REPORT ON THE EFFECT OF THE
    ST. LOUIS METROPOLITAN AREA ON
WATER QUALITY IN THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER

            DECEMBER 1969
 Federal Water Quality Administration
          Great Lakes Region
      Lake Michigan Basin Office
                and
 National Field Investigation Center
         Cincinnati, Ohio

         October 22, 1970

-------
1
1
•
1
1

1

1
•




1
•




1










1




1
1
1

/


Conclusions
Introduction

'
TABLE OF CONTENTS


-i.
Description of River Reach
' Phenol

Figure 1
Table 1
Figure 2

Microbiology
Table 2
Figure 3
Table 3


Table 4
Biology
Figure 4
Table 5
Figure 5
Table 6
Figure 6


Figure 7

Figure 8
Pesticides
Figure 9
Table 7

Table 8





- Location Map, Phenol Stations
- Average Concentrations of Phenol
- Distribution of Phenol


- Results of Salmonella Study
- Location Map, Microbiology Stations
- Arithmetic Averages of Microbiological
Results with Percent Violation of
Standards
- Bacterial Survival Study

- Location Map, Biology Stations
- Results of Benthic Biota Sampling
- Location Map, Periphyton Stations
- Summary of Analysis of Attached Growth
- Effects of River Pollution on the
Community of Attached Diatoms in the
Mississippi River
- Effects of River Pollution on Bottom
Attached Algae
- Relative Density of Attached Slimes

- Location Map, Pesticide Stations
- Pesticides - Tentative Safe Concentra-
tions vs Concentrations Found
- Distribution of Pesticides


,



Page
1
5
6
9

13
14
15

16
19
20


21
23
24
30
31
38
39


40

41
42
43
46

47
48




-------
 I

 I                              TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONT'D.)
 I                                                             ..          Page
 •           Sediment Chemistry                    "                        52
                   Table 9  - Results of Sediment Chemistry Sampling        55
 I           National Lead Company                                         57
                   Figure 10- Iron Accumulation on Glass Slides and
 I                           in Bottom Deposits                            60
 •                Table 10 - Results of National Lead Outfall
                              Sampling                                      61
 |           Appendix                                                      63
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
I
Microbiology Results                                     64

-------
I
I
I
I
_

™

•
I
I
              Conclusions
              1.   Phenols  discharged  in the  St.  Louis  area  constitute a violation

              of  the Missouri water quality  standards  and the proposed Illinois

              water quality standards which  prohibit the discharge of materials

•            that cause tainting  of  fish  flesh.   Phenol concentrations down-
       •
              stream from  St. Louis are substantially  higher than upstream phenol

I            concentrations.  The average phenol  concentration found above  river

•            mile 177.0 was 1.7 ug/1.   Below river mile 177.0 concentrations

              reached  a high of 374  ug/1  in one sample and averaged 23.0 ug/1 on

•            the Missouri side and 9.8 ug/1 on the Illinois side.

              2.   Phenols  discharged  in the  St. Louis  area  were detected 67  miles

•            downstream at Chester,  Illinois and  the  Menard Prison at levels

              which exceed the  1962 Public Health  Service Drinking Water Standards

I            (1  ug/1)  and the  State  of Missouri published  water quality objec-

_            tives for the Mississippi River (average 2 ug/l).  Phenol concentra-

•            tions averaged 7.2 ug/1 on the river cross section at Chester,


•            Illinois  (river mile 109.7).
             3.   Phenols discharged in the St. Louis area are a probable cause

             of the  tastes and odors at the Chester, Illinois and Menard Prison

             water intakes, which require the use of break point chlorination

             to control tastes and odors.


             4.   The fishery in the Mississippi River in the 6? miles between

             St.  Louis and Chester, Illinois has been severely damaged by wastes

             from the St. Louis area and has lost most of its economic value.  The

-------
 I

 I
 _            sale of fish from the area downstream from St. Louis is nearly
 ™            non-existent because of tainted fish flesh.
 I            5.  Fecal coliform counts in the Missouri River at the sampling
              point 7.4 miles from its' mouth and in the Mississippi River between
 I            the confluence with the Missouri River and at least as far as 85
        *
 _            miles downstream to Chester, Illinois, constitute a violation of
 ™            the Missouri water quality standards which require a maximum of no
 •            more than 2000 per 100 ml.  This was violated by 37# of the samples
              taken at Chester.
 Jj            6.  The pathogens found in the Mississippi River as far as 37 miles
 _            downstream from the St. Louis metropolitan area constitute a health
 *            hazard.  Eleven serotypes of Salmonella were isolated from the
 I            stream or effluent discharging to the stream including S. paratyphi
              §.• odense. causative agent of paratyphoid fever in humans.
 |            7.  The pesticide content of the Mississippi River in the entire
 ^            study area, both above and below St. Louis is high and violates the
              water quality standards which prohibit substances toxic to humans,
 I            fish and wildlife.  The concentration of DDT at one point approached
              the 48-hour median tolerance limit for Daphnia.
 I            8.  The River Des Peres, tributary to the Mississippi in the
 ^            St. Louis area, is grossly polluted.  The phenol concentration in
 *            the water averaged 11.2 ug/1.  Volatile solids, COD, phosphorus,
 I            ammonia, organic nitrogen, phenol, arsenic, sulfide, iron, barium
I
I

-------
I

I
             and manganese concentrations in the sediments are very high.
|           Industrial discharges are the primary source of these wastes.
_           9.  The waters of the Meramec and the Kaskaskia Rivers were rela-
™           tively unpolluted at the time they were sampled, but sampling of
•           bottom-dwelling organisms indicate that these rivers are affected
             by occasional periods of pollution, probably during run-off periods.
I           10.  The National Lead Company discharges a large volumes of un-
             treated industrial wastes to the Mississippi River containing very
•           high concentrations of solids, acids, arsenic, sulfate, iron and
•           toxic metals.  Arsenic discharged from the National Lead Company
             accumulated in the Mississippi River-bed sediments for at least
•           5.8 miles downstream.  Concentrations upstream from National Lead
             Company were 2.3 mg/kg of sediment but downstream concentrations as
•           high as 96.4 mg/kg were present.  Iron precipitates accumulated on
•           the natural river bottom of the Mississippi for at least 5.8 miles
             restrict the growth of natural flora and fauna for at least 3.8 miles
•           downstream from the National Lead Company.  The National Lead Company
             has not complied with the recommendations of the Conference on
                                   I.
             Pollution of Interstate Waters of the Mississippi River-St. Louis
•           Metropolitan Area held on March 4, 1958.
             11.  Pollution has caused a drastic reduction in quantity of desirable
•           attached algal growths that contribute to fish food and oxygen pro-
             duction, and an increase in growths of undesirable slime organisms


I

I

-------
I

I
              in at least 23 miles of the Mississippi River downstream from the
•            confluence of the Chain of Rocks Canal to the confluence of the
•            Meramec River.
              12.  Floating organic solids,  such as fecal material  and packing-
•            house wastes, make the Mississippi River aesthetically objectionable,
       •
              restrict recreational development of the river and create a poten-
™            tial health hazard in at least 43 miles of river downstream from the
•            confluence of the Chain of Rocks Canal to approximately 10 miles
              downstream from Crystal City,  Missouri.
•            13.  The presence of extensive oil slicks interfere with recrea-
              tional boating, is aesthetically objectionable and may be indicative
•            of wastes that impart objectionable tastes and odors  to fish in at
              least 23 miles of the Mississippi River downstream from the confluence
              of the Chain of Rocks Canal to the confluence of the  Meramec River.
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I

-------
 I
 I
INTRODUCTION
 •                   Water quality standards have recently been established by
              the State of Missouri for the Mississippi River in order to pro-
 •            tect and enhance the quality of the water and to insure that it
                                     -i
              will be suitable for desirable uses, present and future.  The
 •            State of Illinois has proposed water quality standards for the
 •            Mississippi River but these have not been approved by the
              Secretary of the Interior. This study was undertaken to determine
 •            if present water quality standards are being met.
                     The Mississippi River, an interstate stream dividing the
 •            states of Missouri and Illinois,  serves the  St, Louis-East
 •            St. Louis metropolitan area and points downstream as a principal
              source of water supply.  It is also a major transportation artery,
 I            providing  extensive  commercial  and recreational fishing and is
              used for recreational purposes in many areas.  The^ utilization of
 •            this resource for the various functions which it is capable of
 •            fulfilling depends on the quality of its waters.  The quality of
              these waters will be an important factor in the future economy of
 •            the area.  The expanding population and industrial activity in the
              area are putting greater and greater pollutional loads into the
 •            river.  The enhancement of the quality of the river's waters can
 •            only be assured by controlling the discharge of municipal,
              industrial and agricultural wastes to the river.
1

 I

 I

-------
I

I
                     The Metropolitan St.  Louis Sewer District (MSSD)  had
•           previously conducted a year long vater quality study in the area
•           vith financial assistance from the the Federal Water Pollution
             Control Administration.  'The results of the MSSD study vere used
I           extensively in the design of this study.   The Federal study does
             not duplicate  the MSSD study but was undertaken to verify and
I           supplement it.
•                   The MSSD study indicated that the most severe water quality
             problems in the river are bacterial contamination, tainted fish
•           and tastes and odors in water supplies.   The Federal study concen-
             trated on these problems with an intensive twelve-day sampling
•           program.   Samples were collected and analysed for indicator bacteria,
•           pathogenic bacteria, phenol,  pesticides,  benthic biology,  phytoplank-
             ton and bottom sediment chemistry.   Tue outfalls of  the National Lead
•           Company of St.  Louis were also sampled.
             Description of River Reach
|                   The area of interest starts at Lock and Dam  No. 26 at Alton,
M           Illinois (River Mile 202.7) and extends downstream to the  water in-
*           take at Chester,  Illinois (River Mile 109.7).   The major  tributaries
•           within this reach are the Missouri  River which meets the Mississippi
             at Mile 195.3,  the River Des  Peres  (River Mile 171-9),  the Meramec
I           River (River Mile 160.7) and the Kaskaskia River (River Mile 118.1).

I

I

I

-------
I

•           The major population concentration along this reach is in the City
I             of St.  Louis on the Missouri side.   The total population of the
                                                                      /-, \
             St. Louis metropolitan area is approximately 2.4 million.^ '
•               The St.  Louis area is  heavily   industrialized and well
                                     -i
_           diversified.  The industries include meat packing plants,  dairies,
™           textile and paper mills,  chemical producers,  metal processing
•           plants, breweries, grain  processors and automotive plants to name
             a few.   About 75 percent  of the industry in the area is located
I           in Metropolitan St.  Louis.   The MSSD estimates the population
^           equivalent of the industrial wastes to  he about h million so that
•
             the total population equivalent is  6.k million,
•               The  reach serves as  the  raw water source  for  several industries
             and communities   including St.  Louis, Mo.,  East St.  Louis,  Illinois,
•           Chester,  Illinois and the Menard State Prison in  Chester,  Illinois.
             Industries using  river water include the  Illinois Power  Company,
•I           the Olin Mathieson Chemical  Company, Union Electric Company, Anheuser-
•           Busch brewery, and National  Lead Company.   The St. Louis and  East
             St.  Louis intakes are located upstream from the metropolitan  area.
•           The Chester and Menard State Prison intakes are approximately 50
             miles below the metropolitan area.  The time  of water travel  from
•           the metropolitan  area to these  intakes is about one  day  during high
•           flow and one  and  one-half days  during low flow condition.^'   Break
             point chlorination is necessary to  control  taste  and odor problems
I           at  these  intakes.

I

I

-------
 I
 I
                     The St. Louis MSSD did  extensive dye  studies  to  determine

 I            the flow characteristics of the river.  The  average  discharge

              between December 1, 1969 and December 12, 1969 was 115,000  cfs


 |            at St. Louis.  Estimated times of travel at  this  flow from  river

 M            mile 184 based on Figure 14 of the St. Louis MSSD report  are:


 *            RM 169 - 6 hours, RM 140.1 - 1? hours and RM 109.7 (Chester) -


 I            32 hours.


                     The first use to be affected by pollution  in  a body  of


 |            water is the fishery.  In 1954 the Bi-State  Development agency


I              estimated that the fishery in  the Mississippi River  below
                                           (4)
              St. Louis was reduced by &0%.    The MSSD reports further de-


 •            clines since I960 at a rate of 7,000 pounds  of fish  caught  per


              year.  The sale of commercial  fish is now practically non-


 I            existent from St. Louis to Cape Girardeau.   The reason  is not


              a lack of fish but tastes and  odors associated with  fish  from
                         l
              this reach.



 I
I a lack of fish

           (1)
4-V\^ e* vmf\ s\\-i
 I


 I


 I


1
                                              8




 I

-------
I
I
I
I
I
Phenol

       Phenol and phenolic compounds such as cresol. and xylenol are
—           found in wastes from the distillation of wood, gas works, coke ovens,


*           oil refineries and chemical plants.  These compounds are known to
                                     \

•           cause tastes and odors in water and to taint the flesh of fish.  The


             California Water Quality Control Board has reported that threshhold


I           concentrations for taste and odor have occurred between 10 ug/1 and


_           100 ug/1 in raw water supplies.  In chlorinated water, these thresh-


™           hold concentrations have been reported between 0.1 ug/1 and 1 ug/1.


•           Fish flesh has been tainted by concentrations of 20 ug/1 to 150 ug/1


             in polluted river water and concentrations of 500 ug/1 have been re-
                                                                 1(2)
             ported as lethal or damaging to fish in river water.


m                  The Public Health Service's 1962 Drinking Water Standards

*           recommend a limit of 1 ug/1 in water used for public consumption;^'

•           The Illinois and Missouri water quality standards do not establish

             a limit for phenol although the State of Missouri has published

•           water quality objectives which call for a maximum of 5 ug/1 at any

             point after initial dilution and a monthly average of not more

•           than 2 ug/1 at any point in the Mississippi River. '  The standards


             limit taste and odor producing substances to "concentrations "in

•           the stream that will not interfere with the production of potable

             water by reasonable water treatment processes, or impart unpalat-


1           able flavor to food fish,  or result in noticeable offensive odors


«           in the vicinity of the water, or otherwise interfere with the


             reasonable use of the water."

-------
 I

 I
                    The St. Louis Metropolitan Sanitary District reports that
 •           phenolic compounds are found in considerable quantity in the
             effluents from industries in St. Louis and East St. Louis.  The
 |           major sources of phenol in the area are from chemical manu-
                                                (1)
 •j           facturing plants and oil refineries.
                    In the present study, phenol samples were collected from
 •           16 transects on the Mississippi River, one transect each on the
             Missouri River, the Kaskaskia River, the Meramec River and the
 |           Des Peres, on every second day of the study so that there are 5
 «           or 6 samples from each station on each transect.  Samples were also
             collected from two transects upstream from the Alton Lock and Dam on
 I           December 10, 1969.  (See Figure 1)   All samples were preserved
             with sodium hydroxide to a pH of 11.0, and sent to the Lake Michigan
 |           Basin Office for analysis within 48 hours of collection.
 •m                  The average results for each station are given in Table 1
             and plotted on Figure 2, page 15.  The data indicate a very severe
 •           source of phenol on the Missouri side between river mile 183.5 and
             river mile 177.  A concentration of 374 ug/1 phenol was found at
 |           station 177A on December 11, 1969.  This heavy pollution was re-
 p           fleeted downstream by concentrations of 276 ug/1 at 173A, 232 ug/1 at
             169A.  A lesser source located in East St. Louis above river mile
 fl           177 is also indicated.  Figure 2 shows that the phenolic compounds in the

I

I

I

-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
 river tend to flow along the shorelines and are not completely mixed

 across the river until river mile 129.   The average concentration of

 7.2 ug/1 found at Chester near public water intakes exceeds the Public

 Health Service recommendation of 1 ug/1 for water supplies and the

 State of Missouri's wate^ quality objective of an average of 2 ug/1.


        Relatively little phenol was found upstream  from river

> mile 177.0.  None  was  found in 20 samples taken at river mile 7.4

 on the Missouri River.  An overall average of 1.7 ug/1 was found in

 the Mississippi River transect above river mile 177.0.  Downstream

 from river mile 177.0 phenol concentrations averaged 23.0 ug/1 on the

 Missouri side and 9.8 ug/1 on the Illinois side.

        The MSSD reports that, during 1968, 1,179 pounds of fish were

 caught per mile of river in  the 201 miles above the Chain of Rocks

 dam and 350 pounds of fish per mile were caught in the 135 miles be-

 low the dam.  They also report that the sale of commercial fish is

 practically non-existent between St. Louis and Cape Girardeau,

 Missouri.   The reason for this was stated as tastes and odors in
                               (1)
 fish rather than lack of fish.


        Conclusion number 8 of the MSSD  report states "A definite re-

 lationship exists between phenol concentrations and the occurrence of

 taste and odor problems in water supplies located on the east bank of

 the Mississippi River."


        The possibility that substantial quantities of phenolic materials

 might be reaching the rivers from natural sources was investigated by

 collecting samples from streams believed to be unaffected by industrial

 wastes.   These samples were sent to the Analytical Quality Control
                                11

-------
I
I
I
              Laboratory,  Division of Water Quality Research in Cincinnati,  Ohio
              for analysis by Thin Layer Chromatography.      This  method is  not
              specifically designed to  determine  naturally occurring  phenols but
•            extracts of  several natural materials do  give positive  response to
"                                (6),
              the detecting agents.
•                   The samples  were from mile point 211.0 on  the Mississippi
•            (a composite across the river),  the Cuivre  River  at  Old Monroe,
              Missouri and the Meramec  River at mile point 22.   No natural
•            phenolic materials  were detected.   They were estimated, if present,
              to be  less than 1 ug/1.   The total  phenol measured by the  standard
                          1(7)
              PWPCA  method   in Chicago was 2.2 ug/1 on the Mississippi  River
•            sample and 1 ug/1 in the  Meramec River sample.  It is concluded
              that naturally occurring  phenols were not significant during this
•            study.
                     The present  discharges of phenol and phenolic materials in
I            the St.  Louis and East St.  Louis area are clear violations of  the
•            water  quality standard prohibiting  the.discharge  of  substance  that
              impart unpalatable  flavor to food fish.   (Missouri Water Quality
•            Standards -  Mississippi River, Zone 2, paragraph  f.)   (Illinois
              Sanitary Water Board,  Rules and  Regulations SWB-13,  Article II,
8            Riile 2.  04,  paragraph 5.)

I

I

I

I

-------
                                                   RM195
                                               RM 183.5

                                              jE. St. LOUIS
                                           RM 177
               Herculaneumo

                    Fesfus o
                        RM I4O.I
      FIGURE
      RMt2|,
St. Genevieve o
    LAKE  MICHIGAN  BASIN OFFICE
  MISSISSIPPI RIVER-ST. LOUIS AREA STUDY
          LOCATION   MAP
         PHENOL _STATIONS
       U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
     FEDERAL WATER QUALITY ADMINISTRATION
   Great Lakes  Region          Chicago, Illinois
I
                                             Chester
                                             RM 103.7
               13

-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
                            TABLE  1

             Average Concentrations of Phenol (ug/1 )
Station
                      Missouri side
B
River Des Peres 1.0
Meramec River 6.9
          River k.5
         11.2
          1.7
 *Based on one sample only


NF - None detected within sensitivity of test.
                               14
                  Illinois side
                                                       D
E
Missouri 7.4
Miss.
Miss.
Miss.
Miss.
Miss.
Miss.
Miss.
Miss.
Miss.
Miss.
Miss.
Miss.
Miss.
Miss.
Miss.
Miss.
Miss.
Miss.
211.0
205.0
202.5
195.0 .
183.5
177.0
173.0
169.0
162.0
159.0
154.7
147.0
140.1
129.0
123.4
118.8
115.0
109.7
NF
3*
4*
1.6
0.4 '
1.8
101.4
76.3
69.5
39.0
25.5
20.8
17.8
15.5
13.8
13.7
12.5
9.5
7.7
NF
3*
3*
2.4
0.4
2.0
1.6
6.7
27.8
30.0
16,5
9.8
15.0
12.0
11.8
12.8
12.3
10.8
8.5
NF
3* 1*
2* NF*
1.0
1.6
2.6
1.6
8.5
9.8
10.8
3.7
10.7
9.0
9.5
8.7
10.5
8.7
7.4
7.2
NF
2*
NF*
0.6
4.6
3.0
12.0
20.0
14.3
16.0
12.2
13.0
11.8
9.5
8.5
8.5
8.2
9.5
5.5

-------
15

-------
I

I
              Mi c robiolo gy
•                   The purpose of testing water for bacteria is to detect the
              presence of microbes that nay be pathogenic to man or animals.
•            The direct search for the presence of a specific pathogen is too
                                     t
_            expensive and unwieldy for routine testing purposes.  Instead,
™            the water is examined for indications of fecal contamination and,
•            when such indications are found, the water is assumed to be
              potentially dangerous.
I                   The group of bacteria known as coliforms has been selected
_            as suitable indicators because they inhabit the intestinal tract
™            of warm blooded animals.   The presence of coliforms does not
•            necessarily indicate fecal contamination because some forms per-
              sist in soil and other environments.  Other indicator organisms
•            are fecal streptococci, which are abundant in the intestinal tracts
              of warm blooded animals.   These organisms do not ordinarily multi-
•            ply in surface waters and are rarely found in soil or on vegetation
•            not contaminated by sewage.
                     The standards established by the State of Missouri require
•            that "The fecal coliform, in water designated for drinking water
              supply, boating and canoeing, and/or fishing, shall not exceed
•            2000/100 ml (either MPN or MF count) except in specified mixing
•            zones adjacent to or downstream from waste outfalls."
                     Samples were collected at 10 Mississippi River transects,
'•            the Missouri transect, and the River Des Peres, Meramec River and

I
                                             16 .
I

-------
I
I
I
             Kaskaskia River  sampling points on each day of the study so that

             11  or 12 values  are available from each point.  See Figure 3.

             Each  transect was sampled at points, A, C and E so that the coli-

             form  distribution across the stream could be determined.  All

•           samples were taken to the FWPCA mobile laboratory at Kimmswick,

             Missouri and processed within six hours of collection.

|                  The average results of these analyses are presented in

_           Table 2.  These  results indicate that during the twelve days of the

™           study, the Missouri River was contaminated (3&% violations of

I           standards), the  Mississippi River above the confluence with the

             Missouri was relatively clean, the Mississippi River at St. Louis

|           and immediately  below was more contaminated than the Missouri

_           (13%  violations  of standards between RM 183.5 and RM 140.1), the

™           Mississippi River at Chester was contaminate (31% violations) and

•           the Missouri side of the river was more contaminated than the

             Illinois side upstream from river mile 140.1.

|                  Bacterial survival tests were also run on samples from se-

_           lected transects.  See Figure 3.  Total coliform, fecal coliform,

™           and fecal streptococcus counts were determined on the water as

•           collected and incubated for two, three, and seven days at the average

             temperature of the stream when sampled, utilizing 900 ml test portions,

g                  Initial counts (Day 0) were made at the mobile laboratory

_           in  Kimmswick, and subsequent determinations were performed in the

™           microbiology laboratory at the Lake Michigan Basin Office.



I



I

-------
I
I
I
                     The purpose of this test is to determine if there are any

              substances, such as nutrients, present in the water that would

              cause the bacteria to multiply or any toxic materials that might

 •            kill them.  The results, presented in Table 3»indicate no evidence

              of such substances since' the dieoff rates appear to be normal.

 •                   In order to detect the presence of pathogenic organisms,  16

 •            Moore Gauze pads for the isolation of salmonella were placed in

              the stream and' two in the effluent of the Lemay Sewage Treatment

 •            Plant (Figure 3).  The genus Salmonella is responsible for some of

              the most severe diseases in man,  including typhoid fever and para-

 p            typhoid fever.   All species of Salmonella are considered pathogenic

 •            to man, usually causing enteric disorders.   Twelve of the 16 pads

              placed in the Mississippi River were recovered.   Table 4 shows that

 I            9 of the 10 pads taken from the river were positive for Salmonella.

              The two pads recovered from the Lemay sewage treatment .plant effluent

 |            were also positive.   Forty-three  isolated cultures were serotyped to

 _            identify species by the Communicable Disease Center at Atlanta,

              Georgia.   The 11 different serotypes detected are shown in Table 4.

 •                   Table 4 shows that Salmonella were detected as far south

              as river mile 139.5.  S. Qranienburg  was isolated from  the-

 jj            Lemay sewage treatment plant outfall and also from pads placed

 «            3.1 miles  downstream, 13.5 miles downstream and 32.2  miles

              downstream.  This  may indicate that  Salmonella organisms were

•            transported this distance in the  stream.   S. paratyphi-B« was




I
                                            18


I

-------
I

I
I

I
                                        Alton
                                       o/
                                       v/RM 202.5
                                                     RM195
t
I
I
I
                                                RM 183.5
                                               jE. St. Louis

                                            RM 177
               Herculoneumo

                    Fesfuso
                                                                 Tronsect  sampled  daily
                                                                 at  three  points.

                                                                 Bacterial  survival  test
                                                                 mode on  one sample
                                                                 from each point.

                                                                 Moore  Gauze  Pad for
                                                                 Salmonella.
                        RM 140.1
   FIGURE  3
St. Genevieve o
   LAKE  MICHIGAN  BASIN OFFICE
SSISSIPPI RIVER-ST. LOUIS AREA STUDY
        LOCATION  MAP
 MICROBIOLOGY   STATIONS
    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
  FEDERALVtATER QUALITY ADMINISTRATION
Great Lakes Region           Chicago, Illinois
                                               Chester
                                               RM 109.7
                                         19

-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
                                Table 2
            Arithmetic Averages* of Microbiological Results
            vith Percent of Violations of Missouri Standard
Station
Total Coliform
  Per 10O tel
   Fecal  Coliform
Per 100 ml   % Violation
  Fecal
Streptococci
  Per 10O-al
Missouri
Missouri
Missouri
•
Miss.
Miss.
Misfe.
MiJs.
Miss.
Miss .
Miss.
Miss.
Miss.
Miss.
Miss.
Miss.
Miss.
Miss.
Miss.
Miss.
Miss.
Miss.
Miss.
Miss .
Miss.
Miss.
Miss.
Miss.
Miss.
Miss.
7.4 A
7.4 C
7.4 E
202.5 A
202.5 c
202.5 E
195-0 A
195.0 c
195-0 E
183.5 A
183.5 c
183.5 E
1TT.O A
177.0 c
177-0 E
173-0 A
173.0 c
173.0 E
162.0 A
162.0 c
162.0 E
154.7 A
154.7 c
154.7 E
140.1 A
140.1 B
140.1 C
140.1 D
140.1 E
53,000
47,600
50,700
700
915
1,400
54,400
49,000
16,600
65,900
28,300
49,200
73,400
4o,6oo
38,700
63,400
38,4oo
4o,6oo
64,600
53,400
60,300
68,000
41,700
42,800
50,800
61, 400
45,200
38,500
4l,300
1,670
2,100
1,740
94
56
185
2,040
1,620
1,360
3,600
2,330
3,830
7,780
1,460
2,540
4,690
1,860
3,050
5,580
2,810
2,980
4,150
2,750
2,850
4,480
4,350
1,840
2,390
1,780
27$
54$
27$
%
$
0$
45$
36$
27$
82$
18$
100$
90$
10$
60$
91$
36$
91$
100$
58$
67$
100$
73$
91$
100$
100$
91$
63$
30$
3,680
3,700
3,740
28
39
103
3,400
3,800
1,890
5,730
3,200
17,770
1,680
3,370
4,800
13,600
2,770
3,330
17,800
5,460
2,660
12,400
3,630
3,980
12,800
9,880
6,780
4,130
2,740
*For actual results,  see Appendix
                                 20

-------
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Table 2
/ Total
/ Coliform
Station Per 100 ^
Miss. 118.8 A 35,500
Miss. 118.8 C 43,000
Miss. 118.8 E 33,700
Miss. 109.7 A 3^,200
Miss. 109.7 C 35,500
Miss. 109.7 E 29,600
River Des 1.0 C 8,700
Peres
Meramec 6.9 C 3,7^0
River
Kaskaskia 4.5 C 43,400
i
x
21
(con't)
Fecal
Coliform
Per 100 ml
2,680
2,950
1,930
1,960
2,370
1,^70
2,620
69
1,140
% Violation
82$
91*
50*
33*
58*
18*
8*
0*
20*
Fecal
Streptococci
Organisms Per 100 E
5,590
7,310
3,060
5,570
4,860
2,600
5,180
162
2,580

-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
s t-
§1
o
/ O CO
' o
0 >j
o a
4>
CO

H 
<^£ 8 Q
0 £
H CO 0
E-i "3 03
•H 0
f-.
•P
O
O^ f^—
^&

H
SH CO
f_f ^j
O o3
0 0
I"
o
o
0?
°






c*
o
•H
•P

to
O 0 0
H r-l H

O UA O
l/A O tTN
OJ OJ OJ


O O O
O O co
ir\ ir\ OJ


000
poo

CO_d-*W"
l/N O O
VO VO CO



888
CM OJ H


O Q 0
-=f O VO
CO OJ H

o o o
ONO H
t- H ON
r-T



888
-3- cooj
vo^oTcvT

8§8
*\ •* *\
ro-d" -zfr

888
HVO OJ
Cv?CV?H
§O O
O Q
O O
ir\ co O
VO WNVO


_-j.
*
t—
•H
J^

< o w
m •
n

O ITN O
H OJ


O O ir\
OJ OJ -4-



O O O
. iH H t-



O 0 0
fO H ITN
H H

ITS ITN ITN
OJ H



0 O 0
OJ J- VD


O O 0
M CO H
OJ

VD p o
"^ OJ




000
OJ ON J-
H OJ H


O O O
co ir\ OJ
OJ H CO


'
888
H H ro
O?
P-88
ON coco
cv?o?




ITS
•
8
OJ

• < 6 w
CQ
0}
g
O O O
H OJ co
i-< H

LT\O ir\
• OJ O OJ
OJ OJ H


O 0 0
CO rH -3-
COOJ


§O O
O OJ
-t- OJ
coco
O O tr\
coirs OJ



88&
OJ OJ H


0 O 0
ONH co
OJ ir\-d-

0 0 O
ONOJ O
ONCO OJ
H



888
OJ ^J" CO
•s
H

O O O
O O O
*\ *\
ir\ H

So o
O 0
t— ONTO
oTi-T
§§1
cToN ON
H"^



o
* *
CJ^
pH

• <; o H
n
CO
•H
21 22
O ^* O vo O
ITNVO CO t— O
H OJ

SO O ir\ O
-3- O J- I/N
-3" OJ-OJ ^f


0 0 0 O Q
O O O OJ O
CO iH H OJ OJ


8O O O 0
OJ VO LfN CO
VD CO OJ LTN
O?
O O O -d" O
ONVO COCO ON
CO.* H H ro


0 O O 0 O
ovo o oj o
OJ t- t- OJ OJ
•V •*
tH H

O O O O O
o o o o o
ON ON oj OJ ir\
r? i-T i-T
80 o o o
O 0 O Q
vo H CO O ON
^t -^ OJ OJ H



CO O O O O
OJ O O O O
O O O CO
oToTHco-

80 o o o
Q O O O
H O O O O
v^ *s ^ *\
ONCO O O
vo oj oj co
80 o o o
o o o o
o o o o o
H VO t— VO CO
OJ-3- OJ OJ H
§§§§§
-* -d" CO ON H
ITNVO LfN ITN-d"



H

O
r~i

• < M 0 Q W
to
m
•H
8O l/N
t— t-
CVJ H

o o o
ir\ ir\ H
-3- t- OJ


888
fvj co co


O 0 0
CO LfNlTN
ITNVO CO

Q 0 0
ON ITN OJ
CO ITNOJ


888
OJ t/N t-
ft Ti

888
IA t— CO
f-Tr-T
888
ITN ONJ-
H oTrH



888
O H OJ
roco"^'

8O O
O O
o o o
•v *\ *S
H H O
OJ J- H
§§§
*V *» ^
-* OJ OJ
-* COrH
§§§
COCO^O?
^J- CO CO



t-

&
H

• < 0 W
(0
10
•H
ITN
OJ


OJ



o
OJ



o
OJ

vo



ITN
OJ


ir\
OJ


O
H
OJ




ir\
OJ


l/N
OJ



S
OJ

§
OJ

CD
V
9)


a
f^

^,
0)

K
VO
t-


LT\



O
OJ
OJ


o
UN


cS
rH


O
OJ
OJ


8
OJ

o
t-
co




o
vo
ir\


o
8
9^
H

8
OJ
H"
o
o
CO

^
S
•H
K

a
_v|
to
0$
j*^
(O
W

-------
I
«
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
also isolated from the LeMay sewage treatment plant outfall.  This

organism is known to cause paratyphoid fever in humans.  Its presence

in the river is a definite health hazard.

       The results of the Salmonella survey show that the waters of

the Mississippi River harbor an assortment of Salmonella serotypes.

Since all Salmonella must be considered potential pathogens, their

presence in the water is a hazard to anyone using the river for fish-

ing, recreation or as a source of drinking water.

                            Table  4

                  Results of Salmonella Study
         Site

River mile 18.18  Missouri side

River mile 181.8-  Illinois side




River mile 179.6  Illinois side

River mile 179.0  Missouri side
Effluent LeMay Sewage Treatment Plant
     (River mile 171.7) both samples
River mile 168.6  Missouri side
River mile 168.6  Illinois side

River mile 163.8  Illinois side

River mile 158.2  Missouri side
River mile 158.2  Illinois side

River mile 140.1  Missouri side (2)

River mile 139.5  Illinois side .
                               23
Serotyjjes found

  S. cubana

  S. infantis
  S." heidelberg
  S. java

  S. cubana

  S. drypool
  S. derby

  S. oranienburg
  S. paratyphi B. odense
  S. newport
  S. siegburg
  S. cubana
  S. infantis

  S. oranienburg
  S. panama

  negative

  S. oranienburg
  S. oranienburg

  both negative

  S. oranienburg
  S. cubana

-------
I
 I

 I
            Biology
 •                 The macro invertebrate fauna (animal life) of a river are
            associated with river bottoms and are therefore known as bottom
 |          organisms or benthos.  The benthos play an important role in the
 M          food chain of an aquatic system.  They feed primarily on microscopic
       .    plant life, inert organic material and smaller animal forms.  In
 V          turn, they serve as food organisms for  many species of fish and are,
           - therefore, an essential factor in the ecology of a stream.
           |;
                   Benthic organisms also serve as indicators of the water quality
 _          of a stream.  Each organism has requirements for its surrounding en-
 '          vironmental conditions.  Stoneflies, mayflies, and caddisflies, for
            instance, all require high quality water on a continuous basis and
            will not be found where moderate or severely polluted conditions occur.
 |          These are known as pollution intolerant forms.  Other organisms such
 —          as sludgeworms and bloodworms do not require as much oxygen and thrive
 *          on "che organic material present in polluted conditions.  These are
 •          known as pollution tolerant organisms.  Some organisms can live in both clean
            and polluted water, these are known as facultative organisms.
 H                 In general, clean water conditions support a large variety of
 _          organisms with pollution intolerant forms predominating.  Polluted
."          conditions usually produce very large populations of one or two
 •          pollution tolerant forms and no pollution intolerant forms.  Extreme
            pollution may produce conditions where no life exists at all.
 |                 'The nature of the river bottom is also an important factor in
 _          determining the nature of the benthic fauna.  Sands which are continually
™          being shifted and turned over by currents prevent bottom animals from

I

-------
I
I
I
              being established.  This condition was encountered at many of the

              stations in the Mississippi River and few, if any, organisms were

              found at these points.  The most productive areas were those where

              the bottom consisted of mud or silt.
                                      i,

B                   Benthic biology samples were taken at five points at each of

            •  16 Mississippi River transects (See Figure 4)» one Missouri River

|            transect, three each on the Kaskaskia and Meramec River transects and

_            /one at the River Des Peres.  Each sample was collected by an aquatic

              biologist, screened in a No. 30 sieve, preserved with 1Q% formalin

I            and returned to the laboratory for identification of the organisms.

              The results of this work are presented in Table 5, page 31.

£                   Conclusions that can be drawn from the results of the regular

—            transect sampling on the Mississippi River are fragmentary because

*            no organisms were found at most of the stations due to the shifting

I            sands on the river bed.  The Mississippi River upstream control sta-

              tion at river mile 202.5 is unpolluted except near the mouth of the

•            locks on the Illinois side, where pollution is indicated by the oil  on

_            the bottom and the 860 sludgeworms at point E.  At river mileage 123.4,

™            clean water organisms were found at four of the five points and a

•            balanced population appears to exist.   This indicates that, at  this

              point, the river had recovered from the waste loads of the metropolitan

J            area.

^                   The Meramec and Kaskaskia rivers both had very moderate  numbers

*            of facultative and tolerant organisms  but no intolerant organisms.



I
                                             25


I

-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
This indicates basically clean streams that are occasionally sub-


jected to slugs of pollution, probably during periods of heavy runoff.

       The bottom of the River Des Peres consisted of a white caustic

material that apparently is not capable of supporting life.  This is

a result of industrial wastes in the stream.

       A localized area of sewered pollution in the Chain of Rocks

Canal below Lock and Dam No. 2? was noted and sampled.  A tributary

at river mile 184.7 on the Granite City Army Depot property had a

strong odor of "chicken feathers" and was steaming.  Samples taken

above the outfall, immediately below the outfall, 300 feet below the

outfall and ^ mile below the outfall produced very high concentrations

of sludgeworms and other pollution tolerant species indicating severe

degradation.  The mild concentration of sludgeworms and mayfly larvae

at Mississippi River station 183.5 E may also be a reflection of this

pollution.

       Biologists from the National Field Investigations Center con-

ducted a study to determine the effects of pollution on psriphyton

(attached organisms) in the Mississippi River.  The reach studied ex-

tended from upstream of metropolitan St. Louis, Missouri, (Lock and

Dam 26) downstream to river mile 140 which is approximately 10 miles

downstream from Crystal City, Missouri.  Twelve sampling stations for

attached growths were established along the 65-mile reach of river

(Figure 5)»   Data for these 12 sampling stations are included in

Table 6.  Field investigations for this portion of the study were ini-

tiated November 16, 1969, and completed December 12, 1969.

       An attached algal community serves a vital role in the aquatic

environment.  It provides the first link in the food chain for valuable
                               26

-------
I

I
             food and game fish.  Algal photosynthesis contributes dissolved oxygen



•           to a river.  In a clean river, the community of attached algae is pre-



—           dominately diatoms.  Increasing organic pollution causes a progressive



*           reduction in the relative numbers of diatoms and gives rise to in-
                                      i


•           creasing numbers of organisms that are consumers of decaying organic



             material.  Inorganic pollutants may be toxic and if precipitation



•           occurs, can blanket organisms and have a smothering effect.



                    Downstream from the confluence of the Chain of Rocks Canal at



•           station 183 (Figure 5), there was a drastic decrease (95 percent) in



•           numbers of attached diatoms and a reduction (78 percent) in the



             quantity of chlorophyll A_ in the community of attached growths from



•           the preceding upstream station (Figures 6 and 7).-  This condition re-



             mained essentially unchanged downstream to station 160 near the con-



™           fluence of the Meramec River, a distance of 23 miles.  Along this 23



•           mile reach of river, numerous outfalls were discharging waste waters



             to the river.  Increased turbidity caused by finely divided suspended



•           solids in addition to oil scum and copious quantities of floating



             organic solids (such as human excrement, chunks of animal fat, hair,



•           and grain hulls) contributed to the reduction in attached algae.



•           These materials restricted the amount of solar energy (sunlight) that



             penetrated the water.  Sunlight is the energy needed by algal chloro-



•           phylls to produce food for nourishment, growth, and reproduction of



             algae.  These pollutants also make the stream aesthetically objection-



•           able and pose a potential health hazard to recreationalists.  Oil








                                            27




I

-------
 I
 I
              slicks are indicative of wastes that impart objectionable tastes


 I           and odors to fish flesh.

 M                  Competition and crowding by slime growths that feed on decay-

              ing organic wastes also inhibited or restricted the growth of attached

 •           diatoms.  Both algae and slimes are carbonaceous and contribute to the

              total carbon accumulated on the slides, but since algae contain

 I           chlorophylls and slimes do not, a community of periphyton with a high

 •           carbon content and low chlorophyll content would contain relatively

              more slime growths.  The carbon to chlorophyll ratios of the attached

 •           growths in the study reach of the Mississippi River are illustrated

              in Figure 8.  The change to a community containing relatively more

 |           carbon as compared to chlorophyll is indicative of pollution by

 •           organic wastes, less productive of basic fish-food organisms and tends

              to produce less and consume more dissolved oxygen.


 •                  Inorganic pollutants also contributed to the severe reduction

              in the community of attached diatoms downstream from river mile 171.8


 |           where the National Lead Company discharges its waste waters to the

 «           river.  At stations 170.0 and 168.0, numbers of attached diatoms were

              the lowest for any station sampled.   The artificial substrates were

 •            heavily coated with iron deposits.

                     The attached growths indicated recovery from the effects of


 I            pollution on biota of the Mississippi River downstream from mile 150;

              however, floating solids, mainly chunks of animal fat,  remained

              conspicuous.



I
I
I
                                            28

-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
r
                                       Alton
                                          202.5
                                                  RMI95
I
I

I
                                             RM 183.5

                                             ]E. St. LOUIS

                                          RM 177
              Hercutaneumo


                   Fes?us o
      FIGURE  4
      RM
St. Genevieve c
   LAKE  MICHIGAN  BASIN OFFICE
 IISSISSIPPI RIVER-ST. LOUIS  AREA STUDY

         LOCATION   MAP

|      BIOLOGY  STATIONS
      U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
    FEDERAL WATER QUALITY ADMINISTRATION

   Great Lakes  Region          Chicago, Illinois
                                                                        Chester
                                                                        RM 109.7

-------
I
                                   Table 5
1
•tation

ssouri 7-
_ A
1
• B .
r
D
I
Ississippi
A

1
B


- C
1
D
1
I'
HTssissipp-i
|A
B
1
D
1
• E

1
1

Types

k
sand,

sand
sand
sand
sand
202.5
sand


sand


sand,

sand

sand,
195-0
sand
• sand
sand
sand,

rock



Results of Benthic Biota Saapl
of Bottom Pollution Intolerant
Organisms (clean
vater)
Per Sq. Meter

silt none

none
none
scuds 10
none
dragonfly nymph 10

-
none
•

gravel caddis fly larvae 10

none

oil none
«
caddisfly larvae 10
none
none
rock none

none


30
ing
Pollution Tolerant Total
or Facultative Organisms
Organisms
Per Sq. Meter Per Sq. Mete

sludgeworms 20 20

none 0
none 0
none 10
bloodworms 20 20
sludgeworms 20 1^0
bloodworms 50
other diptera 60
sludgeworms l8o UUO
bloodworms 230
other diptera 30
sludgeworms 80 180
bloodworas 90
sludgeworcns 90 1^0
bloodworas 30
other diptera 20
sludgeworas S6o 920
bloodworms 50
leeches 10
none 10
none 0
none 0
none *0
*
sludgewonr.s 10 20
bloodworms 1C
•


-------
I
I
                                        Table 5
  bation
            Types of Bottom
I
Pollution Intolerant
Organisms (clean
water)
Per Sq. -Meter
Pollution Tolerant
or Facultative
Organises
Per Sq. Meter      Per Sq.  Meter
Total
Organisms
fssissipj
A
r
c
1
r

>i 183.5
sand
•
sand
sand
sand
ooze, sand


none none
none none
none bloodvorns 20
none sludgevoras 30
none • sludgeworas 70
'bloodworms 10
mayfly larvae 50

0
0
20
30
130

Mississippi 177-0
A
B
1°
^^K *,r f
mD
r
lississropi
1
I
^
1
f
1


sand
sand
sand
'silt
sand
173.0
sand
sand
sand
sand
sand



none none
none • none
none - none
none bloodv/orrns 10
caddisfly larvae 10 sludgewoms 200
-
.none bloodworas 20
none none
none bloodworms 10
other diptera 90
none none
none none
-
31


0
0
10
210

20
0
100
0
0
•



-------
1
1
•tat ion
1
Mississippi
1 V
B
Ic
1 "
E
Mississippi
B
Ic
I D
1 E
Mississippi
, A
1
1 c
'D •
1
Mississippi
1 B
1°
r
• E
1


Types of Bottom
169.0
sand, gravel
sand
sand, gravel
sand
sand
162
sand
sand, gravel
sand
sand, gravel
159
gravel
sand, gravel
sand
sand, gravel
sand, gravel
15^.7
sand
sand
i
sand
sajid

**»_^_
Table 5^(con't. )
Pollution Intolerant
Organisms (clean
water)
Per Sq. Meter
-i.
none
none
roundvorms 10
none
none
„
none
none
none
none

none
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
32


Pollution Tolerant
or Facultative
Per" Sq. Meter
none
none
none
none
none

none
none
none
diptera 10
_
none
none
none
none
none
none
sludgevorms 10
bloodworms 20
none
bloodworms 20



Total
Organisms
Per Sq. Meter
0
0
10
0
0

0
0
0
10

0
- 0
0
0
0
0
30
0
20


-------
I
I
I
I
  tation
Types of Bottom
I


I


I


I
  lississippi



    A






    C



    D
  (ississippi


    A


    B


    C


    D
 Mississippi


 I

    B
                                      Table 5 (con't.)
    C


    D
 Mississippi
  I


  I


  I


  I
    A


    B


    C




   D


   E
sand, gravel


sand, gravel


sand, gravel


sand


1^0.1


sand


sand, gravel


sand


sand, gravel


sand, oily ,


129


sand, gravel


sand, gravel


sand, gravel, rubble none


sand



123. ^


sand, gravel, roc>


sand


sand, gravel




sand,  gravel


sand
Pollution Intolerant
Organisms (clean
vater)
Per Sq. Meter
none
scuds 10
none
none
none
scuds 10
none
none
none
none
none
none
none .
aquatic beetles 10
scuds 10
none
scuds 10
scuds 20
Pollution Tolerant
or Facultative
Organisms
Per Sq. Meter
none
none
none
none
none
diptera 10
none
none
bloodworms 410
mayfly larvae 10
none
none
sludgevoras 20
none
none
sludgevoras 10
bloodworms 10
sludgeworms 20
sludgevorins '20
T<
0]
Per S
0
10
0
. 0
0
20
0
0
*10
. 10
0
0
20
10
Id
20
30
*T"C
                                                                                 Organisms
                                            33

-------
I
I
  Station     Types of Bottom
•
  Mississippi 118.8

     A        sand

     B        sand

 M   C        sand

 _   D      .  sand

 *   E        sand

 •Mississippi 115
              clay, ooze •
                                   __ Table 5 (cont'd)
Pollution Intolerant
Organisms (clean
water)
Per Sq. Meter
none
none
none'
none
none
Pollution Tolerant
or Facultative
Organisms
Per Sq. Meter
none
sludgevorms 20
bloodworms 10
none
diptera 10
T<
0:
Per Si
0
20
10
0
10
                                   none
B sand
• C sand
ID sand, detritus
«- -4
E sand
Mississippi 109-7
_ A sand, gravel
B sand, gravel
1.
C sand
• D silt, sand
1
1
1
none
none
none
none

none
none
none
none



bloodworms 120
other diptera 20

bloodworms 10
other diptera 80

none

none

diptera 110
                                                         bloodworms 10
                                                         other diptera 20

                                                         none

                                                         none

                                                         none
                                                                                 Organisms
                                                                                90


                                                                                 0

                                                                                 0

                                                                               110



                                                                                30


                                                                                 0

                                                                                 0

                                                                                 0
                                             34

-------
I
I
I*
                 Types of Bottom
•ississippi 18^.6
Butfall below Lock
 and Dam 27 (Chain
    Rocks Canal)
•f
   Above outfall
•            /

• Belov outfall

   1300' beloJ
     outfall I
                     rock


                     ooze, sand

                     ooze
I

I
   ^ mile below      sand, gravel
     outfall
  .ver  Des Peres
  1.0
    Below Lemay outfall  sand
•eramec  River 6.9
    A
I

I

I,

I

I

I
                     ooze, gravel
                     silt, gravel
                     ooze, gravel
                                    Table 5 (cont'd)
                                      Pollution Intolerant
                                      Orgnaisms (clean
                                           q. Meter
                                      flatworms


                                      none

                                      none


                                      none
vhite caustic    none
precipitate
 Mississippi 171.5

I Above LeMay outfall  sand,silt     none
                 stonefly larvae 10
                                      none
                                      none
                                      unionid clams 10
                                        Pollution Tolerant   Total
                                        or Facultative       Organisms
                                        Organisms
                                        Per Sq. Meter    Per'Sq. Meter
                                        sludgeworms 1^170     1^370
                                        fingernail clams 60

                                        none                      0

                                        sludgeworms Vf520     ^7530
                                        bloodworms     10

                                        sludgeworms 26920     26920
                                                             none
                                                             sludgeworms 6360
                                                             leeches       20

                                                             sludgeworms 6650
                                                             mayfly larvae 10
                                        sludgeworms 60
                                        bloodworms 110
                                        leeches     20
                                        mayfly larvae 110

                                        sludgeworms   30
                                        bloodworms    30
                                        other diptera 30

                                        sludgeworms   ^0
                                        fingernail clams 30
                                        bloodworms    30
                                        mayfly larvae    20
                                                                                    6380


                                                                                    6670



                                                                                     koo
                                                                                      90
                                                                                     120

-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
at ion
Types of Bottom
                                   Table 5^(cont'd)
Pollution Intolerant
Organisms (clean
yater)
     Sq.-
                                Per "Sq.. Meter

                                   -l

skaskia River 4.5


 A       ^Clay, ooze, detritus   none
 E
          cjlay, silt
clay, ooze
                       none
  none
Pollution Tolerant
or.Facultative
sludge-worms 320
1>loodvornis   TO
other diptera  120


sludgeworas 90
bloodvroras TO
other diptera  60


sludge'/roras 460
"bloodworms   80
other diptera  10
mayfly larvae  10
    Total
    Organisms

Per Sq. Meter
                                                                       510
                                                                       220
       560

-------
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 1
 I
 I
I
1
I
I
Figure  5
             Meramec
              River
              Crystal City
                               204.5
                                LOCK and DAM 26

                                   198.8


                                     195.1

                                    Chain of Rocks
                                    Canal  (LOCK 27)
-N-
                  160.2
                                   I4O.O
             Stations sampled  for  periphyton in the
             Mississippi River from Lock and Dam 26
             downstream  to  river mile 140.
                           37

-------
c
1



1


1


1
"t
Ik
o
ft)
^~l
Io3
•p
3

*fH
_ 0
• CO
^H y
• 1
rH
I!
o

M
3
CO
1
• sO

rH
1-2
CD

I

I


l

I
I
I
:f: CT
in V)
3^
O 03
/ 4> -H
r* t.
i-, M
4> 
o
•P •> o +3
CO M -H KT g -H
4> C ^B CO
** f« (y ^ -^-5 Q
•H «i *** «-W a
& 4J
t; £ a H "w
O rD Q) 4-> O
W E: ^^> -P Q,
•H fl» K) o ^
ra CD 6 w
^* *^
o o
4) ^ C
« H ^>-H
^ *
S cr
P CQ
O to ,C

0
<
sl
gi *H
(H CO
O~--v
H 60

"5
C -H
•P fx
CO 01
-p >


§OOOOO O O Qoc>
ooOOo o o O^-'S'
ooooo . o o ooo
§OOOOO i ' ' i O 'Q 'Q 'Qco
ooooo o o QS.2
rHN-\VOOOONQ «-l -d- rOvJ-CVJ
K^\ OJ  -O -O O O
OJ OJ


OJ KN ir\ _j- OJ N"N t— ON j- vi) ir\
OOOOOO rTNO rH rH rH
rH


J- rH \O VO ro\ ON -jo VO ^j- _^- ir\
r^N -^J" ^ OJ K*\ -^ O r<~N K^V t*- '-^

	 till -I | i ...
M"\OJCUOOO O O O rHiO,OJ
V


u^cOrHOOOJ irvot— iTvOoOOOOJ ir\vOt/NO
^CO LPiN^ONOD OJ OJ'rH rH OCQODvC O O^-H ONO
O ON ONOD t^— f— C~- t— T — t— J~— VO VO VO VD '-T\ LTN _jj- J-
OJrHrHrHrHrHHrHrHrHrHrHrHrHrHrHrHrHrH
o rt
JO




















1)
r-l
P<
§
C/3
O
1

•
•H

P
C
CU
•cf
•r{
rH
CU
•H
g
r
.
u-\
Q>
(X
j~ aT
bC +J
•H O
cu 'z.
V
>> CD
t~< CO
C3 Vc


-------
1
1
•
1


1


1






1


1-



1
1
1
1
/
 =»
S °
•o
c
Tt«l
/
/














»
E^^r^Wr ,44 ^-.v-g •"»«"*• -5 ii .('iiiMWi'^-^'^* ,. t,, 1,1f-,'3i"s"*-^rHiV,J"^^:yin; -^4 . -v^^'^M

P1-*^ '" -'1~ '• ^! ' ' "'- '"v 'i-'5^1^*'J^ "**' ' yVa->'"*F''**V'-^ - -=^*r t 4 -" --w-. T. -»"v-^"KW
L_.__M__j

E -„-_-. ^-^ ,,,-u,pr,^, ,.,,
*R-jJdb*Si--*-i-'-^«-*-»^~t-*i'*»B'*^ *si.-
p
„ 	 ......Sfc. r
^^ n
o|
>^
r^
^^* ' \
L-^»
__JW.
-^
^_ c '•>
o o j
c ^ ''
o o ri
x: o •*-
0 Q: 7
L .'- ^. _u, ' - ,-^* /• ' -\ ^ ^

f T--1' — iZ"T? \'1"ZZL.- ^«u!2
	 ^~
f * •- " ; •• ' . - . ? . • , . •- '_Jj

ii i i
o o o o c
o m o m
oj — —
39
i
|


.
|- ID

»*-
o
^-* «-'
0 *E S
»rx "H

E ^
i 1
o " 'S
i J5i o o
O — J= "^
Jr 3; H- v)
T- c- ^
»- c v^
Q) 0 ^2
~ <= 0
o: o _g
»--
O ^ ~ .£
- CD o o
~ ~ CL "
o j. E
•*— TiJ ^-*
00 .> o
o £"^
" - w °
o u
•t- <-
H- t-
UJ <
0
OJ

O «>
D if

-------
I

OJ
*—
o
^^
£
i-
o ^
D —
s ,2
*" «fr-
^»

Si O
o

c

— >-



1
1

1
•B
1

1


-


1


1

1

1
1
' »


E.,,,^*-~^^- , ...... ^-jjy*,^, , Y^M.-^I, ...^ .,-^.,-^n,
^ • ..,.;i,- - •-'••-' >,'•"•«


"
(


[_„-.__„_ ;,-..,^.^--*ht.,_. . ' -1

V L. - L*_ - ^ '- :\*K&£
•
/

/ ' ETUI]

/

— ^-^^^» fc,,^.^
— >"
r "^- w ""^
	 f
^~
-^ • a
H- O V
c - «
O 0 fT
x: o k\
o o: v*
• r v '.i r . ruT^nm .1 '^zi



^

___^^_ , ; r -'".%

1 1 1 1
vj- ro CM — c
(•Uj'bs/6if) v nAgdojomo
i
*°



••• _j.






-in


. E
0
H—
0 ^
-CD 'CO
c
^^ o
 0
o ^ '•§
a> "o
^ a.
t£ u.
• O
O J2 r? en
-00 o ^r
— .2 H- <
o ° -o
co 42 Jg
o o
o a
Q . »|- .5-.
-2 ui <
•


o ^~

CM «
F3)
._
LL.
0
CM
>

-


-------
1
1
1
•
1





N^ I
+~
B>
(>
	 ^~
"MX
r


4|
^H^^^
^^f^^


\
1
1

o>
. *-
«/>
i
u.
O
2 «
"* ^j
£ o
0
"c
-^-
/

1


L,










1
O


E^'^IZ-Jr^
\
f " ' *•"-. . * ''.^ i


t .-"', - ---• - — - - •.-- -- .^ -'••"«•« •- j

).^r..^^,^._ ^, ,^ _ .VT^, . , j-^^,. TV W=^~ . , ^ .-!<- -^^«,..
-
'""''- .-I"--*......***- - . -, v -^ , c ,J^H
L 	 -. , ..... .,-j


^ Jv
•s § tf
0 0 *.
*J
.E j2 aj
-n o r>
o Q: //
^T-^U^""--." --1Z2

E:;:.;:::: i

ET iZ^

i i i i
CO <0 sj- CVJ C
0001 x (nAqdojomo/ uoqjoo) OJID^

o

o
- in

Q)
O 6
- CD ur
C/)
•o
O«^ rt_
• t u. <
 H-
£ ° U-
.tr >
O c w r-
— rirt ^\ c *-*—
— -2 o>
o Q Q.
•*- c*-
en o •—
> to
Q 0 '«
- CO - « .2
— a: s


o
W 00
a>
V-
o .s*
r CJ "-
>

-------
 I
 I
 I
 I
             Pesticides
                    Pesticides are chemicals used to control unwanted or obnoxious


             animals and plants. Their use has grown dramatically  since the end


             of World War II.  Over 875 million pounds were produced in the United


V           States in 1965 which is a five fold increase over 1945.  The most


            " popular pesticides have been the chlorinated hydrocarbons including


•           DDT, Aldrin, Endrin, Lindane, Dieldrin, Heptachlor,  Chlordane, and


_           Toxaphene, to narae a few.  These have been popular because of their


•           ease of handling, persistence and their apparent lack of adverse


•           effects on higher order animals.  This lack of adverse effects has


             proven to be a delusion.  The persistent or hard pesticides are very


•           slow to break down and have accumulated in animals at the top of food


             chains.  As a result, bird populations, particularly aquatic birds,


•           have been decimated, fish have not been able to reproduce and some


•           food fish have been declared inedible because of pesticides concen-


             trated in their bodies.  The situation has become so alarming that


•           several states, including Illinois, have banned the  use of DDT.


                    The Mississippi drains a large agricultural area where the use


•           of pesticides is widespread, has a history of pesticide-caused fish


•           kills, and has pesticide-producing industries on its banks.   Pesticide


             samples were collected at four Mississippi River transects,  the  Missouri


•           transect, the River Des Peres and the Kaskaskia River.   See Figure 9,


             page 46.   One sample was collected at each of the five points on each
i

-------
 I
 I
              transect  and analyzed  for Lindane,  Aldrin,  Heptachlor,  Heptachlor
 |            Epoxide,  Dieldrin, Endrin o,p,DDT,  p,p'DDT   DDE,  DDD  Methoxychlor,
 _            Chlordane and Toxaphene.
 ™                   Paragraph  2d  of the Missouri standards  and SWB-13,  rule  2.01,
                                      l
 •            paragraph 5  of  the proposed  Illinois standards read "Substances toxic
             •to  humans, fish and  wildlife or detrimental to agricultural, mining,
 •            industrial,  recreational,  navigational  or other legitimate uses shall
              be  limited to non-toxic or non-detrimental  concentrations  in the
 •            stream. "
 •                   The National  Committee on V/ater  Quality Criteria states  that
              any addition of persistent chlorinated  hydrocarbon insecticides is
 •            likely  to result "in  permanent damage to aquatic populations and
              recommends that their  use should be avoided.   The  Committee further
 I            recommends that concentrations  ranging  from 1/10 to 1/100  of the 48
 •            hour median  tolerance  limit  valves  be tentatively  considered safe con-
              centrations.  The median  tolerance  limits (TLra), the  concentration
 •            that kills 50 percent  of  the test organisms  within a  specified  time
              span, has been  reported for  various  pesticides.   (Table  III-5A,
 m            Report  of the Committee on V/ater Quality Criteria.)   Table 7 shows
 •            the most  critical 48 hour Tlai values  for the pesticides  considered
              in this study and compares them with  the maximum concentration  found
 •            in the  streams.
                    Table  8  shows the distribution of each  individual pesticide
•            and of DDT and  its derivatives.  Each of the pesticides was found in

i

i

-------
I

I
             concentrations exceeding the tentative safe concentration at all
|           stations where pesticides were measured.  At station 202.5A in the
mm           Mississippi River the DDT concentration approached the 48-hour Tim
             for Daphnia pulexT an important link in aquatic food chains, and
•           was 96 times the tentative safe concentration.
                    At station 169E in the Mississippi River, the concentration
|           of Endrin was 36 times the tentative safe limit and the concentra-
—           tion of Dieldrin was more than 6 times the tentative safe limit.


I

I

I

I

I

I

I

1

I

I
_                    '                      U

-------
     FIGURE  9
LAKE  MICHIGAN  BASIN OFFICE
           Kerculcneumc

                Fesfus o
              - ST. LOUtS AREA STUDY
       LOCATION  MAP
    PESTICIDE   STATIONS
   U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
 FEDERAL WATER QUALITY ADMINISTRATION
Great Lakes Region    '      Chicago, Illinois
Chester
 M 103.7

-------
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
I
I

 0)   CO
^~»   c
 CO   O
CO   -H
     -P


I   I
-P   C
 nS   <1>
•p   o
 C   C
 fl)   O
E-*   O

 I   CO
 o>   n
•o   c
•H   O
 O   ^
•H   -P
-P   05
 CO   k
 aj   -P
     O
     §
     o
                         **
                         -ri
                         -P
                      Oj
                     CO
                     5S<
                     oj  4)  ts£
                      a  o  c
                     -p  c
                      c  o
                      o o
                     EH
                     3
                      OJ
                     I
                     I
                     -p
                      n
                                    to     CM
                                    o
                                    to
                                    o
                                     *
                                    to
§
 0)
I
 CO
 ed
•H
 E
 o
                                    O
                                          to
&
 o
 c
5
 to
                                           8
                                                  n
                                                        I
                                                         o
                                                         0)
                                                               vO
                                                               s
                                                                c^
                                                               §
                                                                       CO
                                                                       rH
                                     •>
                                   rH
                                                                      1
                                                                              CO
                                          O
                                          O
                                          c^>
                                           9)
                                           C
                                           O
                                          -P
                                           m
                                                                              u

                                                                               •
                                                                             CU
<
iH
  I
                                                                                               43
                                                                                                S
                                                                                                o
                                                                                                C
                                                                                               cS
                                                            c
                                                           $

-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
 Station

 Miss. 202.5
 Missouri 7«4**
 Miss. 195
'Miss. 169
 Miss. 109.7
 ~Lver Des Peres
  iskaskia River
 Station


 Miss.  202.5
 Missouri 7.4**
 Miss.  195
 Miss.  169
 Miss.  109.7

 River  Des Peres
 Kaskaskia River
 Station


 Miss.  202.5
 Missouri  7-4**
 Miss.  195
 Miss.  169
 Miss.  109.7

 River  Des Peres
 Kaskaskia River
                              Table 8

                    Distribution of Pesticides


                           Lindane ng/1
Missouri Side
A
t
87
5
5
9
18



- B

24
18
11
8
12


Aldrin
C

NF
NF
7
1
13
6
26
ng/1
Missouri Side
A
87
112
38
72
71



B
59
78
112
77
52


Endrin
C
28
80
9
67
54
72
40
ng/1
Missouri Side
A
41
NF
7
28
25


B
6
NF
41
16
23


C
6
4
NF
17
25
24
24
Illinois Side
D

27
2
13
6
17



E

3
21
21
24
6



Illinois Side
D
36
125
65
98
73



E
4l
66
56
109
30



Illinois Side
D
6
8
NF
56
33


E
12
NF
21
72
13



-------
 I
 *
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
I
 I
 I
I
I
I
I
                             Table 8

               Distribution of Pesticides  (Cont'd)
Station

Miss. 202.5
Missouri 7.4**
Miss. 195
Miss. 169

River Des Peres
Kaskaskia River
  Heptachlor ng/1

Missouri Side

A '     B      C
              Illinois Side

              D      E
56
 4
12
2k
20
10


 6
NF

 4
10

 9
18
19
 3
IT
36
 8
19
11
37
                     Heptachlor Epoxide ng/1

                       Missouri Side        Illinois Side
Station

Miss. 202.5
Missouri 7.4**
Miss. 195
Miss. 169
Miss. 109.7

River Des Peres
Kaskaskia River
       B
              D
             . D
21
8
4
hi
25


16
12
7
3
6


26
9
11
11
9
7
7
10
5
5
26
9


14
13
6

8


                        Total DDT  (ng/1)
                (o,p DDT, p,pf DDT, DDE and DDD)
                       Missouri Side
                     Illinois Side
Station
Miss. 202.5
Missouri 7.4**
Miss. 195
Miss. 169
Miss. 109.7

River Des Peres
Kaskaskia River
A
330
121
119
136
138


B
161
127
82
119
51


C
225
78
11
148
97
121
227
D
96
212
65
254
139


D
127
90
147
421
39



-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
                              Table 8
                                         k

               Distribution of Pesticides  (Cont'd)


                          o,p DDT ng/1
 Station


 Miss.  202.5
 Missouri 7.4**
 Miss.  195
 Miss.  169
 Miss.  109.7

 River  Des Peres
 Kaskaskia River
Station

Miss. 202.5
Missouri 7.4**
Miss. 195
Miss. 169
Miss. 109.7

River Des Peres
Kaskaskia River
Station

Miss. 202.5
Missouri 7.4**
Miss. 195
Miss. 169
Miss. 109.7

River Des Peres
Kaskaskia River
Missouri Side
A ,
70
NF
13
32
25



B C
39 58
7 7
10 NF
21 31
• 23 21
48
82
p,p' DDT ng/1
Missouri Side
A
103
98
75
51
51



B C
85 92
75 45
31 NF
78 81
NF 48
28
111
DDD ng/1
Missouri Side
A
43
15
22
33
44

B C
21 16
NF NF
17 NF
14 21
18 19
25
' 14
Illinois Side
D
8
4
46
104
44



E
49
22
55
156
13



Illinois Side
D
9
199
NF
96
65



E
36
32
70
122 '
10



Illinois Side
D
22
5
10
15
21

E
26
20
10
61
10


-------
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
I
I
I
                            Table 8
                                         i

               Distribution of Pesticides  (Con'd)



                            DDE ng/1
Station


Miss. 202.5
Missouri 7.4**
Miss. 195
Miss. 169

Miss. 109.7


River Des Peres
Kaskaskia River
Missouri Side
A
*».
112
8
9
20
18



B

16
44
2k
5
10


Dieldrin
C

58
13
11
15
10
21
20
ng/1
Missouri Side
A
22
NF
18
19
16


B
11
16
42
10
13


C
73
20
9
37
15
6
42
Illinois Side
D

57
4
9
1*0
9



E

16
17
11
82
7



Illinois Side
D
14
NF
42
75
21


E
16
12
28
84
18


Station


Miss. 202.5
Missouri 7.4**
Miss. 195
Miss. 169
Miss. 109.7

River Des Peres
Kaskaskia River
NF - Not detected at sensitivity of test

** Transect located entirely in state of Missouri.  Point A is across the
   South bank and point E is near the North bank.
                                50

-------
I

I
             Sediment Chemistry
•                   The chemical content  of the  bottom sediments  is an  indicator
             of the prevalent and historical quality  of the  superimposed water mass.
•           Sediments accumulate over a period of time and  integrate the varying
                                      1
•           water quality conditions  that occur  during that time.
                     The use  of sediment chemistry as an indicator of stream quality is
•           relatively new and may "be imprecise  in a river where  the bottom is  shifted
             "by currents.   Few data have been published on the concentration of  pollution
•           indicating substances to  be found in sediments.  Experience with more than
•           fifty different  harbors in the Great Lakes has been accumulated during
             recent studies to determine the degree of pollution of the  sediments within
•           these harbors.  Sediment  criteria, developed on the basis of this experience,
             have been applied to the  appraisal of the Mississippi River bottom  sediments.
•                   As shown in Table 9,  iron and phosphorus dry weight concentrations
•           exceeded 15,000  and 500 rag/kg respectively in all samples.  These values are
             indicative of polluted sediments.  Phenol concentrations exceeded 1.0 mg/kg
•           and were considered high  for  a number of locations including the Missouri
             River, the River Des Peres, the Kaskaskia River and the Mississippi River
I           at miles l8U.6 and 183.5-   At Mississippi river mile  18U.6  the sample was
•           collected at  the mouth of the outfall to the Chain of Rocks Cenal,previously
             discussed on  page 26.  A  sample was  also collected 300 feet downstream from
•           the outfall.   Both samples indicated a heavily polluted sediment.  At the


                                             51
I

I

-------
 I
 I
 I           latter station the volatile  solids were 12.3 percent, phosphorus


 «           exceeded  5,000 mg/kg and organic nitrogen exceeded 3,500 mg/kg.  Other


             constituents were equally ,high as recorded in Table 9-  The sediment


 I           samples at  Stations 18U.1E and 183. 5E were affected by the outfall to


             "the  Chain of Rocks Canal.  These samples had phosphorus concentrations


 |           that reached 729 tng/kg and ammonia nitrogen of 90 mg/kg.  At mile point


 _           1T1.5A, upstream from the LeMay Sewage Treatment Plant outfall, the


 *           sediments were moderately polluted but had a high concentration of


 I           arsenic (7.79 mg/kg) and chromium (6h mg/kg) that may be due to the


             proximity of the National Lead Company discharges.  Iron at 31>000 mg/kg


 I           was  also  high at this station.  At Mississippi River mile 1^0. IE the


 —           sediment  constituents were generally lowest in value of any of the


 *           stations  studied in this investigation.  The concentrations of phosphorus


 fl           and  iron, 533 and 15,1^7 mg/kg respectively, were higher than the


             concentrations of these constituents found in polluted harbors of the


 |           Great  Lakes.  It is possible that natural iron compounds are present

 _           in the area, which elevate all of the iron concentrations.


 •                  The sediments in the Missouri River (mile 7.*0 contain concentrations


 •           of phosphorus and ammonia (7^5 and 8l mg/kg respectively) that were high


             and  may reflect the heavy use of fertilizers in the Basin.  The phenol


 M           concentration was 1.13 nig/kg, which is high in view of the fact that no


             phenol was found in the water samples during the present study.






I                             •           '„                      .



I

-------
I

I
                     The  sediments  in  the River Des Peres were heavily polluted
m            with very high  concentrations  of COD, phosphorus, ammonia, organic
•            nitrogen, phenol,  sulfide, zinc, lead, and chromium.
                     The  Meramec River, sediments were moderately polluted but con-
•            tained  high concentrations of  metals such as iron, barium, titanium,
              manganese,  lead and zinc.  The sources of these metals have not been
I            determined.
•            /       The  sediments  in  the Kaskaskia River were light to moderately
              polluted.   The  concentrations  of phosphorus and iron were higher
•            than in sediments  from Great Lakes harbors but lower than most in
              this study.


I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I                              .                                     .

I

-------
1
• Table 9
Results of Sediment Chemistry Sampling
Station Tot. Solids Vol. Solids C.O.D. Phosphorus NH^-N
I % ' ' '
• Miss. 140.1 E 71.3
Miss. 183.5 E 61.2
IMiss. 184.1 E • 67.5
Missouri 7 -4 E 64.3
1 River Des Peres 1.0 C 51.8
Meramec River 6.9 C 45. 2
Kaskaskia River 4.5 C 62.4
§Miss. 171.5 62.9
(above LeMay outfall)
IMiss. 184.6 (Chain of 46.2
Rocks Canal)
300' below outfall 44.2
1
Phenol Arsenic
• mg/kg mg/kg
Miss. 140.1 E 0.279 2.67
IMiss. 183.5 E 1.53 3-51
Miss. 184.1 E 0.218 2.30
Missouri 7.4 E 1.13 2.96
• River Des Peres 1.0 C 2.27 5.69
Meramec River 6.9 0.48 5-31
Kaskaskia River 4.5 C 2.56 2.80
•Miss. 171-5 0.345 7-79*
(above LeMay outfall)
•Miss. 184.6 (Chain of 3.95 3.90
Rocks Canal) at
1 out fall
300' below outfall 2.43 12.0
I*Difference in values compared to
Table 9, is due to samples being
sample location.
1
1
%
2.5
3-3
3-2
3-9
7-5
4.6
3-3
*-3

16,8

12.3

Sulfide
mg/kg
9.8
40
17
5.4
105
33
17
40

61


415
mg/kg
15,410
39,090
31,945
34,770
107,430
37,310
34,545
33,060

305,000

176,000

Iron
mg/kg
15,147
17,812
17,333
17,885
24,131
32,965
22,596
31,637*

33,333


53,620
mg/kg mg/kg
533
634
729
765
6,660
438
649
824

5,600

5,570

Barium
Kg/kg
289
216
144
359
386
575
192
251

329


244
similar sample location shown
taken at a


54-
different



time and

„

5.2
56
90
81
421
16
24
213

662

584

Titanium
mg/kg
4.2
4.9
1.5
3.1
5.8
8.9
4.8
6.4

2.2


2.3
on page 36,
imprecise



Organic N
mg/kg
371
773
837
708
1,719
1,204
74l
832

4,688

3,686

Manganese
mg/kg
251
534
415
417
790
1,451
614
242

303


500



•


-------
1
g • Table 9 (cont'd)
Copper Cadmium Nickel
• Station mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg
Miss. 140.1 E 11 1.4 3^
IMlBB. 183.5 E 23 1.6 29
Miss. 184.1 E 21 NF 33
Missouri 7-4 E 17 , MF 33
I River Des Peres iJo C 37 5«8 68
* Meramec River 6.9 C 24 NF 64
Kaskaskia River 4.5 C 18 NF 35
I Miss. 171.5 - 37 -1.6 38
(above LeMay outfall)
| Miss. 184.6 (Chain of 63 4.3 121
Rocks Canal) at
— outfall
• 300' below outfall 102 2.3 127
1
NF - None found within sensitivity of test.
| All results are reported on a dry weight basis.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Zinc
mg/kg
69
44
37
30
212
159
27
105
216
249
Lead
mg/kg
45
74
42
53
407
188
59
87
^35
44l
Chromium
mg/kg
21
36
39
9-3
^3
35
6.4
64
158
206

-------
I
•           National Lead Company




                    Special investigations were made of National Lead Company




•           outfalls and of bottom sediments immediately above and below the



• .          outfalls because information furnished by the Company indicate that



             the provisions of the 1958 enforcement conference "Pollution of



I           Interstate Waters, Mississippi River, St. Louis Metropolitan Area"




             have not been complied with.



•                  National Lead Company, St. Louis, Missouri, in March 1968,



•           applied to the Corps of Engineers for a permit to construct an



             underwater sewer outfall approximately 270 ft. into the



I           Mississippi River.  This outfall would discharge approximately



             22,000,000 gallons per day of highly acidic untreated wastes con-



•           taining approximately 1,330 tons of solids (210 tons of which are



m           settleable solids) at an average pH of 1.8.  The waste results from




             the manufacture of titanium dioxide for paint pigments and is now



•           discharged from several individual outfalls at the river's edge.



                    FWQA, after a review of waste discharge data, objected to



•           the issuance of the permit on the following basis:



•                  1)  Wastes from National Lead Company's St. Louis, Missouri



             Plant are now discharged untreated to the Mississippi River; •



•                  2)  The proposed project to discharge these wastes at a



             different location in the river where greater dilution and dis-



•           persion takes place does not change the quality or strength of the



•           wastes in any way;




                    3)  The FWQA does not condone the continuing discharge of



•           untreated wastes to the Mississippi River;








I

-------
I
•
•                  4)   The  continuing discharge of these wastes is causing
             water  quality degradation due to color, turbidity and suspended
             solids.
•                  In addition to the above formal objections voiced in
             correspondence,  FWQA considers these discharges to be incompatible
•           with Mississippi River water quality standards and the St. Louis
             Area Enforcement Conference recommendations.  The present discharge
•           is unsightly, -heavily laden with solids, highly acidic, and ex- •
•           hibits a definite color.  The result is the discoloration of the
             downstream  river banks, the accumulation of bottom deposits,
•           numerous unknown chemical reactions, and an aesthetic nuisance.
                    On December 12, 1969, nine samples were collected by boat
•           from the outfalls of the National Lead Company,  Samples were
•           taken  at each major discharge to the river in order, working from
             south  to north.  Sample No. 1 \/as taken at the mouth of the
•           southernmost outfall pipe.  The remaining samples were taken from
             small  streams formed by the discharge of several outfalls each
•           and are a composite of the wastes from these outfalls.  The shallow
•           water  and soft sludge banks made it impossible to reach the in-
             dividual outfalls.  Thus, the results of the analyses of these sam-
•           pies,  presented in Table 10, are given in qualitative terms only.
                    Table 10 shows that outfall streams 3, 4, 5 and 9 were ex-
|           tremely acid and had very high concentrations of dissolved solids, COD,
             phosphorus, sulfate, chloride, magnesium,  sodium,  iron,  manganese,
I
I
I

-------
I

I                                                   •
              nickel, zinc and chromium.  Outfall No. 1 contained a high con-
•            centration of titanium.  Outfalls 1, 3, 5> 7 and 9 contained high
_            concentration of arsenic.  Outfalls 5 and 9 had particularly high
*            arsenic concentrations containing 16,300 ug/1 and 6,800 ug/L,
•            respectively.
                     Increased arsenic concentrations were observed in the bottom
•            sediments downstream from National Lead's waste discharges.  Up-
_            /stream from National Lead Company, arsenic concentrations ranged
™            from 1.5 to 2.3 rag/kg of sediment; in a sijc-mile reach downstream,
•            concentrations ranged from 5.7 to 96.4 mg/kg of sediment (Table 6).
                     Outfalls 3,  4 and 9 contained very high concentrations of
•            iron (Table 10).  Iron accumulations on glass substrates and in river
^            sediments are illustrated in Figure 10. Although these results are
•            only qualitative, the high concentrations correlate with an estimated
•            discharge of more than 200 tons of iron per day by the National Lead
              Company.
I

I

I

I

I
I                                            53

I

-------
1
1
IA
I"tn
0
0-
O
•O
1 I2"
0
A
1 I
\ 10-
1 / !
/ c
1 ' - o
\J
1
1
1
0)
T3
| 5 B-l
!• ^
o 4_
i :
c
• * 3"
1 i
E 2-
I : ,
~~ i ~
1
^ \j
m 2
1
Figure 10
1

1

'

National Lead Co.
1 Outfalls
* ^
X
X
X
1 ^
X1
^xx"
X
/ ^
^^/
*"
1 1 1 i 1 I 1
'3 172 171 170 169 168 167 166
River Miles

National Lead
Co. Outfalls \
l^
i In
i ' \
t \
|
' »
V
\
\
1--^--*
i
^ 	 1
1 k i i 1 i i
IO 2OO 190 180 170 160 150 140
River Miles

Iron Accumulation on Glass Slides
and in Bottom Deposits.
so

-------
I
I
I
                                          Table 10
                      Results of National Lead Outfall Sampling
I
I
             Dis. Solids      Susp. Solids    Turbidity   True Color  Spec. Cond.
  Sample         mg/1              mg/1           JCU         Units     umho/CM      pH
    1            585               145  -       25           5             725      6.45
    2            480                90          5.6         10             670      6.65
    3          9,010 *             260          2.2         20          16,000      2.00
    4         40,330 *             290          65          50          56,000      1.65
    5         21,905 *           6,635          2.4         25          51,000      1.55
    6       '     445             3,160          .99         20             720      7.25
    7         /   440               160          .85         20             TOO      6.15
    8        /   425               125          -46         60             620      6.50
    9        / 5,255 *           3,855          100          5          17,000      1.75

    Sulfuric acid in effluent may cause result to be high.
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
                                            60
             Acidity          C.O.D.          Tot. Phos.  NH^-N       KO^+NO-j-N     Org. N
 Sample       mg/1            mg/1            mg/1. asP   mg/1          mg/1         mg/1
    1            47          "33             0.704     0.45           1.3          1.0
    2            69              30             0.464     0.68           1.7          1.0
    3          4,000             252             2.13      0.87           0.07         1-3
    4         19,125           1,226             3.20      0.75           0.14         2.5
    5         12,200           1,311             26.0      1.3            0.15         4.1
    6           l4o             114             5.33      0.95           O.ll         2.4
    7            99              4o             0.575     0.57           0.08         1.1
    8           159              31             0.55T     0.68           0.12         1.0
    9          1,575             176             7.46      l.l            0.08         1.1

-------
1
1
1
1








1












1








1



1
1
Table 10
Results of National Lead Outfall Sampling (Cont'd)
Fluoride Arsenic Sulfate Chloride Silica MBAS Calcium
Sample
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
8
9

Sample
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
NF - None


Sample

1
2
3
^
5
6
7
8
9



mg/1
0.70
0.72
0.92
2.1
, 2A
/ 0.82
/ 0.67
/ 0.67
1 1.8
Magnesium
Jig/1
20
26
48
320
90
36
24
28
52
found within

Nickel
mg/1

0.059
0.031
0.352
0.648
0.604
0.062
0.043
0.034
0.426



ug/1
151
99
144
66
16,300
89
171
83
6,800
Sodium
mg/1
61
50
66
116
116
51
49
48
87
sensitivity

Zinc
mg/1

0.122
0.070
3.82
20.3
2.58
0.216
0.048
0.052
0.928


-
mg/1
. 310
235
6,600
30,000
20,000
188
184
150
4,900
Potassium
mg/1
6.0
5.4
16
46
22
5-5
5.3
5-3
9-2
of test.

Lead
mg/1

0.062
0.102
0.164
0.364
0.412
6.52
0.034
0.078
0.328


61
mg/1 mg/1 mg/1 mg/1 "
22
23
24
4o
132 2
28
24
22
55 1
Total Iron
mg/1
24.9
4.88
2138
7420
1.78
39-0
2.32
4.92
8190


Chromium
mg/1

0.122
0.070
0.165
0.310
0.424
0.336
0.058
0.087
0.396



50 0
45 o
135 0
75 0
,327 0
289 0
99 0
70 o
,553 0
Manganese
mg/1
0.328
0.166
15.1
83.6
27.4
1.2
'0.166
0.154 '
12.9


Barium
mg/1

1.44
1.43
0.362
0.874
NF
1.19
0.380
1.19
0.480



.16 32
.15 47
.10 70
.08 331
.09 74
.20 327
.13 48
.13 49
.08 62









Copper Cadmium
mg/1
0.035
0.021
0.031
0.028
3-41
0.065
NF
0.016
1.67


Titanium
mg/1

9.60
3.00
0.033
0.06l
0.177
0.005
0.004
0.004
0.059



mg/1
0.003
0.002
0.005
0.018
0.011
0.005
NF
NF
0.002














•


-------
APPENDIX
        62

-------
Appendix Microbiology Results
 MISSISSIPPI RIVZ? STUDY
      .ST.  LOUIS 1SACH
    Dececber 1-12, 1969
DATS ,. LM30 NO.*
Missouri River M.?.?.^A

Dec. 1 No S&nple
2 5lt6l
. 3 5377
U 556U
5 5602
6 56-SU
" 7 5737
. - 8 580^
9 5863
10 59Vr
11 5961
- 12 6069
Average
Missom-i River M.P. C.
Dec. 1 Ho Se.role
2 5^62
3 5379
U 5565
5 560U
6 5635
7 5739
8 5805
9 5365
10 . 5948
11 ' 5953
12 **
Average
Missouri P.iver M.?. S
Dec. 1 No Sarrole
2 5^63" *
- -3 5331
U 5566
5 5605.
6 5635
• 7 57^1 ..
8 5S:5
9 5357
10 59^9
11 55-3
12 6C£0
CO'Ji:TS/10-0 ML
TOIAL COLIFO?.:.:

1

68,000
65,000
1*7, coo
28,000
6H,COO
52,0-0-0
1}S,000 -
Ui,o-oo
80,000
1^2,000
U8,OGO
53,000 •

^ _
56,000
53,co-o .
59,000
-. 21;, COO
FiCAL COLIi-'OP.M
-

—
2,000
790
1,200
920
1,200
2,300
1,800
2,2OO
3,000
1,600
l,lfOO
1,700


2,200-
1,100
970

- laboratory Accidentlf',200
72,000
57,000
8,200-
53,000 '
39,000
_55->Cj2p_
If8,000

«_
61,000
60, ceo
117,0:0
21, CCO
62, coo
£o,c:o
55,c:3 .
• 73, era
U7,cco
36, ceo
3o,c:o
2,500
2,500
l,7oo
2,700
x 2,3CO
JLv2_QQ__
&/100

_
2,liOO
*910
1,100
950 ...
1,9CO

3*cco
2, CCO
••2., SCO
1,5CO
1,300
FECAL STRSPi'CCCCCI


—
1*,1}00
3,900
3,300
-2,000
2,300
2,50-0
1,900
8,200
6,000
3,600
2,1*00
"3,730-


5,000
UjliC-0
2,lfOO
1,800
2,700
3,700
3,600
IT, SCO
5*8co
l;,3CO
2_,3QO_
3,700

—
1; SCO
ItJlOO
3,oco
l,6co
2,500

li!l:CO
1|,3CD
5,500
3, 6co
2, 8co
5l,coo   63
                        1,700

-------
DATE •
IA30 NO.*
1
Missisci-foi Pdvcr M.P. *
Dec. 1
2
3-

•5
6
7
8
9
10
n
12
Average
Kississi
Dec. 1
2
3
1*
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Average
Ko Sarnple
5U6J*
5332
5567
5607 .
5637
5727
5807
5853
5950
5996
6031

CCUZiTS/lCO :2, '
TOiAI, COLIr'ORM 7ZCAL COLlf C?_M
J02.5 A
—
800
970 .-
700
630
- 810
l*6o
l,8co
380
3^0
390
- . • itoo
TOO •
rai River M.P. tv*.} C
No S'-inole
5^65
533^
5563
5609
5633
5729
5803
5878
5951
5993
603?
-
Mississi pi River M.?. 2
Dec. 1
2
3
• k
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Average
No Sarrole
5^66
5386
5569
5611
56-39
5731
5809
5372 .
5952
6coo
6033

~_
1,200
• 2,300
• 1,900
610
1,000
730
• 1*20
720 .
1*1*0
360
390.
920
02.5 E
~f -
2,100
• 2,800
3,300
l,6oo
£&0
810
610
770
1,1*00
700
570
1,UOO •

- _
20
1*6
ko
- 56
210
1*0
1*6
1*00
- 30
56
92
-.$'' , .

_•
50
Laboratory Accider.
. 50
160 '
• 1*6 •
1*0
70

30

60
' 56
-
— ^
90
' 2kO
150 .
21*
3*iO
1*0
180
660
160
6k
90
190
xiCAL STP.Ir-rCCCCCj.

• m--m ~
< 10
30

6
22
32
72
36

12
33
28

•^
- 20
; no ,
26
16
2k
26
12
1*6
90
18
1*6
39

'
30
150
no
100
180
ito

110
180
. -38
^
100
64

-------

DATE

MISSIES?
Dec. 1
2
. 3
it
5
6
7
-8
9
10;
11
/
T O'
Average
Mis sis s:
Dec. 1
2
3
It
5
6
.- 7
8
9
10
11
12
Average
Mississ:'
Dec. 1
2
3
It
5
. 6
7
. 8
9
10
11
12
Avera.-e

L?-SO 110.*

Dpi. luver M.P.
No S5.Eole
5^7. *
5337
5570
5612
5690
5732
5810
5873
5953
59^9
603^

-)pi Eiver M.P.
Ko S?.Tt>le
5^68
5339
5571
56lU
5691
•573^
5811
5875
595^
5993
6035

-,Ti ~2-,\-=>-r '.T "^
O-J— • . — t Nrf _ *.«i. •
No S3rrole
,5^69
'5391
5572
5616
•5692
5735
5312 -
5577
5955
5995
^s\ ^ ^
cOoo
V
C
TOTAL coi-iyo?;--
-
-95-0 A
_
2,^00 '
170,000
. 2$, COO
1 32,000
58,OOO
65,000
1*1,000
67,000 .
57,000
• 32,000
1*5,000
5^,coo
-95.0 C •
,
Vf,ooo
- 1*9,0-00
39,coo
its, coo
59, ceo
51,000 •
1*5,000
TUjOOO
5i*,ooo
1*7,000
36,000
• 1*9,000
-95- oz

1*3, coo .
9,6po
3c-Vv-\
,5^0
1*1, COO
8,500
6,200
5,6co
38, coo
3,800
21, COO
3, coo
' - 17,000
CO'J.:T3/iCO ML
;-^CAL COLITCf'M FECAL ST?2..?-IO:CCCI
80
99-0
1,200
1,100 •
1,500
3,700
3,6co
i*,i*oo
2,300 .
2,100
1,500
2,000"
2,300
' - : 820 '
850
910
- 1,700
1,900
2,100'
2, UOO
2,^00
1,200
1,200
1,600
2,2CO
1,200-
1*60
2,1*00
i,fcoo
980
1,000
2,900
600
1,500
•3^0 .
T,I5o~
Laboratory Accident
3,000
1,600
It, 100
.- 2,800
it, 700
It, 1*00
1*,700
3,&oo
. 1,600
- 3,200
3,^00
it, 800
3,700
It, 100
2,600
3,ico
1*,2CO
5,200
3,300
It, 800
2,500
3,500
3,800
3, h 00
220
230
560
8,100
2,300
1,700
800
•2,300
. 320
670
1,900

-------

DATS'

Mississi
Dec. 1
2
-. 3 "
~k
5
6
7
8
9
10
n
12
Average
Mi s s i s s 1
Dec. 1
2
3
U
5
6
- 7
8
9
10
11
• 12
Average
Mississi
Dec. 1
2
3
U
5
6
7
. 8
9
10
11
12
Average

LJ'SO i:0.*

»pi Fiver M.P. .
Ho S&,Tole
5VTO
5392
5573
5617
5693
5737
5813
5873
5956
6001
6087

>?i Kivar i'.P.l5
Ho Ssj^ole
5^71
539^
5571!
5619
5 SsU
5739
58lU
5S5o
5957
6003
6033

-oi River M.?. :
?To Sa.-ole
5^72
5395
5575
5c21
5695
57^1
5315 -
5332
595?
6COp
• 6059
--
•
TOTAL COLIcORi1-'!
Jo— i r- •
.l33.5 A
. _
110,0-00
100,000
39,000
, '28,000
7^,000
93,000
6U,ooo
83,000 .
69,000
27,000
38,000
66,000"'
3-5 c .
_. "
26,000
. 12,000
1U,000
13,000
33,000
20,000
31,000
97,000'
20,000
3U,OOO
11,00-0
• 28,000
33-5 3
T ^
• 36,000
6i;,ooo
25,000
66, coo
27,000
if 5, COO
3^,000
100,000
62,000
. 39,cco
U3,o:o
h9,coo
CGJIaS/100 :-j,
J7.CAL COLIr'OPM


•» . "
9,700
5,700
2,200
2,UOO
1,600
2,600
3,200
-3,600
U,200
3,800
550
3,600-


• 1,000
• . - 610
720
• 780
770
1,100
3,000
lU,OCO
1,500 •
1,600
600
2,300

^ _
2,6CO
2,700 .
3,100
6,200
2,900
3,700
3,900
6,1*00
U,2CO
3,200
3,2CO
3,800

iriCAL s-r^2?rcco:ci



9,800
12,000
.2,300
6,500
- 3,100
3,100
5,300
" - 7,800
6,300
2, If 00
^,500
5,700


190
160
1,300
12,000
• 616
1,600
2,100
11,000
2,6CD
2,100
1,600
3,200


•- 750
6,oco
22, COO
U9,cco
25,0:0
11,000
800
n,oco
26,000
7,900
36, ceo
17, coo
66

-------
DATS

Mississ3
Dec. 1
2
. 3
	 -it
5
6
7
8
'9
10
11 /
*/
Average;
Mississi
Dec. 1
2
3
U
5
6
- 7
8
9
10
11
12
Average
L'-KO NO.*

rpi River M.P.
Mo S?-*nole
5^73
5397
5576
5622
5695
57^2
5816
5833
No Sample
6006
6090

oni -Kiver M.P.
No £ Er.pl e
5W
5399
5577
562U
5697
57^
5817
588?
Ho Sarnie
6003
6091 -

Mississippi River M.?.
Dec. 1
2
3
It
5
6
' 7
. 8
9
10
11
12
Average
No Sa-role
5^75
5tol
5578
5626
•5693
57^5
58l3 .
583T
No- Sarnie
6003
' 609?
i
co/iiTs/ico :j,
TCTJAL COLIFOPJ-: I-iCAL COI,I?G5J-I
-77.0 A
" T- 	
52,COO
73,000
66,000
, 70,000
58,000
65,00-0
100,000
78,000
—
110,000
62,000
73, too '
-77.0 c .

• 43,000 •
. .55,00-0
'27,000
31,000
UU,000
.1*0,000
1*7,000
71,000.
—
2U,CCO
2U, 000.
.to, 600
-77.0 3

•Us, ooo
5^,coo
35,030
21;, CCO
26,000
58,000
31,0-00
• ' 35, COO
— .
33, COO
U6,coo
. 38,700

_^ll_
3,500
3,300
. 3, too
8,200
2,000
3,000
22,000 -
2,600
—
21,000
8,800
7,780 "
,

2,500
Ij200
1,200
1,000
970
1,500
1,900
1,600
__
1,800
900
1, toO

.
3, coo
2,900 -
1,100
3,600
900
3,200
700
1,800
_
"5,30-0
2,900. .
• 2,5to
J"ECAL SI^rTCCCCC


15,000
35,000
3,200
U7,ooo
- 3,500
if, 60-0
17,000
6,700
^-
32, coo
It, 200
l,68o


"3,100
2,500
3,ico
6,600
910
it, too
3,200
3,8co

3,900
2,200
3,370


330
1,000
6,900
11,000
It ,300
2,300
It, 200
2,300
' * ._
3,7CO
12, COO
t,8oo
67

-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

DATS


L?-BO NO.*

Mississippi Paver M.P. .
Dec. 1
2
. 3
k
5
6
7
8
9
•10
11
12/
Average
-f

Dec. 1
2
3
h
i 5
6
7
: 8
9
10
n
12
Average
Misclssi
Dec. 1
2
3
4
5
. 6
7
. 8
9
10
11
. 12
Average
5^02
5^76
5U99
5579 '
5627
5699
57^7
5819
5883
l;o Sanple
6011
6093


vpi ?iver }•!.?. I
5^
5V77
5501
5503
5629
5700
.57^9
5820
5890
l,ro Serrole
6013
60911

^•'oi- Pivsr i-'.''3. '
5^05
5V73
5503
5531
5631
'5701
5751
5S21 '
5552
?~<*v O rj "" •^*k^ fi
itO o3--L,»j.e
6015
6095
t
CO--J:;TS/IOO i*^
TOTAL CGLiyC?:' rZC.i-L COLlr CJC-1 /^CAL Sl.-'^l-TOCC-:::
73-0 A
71,000
7^,000
81,000
.36,000
28,000
110,000
' 69,000
66,000
63,000
•«* -
67,000
32,000
. 63,000 .

73-0 C . '
IA.OOO
29,000
- 35,000
28,000
26,000
1^9,000
1{5,000
5^,000
57,coo
—
27,000
28,000
• 58,000
73-0 E
68,000
" U9,cco
1A,OOO
29,000
23,000
Ul,COO
lt3,OOO
• 28,00-0
*! | ^ 0*00
»-
*t5 C^O
30' ooo
-. '41, COO

2,500
5,1^00
3,600
91*0
2,200 •
7,^00
U,500
6,800
2,700
^r
11,000
U,500
• 4,700

•
1,800
2,300
•1,900
. 890
1,300 .
1,100
1,900
3,^00-
2,500 .
—
2,200
1,200
1,900

3,900
• 3,^00
3,300 -
1,100.
2,800
2,800
3,200
.2,300
2,300
_
• 5,90-0
2,500 ;
3,100

6,800
30,000
17,000
3,600
11,000
.. 15,000
9,7co
15,000
13,000

111, 000
111, 000
1^,000


1,000
2,500
2,100
2,700
It, 100
2,100
2,20-0
3,300
5,200
_
1,900

2,800

It, ICO
750
1,70-0
8,100
5 3 600
3,300
2,700
1,500
3-, 200

3,300
2,1:-00
57300"
63

-------
DATS
River De
Dec. 1
2
. 3
• It
5
6
7
.8
9
10
*
.*/
Average
Missies:)
Dec. 1
2
3
U
5
6
7
8
9
10
n
12
Average
Mississf;
Dec. 1
2
3
if
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Average
L?-30 NO.*
3 Ecres l.OC
*-*
- 5^96
*-*
5599
5581
5719
*-*
5839
59^2
5932
6o5U
6113

bpi Rivc-r M.P.
5*H3
5^79
5509
5582
5636
5702
5756
5822
5897
5955
6020
6c=6

Tt>i K-'ver M.?.
5^15
5^30
5511
55S3
5633
5703
5753
5823 -
5S?9
5955
6022
' 6097

CGvfrTS/100 M,
TOTAL COLIi'Ol-i:-! ?ZCAL COLjLJC?M r^CAL ST?Z?iCC&:CI

< 100
10
< 100
. <. 100
< 10
< 10
Est. 60,0-00
2,100
< 10 .
< . 10
< 10
Ij2,000
8,700
s '_.
.62.0 A
61,000
50,000
-96,000
hit ooo
Ui,cco
U2,COO
220,000
55, COO
1(8,CDO.
51,000
31,000
• 33,000
' 6i«.,coo •
62.0 C
28, CCO
36,000
50,000
28,000
36,000
150,0-00
130,CO-D
25, CCO
£;,COO
itU,CCO
22,000
2 8, COO
• 53,000
.
< 10
< 10
< 100
< 100 .
' < 10
< 10'
30,000
< 100
< 10
< 10
< 10
1,100 .
2,600
•
1},2CO
^.500
•5,800
3.000
3,900 .
*J,5CO
18,000
5,500
5,000
U,ooo
3,500
3,700
5,600

l,6co
2,70-0 -
"1,1*00 '
i,Uoo
3,000
6,300
5,900
920
2,900
3,20-D
1,100
3,3CO
2,803

2liO .
l,6oo
< 100
• . 30
< 10
2,80-0
31,000
< 100
10
< 10
2^0
26,000 '
5,200

5,600
17,000
21,000
31,000
• 20,000
11,000
35,000
2,900
- • 11,000
22, CCO
3!*, cco
2,600
18,000

kho
• i,5co
2, too
3,5CO
9,800
12, CCO
m,coo
1,100
^,5CO -
3, too
3,600
8,700
5,400
69

-------
DATS
Mississ:
Dec. 1
2
. 3

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 /
Average •
\ir — '
Dec. 1
2
3
4
5
6
, 7
• 8
9
10
11
12
Average
Lt-so :;o.*
:,-oi River M.P.
5417
5481
5513
5534
5640
5704
5760
5824
5901
5957
6023
6093

Aiver 6.9 0
>TO qr.~pTe
5497
*-*
5600
55S2
5720
*-£
5340
5943
5933
6065
6ii4

Mississippi River- M.?.
Dec. 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
• 8
9
10
11
-. 12
Average
5^23
5^52
*-*
55°p
56^5
. «-*
5765
532p
5905 .
No- S^~T)le
6028
*-x-

/^ !*-• r- ~;-if* 1 T /•• f\ \ *r
C O'J. • i D / -'.'--• ' J . -Li
TO.'Aj, CO--""0.-L'-: .-iCAb CO^i'CrM j"SCAL STI-^rl'OCGC
.62.0 E V
' i}8,ooo
Us,' o-oo
200,000 '
65,000
te.coo
,'59,coo
iA,000
29,000
61,000
36,000
U3,cco
53,000
60,000

"_
1,800 -
700
600
- 150
29,OOO
k80
2,100
, ^,500
1,300.
180 •
360
3,770
5^.7 A
110,000
62,000
100,000
35, COO
35, ceo
81,000
110,000
71,000
6*1,000
__
36,000
4J!-,coo
68,000

3,100
3, too
U,800
2,000
2,600
2,500
2,000
l,6oo
- 5,900
l,6oo
2,900
3,^00"
•" 3., coo •

•
70
16
• " ho
16
'• 16 '
20
1^0
220
100
72
48
69

2,800
5,600
3,900
2,200 --
2,300
If, 800
5,700
6,20-0
4,000
»_
U, 300
. 3, £00
₯,200

320
900
. 1,800
5,300 •
5,300
2,200
2,500
360
6,OOO
2,100
2,700
" 2",i}CO
.2,700 .


60
80
8^
56
70
. 150
410
290
170
220
190
"160

1,200
9,3CO
8,600
3,500
16, ceo
17, ceo"
17,000
6,200
5,200

24;cco
26^COO
12,000
70

-------
DATS
Miss it si
Dec. 1
2
3
" 4
5
6
7
8
9
10
ll
12
Average
Missis?!
Dec. 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Average
Mi s s i s s f
Dec. 1
2
3
4
5
• 6
7
8
" 9
10
11
12
Average
12-50 NO.*
roi River M.p.
5425
5483
*-*
5586
5647
5706
5767 '
5826
5903
I~f~) O *-• y" -^ ^ r*
t \J Q — — • i >J U- t_-
6030 * -
6100

?t> i ?.iver M.p. '.
5427
5434
*-x-
5587
56^9
5707
•5769
5S27
5910
IIo S^iTole
6032
6101

roi ?iver M.P.
5432
5435
Ko S-'-Tvole
5533
5654
-5703
5774
5523 •
5915
5971
6037
• 6102
,
COUNTS /i co ML
TOTAL COLlr'OR.1-- JZCAL COLIFC?:-!
54.7 c
' 1^4,000
42,000
54,000
,29,000
' 15,000
42,000
63,000
31,000
54,000
^_
52,000
33,000
42,000
-54.7 E
55,000
37,000
- 46,000
31,000
33,000
55,000
54,000
31, coo
54,000
—
38,000
37,000
43,000
1-0.1 A
84,000
55,000
_^
46, 600
35,000
4S,ooo
110,000
30, coo
Broken in I?
37,ooo
22,000
4i, ceo
51,000

2,200 "
3,000
2,800
3,200
1,200
2,7OO
2,300
2,900
.1,300
•—
7,100
1,600
a-,800.

2,000
2,300
•2,200
3,100
2,200
2,500
3,900
2,500-
3,900
— _
4,100
2,7CO
3/000
-
4,600
6,600
^—
2,500
3,700
3,9^0
8,800
4,700
-nsit —
4,OOO
2,900
3,100
4,500
riCAL Si.-^S--'i'C':CCCj.

330
1,100
1,500
2,20-0
3,6co
•• 5,000
5,000
1,000
1,100
__
16,000
-3,100
3,6-00

220
730
1,300
3,603
3,500
7,700
7,100
3, coo
2,300
—
12, CCO
2,300
,4,030

4oo
- 25, coo
_~
1,200
15, CCO
16, CCO
' 27,000
3,600
—
"5,500
29, cco
3,2CO
• -13, ore
i
71

-------
/
DAI'S

MiGcifls:
Dec. 1
2
3 -
it
5-
6
7
8
•9
10
11 /
12
Average
k?-ssio?:
Dec. 1
2
3
U
5
6
7
8
9
10
n
12
Avei-a^e
Mississ:
Dec. 1
2
3
it
5
6
7
, 8
9
10
11
• 12
Average

L?
.) -*-i. r. — . c_ .-.• ^ *
5^35
5^33
1^I(^» O o — >-« T ft
itW Od — ,,'J-C
5591
5657
' 5711
5778
5331
5913
597^
60-rO
6105

C
TOTAL COI-ll-'O?::
-
LhO.l B
6it,ooo •
.53*000
—
lt2,COO
• 31, coo
' 38,000
350,000
180,000
^5,000
ii3,OOO
25,00^0
3^,000
61,000
ito.i c
53, coo
39,000
—
' 58, ceo
32,000
70,0-00
60, ceo
32, ceo
itl;,COO
to, coo"
2 8, COO
Ui,coo
45,000
-1^0.1 D
59,000
. 32^ coo
—
kh , coo
Ui,coo
37, COO
36,000
30,000
• .52, COO
38,000
23 ceo
32'COO
39,000 '
cc-'jyis/ico :-ij
I-vlCAL COI-i"?C?:-:
it, 100
it, 600
It, 300
2,300
2,600
9,700
5,600 .
it, 600
3,700
it, 100
2,200
MCO
2,800
3,500
'2, too
2,500 -
2,500
5,0-00
3,000
3,700
3,5CO
3, too
1,500
1,800
2, COO
2,500
2,900
2,100
l,6co
2,1; 00
1,700
3, too
• 2,900
3,5CO
1,300 .
2, too

J2CAL STRIPC'CCCCCI
• 2,800-
6, too
1,100
11,000
• lit, ceo
il2,OOO
it, 70-0
7,200
9,300
7,700
2,500
9*900
-2,600
2,300
7,600
8,900
7,600
19,000
1,600
5,600
7,500
9,300
2,600
6,800
320
2, ICO
6,500 .
it, ICO
it,2CO
6,500
760
It, SCO
7, ico
6,800
2,200
, TTioo.
72

-------
DATS
Mississ
Dec. 1
2
3 '
	 "-if
5
6
7
8
'9
10
n/
i
: /
Average
I'd &C-il'S
' Dec. 1
2
3
if
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Missis 3
Dec. 1
2
3
if
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Average
LM50 i;0.*
TO! River M.P.
5^36
5H89
Ko Ssnole
5592
5658
5712
Ho Ss-'role
5832
5919
5975
6041
6106


.TD-ci River I'.P.
•X-*
5^90
55^0
5593
5567
5713
Ko S^-role '
5833
5923
5976
6050
6107
ppi p.iver M.?.
*-*
5^91
55^2
5594
55^9
• 571^
5789
583^
5930 '
5977
6052
6103

C
TOTAL CGI-l^C.r-:
lifO.l E
111, 000
23,000
—
- 58,000
. • 27,000
1 52,C>00
—
2*1,000
1*7,000
ii2,000
38,000
56,000
~T~^ — ^TC7T~
-ti,^*-*
118.8 A
35,000
26, COO
if 3, CCO
if5,COO
38,000
39,000
—
39,000
33 ooo
32,000
27,000
34,000
113.3 c
if 5, CCO
2 if *COO
58, cco
if 5, COO
3^,000
33,coo
78,000
81,000
26,OCO
31,000
23,000
38,000
. if 3, ooo'
o-'.rrrs./joo ;.j,
.-r^CA.o CGi,L?"C?A rr^CAL ST?JL?'i&3C-
1,900
520
- -- 2,100
2,000.
2,200'
1,600
2,500
2,000
2,000
930
1,800-
1,9-00
1,300
2, if CO
'2,500
2,100
if, 100
3,100
3,200
2,80-0
3,^00
2,700
a, 700
2,1*00
3*300
1,700
3,700
2,900
2,700
if, 000
2,300
3,100
2,200
3,2CO
-3,9^0
3,cco
260
1,1;00
if, 100
2,900
3,700
if50
3,600
3,300
5,60-0
2,100
•2/fGO
560
1,200
5,900
2,900
. 9,000
12,000
3,900
i{,900
5,lfOO
12, CCO
3,700
5,600
630
if ,700
2, Uco
21, COO
7,800
13,000
8,700
if, 300
5, cco
• .Ujioo
12, COO
'if, ICO
7, SCO
73

-------

DAT3
Kississ
Dec. 1,
2
3
n
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
. • 12
Averf.ge
y?,cV'. c-v-

Dec. 1
2
3
It
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Average _
Mi s s i s c *
Dsc. 1
2
3
' L
5
. 6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Average
.
1:30 i;o.-"
-ord ?dver M.P.
•*-*
5U92
55^
5595
5571
5715
5791
5835
5932
5978
605^
6109

P 7? T ^ * -^ v IL S ^

**
*-x- '
*X-
56-01
5533
5721
5803
53!*1
59^
593U
Ho Sa.-rpls
::o Si-rpie

-roi p.iver M.?.
5^56
•K-X-
55^9
559o
5p7o
5715
5795
5335 -
5937
5979
6059 . .
cllO


TOJAL cor/i/o?;-i
118.8 E
22,000
58,000
35,000
Ul,000
1 33,000
33,000
31,000
39,00-0
20,000
1*1,000
25,0-00
26,0:0
3^,000


3,500
2, LOO
- 2,6-00
1,500
1,600
2, SOO
5.200
5.>200
11,000
7,500
—
— -
1*3,000
"-CP.7 A
1.3,000
LU , coo
3o ,000
2 5, COO
23,000
35, ceo
54,000
L. '4,0:0
2^, CCO
35,0:0

35,:::;
36,000
CO.:-; rs/ioo 11,
37-CAL COL I.;'0?.;-!

1,500"
2,600
570
2,000
1,100
1,500
2,60-0
2,500
2,600
2 , ^00
1,500
2,300
1,905


370
270
270
230
220
1*70
1,200
3s t. 5,000
2,6co
780
—
—
1,100

1,500
1,500
1,000 •
1,300
1,900
1,600
2,700
3,300
3,200
2,LCO
1 600
1,5:0
2,000

/ ijur^L- s i .-'J-. . i. :coc ~^L

360

1,100
3,30-0
3,000
3,200

2,6co
2,1(00
3,000
5,3CO
3,300
3,100


50

150
26
28
100
3,900
11,000
6,Uco
li, 100
—
r
2,600

530.
2, SCO
1,5CO
6,7co
l*,7co
6,8co
11, COO
15, ceo
3,100

6* -co
3,5:3
5,600
74

-------
DATS

Mississa
Dec. 1
2
3
•.u
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Average
Missies:
Dec. 1
. 2
3
if
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Average
*I^ke M:
**:ro nun*
uso no.*

j>pi River M.p.
5^58
5^9'-f
5551
5597
5578
5517
5798
5837
5939
5930
6o5l .
6111

pp5 River, M.?.
5USO
5^95
5553
5593
5530
5718
Ito Sarrole "
5833
59-1
5931
60 03
6112

ch i {r ? ji r 3. s i n r.~. '
er vas on tag.
CC
TOTAL CGLIl-'C^::
-09.7 C
38,000
^ 9, ceo .
lf7,COO
25, coo
•25,000
'• 20,000
51,0-00
i;2,OOO
2U,OOO
33, COO
29,000
U3, ooo '
56,000
109.7 E
32,000
23,000
12,000
' 30,000
32,000
20, COO
—
37, coo
12, COO
38, coo
52,000
38, ceo
30,000
::cors vere frc.i s=-





























— -^


i ~\ /*> t~\ i • —
/ J.vO ;-_LJ
L COLJl'Or:: •
2,900 .
1,800
1,0-0-0
1,700
2,200
1,600."
3,500
3,^00
3,500
2,000
2 , ifOO
2,UOO
3] t f\f*\
~ « ''rW \s
1,200
. 760
710
1,60-0
• 950 '
2,200
1,700' -
2,200
1-,UOO
2,000
1,500
FhCAL SI.^rrTCCC-:CI
650
2,800
2,900
U,ioo
5,200
7,800
6,800
7,200
3,000
3,100
11, COO
•"• 3,&oo
350
7^0
110
1,9-00
2,6co
2,700
6,100
3,3co
U,2CO
3,800
2,800
2,600
75

-------
I

I
_



™



I
_




•



I
_




™



I
_


'



I



I



I



I




I
                                         REFERENCES



             1.  Mississippi  River  Water Quality Evaluation and -Surveillance




                 Report from  St.  Louis,  Missouri to Chester, Illinois during




                 October 1967 to  Septenber I$6%  Metropolitan St.  Louis Severs
                                      \



                 District  ( not published)




             2.  Report of the Committee on Water Quality Criteria Federal




                 Water  Pollution  Control Administration (1968)




             3.  Water  Quality Criteria  - California State Water  Quality Con-




                 trol Board (1963)




             k,  Mississippi  River  Water Pollution Investigation  - St. Louis




                 Metropolitan Area  -  B.  State  Development Agency  (195*0




             5.  Public Health Service Drinking  Water Standard  -  1962 U. S.




                 Dept.  of  Health  Education and Welfare.




             6.  Smith, D.  and Lichtenbeg, J.J.  Determination of Phenols in




                 Surface Waters by  Thin  Layer  Chrcinatography Special Technical




                 Publication  No.  448.




                 American  Society for Testing  and Materials (1969)



             7.  FWPCA  Methods for  Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes




                 November  19£>9>   U.S.  Department of The Interior.


-------