal is 1 ug/l,would qualify as a Tier I, or lost data point.Tier II – J-flagged results, estimates of concentration, have a range in which thedeviation in data quality is acceptable. This range is bounded by unqualified data(no issues), J-flagged (low concentration or analytical issues) and rejection. Inreality, very few data points are rejected. A Tier II result is between the middle ofthe estimation range and the rejection cut-off. Another reason for Tier IIclassification is when two or more analytical issues qualify the data as a J-flagged estimate. This qualification is sometimes referred to as an ‘X’ qualifieddata value.Tier III – Tier III data quality points are J-flagged estimates between the ‘noqualification’ and middle of J-flag qualification region. Tier III estimates are notevaluated in this analysis.

This type of analysis can be helpful in identifying issues to be addressed when themajority of data quality is acceptable, yet may still be improved.

Performance is influenced by the type of matrix analyzed. The number of severity ofissues increases from stormwater samples to baseflow (saltwater interferences) andthen SPM/sediment samples (recovery). These issues are further discussed in theparagraphs below.


3.2.2.1 Stormwater Results.

Ninety-four stormwater samples were tested for 31 parameters, totaling 2914 tests. Ofthose tests, 38 data points (1.3%) are associated with quality issues (Tier I and II),including the loss of 6 data points (0.2%, Tier I) (see Table K-8).

Lost data was the result of blank contamination for phthalates (3 points), variability ofserial dilution of a lead sample, and an instance of where the dissolve lead result wasgreater than total lead (D>T). The rejected dissolved lead data point includes both theserial dilution and D>T errors.

Tier II issues include,Sixteen matrix spike, matrix spike duplicate pair recoveries for selected PAHsabove acceptable limits.One series of calibration coefficients (seven outfalls for DEHP) out of range.Two instances of low internal standard areas for Di-n-octyl phthalate and oneinstance of high bias in the control sample for Di-n-butyl phthalate

3.2.2.2 Baseflow results.

Thirty-three baseflow samples were tested for 31 parameters, totaling 1023 tests. Ofthose tests, 49 results had quality issues (4.8% Tier I, II), including the loss of 15 (1.5%,Tier I) data points (see Table K-9).

Generally, increases in conductivity (measure of dissolved ions in solution) increasematrix interferences. The increase in conductivity for these samples is primarily relatedto salt-water intrusion, especially for flat drainages that are often tidally inundated(including the groundwater). 22 of the 49 data points associated with poor performancewere from outfalls 243 and 254.

Metals. Metals results are associated with 11 (73%) of the lost data points in baseflowand 18 (53%) Tier II results. All metals quality issues were associated with lead andzinc.

Conductivity associated matrix interferences were primarily manifest as detections ofdissolved metals at concentrations greater than total metals (6 lost points, 12 Tier II),and excessive differences in serial dilution concentrations (4 lost points). The remainingdata quality concerns included blank contamination (1 lost, 5 Tier II), and one matrixspike/duplicate pair that was recovered above acceptable limits.

The greatest effect of saltwater interferences was present in Outfall 254 baseflowresults, where 7 of 16 or 44% of metals results had Tier I issues (total/dissolved lead andzinc only), and 11 of 16 data points (73%) were impacted (Tier I or II).

Currently, the City laboratory is modifying filtration procedures as one method totroubleshoot dissolved results which exceed totals and blank detections. Additionally,the City laboratory ran many of these tests twice, with the same result.

A test study will be conducted to evaluate lead and zinc in baseflows as a function of saltwater (conductivity) percentage (5% to 95%). Tests will specifically focus ontotal/dissolved ratios, serial dilutions and blank contamination.


Organics. The remaining three lost data points were associated with blank detectionsof di-n-butyl phthalate. Tier II issues include;

Blank detections of diethylphthalate (3), di-n-butyl phthalate, and naphthalene(6).Matrix spike/duplicate recoveries of butyl benzyl phthalate, anthracene,benzo(a)pyrene (2) and hardness.

3.2.2.3 Suspended particulate matter, and sediment (MH-390).

The most difficult matrix is solid matter. While baseflow is impacted by an increase inions, sediment is made up of a continuous scale of particle sizes (multiple phases). Asthe most variable matrix, SPM and sediment will have the greatest number of laboratoryperformance issues.

Twenty eight sediment samples were obtained for analysis includingTwelve distinct sample locations, FD1, 2, 2-A, 3, 3B, 3New, 5, 6, 21, 22, 23 andMH-390. Sediment quantity was deficient for sampling at two locations and noanalyses were performed.Split samples for FD-2, FD2A, FD-6 andA test study of MH-390 sediments where 7 split samples were submitted to boththe City and Manchester Laboratories. MH-390 was used for the test study as ithas the most sediment available for analysis. A total of three kilograms ofsediment were homogenized within the manhole, and again within a steel bowl,then split as 7 paired samples.

The list of analytes are presented in Table K-5.

SPM. A total of 586 tests were run on the SPM samples, of which 51, or 8.5% wereassociated with Tier II issues (see Table K-10). The only Tier I data result was due to ahigh method blank for DEHP in FD-5.

HPAH, high weight polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, account for 41 of the issue points.This represents 26% of the PAH analyses and 46% of the HPAH analyses. Twoanalytical measures are associated with HPAH issues and include low internal standardareas (35 points) and MS/MSD (6 points) recoveries outside of control limits.

Low internal standard areas include results which were recovered between 21% to 46%of the perylene-d12 internal standard area. The concentration of a standard is inverselyproportional to the internal standard area. Thus, low internal standard areas areassociated with a high bias in sample recovery. The internal standard area limit is 50 to200%. If warranted, the issue internal standard areas will be investigated further infuture SPM testing.

FD-5 MS/MSD recoveries for PAHs were associated with a low recovery exceedence ofthe matrix spike and high recovery exceedence of the matrix spike duplicate. Theresults should be used with caution.


The remainder of Tier II data include low internal standard areas for di-n-octyl phthalate(7 results), a method blank exceedence for BEHP in FD-5, TOC replicate variability (FD-2) and MS/MSD recoveries (FD-1).

MH-390. 249 tests were conducted on the City split of seven MH-390 sedimentsamples. Eighteen, or 7.2%, had a Tier I or II quality issues associated with them (seeTable K-8).

All of the bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate and naphthalene results were lost (Tier I) due to ahigh method blank. Lead values are qualified (Tier II) for high duplicate relative percentdifference, and di-n-butyl phthalate is qualified based low based on MS/MSD recoveriesfor one sample out of control limits.

3.2.3 Stormwater SSPM Interlaboratory Comparison

A total of ten stormwater SPM samples were split between COT and MEL and analyzedat each lab to evaluate comparability of results. While it’s difficult to determine whichlaboratory is ‘right’ when a difference is determined, trends in the paired data are usefulto evaluate analytical methods, with the goal of increasing similarity of results. COT andMEL data are compared for three sample pairs, including FD-2, FD-2A and FD-6 (seeTable K-11). These pairs are evaluated for relative percent differences between theconcentrations.

Additionally, the seven sample splits from MH-390 are compared using statistics todetermine differences between means (raw data see Table K-12). All MH-390 resultswhich were consistently detected (uncensored, 7 COT detections, 7 MEL detections)were analyzed through paired analyses. This included 17 individual compounds andone summary assessment (LPAHs).

MEL and the COT analyzed for total solids by EPA method 160.3. PAHs and phthalateswere analyzed using SW846 Method 8270. MEL’s extraction procedure for PAHs andphthalates used a soxlet-based method (SW 846 Method 3541) and also used twodifferent extracts clean up procedures: silica gel for PAHs and Florisil for phthalates.The City’s extraction procedure used an accelerated solvent extractor (Dionex ASE, SW846 Method 3545a) method and used Alumina for both PAHs’ and phthalates’ extractsclean up procedure. The difference in methodologies was the basis for performing theseven split analyses.

Three levels of quantitative confidence (Tier I, II, III) associated with resultscorresponding to medians (for organics) which are greater than 700 ug/kg (10x NPDESStormwater Reporting Limit), 500 ug/kg (10x current COT reporting Limit) and 200 ug/kg(10 times ASE SW 846 method 3545a reporting limit), respectively for method 8270.

3.2.3.1 COT RPDs Results

Three MH-390 samples were tested for grain size analysis (see Table K-13). Of thegrain size tests, two samples had a clay/silt RPD of -3% between each other, but were54% different than the third sample. This is likely due to a reducing volume of silt assamples were split (from one to seven).


Three MH-390 samples were split for total organic carbon, lead, mercury and zinc. Allresults were within ± 20%. NWTPH-Dx (3 samples) were within ±30%.

3.2.3.2 MH390 Distribution Testing

As a paired testing design, MH-390 samples were first tested for normality ( = 0.05),without data transformation (see summary statistics in Table K-14). Sample resultswere scaled against the Cunnane quantile and evaluated using the Pearson CorrelationCoefficients, which are presented in Tables K-15 and K-16. The Cunanne plottingposition involves ordering data from smallest to largest (rank 1-7), and assigning valueas (rank-0.4)/(7+0.2). Then, the PCC is run against the quantile. The PCC describing anormal distribution is > 0.898 at 0.05 and n=7 samples. Increasing levels of areassociated with greater powers of the test. Within and between City of Tacoma andManchester sample sets had PCCs > 0.896 for total solids and PAHs. Within andbetween results for phthalates ranged from 0.802 to 0.979.

Additionally, MH-390 result distributions- were evaluated for severe skewness andkurtosis (Tables K-14, K-15). Severe skewness was defined as two times the standarderror of skewness (2* (6/N)). Similarly, severe kurtosis was defined as two times thestandard error of kurtosis, 2*( (24/N). The following results were severely skewed andkurtotic (4 of 59 comparisons);

Within the MEL, bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate and di-n-octyl phthalateWithin the COT, di-n-butyl phthalate.Between sample sets (differences) di-n-octyl phthalate.

3.2.3.3 MH390 Paired Tests

Since a few results were below 0.898 PCC, and qualified as severely skewed andkurtotic, both parametric and non-parametric tests were conducted (see Table K-17).Distribution free assumptions (non-parametric) were tested with the Wilcoxon signedranks test. This is a median test and is ideal for small, paired sample designs as itallows calculation of

The exact p-value or attained level of significance andHow far above or below the sample median is relative to other observations, asopposed to only being able to determine if the median is significantly differentbetween COT and MEL. This is represented by the number and sign of standardranks in Table K-17.

T-tests. The paired t-test was conducted to evaluate sample differences betweenmeans based on a normal distribution and equal variances. Additionally, the t-test forunequal variances was tested. Both are tests of the mean.

Total Solids. Total solids results for the COT produced a median ± median absolutedeviation of 73 ± 2 (CV = 0.03), and MEL results were 64 ± 2.6 (CV 0.04). Within meancomparisons were not significant, yet between mean results were (p-value 0.001). TheCOT mean was higher than MEL by RPD 14%. While this is within the acceptable rangefor relative percent differences, the additional sample results allow determination ofsignificance.


FD-2, FD-2A and FD-6 replicates were comparable, and ranged from -9% to 0(COT/MEL), indicating no difference in quantitation (see Table K-11).

LPAHs. All LPAH results were statistically significant between medians, with COTmedians lower than MEL. The phrenanthrene median approached the Tier II reportinglimit (481 ug/kg for MEL) and had a RPD of -56%. This is equivalent to Tier I results forsplit samples from FD2, 2A and 6 which were -41%, -49, and -64% lower than MELresults, respectively.

Summation of total results is expected to increase the error associated with eachcompound detected below the Tier III level. Total LPAH results for MH-390 were -65%RPD lower than MEL (959 ug/kg MEL). This is similar to total LPAH comparison resultsat the Tier I level for FD2 (-80%, 2970 ug/kg), FD-2A (-60%, 7376 ug/kg) and FD-6 (-86%, 3685 ug/kg).

HPAHs. Similar to LPAHs, all City HPAH results were significantly lower than MEL.MH-390 results for pyrene (478 ug/kg), fluoranthene (370 ug/kg), chrysene (280 ug/kg),benzo(b,k)fluoranthenes (312 ug/kg) and benzo(g,h,i)perylene (228 ug/kg) are Tier III.The associated negative RPDs include -56%, -35%, -43%, -44% and -70% respectively.

All City FD2, 2A and 6 HPAH results are quantitatively Tier I and lower than MEL;Parameter Average Conc ug/kg (MEL) Ave. RPDBenzo(a)anthracene 2,241 -60%Benzo(a)pyrene 2,293 -74%Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 1,857 -57%Benzo(b,k)fluoranthenes 5,557 -63%Chrysene 3,343 -69%Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene 1,007 -106%Fluoranthene 5,730 -88%Ideno(1,2,3-c,d)pyrene 2,353 -101%Pyrene 5,900 -51%

Phthalates. COT lost BEHP phthalate results in the MH-390 analysis due to blankcontamination. Phthalate results for di-n-butyl and butylbenzyl phthalate were notsignificantly different between laboratories. The di-n-octyl phthalate median wassignificantly different, while the means were not. While phthalate results are variablebetween COT and MEL, the bias is not systematic.

3.2.3.4 Conclusion

COT PAH results are significantly and systematically lower than MEL. In general, COTsurrogate and CRM results recovered near the lower limit of acceptability, while the MELsurrogate results recovered near the upper end of the acceptable range.

The United States Geological Survey reviewed ASE (used by COT) andSoxhlet/Soxtherm (used by MEL) extraction methods with respect to PAHs (Zaugg et al.2006). In general, the recovery of low molecular weight compounds (naphthalene,phenanthrene and anthracene) was greater by 10 to 20 percent for ASE vs. Soxhlet.The difference between extraction methods was reduced with increasing molecularweights. ASE has a method detection limit of 7 to 30 ug/kg for PAHs and Phthalates,and a reporting limit of 50 ug/kg when followed by GCMS 8270D (Zaugg et al. 2006).


The extraction method is designed for low-level detections, not to exceed a totalconcentration (sum) of semi-volatile compounds (SVOC) between 250 and 12,500 ug/kg(EPA SW 846 3545a). The total average concentration of SPM/sediment SVOCs is33,189 ug/kg for MEL and 21,389 ug/kg for the City of Tacoma.

The difference in methodologies and results will be addressed by two tests in 2008-2009including,

COT and MEL will analyze split samples from FD-3, FD-6, MH-390 and FD21 or22. Following GC/MS (8270) analysis of split samples, COT and MEL will sendthe remaining extracts to the other laboratory for analysis. Comparingdifferences in quantitation between the extracts will help isolate extraction orGC/MS quantitation as the proximate cause for significant differences.COT will evaluate the total load of SVOCs in SPM samples, and evaluate productliterature for modification of the Accelerated Solvent Extraction methodology forSPM samples.

3.3 DATA SUMMARY

For each detected chemical at each outfall, the following summary statistics arepresented for both storm and baseflows.

Number of samples analyzed.Number of samples with detected chemical concentrations.Arithmetic mean.Median.Minimum.Maximum.10th and 90th percentiles.95% upper and lower confidence limits of the arithmetic mean.Standard deviation of the arithmetic mean.Percent coefficient of variation.Standard error of the arithmetic mean.

The validated analytical results are presented in Appendix E and summary statistics inAppendix F.

For samples reporting non-detected concentrations, we assumed the concentration wasone-half of the reporting limits for the particular analysis, and used the one-half reportinglimit values during the estimation of all summary statistics. Summary statistics weregenerated using Microsoft Office Excel 2003.

3.3.1 Discussion of Year 7 Data

Appendix F presents a summary of the Year 7 baseflow and stormwater statisticsincluding the range of averages, maximum value detected, the associated outfall, andcount and percent detection. The following subsections discuss the summary statisticsfor baseflow, stormwater and stormwater SPM results and any notable occurrences orvariations for Year 7 data only. An evaluation of trends in the quality of water and of thedata relative to continuing source control efforts is presented in the August 2001-2008Stormwater Monitoring Report and not in herein.


3.3.1.1 Baseflow

TSS and Total Metals. TSS and total zinc were detected in all baseflow samples exceptfor TSS at OF 237Anew (75 percent). Total lead was detected in at least one sample atall outfalls except OF237B. Total mercury was detected twice, once in OF 230 and oncein OF245. As shown in Appendix F, Tables F-1 through F-7, Year 7, OFs 245 and254 had the highest average (avg), median and maximum (max) concentrations of TSS,total lead and total zinc in baseflow areas follows:

Max Median AvgTSS, mg/L 42.6 (254) 29.9 (254) 30.1 (254)Lead, ug/L 14.4 (254) 7.4 (254) 8.6 (254)Zinc, ug/L 1,400 (245) 631 (245) 701 (245)

PAHs. PAHs were detected in some of the baseflow samples. LPAHs were detected in23 percent of the samples and HPAHs were detected in 28 percent of the samples.Pyrene was detected the most at 75 percent detections followed by fluoranthene at 50percent detections and benzo(b,k)fluoranthenes at 44 percent detections. The lowestconcentrations of total PAHs, HPAHs and LPAHs were found at OFs 237A and 237B.For the most part, the highest concentrations of total PAHs and individual compoundswere found at OFs 230, and 254.

OF 230 had the highest maximum and average concentrations of PAHs including twoLPAHs, and five HPAHs, with (see Appendix F, Tables F-1 through F-7, Year 6):

HPAHs at 0.127-max and 0.073-avg ug/L,HPAH – benzo(ghi)perylene at 0.015-max and 0.007-avg ug/L,HPAH – benzo(bk)fluoranthenes at 0.019-max and 0.010-avg ug/L,HPAH – chrysene at 0.018-max and 0.008-avg ug/L,HPAH – fluoranthene at 0. 025-max and 0.015-avg ug/L.HPAH – pyrene at 0. 030-max and 0.017-avg ug/L.LPAH – 2-methylnaphthalene at 0.017-max and 0.007-avg ug/LLPAH – naphthalene at 0.068-max and 0.024-avg ug/L.

OF 243 had the highest maximum and average concentrations of LPAH compound,acenaphththene at 0.037-max and 0.023-avg ug/L. OF 254 had the highest maximumand average concentrations of LPAHs including three LPAHs, with (see Appendix F,Tables F-1 through F-7, Year 7):

LPAHs at 0.169-max and 0.060-avg ug/L.LPAH – acenaphthylene at 0.019-max and 0.008-avg ug/L.LPAH – fluorene at 0.028-max and 0.010-avg ug/L.LPAH – phenathrene at 0.072-max and 0.021-avg ug/L.

The highest median concentrations of total PAHs were 230 (0.131 ug/L) and 254 (0.058ug/L). The highest median concentrations of total LPAHs were 243 (0.045 ug/L) and 230(0.044 ug/L). The highest median concentrations of total HPAHs were230 (0.064 ug/L)and 254 (0.058 ug/L).

The highest median concentrations of individual LPAHs were detected at three outfallsincluding 230 (naphthalene), OF 243 (acenaphththene), and OF 254 (acenaphthylene).The highest median concentrations of individual HPAHs were detected at two outfallsincluding OF 230 (benzo(bk)fluoranthenes, chrysene, fluoranthene, and pyrene), andOF254 (pyrene).


Phthalates. In baseflow samples, all phthalate compounds were detected except di-n-octylphthalate. As shown in F-1 through F-7, Year 7, the highest concentrations forbis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate was found at OF 254 at 2.93 ug/L. As per the Foss SAP, thephthalate reporting limit goal has been 1.0 ug/l. Phthalates detected at concentrationsless than 1.0 ug/l were considered non-detections. However, starting in 2008, severaldata packages contain phthalate results with detected concentrations less than thereporting limit goal. The City laboratory is in the process of producing a harmonizeddeliverable which meets or exceeds requirements of all administrative orders, permitsand self-initiated monitoring. Data will be reported to the detection limit, as an estimateof concentration if lower than the reporting limit goal, as is required in the City's NPDESWWTP #WA0037087, #WA0037214 and Stormwater (general) permits. This resulted inan apparent increase in detections, which is actually an artifact of reporting.

Temporal Variations in Year 7. In the Year 7 data, the following compounds werehigher in either the two winter samples or the two summer samples:

OF 237A, 237Anew, and 243, two winter samples were higher than the twosummer samples for zincOF 230, two winter samples were higher than the two summer samples for TSS,zinc, LPAHs, HPAHs, and PAHs.OF 245, two summer samples were higher than the two winter samples for zinc.

OF 254, two summer samples were higher than the two winter samples for TSSand DEHP. .

For each outfall, baseflow concentrations for the indicator parameters were plotted bydate and year-by-year boxplots to show any notable time variations in the data (seeAppendices H and J). These plots and statistical analyses of temporal variations arepresented in Section 3.4 of the 2001-2008 Report and not repeated herein.

3.3.1.2 Stormwater

TSS and Total Metals. TSS and total zinc were detected in all stormwater samples.Total lead was detected in 91 out of 94 stormwater samples. Total mercury wasdetected in 6 out of 94 stormwater samples. As shown in Appendix F, Tables F-8through F-14, Year 7, the outfalls discharging the highest averages and maximumconcentrations TSS, total lead and total zinc were:

Highest TSS average and maximum concentrations were found in OF 254 (avg-134 and max-344 mg/L).Highest total lead average and maximum concentrations were found in OF 235(avg-65 and max-123 ug/L).Highest total zinc average and maximum concentrations were found in OF OF245 (avg-269 ug/L and max-498 ug/L).


As shown in Appendix F, Tables F-8 through F-14, Year 7, the outfalls discharging thehighest median concentrations of TSS, total lead and total zinc were:

Highest TSS median concentrations were found at OF 254 (124 mg/L) followedby OFs 243 (97 mg/L) and 245 (91 mg/L); (also see Appendix J Figures J-1and J-1a);Highest total lead median concentrations were found at OF 235 (62 ug/L)followed by OF 243 (36 ug/L); (also see Appendix J, Figures J-2 and J-2a);Highest total zinc median concentrations were found at OF 245 (226 ug/L)followed by OFs 254 (150 ug/L) and 230 (128 ug/L) (also see Appendix J,Figures J-3 and J-3a).

PAHs. PAHs were detected in most of the stormwater samples. LPAHs were detectedin 64 percent of the samples and HPAHs were detected in 87 percent of the samples.As shown in Appendix F, Tables F-8 through F-14, Year 7, the lowest medianconcentrations of PAHs were found at OFs 254 (0.604 ug/L), 230 (0.599 ug/L), and237B (0.539 ug/L). The outfalls discharging the highest median concentrations of totalPAHs were OF 237Anew (1.47 ug/L) followed by OF 237A (1.2 ug/L) and 235 (1.15ug/L) (also see Appendix J, Figures J-11 and J-11a).

The highest concentrations (maximum, average and median) of one LPAH(phenanthrene) all HPAHs and total PAHs were detected at OF237Anew and 237A forall except median concentrations of benz(ghi)perylene and pyrene at OF235 (seeAppendix F, Tables F-8 through F-14, Year 7). The highest concentrations (maximumand average) of LPAHs (except phenanthrene) were detected at the following outfalls:

OF 245 - three LPAHs (2-methylnaphthalene, fluorine and naphthalene) and totalLPAHsOF 243 acenaphthylene

(see Appendix F, Tables F-8 through F-14, Year 7) (see also Appendix J, FiguresJ-6 and J-6a).

OF 235 and 254 also had the higher average and median concentrations of individualLPAH compounds including:

OF 235 acenaphthene and anthracene had the maximum values, and fluorene,phenanthrene and total LPAHs had highest median values.OF 254 2-methylnaphthalene and fluorene had the highest median values andacenaphthylene had the maximum value

Phthalates. DEHP was detected in 85 percent of the stormwater samples followed bybutylbenzylphthalate at 33 percent. As shown in Appendix F, Tables F-8 through F-14, Year 7, the highest maximum, average and median concentrations for DEHP andtotal phthalates were found in OF 230 (44, 8.4 and 6.4 ug/L, respectively) (also seeAppendix J, Figures J-4 and J-4a).

As per the Foss SAP, the phthalate reporting limit goal has been 1.0 ug/l. Phthalatesdetected at concentrations less than 1.0 ug/l were considered non-detections. However,starting in 2008, several data packages contain phthalate results with detectedconcentrations less than the reporting limit goal. The City laboratory is in the process ofproducing a harmonized deliverable which meets or exceeds requirements of alladministrative orders, permits and self-initiated monitoring. Data will be reported to the


detection limit, as an estimate of concentration if lower than the reporting limit goal, as isrequired in the City's NPDES WWTP #WA0037087, #WA0037214 and Stormwater(general) permits. This resulted in an apparent increase in detections, which is actuallyan artifact of reporting.

3.3.1.3 Comparison of Baseflow and Stormwater Quality

For the most part, baseflow concentrations were less than stormwater concentrations.The only exception was acenaphthene at OFs 243 and 254. At OF243, acenaphthenewas detected at higher concentrations in two baseflow events than those concentrationsfound in all the stormwater events. The baseflow concentrations (0.037 and 0.31 ug/L),are greater than the stormwater concentrations (0.024 and 0.020 ug/L). The source ofacenaphthene in the baseflow is unknown.

At OF 254, acenaphthene was also detected at higher concentrations in one of thebaseflow events. The baseflow concentration, 0.032 ug/L was greater than allstormwater concentrations. The source of acenaphthene in the baseflow is unknown.

The source(s) of acenaphthene in the baseflows from OFs 243 and 254 is unknown.Multiple years of monitoring and subsequent statistical outlier tests will confirm if thesedata points are an outlier or reoccurring event(s).

3.3.1.4 Stormwater SPM - Sediment Trap and MH390 Sump

Solids, TOC, and Grain Size. Total solids ranged from 40.5 percent (FD23 at OF 243) to84.1 percent (FD5 at OF 237A background). TOC ranged from 0.76 percent (FD5 at OF237A background) to 8.69 percent (FD3Anew at OF 230). All but one stormwater SPMsamples were mostly sand (usually greater than 65 percent) with some fines (2.2 to 40percent) and gravel (0.02 to 15 percent) (see Appendix E, Table E-15). Higher portionsof gravel were found at FD5 (15.44 percent ).

TPH. WTPH heavy oil and diesel were detected in all stormwater SPM samples exceptFD23 which didn’t have enough sample for WTPH analyses. As shown in Appendix E,Table E-15, the highest concentrations of WTPH heavy oil was found in FD3new at OF230 (8,300 mg/kg heavy oil), followed by FD2A at OF 237A (5,200 mg/kg heavy oil).The highest concentrations of WTPH diesel was found in FD6 at OF 235 (1,000 mg/kgdiesel), followed by FD3new at OF 230 (960 mg/kg diesel). The range of concentrationsof TPH at the other locations were 610 to 4,500 mg/kg, heavy oil and 32 to 913 mg/kg,diesel.

Metals. Lead, mercury and zinc were detected in all stormwater SPM. As shown inAppendix E, Table E-15, the highest concentrations for lead were found in FD23 (OF243) followed by FD3new (OF 230), and FD6 (OF 235). The lead concentrations atthese outfalls are 450, 235 and 134 mg/kg, respectively. The range of the remainderconcentrations are 46.9 to 93.7 mg/kg.

As shown in Appendix E, Table E-15, the highest concentrations for mercury werefound in FD6 (OF 235) and FD23 (OF 243). The highest concentrations of mercury were1.35 and 0.309 mg/kg, respectively. The range of the remainder concentrations are0.017 to 0.180 mg/kg.


As shown in Appendix E, Table E-15, the highest concentrations for zinc were found inMH390 (OF 245) followed by FD3new (OF 230), and FD23 (OF 243). The zincconcentrations at these outfalls are 625, 581 and 440 mg/kg, respectively. The range ofthe remainder concentrations are 126 to 396 mg/kg.

PAHs. FD23 didn’t have enough sample for PAH analyses. LPAHs were detected insome of the stormwater SPM samples. Phenanthrene, was detected in all samplesranging from 271-4,300 mg/Kg. The remainders of the LPAHs were not detected at oneor more of the locations. All HPAHs were detected in the stormwater SPM samplesexcept dibenzo(a,h)anthracene..

As shown in Appendix E, Table E-15, the highest concentrations for phenanthrene,total LPAHs, all HPAHs except fluoranthene, total HPAHs and total PAHs were found atFD3Anew (OF 230). The total PAHs concentration at this outfall was 38,800 ug/kg withthe remainder ranging from 1,721 to 29,140 ug/kg. Fluoranthene was detected at 6,100ug/kg at FD5 (background) with the remainder ranging from 266 to 4,500 ug/kg.

Phthalates. FD23 didn’t have enough sample for Phthalates analyses. DEHP,butylbenzylphthalate, di-n-butylphthalate and di-n-octylphthalate were detected in mostof the stormwater SPM samples. As shown in Appendix E, Table E-15, the lowestconcentrations of phthalates were found at the background location FD1 (OF 237B).The highest concentrations of total phthalates were found in FD3new (OF 230) at48,810 ug/kg followed by FD6 (OF 235) at 19,940 ug/kg and MH390 (OF 245)at 19,660ug/kg.

The stormwater SPM at FD3new had the highest concentrations of DEHP at 43,000ug/kg followed by FD6 at 18,000 ug/kg and FD2 at 16,000 ug/kg. The stormwater SPMat MH390 (OF 245) had the highest concentrations of butylbenzylphthalate at 15,714ug/kg followed by FD3new at 1,500 ug/kg.

Pesticides and PCBs. FD23 didn’t have enough sample for Pesticides and PCBsanalyses. Pesticides and PCBs were not detected in Year 7 stormwater SPM samples.

4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FOSS 2001 SAP REVISIONS

This section presents a number of revisions to the Foss 2001 SAP protocols, which weremade during the course of Years 1 through 8 monitoring. These changes andrecommendations improved the sampling methods, sample processing and laboratorymethods for the Thea Foss Waterway Stormwater Monitoring Program. Theserecommendations are finalized as an amendment to the Foss 2001 SAP.

Changes to Outfall 237A Sampling Location. As part of the BNSF railroad realignmentproject, OF 237A and 237B were reconstructed in July through September 2005including:

Extending each outfall,Constructing a new manhole structure for each,Replacing the concrete pipe from the new manhole structures to the outfall pipes,Rerouting the 23rd Street lateral (FD2A) to connect to the new manhole structurein the 237A main trunk line.


Construction was completed within the Dock St. Pump Station yard (see Appendix A-6).The August 2004-2005 sampling was completed at the original locations. In 2005,Tacoma monitored flow and tidal conditions at the new 237A manhole. Sampling beganat the new 237A stormwater monitoring location (the new 237A manhole) in January2006. The 237A stormwater monitoring location may be moved to the new manhole ifsampling conditions are favorable in 2006-2007. If the location is moved to the newmanhole, the new location will capture contributions from the entire basin with thererouting of the 23rd Street lateral (FD2A). Appendix A-6 mapping of the newalignments will be updated as soon as the information is completed and available.

Changes to Total Metal Preservation. Samples can be preserved after 30 hours. If thesamples are not preserved within 30 hours from the start of sampling, the sample isallowed to sit for 16 hours before total metals analysis.

Changes to Baseflow Monitoring. Over the course of the monitoring program, the Cityhas gained valuable experience with site conditions and monitoring adjustments requiredfor each site. During Year 2, the City increased level calibration at all sites. The Cityalso replaces Teflon tubing and probes with new or reconditioned units on an as neededbasis. To date, Teflon tubing has been replaced in the spring during the extreme lowtides and several probes have been replaced. This increases confidence in the qualityof level and velocity data at each site.

During baseflow conditions, water levels are too low for AV sensors to accuratelymeasure velocities at OFs 230, 245, 243, 254, and sometimes 235. Therefore, flow iscalculated using Manning’s equation during baseflow sampling.

Changes to Baseflow Criteria. For wet season baseflow sampling, the specificconductance criteria will be defined as:

< or = 10,000 uhmos/cm at OFs 243 and 254< or = 5,000 uhmos/cm at OF 245

For dry season baseflow sampling, the specific conductance criteria will be defined as:< or = 20,000 uhmos/cm at OF 243< or = 25,000 uhmos/cm at OF 254< or = 10,000 uhmos/cm at OF 245

The criteria may change with changing weather patterns from year to year. Thesechanges, if necessary, will be discussed with the Agencies. The Agencies and Cityagree criteria may change if salinity conditions change from year to year.

Changes to Stormwater Monitoring. At OFs 243, 245 and 254, the samplers areprogrammed to collect time composite samples. Flow composite sampling was notpossible at these three locations because the AV sensor was unable to accuratelymeasure the low velocities during periods when the drains were tidally influenced. Thesampler stopped when the velocity signal failed at the low velocity in the drain, eventhough conductivity readings indicated stormwater runoff.

At OFs 230, 235, 237A and 237B, the sampler programs were not changed andremained programmed to collect flow composite samples using velocity-area equationsto calculate flow.


Changes to Stormwater Criteria. For stormwater sampling, the specific conductancecriteria will be defined as:

< or = 5,000 uhmos/cm at OFs 243 and 254< or = 2,000 uhmos/cm at OF 245

The criteria may change with changing weather patterns from year to year. Thesechanges, if necessary, will be discussed with the Agencies. The Agencies and Cityagree criteria may change if salinity conditions change from year to year.

Sediment Sample Processing Revision. Deviation from Foss 2001 SAP. Analysis of thesediment trap samples were performed on the solids fraction of the collected sample. Inorder to separate the liquid fraction, the 2005 sediment samples were processed inaccordance to the revised March 25, 2005 laboratory SOP, Foss Waterway SedimentTrap Sample Handling. The process used was:

1. The sample containers were allowed to sit for 24 hours.2. All of the overlying water was decanted, centrifuged, and saved for rinsing. The

centrifuge is run for five minutes at top speed or until the decanted overlyingwater was visually clear.

3. The sediments in the field sample container were transferred to anothercontainer. These sediments, which were mostly sand, contained no free waterand did not need to be centrifuged.

4. Any remaining sediment in the field sample container was rinsed with the decantwater and centrifuged to concentrate the sediment fraction and remove thewater. The overlying water was then to be discarded from the tubes. Theremaining sediment/solid portion was transferred to the appropriate containersfor analysis and then submitted for analyses.

5. The decanted overlying water was not discarded until visually clear with nosediment removed during centrifugation.

No part of the sample, in particular the liquid fraction, is discarded without beingcentrifuged. All particles that can be removed are removed and retained with the solidfraction for analyses. The revised March 25, 2005 laboratory SOP, Foss WaterwaySediment Trap Sample Handling was provided to Ecology in March 2005 and is providedin Appendix K of the August 2001-2005 Stormwater Monitoring Report (Tacoma 2005).

MH390 Sump Sediment Sample Protocols. A measurement of accumulated sedimentwill be obtained and recorded prior to cleaning of the sump. The sample will becollected from the sump after the sediments are well mixed with the high-pressure truckwater hose. After mixing with the high-pressure water, several aliquots will be collectedat random locations, well-mixed in a stainless steel bowl, and the composite placed intwo sample containers. This procedure of mixing and sampling works extremely well. Asample of the wash water will also be collected and submitted for analysis including totallead, total mercury, total zinc, hardness, PAHs and phthalates. The revision to the Foss2001 SAP will be to analyze the MH390 sample immediately after collection and notfreeze and hold to analyze with the sediment trap samples.

Recommended Sediment Trap Laboratory Method. The City laboratory purchased aDIONEX ASES: accelerated solvent extractor. The laboratory developed extractionprotocols as outlined in the approved method of SW846. Ecology reviewed andapproved the extraction protocols.


Comparison of Split Stormwater SPM Sample Data. Relative percent differences (RPD)will be calculated for both PAHs and phthalates pairs to assess total field and laboratoryvariation. Standard laboratory practices measure precision error and set limits andsubsequent actions. With 5 and more years of inter-laboratory data, there are a sufficientnumber of data points to evaluate precision error. Each year the City will continue toevaluate the data sets using the following procedure:

Calculate the RPD on the laboratory split results. RPDs are the differencesdivided by the mean, expressed by percent.Present results for the calculated RPDs for all data greater than 10x IDL. Onlydata greater than 10x IDL was shown to remove the artificially large variableRPDs resulting from very small concentration comparisons.Use 120 percent as an upper limit of the calculated RPDs with 5 percent of thesedata expected to be above 120 percent. This range represents two standarddeviations from the mean of all split stormwater SPM data collected since 2001.If greater than 5 percent of the calculated RPDs are above the 120 percent, thenthe City will investigate to determine the cause, if possible.

Year 2007-2008 split sample results were systematically and significantly different forPAHs. The difference in the sample results between COT and MEL appear to be relatedto the total load of semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs) in the SPM/sedimentmatrix (see data validation report). This will be addressed by two tests in 2008-2009 asfollows:

1. According to protocol, the COT and MEL will analyze split samples from FD-3,FD-6, MH-390 and FD21 or 22. Following GC/MS (8270) analysis of splitsamples, COT and MEL will send the remaining extracts to the other laboratoryfor analysis. Comparing differences in quantitation between the extracts will helpisolate extraction or GC/MS quantitation as the proximate cause for significantdifferences.

2. COT will evaluate the total load of SVOCs in SPM samples, and evaluate productliterature for modification of the Accelerated Solvent Extraction methodology forSPM samples.

CRM Laboratory Comparisons. Additionally in 2008-2009, two CRM (for SPM) sampleswill be submitted to the City of Tacoma and MEL to ensure both laboratories areperforming within CRM requirements of the 2001 SAP. All samples will be submittedblind to the laboratory.

Grain Size Normalization for Sediment-trap Data. As stated in the August 2001-2004REDLINE report, where grain size data was available, Tacoma normalized analyticaldata to fines content (percent clay and silt). This data was reviewed to determinewhether any relationships existed between fines content and chemical concentrations. Itwas thought that this relationship may be useful in targeting source control efforts tospecific fractions (i.e., fines or gravels).

As shown in the August 2001-2005 Stormwater Monitoring Report (Section 3.3.4.4),Tacoma staff conducted a literature review and surveyed laboratory and environmentalprofessionals to find examples of data analysis using grain size normalization. Noscientifically-supported grain size normalization techniques were found. Tacomabelieves this conversion of dry weight SPM data to grain-size normalized data adds no


valuable information for source control tracing purposes. Tacoma concluded that grainsize normalization is not useful as a source control tool. As a result, grain sizenormalization was not performed for this report and will not be performed in the future.

Baseflow metals investigation. Currently, the City laboratory is modifying filtrationprocedures as one method to troubleshoot dissolved results which exceed totals andblank detections. A test study will be conducted in 2009 to evaluate lead and zinc inbaseflows as a function of salt water (conductivity) percentage (5% to 95%). Tests willspecifically focus on total/dissolved ratios, serial dilutions and blank contamination.


5.0 REFERENCES

EPA 2005. From: Kris Flint, EPA, email dated Oct 3, 2005. To: Chris Getchell, City ofTacoma.

Tacoma 2001. The Sampling and Analysis Plan for Thea Foss and Wheeler-OsgoodWaterways dated September 2001 prepared by City of Tacoma approved by EPASeptember 13, 2001.

Tacoma 1997a. Appendix GII, Round 2 Data Evaluation andf Pre-Design EvaluationReport, Thea Foss and Wheeler-Osgood Waterways, Tacoma, WA.

Tacoma 2004a. Dana de Leon, City of Tacoma, conversation with Tim Sparling, City ofTacoma, 2004.

Tacoma 2004b. August 2001-2004 Stormwater Monitoring Report, Thea Foss andWheeler-Osgood Waterways dated January 2004. Prepared by City of Tacoma

Tacoma 2004c. August 2001-2004 Stormwater Monitoring Report, Thea Foss andWheeler-Osgood Waterways dated December 2004. Prepared by City of Tacoma

Tacoma 2005. August 2001-2005 Stormwater Monitoring Report, Thea Foss andWheeler-Osgood Waterways dated December 2005. Prepared by City of Tacoma

Tacoma 2006. August 2001-2006 Stormwater Monitoring Report, Thea Foss andWheeler-Osgood Waterways dated December 2006. Prepared by City of Tacoma

Tacoma 2008. August 2001-2007 Stormwater Monitoring Report, Thea Foss andWheeler-Osgood Waterways dated February 2008. Prepared by City of Tacoma

Zaugg, S.D, Burkhardt, M.R., Burbank, T.L., Olson, M.C., Iverson, J.L., and Schroeder,M.P. 2006. Determination of semivolatile organic compounds and polycyclichydrocarbons in solids by gas chromatography/mass spectrometry. U.S. GeologicalSurvey Techniques and Methods, book 5, Chap. B3, 44 p.

Summary statistics were generated using Microsoft Office Excel 2003.

Reporting Extraction AnalysisLimit Container Holding Holding

Parameters METHOD Goal Type Time Time PreservativeMetals Analytes Dig + AnalysisLead 3015/3051+6010B 5 ug/L P/G/AW 6 m HNO3<pH2Mercury 7470A 0.2 ug/L P/G/AW 28 d HNO3<pH2Zinc 3015/3051+6010B 5 ug/L P/G/AW 6 m HNO3<pH2Hardness 3015/3051+6010B 50 ug/L P/G/AW 6 m HNO3<pH2

Conventionals AnalytespH 150.1 0.1 Std Units P/G immediatelyTSS 160.2 1 mg/L P/G 7 d Cool 4 deg C

Semi-Volatile AnalytesPAH Compounds SW-846 8270 * G 7 days 40 days Cool 4 deg C 2-Methylnaphthalene 0.01 ug/L Acenaphthene 0.01 ug/L Acenaphthylene 0.01 ug/L Anthracene 0.01 ug/L Benzo(a)anthracene 0.01 ug/L Benzo(a)pyrene 0.01 ug/L Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 0.01 ug/L Benzofluoranthenes (b,k) 0.01 ug/L Chrysene 0.01 ug/L Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 0.01 ug/L Fluoranthene 0.01 ug/L Fluorene 0.01 ug/L Indeno(1,2,3-c,d)pyrene 0.01 ug/L Naphthalene 0.01 ug/L Phenanthrene 0.01 ug/L Pyrene 0.01 ug/LPhthalate Compounds SW-846 8270 * G 7 days 40 days Cool 4 deg C bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate 1.0 ug/L Butyl Benzyl Phthalate 1.0 ug/L Di-n-butyl Phthalate 1.0 ug/L Di-n-Octyl Phthalate 1.0 ug/L Diethyl Phthalate 1.0 ug/L Dimethyl Phthalate 1.0 ug/L

* Modified to use Selected Ion Monitoring (SIM) to acheive lower detection limits

All parameters analyzed by the City of Tacoma Laboratory

Container: P = plastic (PET or equiv.), G = glass, AW = acid washed

TABLE K-1SUMMARY OF ANALYTES, METHODS, REPORTING LIMITS, CONTAINERS, PRESERVATIVES,

AND HOLDING TIMES FOR WATER SAMPLES

2008 Tables k-1, k-2 and k-3.xls

TABLE K-2SUMMARY OF ANALYTES, METHODS, DETECTION

LIMITS, CONTAINERS, PRESERVATIVES,AND HOLDING TIMES

SOIL/SEDIMENT

1/2


Parameters METHOD Goal Type Time Time PreservativeMetals Analytes Dig + AnalysisLead 3015/3051+6010B 0.5 mg/Kg P/G/AW 6 m Cool 4 deg CMercury 7471 0.02 mg/Kg P/G/AW 28 d Cool 4 deg CZinc 3015/3051+6010B 0.5 mg/Kg P/G/AW 6 m Cool 4 deg C

Conventionals AnalytesGrain Size ASTM D2487 P/G Cool 4 deg CTOC 9060 Modified 5 mg/Kg P/G 28 d Cool 4 deg CTotal Solids (sediment samples) 160.3 1% P/G 7 d Cool 4 deg C

Pesticide Analytes 8081A*B70 G 14 days 40 days Cool 4 deg CAldrin 8 ug/Kg dryalpha BHC 8 ug/Kg drybeta BHC 8 ug/Kg drygamma BHC (Lindane) 8 ug/Kg drydelta BHC 8 ug/Kg dryalpha Chlordane 8 ug/Kg drygamma Chlordane 8 ug/Kg dry4,4'-DDD 8 ug/Kg dry4,4'-DDE 8 ug/Kg dry4,4'-DDT 8 ug/Kg dryDieldrin 8 ug/Kg dryEndosulfan I 8 ug/Kg dryEndosulfan II 8 ug/Kg dryEndosulfan Sulfate 8 ug/Kg dryEndrin 8 ug/Kg dryEndrin Aldehyde 8 ug/Kg dryEndrin Ketone 8 ug/Kg dryHeptachlor 8 ug/Kg dryHeptachlor Epoxide 8 ug/Kg dryMethoxychlor 40 ug/Kg dryToxaphene 200 ug/Kg dry

PCB Analytes 8082 G 14 days 40 days Cool 4 deg CPCB 1016 80 ug/Kg dryPCB 1221 80 ug/Kg dryPCB 1232 80 ug/Kg dryPCB 1242 80 ug/Kg dryPCB 1248 80 ug/Kg dryPCB 1254 80 ug/Kg dryPCB 1260 80 ug/Kg dry

Semi-Volatile AnalytesPAH Compounds SW-846 8270** G 14 days 40 days Cool 4 deg C 2-Methylnaphthalene 100 ug/Kg dry Acenaphthene 100 ug/Kg dry Acenaphthylene 100 ug/Kg dry Anthracene 100 ug/Kg dry Benzo(a)anthracene 100 ug/Kg dry Benzo(a)pyrene 100 ug/Kg dry Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 100 ug/Kg dry Benzofluoranthenes (b,k) 100 ug/Kg dry Chrysene 100 ug/Kg dry Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 100 ug/Kg dry Fluoranthene 100 ug/Kg dry Fluorene 100 ug/Kg dry

Container: P=plastic (PETor equiv.), G=glass, AW=acid washed


TABLE K-2SUMMARY OF ANALYTES, METHODS, DETECTION

LIMITS, CONTAINERS, PRESERVATIVES,AND HOLDING TIMES

SOIL/SEDIMENT

2/2


Parameters METHOD Goal Type Time Time PreservativePAH Compounds (cont.) SW-846 8270** G 14 days 40 days Cool 4 deg C Indeno(1,2,3-c,d)pyrene 100 ug/Kg dry Naphthalene 100 ug/Kg dry Phenanthrene 100 ug/Kg dry Pyrene 100 ug/Kg dryPhthalate Compounds SW-846 8270** G 14 days 40 days Cool 4 deg C bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate 100 ug/Kg dry Butyl Benzyl Phthalate 100 ug/Kg dry Di-n-butyl Phthalate 100 ug/Kg dry Di-n-Octyl Phthalate 100 ug/Kg dry Diethyl Phthalate 100 ug/Kg dry Dimethyl Phthalate 100 ug/Kg dry

Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons Diesel NWTPH-Dx 25 mg/Kg dry G 14 days 40 days Cool 4 deg C Heavy Oil NWTPH-Dx 50 mg/Kg dry G 14 days 40 days Cool 4 deg C

All Analytes except Grain Size to be analyzed by the City of Tacoma LaboratoryGrain Size to be sent to Aquatic Research, Inc. contracted through Sound Analytical Services*Sample Preparation procedures followed: 3550, 3640, 3660G, and 3611B.**Sample Preparation procedures followed: 3550, 3640, 3660G, and 3620.

Container: P=plastic (PETor equiv.), G=glass, AW=acid washed


TABLE K-3PRIORITY ORDER FOR ANALYSES OF STORMWATER SPM

MinimumSample

Parameters WeightStormwater SPM

Total Solids 10 g drySemi-Volatile Analytes 12 g dryNWTPH-Dx same aliquot as Semi-VolatilesSplit Sample For Manchester Lab *52 g dryPCB Analytes 6 g dryPesticide Analytes same aliquot as PCBGrain Size **25-100 g dry TOC 1 g dryMercury 0.4 g dryLead 0.5 g dryZinc same aliquot as Lead

* 22g is acceptable for samples collected 2001 when limited sample volume is available.** According to Aquatic Research (contracted through Sound Analytical Services): the data quality depends on the sample consistency and sample quantity. If the sample is a mixture of gravel, sand, and fines then the more sample the better.


Table K-4ISCO Site-Specific Settings and Enables

STORM 0.2-0.3 ALL STORMSLOCATION PACING LOCATION PACING

230 34,000 243 8 MINUTES

235 17,955 245 10 MINUTES

237A 48,000 254 10 MINUTES237A NEW 64,000 to 135,000

237B 300,000 LOCATION ENABLE

230 LEV > 0.250, VEL > 1.25

STORM 0.3-0.4 LEV > 0.250, VEL > 1.0

LOCATION PACING 235 LEV > 0.6, VEL > 1.0

230 45,000 LEV > 0.3, VEL > 0.45

235 22,610 237A LEV > 0.999, VEL > 1.99

237A 64,000 LEV > 0.3, VEL > 1.80

237A NEW 100,000 to 210,000 237A NEW LEV > 0.6, VEL > 6.00

237B 370,000 LEV > 0.899, VEL > 5.00

237B LEV > 0.950STORM 0.4-0.5 LEV > 1.10

LOCATION PACING 243 CON < 12.00

230 56,000 CON < 14.00

235 29,925 245 VEL > 0.40

237A 85,000 254 CON < 17.00

237A NEW 170,000 to 275,000 CON < 16.00

237B 455,000

STORM 0.5-0.6LOCATION PACING

230 70,000

235 37,400

237A 113,000

237A NEW 210,000

237B 560,000

Note: Pacing and enables may be adjusted at any time based on current site conditions.

Pacing and enbales are identified in the ISCO reports for each sampling event.

ISCO Reports are included in the field report for each event.

2008 Table k-4 ISCO.xls

Sed Trap Location %Solids Selected Analytes

MH390 7290.00%Field Split, MEL Split, Grain Size, Solids, TOC, Semi-Vol., Hg, Pb, Zn, NWTPH-Dx, PCB, Pest.,

FD-1 65Grain Size, Solids, TOC, Semi-Vol., Hg, Pb, Zn, NWTPH-Dx, PCB, Pest.,

FD-2 61MEL Split, Grain Size, Solids, TOC, Semi-Vol., Hg, Pb, Zn, NWTPH-Dx, PCB, Pest.,

FD-2A 41.5MEL Split, Grain Size, Solids, TOC, Semi-Vol., Hg, Pb, Zn, NWTPH-Dx, PCB, Pest.,

FD-3New 62.2Grain Size, Solids, TOC, Semi-Vol., Hg, Pb, Zn, NWTPH-Dx, PCB, Pest.,

FD-3 76.26Grain Size, Solids, TOC, Semi-Vol., Hg, Pb, Zn, NWTPH-Dx, PCB, Pest.,

FD-3B 42.9Solids, TOC, Semi-Vol., Hg, Pb, Zn, NWTPH-Dx, PCB, Pest.,

FD-5 84.1Grain Size, Solids, TOC, Semi-Vol., Hg, Pb, Zn, NWTPH-Dx, PCB, Pest.,

FD-6 60.8MEL Split, Grain Size, Solids, TOC, Semi-Vol., Hg, Pb, Zn, NWTPH-Dx, PCB, Pest.,

FD-23 44.9 Solids, TOC, Pb, Hg, Zn

FD-22 40.97Solids, TOC, Semi-Vol., Hg, Pb, Zn, NWTPH-Dx, PCB, Pest.,

FD-21 40.5Solids, TOC, Semi-Vol., Hg, Pb, Zn, NWTPH-Dx, PCB, Pest.,

August 2007-2008

TABLE K-5List of Analytes and Split Samples for Stormwater SPM

2008 Table K-5.xls

TABLE K-6SAMPLE DATES FOR BASEFLOW EVENTS

Est. # of Storms Sampled

Actual Base Flow Events Sampled

237A New 237A 237B 235 230 243 245 254WET SEASON

January 23, 2008 1 1 1 1 1 1January 24, 2008 1February 14, 2008 1March 18, 2008 2 2 2 2 2 Not accepted 2 2March 31, 2008 2

DRY SEASONJuly 8, 2008 1 1 1 1July 9, 2008 1July 10, 2008 1July 17, 2008 1July 22, 2008 1September 17, 2008 2 2September 18, 2008 2 2 2September 23, 2008 2September 24, 2008 2 2

Date Sampled Date Lab Package Due Date Lab Package MailedJan 23-25, 2008 March 10, 2008 March 11, 2008February 14, 2008 March 30, 2008 April 15, 2008March 18, 19, 31, 2008 May 15, 2008 April 28, 2008July 8-11,17&22, 2008 September 5, 2008 August 22, 2008September 17-24, 2008 November 8, 2008 October 30, 2008

2005 Table I-5..xls

237A New 237A 237B 235 230 243 245 2549/4/2008 1 1 1 1 19/16-17/2007 2 2 2 2 1 19/27-28/2007 3 3 3 3 2 1 2 210/10/2007 4 4 4 4 3 3 3

11/9-10/2007 5 5 5 4 4 411/26/2007 6 5 5 2 5 511/28-29/2007 6 612/14-15/2007 7 7 7 6 6 6 612/27/2007 31/8/2008 8 8 8 7 71/14/2008 7 71/26/2008 9 8 8 4 8 82/29/2008 9 10 9 9 9 5 9 93/23/2008 10 11 10 10 6 10 10

5/20/2008 11 12 11 11 10 7 11 117/31/2008 12 118/19/2008 12 13 13 12 12 8 12 12

November 21, 2007

September 16-17, 2007 November 1, 2007 October 30, 2007

October 10, 2007 November 24, 2007November 9-10, 2007 December 25, 2007 December 21, 2007

February 21, 2008

December 14-15, 2007 January 29, 2008November 28-29, 2007

January 10, 2008January 13, 2008

November 26, 2007

July 31- Aug 19-20, 2008 October 4, 2008 October 2, 2008

January 26, 2008 March 11, 2008 March 20, 2008February 29- March 1, 2008 April 15, 2008 April 15, 2008

May 20, 2008

Date Sampled Date Lab Package Due Date Lab Package Mailed

WET SEASON

DRY SEASON

*All attempts were made to sample at least 1 storm event per month. Two storm events were sampled if criteria were met (see Section 3.1.2).

TABLE K-7DATES OF STORM EVENTS SAMPLED

Actual Storm Events Sampled*

September 4, 2007 October 19, 2007

September 27-28, 2007 November 12, 2007 November 9, 2007

October 18, 2007

January 8, 2008January 8, 2008

July 4, 2008 July 3, 2008

January 30, 2008February 10, 2008 February 13, 2008February 22, 2008February 28, 2008 February 28, 2008

March 23-24, 2008 May 8, 2008 May 6, 2008

December 27, 2007January 8, 2008January 14, 2008

2008 Table k-7.xls

TABLE K-8STORMWATER DATA QUALITY EVALUATION

230 235 237A 237A-New 237B 243 245 254MetalsDissolved Lead 7/31/2008 SD, DZinc 3/23/2008 BPAHs

9/4/2007 +MS/MSD

9/27-28/07 +MS/MSD

11/9-10/07 +MS/MSDBenzo(g,h,i)perylene,Flouranthene,Ideno(1,2,3cd)pyrene,Phreneathrene 9/4/2007 +MS/MSDPhthalatesButylbenzylphthalate 12/14-15/07 BBis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate 11/9-10/07 BBis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate 3/23/2008 C C C C C C CDiethylphthalate 11/26-29/2007 BDi-n-butylphthalate 9/4/2007 HBDi-n-octylphthalate 9/4/2007 ISA ISA

Bold values indicate loss (Type I Evaluation) of dataB Blank contaminationC % Difference of calibration coefficients excessiveHB High bias in control recoveryISA Low internal standard areas+MS/MSD Matrix Spike/Duplicate pair biased highSD % Difference in serial dilutions excessive

Benzo(a)pyrene,Benzo(a)anthracene,Benzo(b,k)fluoranthenes,Chrysene

OutfallDateParameter

2008 Table K-8.xls

TABLE K-9BASEFLOW DATA QUALITY EVALUATION

230 235 237A 237A-New 237B 243 245 254ConventionalsHardness 7/10/2008 MS/MSDMetalsDissolved Lead 1/23/2008 D B D>T SDDissolved Lead 7/10/2008 D>TDissolved Lead 9/17-18/08 B B D>T D>TDissolved Lead 3/18/2008 D>T D>TLead 1/23/2008 B D>T SDLead 9/17-18/08 B B D>T, SDLead 7/10/2008 D>TLead 3/18/2008 D>T D>TDissolved Zinc 1/23/2008 SDDissolved Zinc 2/14-15/08 BDissolved Zinc 7/10/2008 D>TDissolved Zinc 9/17-18/08 D>TDissolved Zinc 3/18/2008 D>T D>TZinc 7/10/2008 D>TZinc 9/17-18/08 D>TZinc 3/18/2008 D>T D>TPAHsAnthracene 9/10-17/2008 +MS/MSDBenzo(a)pyrene 7/10/2008 +MS/MSDBenzo(a)pyrene 9/17-18/08 +MS/MSDNapthalene 9/10-17/2008 B B B B B BPhthalatesButylbenzylphthalate 8/19-20/2008 +MS/MSDDiethylphthalate 9/10-17/2008 B B BDi-n-butylphthalate 9/10-17/2008 BDi-n-octylphthalate 8/19-20/2008 B B B

Bold values indicate loss (Type I Evaluation) of dataB Blank contaminationD>T Dissolved fraction greater than total MS/MSD Matrix Spike/Duplicate out of range+MS/MSD Matrix Spike/Duplicate pair biased highSD % Difference in serial dilutions excessive

Parameter DateOutfall

2008 Table K-9.xls

TAB

LE K

-10

SP

M/M

H-3

90 S

ED

IME

NT

DA

TA Q

UA

LITY

EV

ALU

ATI

ON

FD-1

FD-2

FD2A

FD-3

FD-3

B

FD-3

New

FD-5

FD-6

FD-2

1FD

-22

FD-2

3M

H-3

90M

H-3

91M

H-3

92M

H-3

93M

H-3

94M

H-3

95M

H-3

96C

onve

ntio

nals

Tota

l Org

anic

Car

bon

(per

cent

)M

S/M

SD

RV

Met

als

Lead

DD

DD

DD

DH

PA

Hs

Ben

zo(a

)ant

hrac

ene

MS

/MS

DB

enzo

(a)p

yren

eIS

AIS

AIS

AIS

AIS

AIS

AM

S/M

SD

ISA

Ben

zo(g

,h,i)

pery

lene

ISA

ISA

ISA

ISA

ISA

ISA

ISA

Ben

zo(b

,k)fl

uora

nthe

nes

LCS

, IS

ALC

S, I

SA

LCS

, IS

ALC

S, I

SA

LCS

, IS

ALC

S, I

SA

LCS

LCS

LCS

LCS

, IS

ALC

SC

hrys

ene

MS

/MS

DD

iben

zo(a

,h)a

nthr

acen

eIS

AIS

AIS

AIS

AIS

AIS

AM

S/M

SD

ISA

Fluo

rant

hene

MS

/MS

DIn

deno

(1,2

,3-c

,d)p

yren

eIS

AIS

AIS

AIS

AIS

AIS

AIS

AP

yren

eM

S/M

SD

Pht

hala

tes

Bis

(2-e

thyl

hexy

l)pht

hala

teB

BB

BB

BB

BD

i-n-b

utyl

phth

alat

eM

S/M

SD

Di-n

-oct

ylph

thal

ate

ISA

ISA

ISA

ISA

ISA

ISA

ISA

Bol

d va

lues

indi

cate

loss

(Typ

e I E

valu

atio

n) o

f dat

aB

Bla

nk c

onta

min

atio

nD

Hig

h la

bora

tory

dup

licat

e va

riabi

lity

ISA

Low

inte

rnal

sta

ndar

d ar

eas

LCS

Low

con

trol s

ampl

e re

cove

ryM

S/M

SD

Mat

rix s

pike

and

dup

licat

e ou

t of c

ontro

l ran

geR

V

Rep

licat

e va

riabi

lity

MH

-390

Rep

licat

esSe

dim

ent T

rap

Par

amet

er

2008

Tab

le K

-10.

xls

TAB

LE K

-11

SE

DIM

EN

T TR

AP

RE

LATI

VE

PE

RC

EN

T D

IFFE

RE

NC

ES

Out

fall

ID #

Dat

e C

olle

cted

RP

DR

PD

RP

DC

onve

ntio

nal s

Cla

y/S

ilt(p

erce

nt)

----

29.5

5--

32.3

2--

Gra

vel (

perc

ent)

----

0.65

--0.

02--

San

d(p

erce

nt)

----

69.7

9--

67.6

3--

Tota

l Sol

ids

(per

cent

)60

.855

.5J

9%61

.056

.9J

7%56

.256

.30%

Tota

l Org

anic

Car

bon

(per

cent

)4.

37--

4.18

J--

4.43

--LP

AH

s in

ug/

kg2-

Met

hyln

apht

hale

ne10

0U

906

-160

%12

0J

883

-152

%11

0J

862

-155

%A

cena

phth

ene

100

U39

3-1

19%

130

J47

4J

-114

%10

0U

391

-119

%A

cena

phth

ylen

e10

0U

183

J10

0U

266

J-9

1%10

0U

241

J-8

3%A

nthr

acen

e11

0J

313

-96%

440

J89

8-6

8%18

0J

488

-92%

Fluo

rene

100

U43

3-1

25%

190

J59

1-1

03%

100

U44

9-1

27%

Nap

htha

lene

100

U18

8J

-61%

140

J20

7J

-39%

130

J15

6J

-18%

Phe

nant

hren

e96

01,

460

-41%

3

,000

4,

940

-49%

1,0

00

1,95

0

-6

4%To

tal L

PA

Hs

in u

g/kg

1,27

02,

970

-80%

3,95

07,

376

-60%

1,46

0

3,

675

-86%

HP

AH

s in

ug/

kgB

enzo

(a)a

nthr

acen

e52

0

994

-6

3%

2,2

00

4,51

0

-6

9%74

01,

220

-49%

Ben

zo(a

)pyr

ene

460

J

1,05

0

-7

8%

1,8

00 J

4,65

0

-8

8%66

0J

1,18

0

-5

7%B

enzo

(g,h

,i)pe

ryle

ne55

0

1,06

0

-6

3%

1,8

00

3,42

0

-6

2%69

01,

090

-45%

Ben

zo(b

,k)fl

uora

nthe

nes

1,20

0

J

2,53

7

-7

2%

5,5

00 J

11,3

90

-7

0%

1

,700

J2,

744

-47%

Chr

ysen

e79

0

1,68

0

-7

2%

2,7

00

6,49

0

-8

2%

1

,100

1,

860

-51%

Dib

enzo

(a,h

)ant

hrac

ene

100

U

865

-1

59%

390

J1,

270

-106

%

120

J88

6

-152

%Fl

uora

nthe

ne1,

100

2,44

0

-7

6%

3,8

00

11,7

00

-1

02%

1,2

00

3,05

0

-8

7%In

deno

(1,2

,3-c

,d)p

yren

e37

0

J1,

280

J-1

10%

1

,500

J4,

520

J-1

00%

4

60 J

1,26

0J

-93%

Pyr

ene

1,70

0

2,

850

-51%

5

,500

11

,300

-69%

2,5

00

3,55

0

-3

5%To

tal H

PA

Hs

in u

g/kg

6,74

014

,756

-75%

25,1

9059

,250

-81%

9,17

016

,840

-59%

Tota

l PA

Hs

in u

g/kg

8,01

017

,726

-76%

29,1

4066

,626

-78%

10,6

3020

,515

-63%

Pht

hala

tes

in u

g/kg

Bis

(2-e

thyl

hexy

l)pht

hala

te18

,000

X3.

2520

,600

-1

3%

16,0

00 X

1013

,100

20%

20,0

00 X

1020

,000

0%

But

ylbe

nzyl

phth

alat

e55

0

1,32

0

-8

2%

6

50

827

-24%

1,2

00

764

44%

Die

thyl

phth

alat

e10

0

U33

J

1

00 U

33J

1

00 U

21J

Dim

eth y

lpht

hala

te10

0

U44

6

-127

%

1

40 J

148

1

60 J

140

Di-n

-but

ylph

thal

ate

190

J

203

-7

%

2

40 J

510

-72%

3

40 J

175

Di-n

-oct

ylph

thal

ate

1,20

0

1,

370

-13%

920

J87

06%

1,4

00 J

789

56%

Tota

l Pht

hala

tes

in u

g/kg

19,9

4023

,972

-18%

17,9

5015

,488

15%

23,1

0021

,889

5%

4/3/

2008

4/3/

2008

4/3/

2008

FD6

FD2

FD2A

- M

EL

4/3/

2008

4/3/

2008

4/3/

2008

237A

235

FD2

- ME

L23

7AFD

6 - M

EL

FD2-

A

200

8 Ta

ble

K-1

1.xl

s

TAB

LE K

-12

PA

IRE

D R

EP

LIC

ATE

S O

F M

H-3

90 S

ED

IME

NTS

ID #

Dat

e C

olle

cted

Con

vent

iona

lsC

lay/

Silt

(per

cent

)10

.34

--10

.68

--6.

12--

----

----

----

----

Gra

vel (

perc

ent)

27.5

8--

29.7

6--

32.1

2--

----

----

----

----

San

d (p

erce

nt)

62.0

7--

59.5

6--

61.7

5--

----

----

----

----

Tota

l Sol

ids

(per

cent

) AR

I--

----

----

----

----

----

----

--To

tal S

olid

s (p

erce

nt)

71.2

71.9

72.9

74.4

68.9

75.6

75.5

63.3

55.7

69.2

63.4

63.5

65.0

65.4

Tota

l Org

anic

Car

bon

(per

cent

)4.

25--

4.42

--4.

31--

----

----

----

----

Tota

l Met

als

in m

g/kg

Lead

51.9

J--

43.1

J--

45.6

J--

----

----

----

----

Mer

cury

0.03

6--

0.03

7--

0.04

3--

----

----

----

----

Zinc

643

J--

570

J--

661

J--

----

----

----

----

TPH

in m

g/kg

NW

TPH

- D

iese

l

760

X20

--

980

X40

--

1

,000

X20

----

----

----

----

--N

WTP

H -

Hea

vy O

il

3

,600

X20

--

3

,100

X40

--

2

,900

X20

----

----

----

----

--C

hlor

inat

ed P

estic

ides

in u

g/kg

4,4'

-DD

D6.

0U

--6.

0U

--6.

0U

----

----

----

----

--4,

4'-D

DE

3.0

U--

3.0

U--

3.0

U--

----

----

----

----

4,4'

-DD

T8.

9U

--9.

0U

--9.

0U

----

----

----

----

--A

ldrin

9.9

U--

10U

--10

U--

----

----

----

----

alph

a-B

HC

13U

--13

U--

13U

----

----

----

----

--al

pha-

Chl

orda

ne6.

9U

--7.

0U

--7.

0U

----

----

----

----

--be

ta-B

HC

6.9

U--

7.0

U--

7.0

U--

----

----

----

----

delta

-BH

C7.

9U

--8.

0U

--8.

0U

----

----

----

----

--D

ield

rin6.

0U

--6.

0U

--6.

0U

----

----

----

----

--E

ndos

ulfa

n I

6.0

U--

6.0

U--

6.0

U--

----

----

----

----

End

osul

fan

II6.

0U

--6.

0U

--6.

0U

----

----

----

----

--E

ndos

ulfa

n su

lfate

5.0

U--

5.0

U--

5.0

U--

----

----

----

----

End

rin11

U--

11U

--11

U--

----

----

----

----

End

rin a

ldeh

yde

9.9

U--

10U

--10

U--

----

----

----

----

End

rin K

eton

e13

U--

13U

--13

U--

----

----

----

----

gam

ma-

BH

C (L

inda

ne)

11U

--11

U--

11U

----

----

----

----

--ga

mm

a-C

hlor

dane

6.9

U--

7.0

U--

7.0

U--

----

----

----

----

Hep

tach

lor

14U

--14

U--

14U

----

----

----

----

--H

epta

chlo

r epo

xide

8.9

U--

9.0

U--

9.0

U--

----

----

----

----

Met

hoxy

chlo

r13

U--

13U

--13

U--

----

----

----

----

Toxa

phen

e20

0U

--20

0U

--20

0U

----

----

----

----

--LP

AH

s in

ug/

kg2-

Met

hyln

apht

hale

ne58

J73

J92

J71

J88

J78

J74

J48

UJ

35J

159

J31

J48

UJ

144

J59

JA

cena

phth

ene

31J

47J

49J

46J

58J

53J

46J

48U

J54

UJ

44U

J48

UJ

48U

J46

UJ

46U

JA

cena

phth

ylen

e7

J12

J11

J16

J14

J10

J7

J59

J75

6759

58J

6758

Ant

hrac

ene

30J

45J

45J

39J

59J

31J

36J

169

J12

899

9211

4J

123

106

Fluo

rene

66J

76J

84J

96J

95J

94J

95J

79J

328

178

147

221

J18

819

0N

apht

hale

ne19

U27

U31

.5U

26U

31.5

U32

.5U

25U

39J

61J

85J

54J

36J

79J

50J

Phe

nant

hren

e19

027

031

032

029

027

025

045

8J

617

508

384

528

481

437

Tota

l LP

AH

s in

ug/

kg34

347

753

154

354

849

145

982

81,

236

959

760

981

961

864

HP

AH

s in

ug/

kgB

enzo

(a)a

nthr

acen

e41

J74

J71

J12

010

067

J55

J21

3J

201

168

108

221

J10

411

3B

enzo

(a)p

yren

e22

U70

J82

J88

J97

J74

J62

J16

8J

207

165

117

185

116

104

Ben

zo(g

,h,i)

pery

lene

85J

110

99J

130

110

120

120

109

J41

625

320

026

722

820

7B

enzo

(b,k

)fluo

rant

hene

s12

0J

200

J21

025

027

020

017

0J

288

J48

035

929

843

831

226

9C

hrys

ene

120

180

210

230

230

170

170

231

J42

433

628

039

927

926

9D

iben

zo(a

,h)a

nthr

acen

e25

.5U

25.5

U25

.5U

25.5

U25

.5U

25.5

U25

.5U

14J

37J

34J

23J

39J

23J

17N

JFl

uora

nthe

ne16

026

028

036

031

026

023

037

0J

542

497

254

617

J33

728

2In

deno

(1,2

,3-c

,d)p

yren

e23

.5U

76J

59J

80J

79J

79J

67J

142

J24

517

115

520

916

514

4P

yren

e

200

27

031

033

033

025

025

047

8J

754

614

399

614

461

431

Tota

l HP

AH

s in

ug/

kg79

7

1,26

6

1,34

71,

614

1,55

21,

246

1,15

02,

013

3,30

62,

597

1,83

42,

989

2,02

51,

836

Tota

l PA

Hs

in u

g/kg

1,14

0

1,74

3

1,87

72,

157

2,09

91,

736

1,60

92,

841

4,54

23,

556

2,59

43,

970

2,98

62,

700

PC

Bs

in u

g/kg

Aro

clor

-101

612

U--

12U

--12

U--

----

----

----

----

Aro

clor

-122

112

U--

12U

--12

U--

----

----

----

----

Aro

clor

-123

212

U--

12U

--12

U--

----

----

----

----

Aro

clor

-124

215

U--

15U

--15

U--

----

----

----

----

Aro

clor

-124

815

U--

15U

--15

U--

----

----

----

----

Aro

clor

-125

415

U--

15U

--15

U--

----

----

----

----

Aro

clor

-126

015

U--

15U

--15

U--

----

----

----

----

Tota

l PC

Bs

in u

g/kg

Phe

nols

in u

g/kg

4-M

ethy

lphe

nol

Pht

hala

tes

in u

g/kg

Bis

(2-e

thyl

hexy

l)pht

hala

te2,

300

U

3,40

0

U3,

500

U

3,40

0

U3,

600

U

2,70

0

U3,

300

U

13,5

00D

il8,

110

5,19

0

4,

640

6,60

0

4,

650

5,58

0B

utyl

benz

ylph

thal

ate

12,0

00

X

511

,000

X10

30,0

00

X

1011

,000

X10

18,0

00X

1011

,000

X10

17,0

00X

1018

,000

Dil

43,1

00D

il23

,200

Dil

24,4

00D

il17

,950

Dil

12,0

00D

il15

,900

Dil

Die

thyl

phth

alat

e39

U39

U39

U45

J39

U40

J39

U48

U5.

9J

9.2

NJ

48

U9.

1J

46

U

46

U

Dim

ethy

lpht

hala

te75

J75

011

J2

U15

J2

U12

049

J34

690

5440

J26

J98

Di-n

-but

ylph

thal

ate

2,00

0

J17

018

014

021

090

018

01,

320

358

261

228

265

211

1,62

0D

i-n-o

ctyl

pht

hala

te61

J76

J97

J11

095

J62

J83

J11

2

551

7212

015

920

011

2To

tal P

htha

late

s in

ug/

kg14

,136

11,9

9630

,288

11,2

5018

,320

11,9

6217

,383

32,9

8152

,471

28,8

2229

,442

25,0

2317

,087

23,3

10

City

of T

acom

a La

bora

tory

Man

ches

ter E

nviro

nmen

tal L

abor

ator

y

8/13

/200

88/

13/2

008

8/13

/200

8M

H-3

90M

H-3

918/

13/2

008

MH

-393

MH

-392

MH

-392

ME

LM

H-3

93 M

EL

8/13

/200

8M

H-3

958/

13/2

008

MH

-396

8/13

/200

8M

H-3

90 M

EL

8/13

/200

8M

H-3

94M

H-3

96 M

EL

8/13

/200

88/

13/2

008

8/13

/200

88/

13/2

008

8/13

/200

88/

13/2

008

MH

-391

ME

LM

H-3

94 M

EL

MH

-395

ME

L

200

8 Ta

ble

K-1

2.xl

s

TAB

LE K

-13

MH

-390

RE

LATI

VE

PE

RC

EN

T D

IFFE

RE

NC

ES

ID #

Dat

e C

olle

cted

MH

-390

/MH

392

MH

-392

/MH

394

MH

-390

/MH

394

Con

vent

iona

lsC

lay/

Silt

(per

cent

)10

.34

--10

.68

--6.

12--

---3

.2%

54.3

%51

.3%

Gra

vel (

perc

ent)

27.5

8--

29.7

6--

32.1

2--

---7

.6%

-7.6

%-1

5.2%

San

d (p

erce

nt)

62.0

7--

59.5

6--

61.7

5--

--4.

1%-3

.6%

0.5%

Tota

l Sol

ids

(per

cent

) AR

I--

----

----

----

----

--To

tal S

olid

s (p

erce

nt)

71.2

71.9

72.9

74.4

68.9

75.6

75.5

----

--To

tal O

rgan

ic C

arbo

n (p

erce

nt)

4.25

--4.

42--

4.31

----

-3.9

%2.

5%-1

.4%

Tota

l Met

als

in m

g/kg

Lead

51.9

J--

43.1

J--

45.6

J--

--18

.5%

-5.6

%12

.9%

Mer

cury

0.03

6--

0.03

7--

0.04

3--

---2

.7%

-15.

0%-1

7.7%

Zinc

643

J--

570

J--

661

J--

--12

.0%

-14.

8%-2

.8%

TPH

in m

g/kg

NW

TPH

- D

iese

l

760

X20

--

980

X40

--

1

,000

X20

----

-25.

3%-2

.0%

-27.

3%N

WTP

H -

Hea

vy O

il

3

,600

X20

--

3

,100

X40

--

2

,900

X20

----

14.9

%6.

7%21

.5%

MH

-390

MH

-391

MH

-392

8/13

/200

88/

13/2

008

8/13

/200

8City

of T

acom

a La

bora

tory

Rel

ativ

e Pe

rcen

t Diff

eren

ces

8/13

/200

88/

13/2

008

8/13

/200

88/

13/2

008

MH

-393

MH

-394

MH

-395

MH

-396

2008

Tab

le K

-13.

xls

TAB

LE K

-14a

MH

390

C

OT

SU

MM

AR

Y S

TATI

STI

CS

ID #

Min

imum

Max

imum

Arit

hmet

icM

ean

Med

ian

# of

de

tect

sC

ount

%de

tect

s10

th P

er90

th P

erS

tand

ard

Dev

iatio

nC

oeffi

cien

t of

Var

iatio

nS

tand

ard

Err

o rtd

ist 9

5%

UC

Ltd

ist 9

5%

LCL

Con

vent

iona

lsC

lay/

Silt

(per

cent

)6.

110

.79.

010

.33

310

0%7.

010

.62.

540.

281.

4715

.42.

7G

rave

l(pe

rcen

t)27

.632

.129

.829

.83

310

0%28

.031

.62.

270.

081.

3135

.524

.2S

and

(per

cent

)59

.662

.161

.161

.83

310

0%60

.062

.01.

370.

020.

7964

.557

.7To

tal S

olid

s (p

erce

nt)

68.9

75.6

72.9

72.9

77

100%

70.3

75.5

2.46

0.03

0.93

75.2

70.6

Tota

l Org

anic

Car

bon

(per

cent

)4.

34.

44.

34.

33

310

0%4.

34.

40.

090.

020.

054.

54.

1To

tal M

etal

s in

mg/

kgLe

ad43

.151

.946

.945

.63

310

0%43

.650

.64

4.53

0.10

2.62

58.1

335

.60

Mer

cury

0.03

60.

043

0.03

90.

037

33

100%

0.03

60.

042

0.00

40.

100.

002

0.04

80.

029

Zinc

570

661

625

643

33

100%

584.

665

7.4

48.1

90.

0827

.82

744.

3850

4.95

TPH

in m

g/kg

NW

TPH

- D

iese

l76

010

0091

398

03

310

0%80

499

613

30.

1577

1244

583

NW

TPH

- H

eavy

Oil

2900

3600

3200

3100

33

100%

2940

3500

361

0.11

208

4096

2304

LPA

Hs

in u

g/kg

2-M

ethy

lnap

htha

lene

5892

7674

77

100%

6690

11.3

0.15

4.3

8766

Ace

naph

then

e31

5847

477

710

0%40

558.

40.

183.

255

39A

cena

phth

ylen

e7

1611

117

710

0%7

153.

40.

311.

314

8A

nthr

acen

e30

5941

397

710

0%31

5110

.00.

253.

850

31Fl

uore

ne66

9687

947

710

0%72

9511

.70.

144.

497

76N

apht

hale

ne19

32.5

2827

07

0%23

324.

80.

171.

832

23P

hena

nthr

ene

190

320

271

270

77

100%

226

314

43.4

0.16

16.4

312

231

Tota

l LP

AH

s in

ug/

kg34

354

848

449

135

4283

%41

354

571

.00.

1511

.055

041

9H

PA

Hs

in u

g/kg

Ben

zo(a

)ant

hrac

ene

4112

075

717

710

0%49

108

26.7

0.35

10.1

100

51B

enzo

(a)p

yren

e22

9771

746

786

%46

9224

.40.

359.

293

48B

enzo

(g,h

,i)pe

ryle

ne85

130

111

110

77

100%

9312

415

.00.

145.

712

497

Ben

zo(b

,k)fl

uora

nthe

nes

120

270

203

200

77

100%

150

258

49.6

0.24

18.7

249

157

Chr

ysen

e12

023

018

718

07

710

0%15

023

039

.50.

2114

.922

415

1D

iben

zo(a

,h)a

nthr

acen

e25

.525

.526

25.5

07

0%26

260.

00.

000.

026

26Fl

uora

nthe

ne16

036

026

626

07

710

0%20

233

062

.70.

2423

.732

420

8In

deno

(1,2

,3-c

,d)p

yren

e23

.580

6676

67

86%

4579

20.4

0.31

7.7

8547

Pyr

ene

200

330

277

270

77

100%

230

330

48.6

0.18

18.4

322

232

Tota

l HP

AH

s in

ug/

kg79

7

1,

614

1,

281

1,26

6

54

6386

%1,

009

1,57

6

271.

10.

2134

.21,

532

1,03

1To

tal P

AH

s in

ug/

kg1,

140

2,

157

1,

766

1,74

3

10

111

985

%1,

421

2,12

2

340.

10.

1931

.22,

080

1,45

1P

htha

late

s in

ug/

kgB

is(2

-eth

ylhe

xyl)p

htha

late

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

But

ylbe

nzyl

phth

alat

e11

000

3000

015

714

1200

07

710

0%11

000

2280

069

69.3

0.44

2634

.222

160

9269

Die

thyl

phth

alat

e39

4540

392

729

%39

422.

20.

060.

842

38D

imet

hylp

htha

late

275

013

915

57

71%

237

227

3.0

1.96

103.

239

2-1

13D

i-n-b

utyl

phth

alat

e14

020

0054

018

07

710

0%15

813

4069

8.4

1.29

264.

011

86-1

06D

i-n-o

ctyl

phth

alat

e61

110

8383

77

100%

6210

218

.40.

227.

010

066

Tota

l Pht

hala

tes

in u

g/kg

11,2

50

30,2

88

16

,476

14

,136

28

3580

%11

,677

23,1

07

6,

686.

10.

4111

30.2

22,6

60

10

,293

200

8 Ta

ble

K-1

4a.x

ls

TAB

LE K

-14b

MH

390

M

EL

SU

MM

AR

Y S

TATI

STI

CS

ID #

Min

imum

Max

imum

Arit

hmet

icM

ean

Med

ian

# of

de

tect

sC

ount

%de

tect

s10

th P

e r90

th P

erS

tand

ard

Dev

iatio

nC

oeffi

cien

t of

Var

iatio

nS

tand

ard

Err

o rtd

ist 9

5%

UC

Ltd

ist 9

5%

LCL

Con

vent

iona

lsC

lay/

Silt

(per

cent

)G

rave

l (pe

rcen

t)S

and

(per

cent

)To

tal S

olid

s (p

erce

nt)

55.7

69.2

63.6

63.5

77

100%

60.3

66.9

4.1

0.06

1.5

67.4

59.9

Tota

l Org

anic

Car

bon

(per

cent

)To

tal M

etal

s in

mg/

kgLe

adM

ercu

ryZi

ncTP

H in

mg/

kgN

WTP

H -

Die

sel

NW

TPH

- H

eavy

Oil

LPA

Hs

in u

g/kg

2-M

ethy

lnap

htha

lene

2415

968

355

771

%24

150

58.4

0.86

22.1

122

14A

cena

phth

ene

2227

2424

07

0%23

251.

60.

070.

625

22A

cena

phth

ylen

e58

7563

597

710

0%58

706.

60.

102.

569

57A

nthr

acen

e92

169

119

114

77

100%

9614

425

.60.

229.

714

295

Fluo

rene

7932

819

018

87

710

0%12

026

475

.60.

4028

.626

012

0N

apht

hale

ne36

8558

547

710

0%38

8118

.70.

327.

175

40P

hena

nthr

ene

384

617

488

481

77

100%

416

564

74.2

0.15

28.0

556

419

Tota

l LP

AH

s in

ug/

kg76

01,

236

94

195

935

4283

%80

11,

083

153.

20.

1623

.61,

083

800

HP

AH

s in

ug/

kgB

enzo

(a)a

nthr

acen

e10

422

116

116

87

710

0%10

621

652

.10.

3219

.720

911

3B

enzo

(a)p

yren

e10

420

715

216

57

710

0%11

119

439

.50.

2614

.918

811

5B

enzo

(g,h

,i)pe

ryle

ne10

941

624

022

87

710

0%16

432

793

.00.

3935

.132

615

4B

enzo

(b,k

)fluo

rant

hene

s26

948

034

931

27

710

0%28

045

580

.90.

2330

.642

427

4C

hrys

ene

231

424

317

280

77

100%

254

409

71.9

0.23

27.2

383

250

Dib

enzo

(a,h

)ant

hrac

ene

1439

2723

77

100%

1638

9.9

0.37

3.8

3618

Fluo

rant

hene

254

617

414

370

77

100%

271

572

138.

70.

3352

.454

228

6In

deno

(1,2

,3-c

,d)p

yren

e14

224

517

616

57

710

0%14

322

337

.90.

2214

.321

114

1P

yren

e39

975

453

647

87

710

0%41

867

012

8.1

0.24

48.4

654

417

Tota

l HP

AH

s in

ug/

kg1,

834

3,30

6

2,37

1

2,

025

6363

100%

1,83

5

3,

116

595.

80.

2575

.12,

922

1,82

0To

tal P

AH

s in

ug/

kg2,

594

4,54

2

3,31

3

2,

986

119

119

100%

2,65

8

4,

199

733.

00.

2267

.23,

991

2,63

5P

htha

late

s in

ug/

kgB

is(2

-eth

ylhe

xyl)p

htha

late

4640

1350

068

9655

807

710

0%46

4610

266

3161

.00.

4611

94.7

9819

3972

But

ylbe

nzyl

phth

alat

e12

000

4310

022

079

1800

07

710

0%14

340

3188

010

181.

50.

4638

48.3

3149

512

662

Die

thyl

phth

alat

e6

4830

463

743

%8

4820

.90.

697.

950

11D

imet

hylp

htha

late

2634

610

054

77

100%

3419

711

1.4

1.11

42.1

203

-3D

i-n-b

utyl

phth

alat

e21

116

2060

926

57

710

0%22

114

4059

6.3

0.98

225.

411

6157

Di-n

-oct

yl p

htha

late

7255

118

912

07

710

0%96

340

164.

50.

8762

.234

237

Tota

l Pht

hala

tes

in u

g/kg

17,0

87

52,4

71

29,8

77

28,8

22

3842

90%

20,8

21

40,7

77

11

,192

.9

0.

371,

727.

1

40,2

28

19

,525

200

8 Ta

ble

K-1

4b.x

ls

TAB

LE K

-15

NO

RM

AL

DIS

TRIB

UTI

ON

EV

ALU

ATI

ON

WIT

HIN

LA

BO

RA

TOR

Y

Par

amet

erM

WN

orm

al?

PC

C>

<S

kew

Kur

tN

orm

al?

PC

C>

<S

kew

Kur

tTo

tal S

olid

sY

0.97

60.

500

0.75

0-0

.486

-0.6

41Y

0.91

40.

050

0.10

0-1

.118

3.06

3A

cena

phth

ylen

e15

2Y

0.98

00.

750

0.90

00.

147

-0.9

67Y

0.90

40.

050

0.10

01.

044

0.03

7Fl

uore

ne16

6Y

0.90

90.

050

0.10

0-1

.074

-0.1

85Y

0.95

50.

250

0.50

00.

644

1.98

9P

hena

nthr

ene

178

Y0.

957

0.50

00.

750

-1.0

621.

469

Y0.

984

0.75

00.

900

0.55

80.

859

Ant

hrac

ene

178

Y0.

958

0.25

00.

500

0.92

40.

790

Y0.

939

0.10

00.

250

1.38

62.

352

Tota

l LP

AH

s16

9Y

0.91

80.

100

0.25

0-1

.491

2.51

9Y

0.94

20.

100

0.25

01.

155

2.08

0P

yren

e20

2Y

0.96

30.

250

0.50

0-0

.344

-0.9

25Y

0.95

30.

250

0.50

00.

777

-0.4

57Fl

uora

nthe

ne20

2Y

0.98

10.

750

0.90

0-0

.284

0.93

3Y

0.97

40.

500

0.75

00.

354

-1.6

01C

hrys

ene

228

Y0.

958

0.25

00.

500

-0.5

46-0

.104

Y0.

958

0.25

00.

500

0.59

2-1

.201

Ben

zo(a

)ant

hrac

ene

228

Y0.

975

0.50

00.

750

0.65

2-0

.007

Y0.

934

0.10

00.

250

-0.0

51-2

.458

Ben

zo(b

,k)fl

uora

nthe

nes

252

Y0.

979

0.75

00.

900

-0.3

760.

286

Y0.

943

0.10

00.

250

0.88

8-0

.830

Inde

no(1

,2,3

-c,d

)pyr

ene

276

Y0.

905

0.05

00.

100

-1.2

300.

171

Y0.

930

0.10

00.

250

1.22

30.

621

Ben

zo(g

,h,i)

pery

lene

276

Y0.

975

0.50

00.

750

-0.6

450.

218

Y0.

943

0.10

00.

250

0.90

72.

458

Tota

l HP

AH

s23

8Y

0.96

80.

500

0.75

0-0

.694

0.89

0Y

0.93

50.

100

0.25

00.

736

-1.2

98To

tal P

AH

s20

3Y

0.96

00.

250

0.50

0-0

.894

1.21

9Y

0.95

30.

250

0.50

00.

838

-0.6

43D

i-n-b

utyl

phth

alat

e27

8N

0.80

20.

010

0.02

51.

997

3.72

4Y

0.89

90.

050

0.10

01.

294

-0.3

11B

utyl

benz

ylph

thal

ate

298

NY

Y0.

863

0.01

00.

025

1.76

73.

175

Y0.

899

0.05

00.

100

1.74

83.

618

Bis

(2-e

thyl

hexy

l)pht

hala

te39

0?

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

N0.

868

0.01

00.

025

1.91

93.

796

Di-n

-oct

yl p

htha

late

391

Y0.

979

0.75

00.

900

0.04

7-1

.300

N0.

809

0.00

00.

005

2.32

55.

673

Tota

l Pht

hala

tes

339

NY

Y0.

882

0.02

50.

050

1.79

93.

472

Y0.

922

0.10

00.

250

1.51

03.

219

MW

= m

olec

ular

wei

ght

Dis

trib

utio

ns n

orm

alIf

PC

C >

0.8

96If

|Skw

| < 1

.852

If |K

urt|

< 3.

703

City

of T

acom

aM

anch

este

r Env

ironm

enta

l

2008

Tab

le K

-15.

xls

TAB

LE K

-16

PO

PU

LATI

ON

DIS

TRIB

UTI

ON

EV

ALU

ATI

ON

PA

IRE

D D

IFFE

RE

NC

ES

BE

TWE

EN

LA

BO

RA

TOR

IES

MW

Nor

mal

?P

CC

><

Ske

wK

urt

Tota

l Sol

ids

Y0.

977

0.50

00.

750

0.36

00.

338

Ace

naph

thyl

ene

152

Y0.

980

0.75

00.

900

-0.0

09-0

.776

Fluo

rene

166

Y0.

922

0.10

00.

250

-1.3

222.

864

Phe

nant

hren

e17

8Y

0.96

60.

500

0.75

00.

422

1.65

8A

nthr

acen

e17

8Y

0.91

00.

050

0.10

0-1

.482

2.20

4To

tal L

PA

Hs

169

Y0.

920

0.10

00.

250

-0.7

732.

869

Pyr

ene

202

Y0.

967

0.50

00.

750

-0.4

621.

436

Fluo

rant

hene

202

Y0.

962

0.25

00.

500

0.78

5-0

.191

Chr

ysen

e22

8Y

0.95

00.

250

0.50

0-1

.005

1.59

8B

enzo

(a)a

nthr

acen

e22

8Y

0.99

00.

990

0.99

00.

302

-0.4

95B

enzo

(b,k

)fluo

rant

hene

s25

2Y

0.96

20.

250

0.50

0-0

.792

1.53

0In

deno

(1,2

,3-c

,d)p

yren

e27

6Y

0.95

60.

250

0.50

0-0

.779

0.14

8B

enzo

(g,h

,i)pe

ryle

ne27

6Y

0.94

30.

100

0.25

0-1

.270

2.24

4To

tal H

PA

Hs

238

Y0.

986

0.75

00.

900

-0.1

740.

182

Tota

l PA

Hs

203

Y0.

975

0.50

00.

750

-0.3

051.

058

Di-n

-but

ylph

thal

ate

278

Y0.

908

0.05

00.

100

-1.1

202.

245

But

ylbe

nzyl

phth

alat

e29

8Y

0.92

00.

100

0.25

0-1

.523

2.43

8B

is(2

-eth

ylhe

xyl)p

htha

late

390

?D

i-n-o

ctyl

pht

hala

te39

1N

0.83

80.

005

0.01

0-2

.189

5.09

1To

tal P

htha

late

s33

9Y

0.92

80.

100

0.25

0-1

.323

1.85

9M

W =

mol

ecul

ar w

eigh

t

Dis

trib

utio

ns n

orm

alIf

PC

C >

0.8

96If

|Skw

| < 1

.852

If |K

urt|

< 3.

703

Diff

eren

ces

in v

alue

s fo

r pai

red

mea

ns

2008

Tab

le K

-16.

xls

TAB

LE K

-17a

MH

-390

NO

N-P

AR

AM

ETR

IC T

ES

T S

TATI

STI

CS

Med

ian

Med

AD

CV

Med

ian

Med

AD

CV

RP

DTo

tal S

olid

s

Y28

00.

007

732

0.03

642.

60.

0414

%A

cena

phth

ylen

e15

2Y

028

0.00

711

40.

3659

5.1

0.09

-137

%Fl

uore

ne16

6Y

028

0.00

794

120.

1318

872

0.38

-67%

Phe

nant

hren

e17

8Y

028

0.00

727

060

0.22

481

610.

13-5

6%A

nthr

acen

e17

8Y

028

0.00

739

90.

2311

428

0.25

-98%

Tota

l LP

AH

s16

9Y

028

0.00

749

110

00.

2095

912

50.

13-6

5%P

yren

e20

2Y

028

0.00

727

059

0.22

478

104

0.22

-56%

Fluo

rant

hene

202

Y3

250.

0226

081

0.31

370

121

0.33

-35%

Chr

ysen

e22

8Y

028

0.00

718

049

0.27

280

720.

26-4

3%B

enzo

(a)a

nthr

acen

e22

8Y

127

0.01

671

290.

4116

845

0.27

-81%

Ben

zo(b

,k)fl

uora

nthe

nes

252

Y0

280.

007

200

650.

3331

273

0.23

-44%

Inde

no(1

,2,3

-c,d

)pyr

ene

276

Y0

280.

007

7627

0.36

165

230.

14-7

4%B

enzo

(g,h

,i)pe

ryle

ne27

6Y

028

0.00

711

014

0.13

228

960.

42-7

0%To

tal H

PA

Hs

238

Y0

280.

007

1,26

6

35

80.

2820

2549

80.

25-4

6%To

tal P

AH

s20

3Y

028

0.00

71,

743

458

0.26

2986

1042

0.35

-53%

Di-n

-but

ylph

thal

ate

278

N11

17N

/A18

081

04.

5026

590

43.

41-3

8%B

utyl

benz

ylph

thal

ate

298

N9

19N

/A12

000

4929

0.41

1800

068

430.

38-4

0%B

is(2

-eth

ylhe

xyl)p

htha

late

390

55

8027

580.

49

Di-n

-oct

yl p

htha

late

391

N2

260.

023

8318

0.22

120

590.

49-3

6%To

tal P

htha

late

s33

9Y

127

0.01

614

136

4630

0.33

2882

271

650.

25-6

8%M

W

Mol

ecul

ar w

eigh

tR P

ositi

ve ra

nks

How

far a

bove

the

CO

T m

edia

n is

rela

tive

to o

ther

obs

erva

tions

(max

imum

= 2

8)N

egat

ive

rank

sH

ow fa

r bel

ow th

e C

OT

med

ian

is re

lativ

e to

oth

er o

bser

vatio

ns (m

axim

um =

28)

Med

AD

Med

ian

aver

age

devi

atio

nC

VC

oeffi

cien

t of v

aria

tion

RP

DR

elat

ive

perc

ent d

iffer

ence

p-va

lue

Atta

ined

leve

l of s

igni

fican

ce o

f the

test

ME

L

Rej

ect t

he n

ull h

ypot

hesi

s of

diff

eren

ces

betw

een

mea

ns

Par

amet

erR

Pos

Ran

ksN

egR

anks

MW

p-va

lue

Wilc

oxan

Sig

ned-

Ran

k Te

stC

OT

2008

Tab

le K

-17a

.xls

TAB

LE K

-17b

MH

-390

PA

RA

ME

TRIC

TE

ST

STA

TIS

TIC

S

R

p-va

lue

Mea

nst

dC

OV

Mea

nst

dC

OV

RP

Dp-

valu

eTo

tal S

olid

sM

WY

0.00

173

2.5

0.03

644.

10.

0614

%0.

000

Ace

naph

thyl

ene

152

Y0.

000

113.

40.

3163

6.6

0.10

-141

%0.

000

Fluo

rene

166

Y0.

005

8711

.70.

1419

075

.60.

40-7

5%0.

005

Phe

nant

hren

e17

8Y

0.00

027

143

.40.

1648

874

.20.

15-5

7%0.

000

Ant

hrac

ene

178

Y0.

000

4110

.00.

2511

925

.60.

22-9

8%0.

000

Tota

l LP

AH

s16

9Y

0.00

048

471

.00.

1594

115

3.2

0.16

-64%

0.00

0P

yren

e20

2Y

0.00

127

748

.60.

1853

612

8.1

0.24

-64%

0.00

1Fl

uora

nthe

ne20

2Y

0.01

926

662

.70.

2441

413

8.7

0.33

-44%

0.01

6C

hrys

ene

228

Y0.

001

187

39.5

0.21

317

71.9

0.23

-51%

0.00

1B

enzo

(a)a

nthr

acen

e22

8Y

0.00

575

26.7

0.35

161

52.1

0.32

-72%

0.00

2B

enzo

(b,k

)fluo

rant

hene

s25

2Y

0.00

120

349

.60.

2434

980

.90.

23-5

3%0.

001

Inde

no(1

,2,3

-c,d

)pyr

ene

276

Y0.

000

6620

.40.

3117

637

.90.

22-9

1%0.

000

Ben

zo(g

,h,i)

pery

lene

276

Y0.

005

111

15.0

0.14

240

93.0

0.39

-74%

0.00

5To

tal H

PA

Hs

238

Y0.

001

1281

271.

10.

2123

7159

5.8

0.25

-60%

0.00

1To

tal P

AH

s20

3Y

0.00

717

6634

0.1

0.19

3313

733.

00.

22-6

1%0.

001

Di-n

-but

ylph

thal

ate

278

N0.

403

540

698.

41.

2960

959

6.3

0.98

-12%

0.42

3B

utyl

benz

ylph

thal

ate

298

N0.

121

1571

469

69.3

0.44

2207

910

181.

50.

46-3

4%0.

01B

is(2

-eth

ylhe

xyl)p

htha

late

390

6896

3161

.00.

46

Di-n

-oct

yl p

htha

late

391

N0.

076

8318

.40.

2218

916

4.5

0.87

-78%

0.07

1To

tal P

htha

late

s33

9Y

0.02

216

476

6686

.10.

4129

877

1119

2.9

0.37

-58%

0.01

1M

W

Mol

ecul

ar w

eigh

tR P

ositi

ve ra

nks

How

far a

bove

the

CO

T m

edia

n is

rela

tive

to o

ther

obs

erva

tions

(max

imum

= 2

8)N

egat

ive

rank

sH

ow fa

r bel

ow th

e C

OT

med

ian

is re

lativ

e to

oth

er o

bser

vatio

ns (m

axim

um =

28)

Med

AD

Med

ian

aver

age

devi

atio

nC

VC

oeffi

cien

t of v

aria

tion

RP

DR

elat

ive

perc

ent d

iffer

ence

p-va

lue

Atta

ined

leve

l of s

igni

fican

ce o

f the

test

t-tes

t,un

equa

lva

rianc

es

Rej

ect t

he n

ull h

ypot

hesi

s of

diff

eren

ces

betw

een

mea

ns

CO

T M

EL

Pai

red

t-tes

t

2008

Tab

le K

-17b

.xls

Documents

THEA FOSS AND WHEELER-OSGOOD WATERWAYS