7)Ut
905R80122
The Toxicity of Some Industrial Effluents and Their Effects Upon
Fox River Water Quality
ERL-D
U.S. EPA
Environmental Research Laboratory-Duluth
6201 Congdon Boulevard
Ouluth, Minnesota 55804
-------
Introduction
Toxicity tests were performed on industrial effluents to the Fox River
from Lake Winnebago at Neenah, Wisconsin to the river mouth at Green Bay.
A graduated series of effluent concentrations were made with Fox River
water (taken just upstream of the effluent discharge) as the diluent.
Tests were also performed on river water collected from ten stations
situated along the course of the Fox River.
From Neenah to Green Bay there are 22 municipal and major industrial
waste discharges to the Fox River, of which 14 are paper mill effluents.
The dilution water for effluent tests was taken immediately upstream of
the discharge, so that progressing from upstream to downstream, each
downstream discharge was diluted with river water bearing materials from
any upstream discharges. Thus, in our testing, we measured not the
specific toxicity of a given effluent, but rather the total toxicity of
the effluent and its receiving water.
Test Methods
For the effluent dilution (ED) tests, river water was collected on the
same day as the effluent as a grab sample just upstream of each discharge.
The effluent was collected as a 24-hour composite sample by continuously
pumping a small flow from the discharge. The ambient water samples were
collected as grab samples from stations identified in Figure 1.
At the end of the sampling, the samples were brought to the laboratory
and placed in a constant-temperature room at 6°C. Tests were begun the
following day. A portion of the sample was used daily and the remainder
retained in cold storage. At the beginning of each test day, the sample
portion to be used was obtained from the cold room and warmed to 24°C
prior to use. The effluent concentrations were made by measuring
proportionate effluent and diluent (river) water in graduated cylinders
and mixing each concentration in a 4000 m beaker. The samples were near
to or above DO saturation following warming to 24°C, so aeration was used
briefly to bring DO levels to 9 mg/1 or less if supersaturation was present,
The pH, DO and temperature were measured daily both as the initial values
of test water to be used and as final values in test water before it was
discarded.
As test solutions were changed daily, fish larvae and daphnids were
exposed to a fresh sample of the effluent or river water each day.
The glass, fathead minnow, larval, test chambers were 12" x 6" x 4" deep
and were divided by 3 glass partitions, resulting in 4' compartments 5" x
3" x 4" deep. A narrow channel was left along one side 1" x 12" x 4"
deep; each of the 4 compartments was connected by a stainless steel screen
end to it. The compartments could thus be filled and drained using the
channel without seriously disturbing the test fish. As there was a water
connection between compartments, they cannot be considered true replicates
in the statistical sense. There was essentially no interchange of water
between compartments and accordingly, on a practical basis they were
considered to be working replicates.
-------
The larval compartments wre cleaned of wastes daily by siphoning. Great
care must be taken in this procedure not to siphon the larval fish, but
by using a small diameter siphon with a glass tube on the cleaning end,
this problem was minimized. Additional test solution was removed from
the common channel to 1 cm depth. Then 2000 ml of new test solution was
slowly added into the channel, refilling all compartments.
Newly hatched brine shrimp were fed at the rate of .1 ml per compartment
3 times daily. With this feedig regime, live brine shrimp nauplii were
available as food to the larval fish during the entire daylight period of
16 hours. Fish were counted daily and at test termination, the fish were
counted and preserved in 4% formalin in glass vials. Larval fish were
rinsed in distilled water as preparation for weighing. The weighing
procedure consisted of pre-weighing labeled weigh boats, placing the
specimens on the boat (fish were oven dried 2 hours at 100°C) and obtaining
the total fish weight by subtraction. Weights were measured on a 5-place
analytical balance.
Fish were obtained from the ERL-Duluth culture facility and were less
than 20-hours. These larvae were placed one or two at a time ito each
replicate of each treatment, and then 1 or 2 more were added until all
had 10 fish.
Daphnids were obtained from the ERL-D culture and placed one to each of
10-30 ml containers for each concentration or sample tested. For tests
from March j^ Ay to V"-~JA/', glass 30 ml beakers were used. Subsequently,
1 oz hard, transparent plastic portion cups were used and discarded each
day. Fifteen ml of test water was used in each beaker. One drop of
yeast suspension containing 250 ug was added daily as food. The daphnid
was transferred daily with an eye dropper to a clean beaker containing a
new 15 ml volume. Counts of daphnids for survival and numbers of young
were made daily, and after counting, the young were discarded. Both
methods were based on those of Mount & Norberg, 1984 and Norbert & Mount,
1985.
Chemical-Physical Conditions
Water temperatures were maintained at 24- _+ 1°C by thermostatic control of
room air temperature. Dissolved oxygen was measured daily in the renewal
water used for both fatheads and daphnids and daily again before discarding
the test waters which had been in use for 24 hours. Initial DO's were
almost always high (5.4-9.6), only twice falling below 7.1 mg/1. Final
DO's, precictably, were lower (2.0-8.8), but in only 5 cases fell
below 5.0 mg/1 and only twice below 4.0 mg/1. The pH varied little
between initial and final values and from day to day in any given sample
from a station or effluent. There was some variation between river
stations and between individual effluent discharges. The initial DO
values are the same for both fatheads and daphnids. Tables 29 through 37
and Table 39 contain the final DO data for daphnids. The chemistry data
for initial values for both fathead and daphnid tests and the final DO
data for fatheads only are contained in Tables 20 through 28 and Table 38.
-------
Results
Ambient Tests
Table 1 contains the data for the ambient tests for samples collected
on 3/24, 4/15 and 4/29/83. (These tests utilize undiluted Fox River
water collected at various stations.) For the 3/24 samples, the fathead
minnows and Ceri_p_daphni_a evidenced no toxicity. In both instances, some
stimulation of growth or reproduction occurred at all stations. This
most likely is due to the additional food contained in the Fox River water.
The 4/15 samples showed no stimulation or toxicity to fatheads. The
daphnid test was lost due to a failure of the dishwasher rinse cycle,
leaving detergent residue on the test vessels.
For the 4/29 samples, growth was low in all treatments and rather
consistent. Station 10 was significantly lower than the control value
and growth at station 9 was reduced but not significantly so. The
daphnid reproduction was increased at all stations compared to the control
value and especially at stations 4, 5 and 6.
Effluent Tests
Tables 2 through 19 contain the effluent test data for survival and growth
for fatheads and survival and young production for daphnids. Since the
purpose of the study was not to compare discharges to each other, the
tables are arranged by effluent tested. The significant features of each
test will be discussed without comparison to each other.
1.) Green Bay S.T.P., 1/26/84, Table 2
Fathead survival and growth were affected at 25% but not 12.5%.
The control water was toxic to daphnids as was the 100% effluent and
so were all mixtures. The NOEL for fatheads is 17.7% and the daphnid
NOEL is less than 100% but cannot be calculated due to toxic dilution
water.
2.) Kerwin Paper (2), 1/26,84, Table 3
The 100% effluent had no measurable toxicity to fatheads. Both the
dilution water and 100% effluent were toxic to daphnids with evidence
that the 50 and 25% mixtures were less toxic. The fathead NOEL is
greater than 100% and the daphnid NOEL is less than 100%.
3.) Mid Tech (2), 1/26/84, Table 4
The fatheads displayed no toxicity at any effluent concentration but
rather a stimulation increasing with effluent concentration in a
reasonably uniform manner. The dilution water was toxic to daphnids,
but concentrations of 12.5, 25, 50, and 100% effluent were not as
toxic as the control water. The young production was lower than
usually measured in productive waters. The fathead NOEL was greater
than 100% and the daphnid NOEL, while not readily calculable appears
to be less than 50%.
-------
4.) Proctor and Gamble, 11/2/83, Table 5
Fathead survival and growth were significantly reduced at 100% but
not at 50%. There was a marked growth stimulation at 12, 25, and
50% exposures. Daphnid survival and young production were both
eliminated at 100% but no significant effects at 50% or less. The
daphnids did not show the stimulation evidenced by the fatheads.
The fathead and daphnid NOEL is 70.7%.
5.) Green Bay Packaging, 11/2/83, Table 6
Fathead survival was unaffected at all concentrations. Growth was
highest at 100% and the uniform size at all other concentrations
compared to the controls suggests toxic dilution water. Daphnid
survival was excellent at all concentrations and young production
was good and uniform. The NOEL for both species is greater than 100%.
6.) James River Paper, 11/2/83, Table 7
The survival and growth of fatheads was unaffected at all exposures.
Daphnids evidenced toxicity at 100 and 50%. The low young production
at 6.25% is significant but gives an atypical dose response curve.
However, this response has been frequently seen in other effluents
and seems to be real. There is no evidence of abnormal chemical
measurements (Tables 27 and 30) to explain the results. The fathead
NOEL is greater than 100% and the daphnid NOEL cannot reliably be
calculated.
7.) Bergstrom, 6/15/83, Table 8
There was no survival or young production at 100% but all other
exposures were not toxic for fatheads. Likewise, daphnids were all
killed at 100% but normal survival at 50% and less except that the
young production was low in the control and suggests toxic dilution
water. The NOEL's were 70.7% for both species.
8.) Kimberly-Clark-J, 6/15/83, Table 9
Fathead survival was reduced at 100% and so was growth although not
significantly so. The low growth at other treatments suggest toxicity
in the dilution water as well. Except for 6.25%, daphnid survival
was good in all treatments and reproduction was excellent in all
treatments. The low survival in 6.25% probably should be ignored.
The NOEL for daphnids is greater than 100% but one should not be
calculated for the fatheads because of the abnormally low growth.
9.) Kimberly-Clark-L, 6/15/83, Table 10
The fatheads were not sensitive to any treatment but stimulated at
the higher effluent concentrations. While control growth is much
lower, it is on the very low end of the normal range so toxic dilution
-------
water would not be suspected. Daphnid survival was not affected at
50% and young production was unaffected at 25% and less. The NOEL
for fatheads is greater than 100% and for daphnids it is 35.4%.
10.) Fort Howard Paper, 1/12/84, Table 11
Both survival and growth were zero at 100% but both were normal at
all other exposures. The daphnid data cannot be interpreted with
certainty. The dilution water was toxic and young production was
lower but in the normal range at 6.25%. At 12.5% and greater, young
production was very low which may be due either to the effluent or
dilution water or both. The fathead NOEL is 70.7% but one probably
should not be calculated for the daphnids.
11.) Appleton S.T.P., 1/12/84, Table 12
Survival and growth were reduced at 50% but unaffected at 25% for
fatheads. Daphnid survival was not reduced at 50% but young production
was. The NOEL's are 35.4 for both species.
12.) Mid Tech Paper. 5/5/83, Table 13
Survival of fatheads was reduced at 25% effluent. An incorrect
balance was used for weights and the weight data are not reliable.
Daphnid survival was very low at 25% as was young production but the low
young production in the control suggests toxic dilution water. The
NOEL's cannot be calculated for either species.
13.) Appleton Paper, 5/25/83, Table 14
Fathead survival was reduced at 50% but the weight data were invalid
due to use of a wrong balance. Daphnid survival was unaffected at 100%
but young production was reduced. No fathead NOEL can be calculated but
the daphnid NOEL is 70.7%
14.) Thilmany Paper, 7/8/83, Table 15
Both survival and growth data suggest some effluent toxicity and
dilution water toxicity for fatheads. No toxicity was observed in the
daphnid test. A fathead NOEL cannot be calculated but the daphnid NOEL
is greater than 100%.
15.) Neenah-Menasha S.T.P., 1/12/84, Table 16
The growth and survival of fatheads was unaffected at all exposures.
The dilution water and the 100% effluent was toxic to daphnids, but less
so in mixtures. The fathead NOEL is greater than 100% and none can be
calculated for the daphnids.
16.) Nicolet Paper, 7/8/83, Table 17
Survival and growth of fatheads indicate toxicity in the effluent
and dilution water which is mitigated at 25% concentration. Daphnids
-------
were unaffected at all treatments. The fathead NOEL cannot be
calculated and the daphnid NOEL is greater than 100%.
17. Wisconsin Tissue, 7/8/83, Table 18
Although less pronounced than for the other two tests run with
dilution water collected on the same day (Tables 17 and 15), the
dilution water appears toxic to fatheads based on low control survival
and growth. Daphnid survival was reduced at 100% effluent and also
at 25% as well as at 12.5 and 6.25% to a lesser extent. There is a
slight hint of additive toxicity or alternatively, an abnormal dose
response curve which we have often seen for effluents. Prudence
suggests that NOEL's should not he calculated.
18.) Kerwin Paper, 5/25/83, Table 19
Fathead survival was reduced at 12.5% effluent but the weight data
was invalid due to use of an incorrect balance. The dilution water
was toxic to daphnids as was the 100% effluent so NOEL"s cannot be
calculated for either species.
Discussion
Table 40 is a summary of the test results, the concentration of each
effluent in the stream after mixing at the time of sampling, and the
expected effluent concentration at the 7610 flow. Several observations
are rather striking. Of most significance is the high frequency of
occurrence of toxic dilution water. Of 6 effluent collecting trips, each
involving 3 different dilution water samples, 5 had 2 or 3 of the dilution
water samples toxic to at least one test organism. The collection on
11/2/83 did not display ambient toxicity. Collection on 1/26/84 showed
toxicity from the river mouth to above Kerwin Paper and the collection on
1/12/84 showed toxicity from above Fort Howard Paper to above Neenah-
Menasha Paper which between the two trips (only 2 weeks apart) includes
much of the river length. The fatheads showed toxicity 6 times and
Ceriodaphnia 8 times. Never did both species show marked toxicity on the
same samp!e.
Of the three ambient toxicity surveys done in March and April 1983, one
of the sets of samples (4/29/83) showed toxicity clearly at 1 and maybe
2 stations, and had considerably lower growth at all stations than was
commonly found in most other tests. In the test of 4/29/83, the Lake
Superior control was also low which makes the above test interpretation
subjective.
Based on the consistent mitigation of ambient toxicity by many effluents,
the low toxicity displayed by those that we were able to successfully
test, and the concentrations that existed in the river, the ambient
toxicity is not attributable to any one effluent. In fact, if the tests
are indicative of what happens in the river, the addition of effluent is
likely to reduce ambient toxicity.
-------
We have found unexplained ambient toxicity in many streams in many parts
of the country in our effluent testing program. The Fox River is yet
another one. Possible explanations are products of decay (i.e., HjS),
non-point sources (i.e., old land-fills or runoff from land), other point
sources that are small (i.e., plating wastes or pesticide formulation)
and some common chemical or chemicals found in many effluents and resulting
in cumulative effects. The latter would have to involve chemicals that
are "released" after discharge and then "antagonized" by fresh effluent
to be consistent with the toxicity seen.
Whatever the case, these tests strongly suggest a source or sources of
toxicity that cause much of the river to have toxicity frequently and the
toxicity is not directly due to one or a few of the effluents tested.
Further, since the toxicity was usually not "sensed" by both species at
the same time, the toxicity must be due to different toxicants at various
times and places.
References
Mount and Norberg, 1984. A Seven-day Life-cycle Cladoceran Toxicity Test.
Environ. Tox. Chem. 3: 425-434.
Nnrberg and Mount (In Press). A New Sub-chronic Fathead Minnow (Pimephales
promelas) Toxicity Test. Environ. Tox. Chem.
-------
o
a,
4->
u
"o
o
t.
0)
3
Hi
>
C£
X
U_
o
(/)
c
Q.
01
t/>
C
c
<*_
TO
C
.C
a
o
OJ
O
C
TO
C
C
IE
4J
V
LL.
L.
O
(*-
«J .
TO oo
Q CTl
i t
4-J
l/l
1 CM
4-1 U
CJ 113
- z:
X
0 C
1- 0
TO
TO
^
C
0
CO
a>
c
a
CO
TJ
O
4->
C
0
o
o
4->
C
U
oo a.
1C
>
>
t-
3
M 1
C
£
o
TO
0)
1C | 4J
u.
LO
«3-
ro
a
4-1
TO
U
&
tt
O r»* CM *3- o LO
LO co oo ro c\j co o
O O O O r^ o
OO LO tiO ^f LO O*i
VO ^" CNJ C\J ^O ^
O ^" ^~ «J" i^J ^~ O
O O O O O O
a\ cv1 ^ ro oo *r
O r
JT ro
01 >
- Ch o -! ro o *-4 >-
0 O O O O 3 O
r^ooor^cos coo
^ O ^H
C ro
C -r-
£ .c
a
T3 fl3
*o oo uo CM ^f o*\ r*^ ^
o QJ rOLOLOLO^o o
OOOOLO+J *- O
TiVOOOOOOfO (Do
r-H u_ o i-H
O ^" ^" ^f LO ^" O
o o o o o o
GO O f^*- r*"* 00 O
i t . ' O CO \C tfr
LO LO 1^ VC LO LO O
O O O O f- O
ro CM TT »- O ^d-
uO i«O ^O LO *«O V^ Q
O O O O rx. O
LO oo ^t LO LO r».
O O O O uO C
o^ 0s f**. o^ OC' r*-
CM CT* OC !"* ^" LO
O LO LO LO ^" LO C
O C O O LT O
00 CT1. O^ OC 00 r-»
a.1
u
CO CM
U CM 1
o «
C. CM
a.
o* cy
c o
O *0 CM
>- CM 1
TO
r- CM
C CM
JC
a.
cr
CM
* CM
CM
cr ro
cc
oc
CM
* (^
i-H
^ ro
CM 1
(^
oc >«
CM r-
ro
ro ^- c.
Mean 22
5% 24.1-34
onfidence Intf
HI
4-1
TO
O
O
o
(L
14-
I- 0
QJ .^
O. «-
=! -r-
-------
o>
4->
u
o
u
2
Ul CO IO CVJ in
m «*
O
C
1C
2
O
C
c
1
^J
g^
o>
u
aj
co| a.
5«
yi
5
^!
c
c
£
o
£
1C! 4->
IO
U.
m|
o
o o o o o
CTl CO r-. OC CO
O
O O O 0 O
O r*-- O o* Ol
^M ~H
m
O O O 0 (^
in
O O O O CM
o oo o 01 cr
, _^
4->
r < CO ^^ liC ID ^O C
in in «* ro ^f o 01
O> OJ
>E ^.
^^
4->
f iO
01 oiincxj^-o^t" >
i- «3-mm«-mo - c
3 +
§OO 1
C
* i 1
D (O1 C
10 O (^ ^ 1C i O °O l.
o> mcM'j'^^s'f-H o
4J L. a
10 a> c
1 1 O »
f
4.
C
I.
CM in C in o -a-
^ ^ ^" fO ^ O C
0
£
z
c
0
4->
U
3
O
&_
a.
: 01
3 C C C
300
J O -i- -
3 >- 4-> 4-J
: 10 10
I0| C C
= .,_ ir. .^.
5 c 6 e
J £ nj ro
: aJ 4-> 4J
5 rS\ C C
J T3 O O
o o u
J i. i~ t-
: aj ai ai
u c c
3 -^ T
5 C C
.> O O
3
4-1 4->
pi
3 O- O'
: 33
a -o
o
o
> ro
X
01
O C
I O
£
o;
o o o o c-
o oo o r~- oo
O O O O OJ
i o oc oo oj
c: o o o CM
oc a o m oi
o c c c a
ic r- ai o oc
ro n m CM o <*i
a- «a- ro « »} o
m ic oc ic o -a-
*r ro m ^r ^r o
00 C7* CTV CM
> ro ro ro c
>
4->
O
IO
>
o
C
a.
t_
(O
a
o
c
a.
t_ aj
o; 14-
(O .r-
* -c
a-
a.
c
ID
Q.
o;
OJ
4>>
o
ct: < CD (_-
O) C
s: c/;
a
z:
o
X.
d
2T
-------
13
01
U
Ol
o
u
4-*
X
t_
Ol
C£
X
o
o
o
01
l/l C
0 O
o. .,-
OJ TO
IrtJ LO
C Ol
- C
It- !-
**- I
TO a
^ E
3
TO
C
x:
Q.
a
o
«!
o
c
ead Minnows
TO
U.
t_
0
<4-
TO
TO CO
O Ol
., '"'
tn -
OJ en
1 CM
4_> -I
0 0-
0 C
0
-^
o
t.
c
0
o
oo |
r^
in'
CM
m
m «» ^- m i- o
o o o o o o
in r^ r^ en r^. 01
*
o in r^ ^- vc CM o
in ~* o o o o o oo
in en co en r*^
^ r^ in co en ^- o
O r-i o O 1-1 O O CO
ic co in r^- in
1C
OJ *J
u «9-corr>r^.omco
!_ O .-H-JCMCMCVJOOJOl
a. o o o o m - L.
co co O co co en o;
^H E CL
TO
f ^ TO
> Ol >
L. -i co» t^ocn^-*^o
3 O OJ^CMCMCMf^O >00
o o o o m a
SOroin^-ms on
C C (0
C C -r-
£ £ l| o
^ "O ^^ ro r^ in r^ ^^ TO o
TO in TOl ICSJ^H.-*f IO"O* *
.COOOOCM.C !-
4_> 1C 1C f^ ^C 1C 4^ ^
TO TO OJ
U. U- U
CO CM CM O O ^H O
in ^HCMCMCMCMO Cf
O O O O CM
O r-^ cn r^ co
io i ic oc in x O
O CMrOCVCMO O>
o o o o m
oo en oo en co
co ^ co o r^ in o
o ^HCV^CM~HG cn
o o o o m
ic oo in ^* i^* cv o
O ^H^H^-CM^O OC
o o o o m
co o- cr> oo oo
o
f^ O
CM
t-i co
co o
. . CVJ \f)
m ro
O CM 1
3 un
13
o in
t- <
a.
01 ^>
c co
O f} C'O
>- CM 1
. 1
C 1
a. -^
TO -X CM >/>
i- oo « oj
OJ CO I"
9-
CM C
TO
* 1C >>
1C ^r 13
ro i OJ
r^ 4->
TO
r-> O
en -
o
c
H r- OJ
~^ I TO
in
O 0
CM
0
p"> V
CV 1 4->
CV TO
Ol *"
-H OJ
u
c
f-~ OJ
CM t-
«t OJ OJ <*-
CV 1 *J 1-
*~~- 5 *C
JD
TO
VC «9- O il
i-l -H CV CM
O
00
c o o o c
Ol 1C CC O- OO
a
4->
ro c
*.!
1C U
c
a
T3
S-S >4~
m c
cr
-------
Table 2. Toxicity test data for fathead minnows and Ceriodaphnla dubia/affinis
' effluent collected January 26, 1984
Percent Effluent Concentrations (vol/vol)
100
0
0
0
0
0*
0
0
0
0
0*
0
50 _
Fathead
0
0
0
0
0*
Fathead
0
0
0
0
0*
0
__25
Minnow
0
0
0
0
0*
Minnow
0
0
0
0
0*
0
12.5
6.25
Control
Survival (Percent)
100
100
100
90
97.5
Weight
1.02
.94
1.09
.84
.97
.10
80
100
100
100
95
(mg)
.83
.94
.63
.95
.83
.14
100
100
100
100
100
1.03
.93
1.08
.96
1.00
.06
Replicate
A
B
C
0
Mean
Replicate
A
B
C
D
Mean
SD
Ceriodaphnia Survival (Percent)
Mean 000 00 0
Ceriodaphnia Young Production (No. per Female)
Mean 000 00 0
95% CI 00000 0
Note: Significant differences at P < 0.05 are indicated by an asterisk
-------
Table 3. Toxicity test data for fathead minnows and Cerlodaphnla dubia/affinis
(2) effluent collected January 26, 1984
Percent Effluent Concentrations (vol/vol)
100
80
80
80
90
82.5
1.00
.92
.74
.80
.86
.11
50
Fathead
100
100
90
100
97.5
Fathead
.92
.95
1.01
.78
.91
.09
25
Minnow
100
100
100
100
100
Minnow
.95
.95
.82
.76
.87
.09
12.5
6.25
Control
Survival (Percent)
100
100
100
100
100
Weight
.90
1.00
.84
.92
.91
.06
100
100
100
100
100
(mg)
.79
.80
.78
.89
.81
.05
100
100
100
100
100
.87
.88
.85
.91
.87
.02
Replicate
A
6
C
D
Mean
Replicate
A
B
C
D
Mean
SD
Ceriodaphnia Survival (Percent)
Mean 0 40* 30 00 0
Ceriodaphnia Young Production (No. per Female)
Mean 0 0 7.02* 00 0
95% CI - - -2.3-16.4 -
Note: Significant differences at P < 0.05 are indicated by an asterisk
-------
Table 4. Toxicity test data for fathead minnows and Ceriodaphn1_a dubia/affinis
from Mid Tech (2) effluent collected January 26, 1984
Percent Effluent Concentrations (vol/vol)
Replicate
A
B
C
D
Mean
Replicate
A
B
C
D
Mean
SO
100
90
90
90
90
90
1.11
1.09
.82
1.06
1.02*
.13
50
Fathead
90
100
100
100
97.5
Fathead
.91
1.03
.91
.82
.91
.06
25
Minnow
100
100
100
100
100
Minnow
.90
1.04
1.04
.98
.99
.06
12.5
6.25
Control
Survival (Percent)
100
100
100
100
100
Weight
.92
1.07
.92
.99
.97
.07
100
100
100
100
100
(mg)
1.08
.83
.99
.95
.96
.10
100
100
100
100
100
.69
.62
.86
.88
.76
.12
Ceriodaphnia Survival (Percent)
Mean 70* 100* 100* 50* 0 0
Ceriodaphnia Young Production (No. per Female)
Mean 12.9* 17.8* 11.9* 12.2* 0 0
95% CI 10.8- 14.6- 8.73- 6.05-
14.9 21.0 15.1 18.4
Note: Significant differences at P < 0.05 are indicated by an asterisk
-------
Table 5. Toxicity test data for fathead minnows and CermdaghirU dubia/affinis
from Proctor and Gamble effluent collected November 2, 1983
Percent Effluent Concentrations (vol/vol)
Replicate
A
8
C
D
Mean
Replicate
A
B
C
D
Mean
SD
100
50
Fathead
0
0
0
0
0*
90
60
90
90
82
.5
Fathead
0
0
0
0
0*
0
1.
1.
*
1.
1.
05
32
89
10
09*
17
25
Minnow
100
100
80
100
95
Minnow
.85
.98
.90
.99
.93*
.06
12
.5
6.25
Control
Survival (Percent)
90
90
90
100
92
Wei
1
.5
ght
.07
.87
.67
.76
.84
.17
100
100
100
100
100
(mg)
.22
.19
.19
.62
.30
.21
100
100
100
100
100
.27
.23
.45
.98
.48
.34
Ceriodaphnia Survival (Percent)
Mean 0* 70 60 80 80 70
Ceriodaphnia Young Production (No. per Female)
Mean 0* 11.3 13.5 11.2 19.5 18.4
95% CI 7.72- 8.32- 6.89- 16.0- 12.0-
14.9 19.0 15.5 23.1 24.8
Note: Significant differences at P < 0.05 are indicated by an asterisk
-------
Table 6. Toxicity test data for fathead minnows and Ceriodaphnia^ dubia/afflnl s
from Green Bay Packaging effluent collected November 2, 1983
Percent Effluent Concentrations (vol/vol)
Replicate
A
B
C
D
Mean
Replicate
A
B
C
0
Mean
SD
100
80
80
90
80
82.5
1.01
.84
.52
.87
.81*
.20
50
Fathead
90
90
90
90
90
Fathead
.21
.13
.16
.18
.17
.03
25
Minnow
90
100
100
90
95
Minnow
.18
.16
.17
.13
.16
.02
12.5
6.25
Control
Survival (Percent)
100
100
90
100
97.5
Weight
.19
.18
.22
.18
.19
.01
100
100
100
90
97.5
(mg)
.17
.16
.14
.18
.16
.01
100
100
100
100
100
.16
.18
.18
.17
.17
.009
Ceriodaphnia Survival (Percent)
Mean 100 100 100 100 90 90
Ceriodaphnia Young Production (No. per Female)
Mean 17.4 14.2 15.4 18.2 18.3 18.6
95% CI 13.5- 10.9- 13.0- 15.4- 16.7- 15.9-
21.3 17.5 17.8 21.0 20.0 21.3
Note: Significant differences at P < 0.05 are indicated by an asterisk
-------
Table 7. Toxicity test data for fathead minnows and Ceriodaphnjj^ dubia/affini s
from the James River paper effluent collected November 2~~ 1983
Percent Effluent Concentrations (vol/vol)
Replicate
A
B
C
D
Mean
Replicate
A
B
C
0
Mean
SO
100
90
80
90
90
87.5
.64
.54
.26
.37
.45
.17
50
Fathead
90
80
80
90
85
Fathead
.32
.44
.48
.55
.44
.09
25
Mi nnow
100
100
100
100
100
Minnow
.55
.87
.44
.40
.56
.21
12.5
6.25 (
3ontro'
Survival (Percent)
100
100
100
100
100
Weight
.37
.49
.61
.82
.57
.19
100
100
100
100
100
(mg)
.77
.32
.86
.40
.58
.26
100
100
100
100
100
.46
.58
.45
.21
.42
.15
Ceriodaphnia Survival (Percent)
Mean 100 90 100 90 90 90
Ceriodaphnia Young Production (No. per Female)
Mean 0.20* 11.0* 13.6 18.9 11.4* 17.9
95% CI -0.25- 7.42- 10.9- 16.9- 8.57- 13.4-
0.65 14.5 16.3 20.9 14.4 22.3
Note: Significant differences at P < 0.05 are indicated by an asterisk
-------
Table 8. Toxicity test data for fathead minnows and Ceriodaphnia dubla/affinis
>m effluent collected June 15, 1983
Percent Effluent Concentrations (vol/vol)
100
0
0
0
0
0*
0
0
' 0
0
0*
0
50
Fathead
90
100
100
100
97.5
Fathead
.83
.89
.78
.38
.72
.22
25
Mi nnow
90
90
100
90
92.5
Minnow
.63
.48
.79
.57
.62
.13
12.5
6.25
Control
Survival (Percent)
100
90
100
90
95
Wei ght
.79
.78
.89
.92
.85
.06
90
100
70
100
90
(mg)
.72
.84
.62
.89
.77
.12
100
90
100
100
97.5
.93
.82
.73
.74
.80
.09
Replicate
A
B
C
D
Mean
Replicate
A
B
C
D
Mean
SD
Ceriodaphnia Survival (Percent)
Mean 0* 90 80 90 100 100
Ceriodaphnia Young Production (No. per Female)
Mean 0* 14.2 22.1* 17.3* 14.7 9.7
95% CI 11.1- 19.6- 12.0- 9.64- 7.59-
17.1 24.7 22.9 19.8 11.8
Note: Significant differences at P < 0.05 are indicated by an asterisk
-------
Table 9. Toxicity tpst data for fathead minnows and Cerlodaghnja dubia/affin 1 s_
from the Kimberly Clark-J effluent collected June 15, 1983
Percent Effluent Concentrations (vol/vol)
Replicate
A
B
C
D
Mean
Replicate
A
B
C
D
Mean
SD
ion
0
50
70
0
30*
0
.22
.24
0
.11
.13
50
Fathead
100
90
100
60
87.5
Fathead
.21
.22
.22
.22
.22
.00
25
Minnow
100
100
100
80
95
Minnow
.20
.22
.23
.21
.22
.01
12.5
6.25
Control
Survival (Percent)
100
80
100
90
92.5
Weight
.21
.21
.24
.21
.22
.01
100
90
70
100
90
(mg)
.28
.30
.28
.26
.28
.01
100
100
100
100
100
.29
.20
.09
.09
.17
.09
Ceriodaphnia Survival (Percent)
Mean 90 100 90 100 50* 100
Ceriodaphnia Young Production (No. per Female)
Mean 27.4 24.1 29.4 25.8 25.5 24.4
95% CI 22.1- 19.4- 28.2- 18.9- 21.0- 19.8-
32.9 28.8 30.7 32.7 29.9 29.0
Note: Significant differences at P < 0.05 are indicated by an asterisk
-------
Table 10. Toxicity test data for fathead minnows and Ceriodaphnia dubia/affinis
from the Kimberly-Clark L effluent collected June 15, 1983
Percent Effluent Concentrations (vol/vol
Replicate
A
B
C
D
Mean
Replicate
A
R
C
0
Mean
SD
100
80
70
100
90
85
.81
.76
.89
1.00
.87*
.10
50
Fathead
100
100
90
100
97.5
Fathead
1.20
1.23
1.16
.89
1.12*
.15
25
Minnow
90
60
100
100
87.5
Minnow
1.03
.82
.97
1.07
.97*
.11
12.5
6.25
Control
Survival (Percent)
100
100
100
90
97.5
Weight
.31
.43
.36
.31
.35
.05
100
100
100
100
100
(mg)
.40
.28
.28
.27
.31
.06
100
100
90
100
97.5
.28
.27
.19
.29
.26
.04
Ceriodaphnia Survival (Percent)
Mean 0* 90 90 90 90 70
Ceriodaphnia Young Production (No. per Female)
Mean 0* 8.78* 19.9 16.8 18.2 16.9
95% CI 6.25- 15.9- 13.6- 17.0- 13.5-
11.3 23.9 20.1 19.5 20.1
Note: Significant differences at P < 0.05 are indicated by an asterisk
-------
Table 11. Toxicity test data for fathead minnows and C_eri o_d_a_phnia dubla/at'f 1 nl s
from the Fort Howard paper effluent collected January 12, 1984
Percent Effluent Concentrations (vol/vol)
Repl icate
A
B
C
D
Mean
Replicate
A
B
C
D
Mean
SO
100
0
0
0
0
0*
0
0
0
0
0*
0
50
Fathead
90
100
90
90
92.5
Fathead
1.09
.96
1.02
.82
.97
.11
25
Mi nnow
90
60
90
90
82.5
Minnow
1.13
1.13
1.15
.96
1.09
.08
12.5
6.25
Control
Survival (Percent)
100
100
100
80
95
Weight
.90
.90
1.08
1.09
.99
.10
100
100
80
100
95
(nig)
1.02
.94
1.05
.97
.99
.04
100
90
80
100
92.5
.91
.89
.99
.97
.94
.04
Ceriodaphnia Survival (Percent)
Mean 0 40 60 80* 100* 20
Ceriodaphnia Young Production (No. per Female)
Mean 0 0.33* 2.40 3.50 14.3* 2.50
95% CI -0.48- 1.20- 1.88- 12.4- 1.99-
1.14 3.67 5.11 16.2 3.01
Note: Significant differences at P < 0.05 are indicated by an asterisk
-------
Table 12. Toxicity test data for fathead minnows and Ceriodaphnia dubia/affinis
Replicate
A
B
C
D
Mean
Replicate
A
B
C
D
Mean
SD
Mean
Mean
95% CI
m STP effluent
Percent Effl
100
0
0
0
0
0*
0
0
0
0
0*
0
50
Fathead
0
0
0
0
0*
Fathead
0
0
0
0
0*
0
collected January 12, 1984
uent Concentrations (vol/vol)
25
Minnow
70
80
70
70
72.5
Minnow
1.18
1.03
.94
.86
1.00
.13
12.5
6.25
Control
Survival (Percent)
90
80
80
90
85
Weight
.81
.86
1.07
.87
.90
.11
Ceriodaphnia Survival
0*
0*
70
Ceriodaphni
4.34*
3.64-
5.07
90
a Young
11.9
10.3-
13.5
100
90
90
100
90
92.5
(mg)
1.19
.99
.79
.77
.93
.19
(Percent)
100
Production (No.
13.
11.
15.
6 14.5
7- 12.7-
5 16.3
90
90
100
90
92.5
1.08
1.06
.82
.90
.96
.12
100
per Female)
15.6
13.4-
17.8
Note: Significant differences at P < 0.05 are indicated by an asterisk
-------
Table 13. Toxicity test data for fathead minnows and Ceriodaphnia dubla/afflnis
from the Mid Tech Paper effluent collected May 25, 1983
Replicate
A
B
C
D
Mean
Replicate
A
B
C
D
Mean
Mean
Mean
95% CI
Percent Effluent Concentrations
_LOO_
70
50
60
70
62.c
50
25
12.5
6.25
Control
Fathead Minnow Survival (Percent)
80 70 60 80 90
60 50 70 90 90
70 70 80 90 100
60 60 80 80 90
67.5* 62.5*
72.5
85
Fathead Minnow Weight (mg)
No Data
92.5
Ceriodaphnia Survival (Percent)
0* 0* 40 70 80 60
Ceriodaphnia Young Production (No. per Female)
0* 0* 4.95* 11.2 10.8 11.4
3.42-
6.49
8.66-
13.7
8.27-
13.2
6.67-
16.1
Note: Significant differences at P < 0.05 are indicated by an asterisk
-------
Table 14. Toxicity test data for fathead minnows and Ceriodaphnia^ dubia/affini_s_
from the Appleton Paper effluent collected May 25, 1983
Percent Effluent Concentrations (vol/vol)
100 50 25 12.5 6.25 Control
Replicate Fathead Minnow Survival (Percent)
A 80 70 90 100 90 90
B 70 70 90 60 90 100
C 40 70 90 70 90 100
D 70 70 90 90 90 100
Mean 65* 70* 90 80 90 97.5
Replicate Fathead Minnow Weight (nig)
A
B
No Data
C
D
Mean
Ceriodaphnia Survival (Percent)
Mean 100 80 80 80 80 100
Ceriodaphnia Young Production (No. per Female)
Mean 12.3* 15.6 19.6 19.6 18.1 20.7
95% CI 9.96- 12.5- 16.7- 17.6- 13.5- 16.5-
14.fi 18.6 22.6 21.6 22.8 24.9
Note: Significant differences at P < 0.05 are indicated by an asterisk
-------
Table 15. Toxicity test data for fathead minnows and Ceriodaphm'a dubia/affini s
from the Thilmany Paper effluent collected July 8, 1983
Percent Effluent Concentrations (vol/vol)
Replicate
A
B
C
D
Mean
Replicate
A
R
C
D
Mean
sn
100
80
70
80
70
75
.10
.10
.20
.10
.13
.05
50
Fathead
90
70
70
70
75
Fathead
.20
.10
0
0
.15
.07
25
Minnow
80
80
80
80
80
Minnow
.20
.20
.20
.20
.20
.00
12.5
6.25
Control
Survival (Percent)
80
90
60
60
72.5
Weight
.20
.10
.20
.20
.18
.05
80
50
90
90
77.5
(nig)
.10
.20
.20
.10
.15
.06
40
50
80
60
57.5
.20
.10
.20
.20
.18
.05
Ceriodaphnia Survival (Percent)
Mean 100 100 90 100 80 90
Cpriodaphnia Young Production (No. per Female)
Mean 15.9 23.6 27.4 17.2 34.3* 22.9
95% CI 9.67- 18.6- 22.3- 12.2- 30.9- 16.4-
22.1 28.6 32.3 22.2 37.5 29.5
Note: Significant differences at P < 0.05 are indicated by an asterisk
-------
Table 16. Toxicity test data for fathead minnows and Ceriodaphnia dubia_/_affinj_s_
from the Neenah-Menasha STP effluent collected January 12, 1984
Percent Effluent Concentrations (vol/vol
Replicate
A
B
C
0
Mean
Replicate
A
B
C
D
Mean
SD
100
80
90
90
80
85
1.04
1.18
.93
1.13
1.07
.10'
50
Fathead
100
80
90
90
90
Fathead
.83
1.00
.91
.91
.91
.06
25
Minnow
100
100
100
100
100
Minnow
,92
.89
.80
.89
.85
.05
12.5
6.25
Control
Survival (Percent)
100
100
100
100
100
Weight
1.06
.96
.96
.81
;94
.10
100
100
100
100
100
(nig)
.90
.92
1.07
1.01
.97
.07
100
90
100
100
97.5
1.00
1.10
i.oo"
.90
1.00
:08
Ceriodaphnia Survival (Percent)
Mean 0 0 60 100* 100* 30
Ceriodaphnia Young Production (No. per Female)
Mean 0 0 3.35 12.0* 14.5* 3
95% CI 1.41- 10.2- 13.1- 1.97-
5.36 13.8 15.9 4.15
Note: Significant differences at P < 0.05 are indicated by an asterisk
-------
Table 17. Toxicity test data for fathead minnows and Ceriodaphnia dubjjy^
Paper effluent collected July 8, 1983
Percent Effluent Concentrations (vol/vol)
100
40
30
60
30
40*
.08
.10
.08
.10
.09
.01
50
Fathead
90
70
50
10
55
Fathead
.02
.10
.20
.20
.13
.09
25
Mi nnow
90
80
100
90
90
Minnow
.90
.90
.20
.20
.55*
.40
12.5
Survival
90
70
70
70
75
Weight (
.20
.20
.20
.20
.20
.00
6.25
(Percent)
80
90
60
90
80
mg)
.20
.10
.20
.20
.18
.05
Control
50
80
50
70
62.5
.20
.10
.10
.10
.13
.05
Replicate
A
B
C
D
Mean
Replicate
A
B
C
0
Mean
SO
Ceriodaphnia Survival (Percent)
Mean 100 100 100 100 100 80
Ceriodaphnia Young Production (No. per Female)
Mean 19.2 27.0 17.8 25.4 31.9* 22.3
95% CI 15.4- 22.2- 13.3- 18.7- 25.4- 16.3-
23.0 31.8 22.3 32.1 38.4 28.2
Note: Significant differences at P < 0.05 are indicated by an asterisk
-------
Table 18. Toxicity test data for fathead minnows and Ceriodaphnia dub1_a/aff1ni s
from the Wisconsin Tissue effluent collected July 8, 1983
Percent Effluent Concentrations
Replicate
A
B
C
D
Mean
Repl icate
A
B
C
D
Mean
SD
100
100
90
90
100
95
.10
.20
.10
.10
.13
.05
50
Fathead
90
80
60
90
80
Fathead
.30
.20
.10
.60
.30
.22
25
Minnow
100
60
80
90
82.5
Minnow
.60
.60
.20
.00
.35
.30
12.5
Survival
10
40
90
90
57.5
Weight (
.20
.20
.30
.50
.30
.14
6.25
(Percent)
100
50
60
90
75
nig)
.30
.20
.20
.30
.25
.06
Contn
50
90
90
50
70
.20
.20
.20
.30
.23
.05
Ceriodaphnia Survival (Percent)
Mean 60* 100 100 100 100 100
Ceriodaphnia Young Production (No. per Female)
Mean 24.2 19.6 10.6* 13.4 12.2 16.2
95% CI 16.6- 13.8- 7.79- 9.25- 7.85- 13.2-
31.9 25.4 13.4 17.5 16.6 19.2
Note: Significant differences at P < 0.05 are indicated by an asterisk
-------
Table 19. Toxicity test data for fathead minnows and ^erj_odapJTrnj^ dubla/affinis
from the Kerwin Paper effluent collected May 25, 1983
Percent Effluent Concentrations (vo1/v_pj_)_
100 50 25 12.5 6.25 Control
Replicate Fathead Minnow Survival (Percent)
A 0 40 60 60 90 100
B 0 40 80 70 90 100
C 0 40 70 70 90 70
D 0 30 60 60 90 80
Mean 0* 37.5* 67.5* 65* 90 87.5
Replicate Fathead Minnow Weight (mg)
A
B
C No Data
D
Mean
Ceriodaphnia Survival (Percent)
Mean 0* 0* 0* 30 50 80
Ceriodaphnia Young Production (No. per Female)
Mean 0* 0* 0* 2.0* 6.26 7.5
95% CI -1.19- 2.46- 3.94-
5.15 10.0 11.2
Note: Significant differences at P < 0.05 are indicated by an asterisk
-------
Table 20. Water quality data for the effluent toxicity tests on fathead minnows.
Percent Effluent Concentrations (vol/vol)
Mean
pH
(range)
Initial DO (mg/1)
(range)
Final 00 (mg/1)
(range)
pH
(range)
Initial DO (mg/1)
(range)
Final DO (mg/1)
(range)
100
50
25
Fort Howard Paper
8.0
8.0-8.1
8.7
8.5-8.9
5.2
4.6-7.1
7.9
7.9-8.0
8.7
8.6-8.9
6.0
5.8-7.2
8.1
8.1-8.2
8.8
8.6-9.1
6.4
6.3-7.2
Appleton
8.1
8.1-8.1
8.7
8.6-9.0
6.2
6.0-7.3
8.2
8.2-8.2
8.7
8.6-8.8
6.5
6.3-7.4
STP Effl
8.1
8.1-8.1
8.8
8.6-9.0
6.4
6.2-7.3
12.5
6.25
Effluent - January 12,
8.2
8.2-8.2 8
8.7
8.6-8.9 8
6.7
6.4-7.6 6
uent - January
8.2
8.2-8.2 8
8.7
8.6-8.9 8
6.5
6.3-7.5 6
8.2
.2-8.2
8.8
.7-9.0
6.8
.5-7.6
12, 1984
8.2
.2-8.2
8.8
.7-9.0
6.7
.5-7.8
Contn
1984
8.2
8.2-8.2
8.8
8.7-8.9
7.0
6.7-7.8
8.2
8.2-8.3
8.8
8.7-8.9
6.9
6.7-8.1
-------
Table 21. Water quality data for the effluent toxicity tests on fathead minnows.
Percent Effluent Concentrations (vol/vol)
Mean
pH
(range)
Initial DO (mg/1)
(range)
Final DO (mg/1)
(range)
100
7.3
7.3-7.3
8.7
8.6-8.9
5.2
50
Green Bay
7.8
7.8-7.8
8.8
8.8-8.8
5.9
25
12.5
6.25
Control
STP Effluent - January 26, 1984
8.0
7.9-8.0
8.8
8.7-9.0
6.3
6.2-6.5
Neenah-Nienasha STP
PH
(range)
Initial DO (mg/1)
(range)
Final DO (mg/1)
(range)
8.1
8.1-8.1
8.7
8.6-8.8
6.2
6.0-7.4
8.0
7.9-8.1
8.8
8.7-9.0
6.3
6.1-7.4
8.2
8.2-8.2
8.8
8.7-9.0
6.5
6.2-7.5
8.0
8.0-8.0
8.8
8.7-8.9
6.8
6.7-6.9
Effluent -
8.2
8.2-8.2
8.7
8.6-8.9
6.5
6.4-7.5
8.1
8.1-8.1
8.8
8.7-8.9
6.8
6.7-6.9
January 12
8.2
8.2-8.2
8.8
8.6-9.0
6.7
6.6-7.7
8.2
8.2-8.2
8.8
8.7-9.0
7.1
7.0-7.1
, 1984
8.2
8.2-8.2
8.8
8.7-8.9
6.8
6.6-7.7
-------
Table 22. Water quality data for the effluent toxicity tests on fathead minnows.
Percent Effluent Concentrations (vol/vol)
Mean
pH
(range)
Initial DO (mg/1)
(range)
Final DO (mg/1)
(range)
100
50
25
12.5
6.25
Contn
Kerwin Paper (2) Effluent - January 26, 1984
7.7
7.7-7.7
8.8
8.7-8.9
4.3
4.3-4.5
7.7
7.7-7.8
8.8
8.7-8.9
5.0
4.4-5.3
7.7
7.7-7.7
8.8
8.7-9.0
5.5
4.8-5.8
7.9
7.9-8.0
8.8
8.7-9.0
5.8
5.7-6.0
8.1
8.0-8.1
8.8
8.7-8.9
6.4
6.4-6.5
8.1
8.1-8.1
8.8
8.8-9.0
6.7
6.6-6.8
PH
(range)
Initial DO (mg/1)
(range)
Mid Tech (2) Effluent - January 26, 1984
8.0 8.1 8.1
8.0-8.0 8.0-8.1 8.1-8.1
8.7 8.7 8.8
8.6-8.9 8.6-8.9 8.7-9.0
8.1 8.1 8.2
8.1-8.1 8.1-8.2 8.2-8.2
8.7 8.8 8.8
8.6-8.9 8.7-9.0 8.7-9.0
Final DO (mg/1)
(range)
5.8 6.4 6.6
5.7-6.1 6.3-6.6 6.5-6.7
6.3 6.7 7.0
6.3-6.5 6.7-6.9 7.0-7.2
-------
Table ?3. Water quality data for the effluent toxicity tests on fathead minnows.
Percent Effluent Concentrations (vol/vol)
Mean
pH
(range)
Initial DO (mg/1)
(range)
Final DO (mg/1)
(range)
PH
(range)
Initial DO (mg/1)
(range)
Final DO (mg/1)
(range)
100
50
25
12.5
Kimberly Clark-J Effluent -
7.9
7.8-8.0
8.8
8.6-9.1
6.5
4.2-8.3
8.0
7.7-8.1
8.3
7.8-8.8
6.2
5.4-7.1
8.1
8.0-8.3
8.8
8.4-9.2
7.1
7.0-8.4
Kimberly
7.9
7.8-8.1
8.5
7.8-9.0
6.5
6.3-6.8
8.1
8.0-8.3
8.7
8.4-9.1
7.4
7.1-8.6
Clark-L Effl
8.0
7.9-8.2
8.6
8.1-9.0
7.0
6.8-7.3
8.2
8.0-8
8.8
8.3-9
7.5
7.0-8
uent
8.1
8.0-8
8.7
8.3-9
6.9
6.4-7
6.25 Control
June 15,
8.2
.3 8.1-8
8.8
.1 8.4-9
7.4
.8 7.1-8
- June 15,
8.1
.3 8.0-8
8.6
.1 8.2-9
6.5
.6 6.0-7
1983
8.2
.3 8.1-8.3
8.8
.2 8.2-9.2
7.3
.6 6.8-8.6
1983
8.2
.2 8.1-8.3
8.7
.1 8.3-9.2
7.0
.0 7.0-7.1
-------
Table 24. Water quality data for the effluent toxicity tests on fathead minnows.
Percent Effluent Concentrations (vo1/vo1J_
Mean
pH
(range)
Initial DO (mg/1)
(range)
Final DO (mg/1)
(range)
pH
(range)
Initial DO (mg/1)
(range)
Final DO (mg/1)
(range)
100
50
25
Kerwin Paper Effluent
7.4
7.4-7.5
7.8
7.4-8.3
4.1
2.0-5.3
8.3
8.0-8.6
8.5
8.2-8.8
5.9
5.9-6.0
7.6
7.5-7.6
7.8
7.3-8.3
5.1
3.9-5.9
Bergstrom
8.3
8.1-8.5
8.8
8.7-9.0
6.8
6.0-7.4
7.8
7.8-8.0
7.9
7.6-8.3
5.6
4.7-6.2
Paper Effl
8.2
8.1-8.5
8.7
8.5-9.1
6.8
6.4-7.4
12.5
- May
8.2
8.1-8
7.9
7.6-8
5.8
5.5-6
uent -
8.3
8.2-8
8.8
8.8-9
6.9
6.6-7
6.25
25, 1983
8.2
.2 8.2-8.3
8.0
.3 7.6-8.3
6.0
.2 5.8-6.7
June 15, 1983
8.2
.4 8.2-8.4
9.0
.0 8.9-9.3
7.2
.4 7.0-7.5
Control
8.4
8.3-8.4
8.1
7.6-8.3
6.3
6.0-7.0
8.3
8.2-8.3
9.0
8.9-9.3
7.2
6.8-7.6
-------
Table 25. Water quality data for the effluent toxicity tests on fathead minnows.
Percent Effluent Concentrations (vol/vol)
Mean
pH
(range)
Initial DO (mg/1)
(range)
Final DO (mg/1)
(range)
pH
(range)
Initial DO (mg/1)
(range)
Final DO (mg/1)
(range)
100
50
25
12.5
6.25
Control
Appleton Paper Effluent - May 25, 1983
7.5
7.5-8.0
8.1
7.6-8.7
6.0
5.0-7.3
7.3
7.3-7.4
5.9
5.4-6.3
5.5
5.0-6.7
7.8
7.7-8.0
8.1
7.8-8.7
6.5
5.6-7.5
Mid Tech
7.7
7.6-7.7
7.0
6.5-7.3
5.9
5.4-7.2
7.9
7.9-8.1
8.1
7.8-8.7
6.6
5.8-7.5
Paper Effl
8.1
8.0-8.2
7.6
7.6-7.8
6.1
5.6-7.1
8.1
8.0-8.2
8.2
7.8-8.7
6.6
5.9-7.5
uent - May
8.2
8.1-8.2
7.4
7.1-7.9
6.0
5.4-7.3
8.2
8.1-8.4
8.1
7.8-8.7
6.4
5.5-7.5
25, 1983
8.2
8.2-8.3
7.6
7.2-8.2
6.0
5.6-7.0
8.2
8.2-8.4
8.1
7.8-8.7
6.6
6.2-7.5
8.2
8.2-8.3
7.8
7.6-8.3
6.1
5.9-7.1
-------
Table 26. Water quality data for the effluent toxicity tests on fathead minnows.
Percent Effluent Concentrations (vol/vol)
Mean
pH
(range)
Initial DO (mg/1)
(range)
Final DO (rng/1)
(range)
100
7.2
7.1-7.2
8.6
8.5-8.8
6.1
5.9-6.4
50
Green Bay
7.8
7.8-7.9
8.6
8.5-8.9
6.1
6.0-6.3
25
Packaging
8.0
8.0-8.0
8.7
8.5-8.9
6.4
6.3-6.6
Proctor-Gamble Effl
PH
(range)
Initial DO (mg/1)
(range)
Final 00 (mg/1)
(range)
7.8
7.8-7.8
8.6
8.5-9.0
6.5
6.3-7.0
8.0
7.8-8.0
8.6
8.4-8.9
6.3
6.2-6.6
8.0
7.8-8.0
8.7
8.6-8.9
6.2
5.9-6.6
12.5
6.25 Control
Effluent - November 2, 1983
8.0 8.0 8.2
8.0-8.1 8.0-8.1 8.1-8.2
8.7
8.5-9
6.4
6.3-6
uent -
8.0
8.0-8
8.8
8.6-9
6.2
6.0-6
8.8
.0 8.7-9
6.6
.6 6.5-6
November 2
8.1
.1 8.0-8
8.8
.0 8.6-9
6.4
.3 6.3-6
8.7
.1 8.6-8.9
6.7
.8 6.6-7.0
, 1983
8.2
.1 8.1-8.2
8.7
.0 8.5-9.1
6.4
.6 6.3-6.7
-------
Table 27. Water quality data for the effluent toxicity tests on fathead minnows.
Mean
PH
(range)
Initial DO (mg/1)
(range)
Final DO (mg/1)
(range)
pH
(range)
Initial DO (mg/1)
(range)
Final DO (mg/1)
(range)
Per
100
50
t Concentrations (
25 12.5
[_voVvol )
6.25
Control
Thilmany Paper Effluent - July 8, 1983
7.6
7.6-7.6
7.6
6.0-8.6
6.5
6.0-6.9
8.0
8.0-8.0
8.5
8.1-8.8
6.3
6.2-6.5
7.8
7.8-7.9 8
7.6
6.4-8.2 7
6.5
6.2-6.8 6
James River
8.1
8.1-8.1 8
8.6
8.5-8.8 8
6.4
6.3-6.6 6
8.0
.0-8.0
7.9
.0-8.6
6.6
.2-6.9
Paper
8.1
.1-8.1
8.6
.4-8.9
6.4
.3-6.6
8.0
8.0-8.1
7.5
7.0-8.2
6.5
6.1-6.8
Effluent -
8.2
8.1-8.2
8.6
8.4-8.8
6.4
6.3-6.8
8.1
8.1-8.1
8.0
7.0-8.8
6.6
6.1-7.3
November 2,
8.2
8.2-8.2
8.8
8.6-9.1
6.4
6.3-6.7
8.2
8.2-8.2
8.2
7.2-9.0
6.6
6.1-7.4
1983
8.2
8.1-8.2
8.7
8.6-9.0
6.5
6.3-6.8
-------
Table 28. Water quality data for the effluent toxicity tests on fathead minnows.
Percent Effluent Concentrations (vol/vol)
Mean
pH
(range)
Initial DO (mg/1)
(range)
Final DO (mg/1)
(range)
pH
(range)
Initial DO (mg/1)
(range)
Final DO (mg/1)
(range)
100
50
25
12.5
6.25
Contn
Nicolet Paper Effluent - July 8, 1983
7.6
7.5-7.6
6.6
5.7-7.2
5.8
5.1-6.3
8.0
7.9-8.0
8.1
6.2-8.8
6.4
5.1-6.9
8.0
8.0-8.1
7.3
6.4-7.8
6.0
5.5-6.6
Wisconsin
8.0
8.0-8.1
8.1
6.3-8.7
6.3
5.0-6.8
8.3
8.3-8.4
8.1
6.9-8.7
6.1
5.0-6.9
Tissue F.ffl
8.1
8.1-8.2
8.3
6.5-8.9
6.2
5.0-6.9
8.4
8.3-8.
8.4
7.2-8.
6.5
6.0-7.
uent -
8.0
8.0-8.
8.3
6.8-9.
6.9
6.6-7.
8.4
4 8.4-8.5
8.4
8 7.5-8.9
6.6
0 6.1-7.1
July 8, 1983
8.1
1 8.1-8.2
8.5
0 7.0-9.0
6.4
4 5.0-7.6
8.5
8.4-8.5
8.4
7.6-9.0
6.6
6.4-6.9
8.1
8.1-8.2
8.5
7.2-8.9
6.5
5.0-7.7
-------
Table 29. Water quality data for the effluent toxicity tests on Cerjodaphnia
dubia/affinis.
Percent Effluent Concentrations (vol/vol)
100 50 25 12.5 6.25 Control
Mean Nicolet Paper Effluent - July 8, 1983
pH 7.6 8.0 8.3 8.4 8.4 8.5
(range) 7.5-7.6 8.0-8.1 - 8.3-8.4 8.4-8.5 8.4-8.5
(mg/1) 6.9 7.2 6.9 7.2 7.2 7.3
(range) 6.8-7.3 7.0-7.6 6.6-7.3 7.1-7.5 7.0-7.5 7.1-7.5
Wisconsin Tissue Effluent - July 8, 1983
pH 8.0 8.0 8.1 8.0 8.1 8.1
(range) 7.9-8.0 8.0-8.1 - 8.0-8.1 8.1-8.2 8.1-8.2
(mg/1) 7.4 6.5 7.2 6.9 6.8 7.0
(range) 7.2-7.7 6.1-6.9 6.2-7.5 6.1-7.6 6.1-7.3 6.0-7.6
a Final daily value
-------
Table 30. Water quality data for the effluent toxicity tests on Ceriodaphm'a
rvi s.
Mea_n
pH
(range)
DO* (mg/1)
(range)
__JL^JL^^ JLttL4ADJL Concentrations (vol/vol)
100 50 25 12.5 6.25
Control
James River Paper Effluent - November 2, 1983
8.0 8.1 8.1
8.0-8.0 8.1-8.1 8.1-8.1
6.4 6.6 6.5
6.3-6.6 6.5-6.7 6.4-6.6
8.2 8.2 8.2
8.1-8.2 8.2-8.2 8.1-8.2
6.4 6.6 6.6
6.2-6.5 6.5-6.8 6.5-6.9
PH
(range)
(mg/1)
(range)
Thilmany Paper Effluent - July 8, 1983
7.6
7.0
6.8-7.3
7.8
7.8-7.9
7.1
6.9-7.5
8.0
7.0
6.6-7.5
8.0
8.0-8.1
6.9
6.8-7.4
8.1
6.8
6.7-7.2
8.2
6.6
5.6-7.3
a Final daily value
-------
Table 31. Water quality data for the effluent toxicity tests on CerJodaphnia
dubia/affinis.
Percent Effluent Concentrations (vol/vol)
Mean
pH
(range)
DOa (tng/1)
(range)
100
7.2
7.1-7.2
6.6
6.5-7.0
50
Green Bay
7.8
7.8-7.9
6.4
6.3-6.6
25
Packaging
8.0
8.0-8.0
6.5
6.4-6.8
Proctor-Gamble Effl
PH
(range)
DOa (mg/1)
(range)
7.8
7.8-7.8
7.3
8.0
7.8-8.0
6.8
6.6-7.1
8.0
7.8-8.0
7.1
7.0-7.4
12.5
6.25 Control
Effluent - November 2, 1983
8.0
8.0-8
6.5
6.3-6
uent -
8.0
8.0-8
7.1
7.0-7
8.0
.1 8.0-8
6.8
.9 6.6-7
November 2
8.1
.1 8.0-8
7.1
.3 7.0-7
8.2
.1 8.1-8.2
7.0
.0 6.9-7.2
, 1983
8.2
.1 8.1-8.2
7.2
.3 7.0-7.7
a Final daily value
-------
Table 32. Water quality data for the effluent toxicity tests on Ceriodaphnia
du bja/ a_f fijm.
Percent Effluent Concentrations (vol/vol)
Mean
pH
(range)
DO* (mg/1)
(range)
pH
(range)
DOa (mg/1)
(range)
100
50
25
12.5
Kimberly Clark-J Effluent - June
7.9
7.8-8.0
7.3
7.2-7.9
8.1
7.3
7.2-7.5
8.1
8.0-8.2
7.5
7.4-7.8
Kimberly
7.9
7.8-8.1
7.3
7.3-7.5
8.1
8.0-8.3
7.4
7.3-7.8
Clark-L Effl
8.0
7.9-8.2
7.4
7.3-7.4
8.2
8.0-8.3 8
7.4
7.4-7.7 7
uent - June
8.1
8.0-8.3 8
7.4
7.3-7.5 7
6.25 Control
15,
8.2
.1-8
7.4
.3-7
15,
8.1
.0-8
7.5
.4-7
1983
8.2
.3 8.1-8.3
7.4
.7 7.2-7.7
1983
8.2
.2 8.1-8.3
7.6
.7 7.5-7.7
a Final daily value
-------
Table 33. Water quality data for the effluent toxicity tests on Ceriodaphnia
iia/affi_nj_s_.
Percent Effluent Concentrations (vol/vol)
___ 100 _5_0_ _2_5_ _____12^5 L2_5_ Control
Mean Mid Tech Paper Effluent - May 25, 1P83
pH 7.3 7.7 8.1 8.2 8.2 8.2
(range) 7.3-7.4 7.6-7.7 8.0-8.2 8.1-8.2 8.2-8.3 8.2-8.3
(mg/1) 5.9 6.0 6.5 6.6 6.6 6.8
(range) 5.8-6.0 5.9-6.1 6.5-6.7 6.4-6.7 6.5-6.8 6.7-7.0
Bergstrom Paper Effluent - June 15, 1983
pH 8.6 8.3 8.2 8.3 8.2 8.3
(range) 8.5-8.6 8.1-8.5 8.1-8.5 8.2-8.4 8.2-8.4 8.2-8.3
D0« (mg/1) 7.3 7.3 7.3 7.3 7.4 7.5
(range) 7.3-7.4 7.2-7.5 7.2-7.5 7.2-7.5 7.3-7.5 7.3-7.9
a Final daily value
-------
Table 34. Water quality data for the effluent toxicity tests on Ceriodaphnia
d_ub_i_a_/af_fi_n_i_s_.
Pe_rcf_nt_ _E_f fJj£?_nt___Conc ent rat ions (vol/vplj
100 50 25 12.5 6.25 Control
Me_an Kerwin Paper Effluent - May 25, 1983
PH 7.4 7.6 8.0 8.2 8.2 8.3
(range) - - - 8.1-8.2 8.2-8.3 8.3-8.4
(mg/1) 6.7 7.1 7.0 7.1 7.1 7.3
(range) - - 6.8-7.2 7.0-7.5 7.0-7.5 7.1-7.6
Appleton Paper Effluent - May 25, 1983
pH 7.5 7.8 7.9 8.1 8.2 8.2
(range) 7.5-8.0 7.7-8.0 7.9-8.1 8.0-8.2 8.1-8.4 8.2-8.4
(mg/1) 6.7 7.0 6.9 6.3 6.1 6.3
(range) 6.5-7.8 6.8-8.0 6.5-8.1 5.9-8.0 5.8-8.0 6.0-8.1
a Final daily value
-------
Table 35. Water quality data for the effluent toxicity tests on ^eriodaphnia
i / affinis.
Percent Effluent Concentrations (vol/vol)
100 50 25 12.5 6.25 Control
Mean Kerwin Paper (?) Effluent - January 26, 1984
pH 7.7 7.7 7.7 7.9 8.1 8.1
(range) 7.7-7.7 7.7-7.8 7.7-7.7 7.9-8.0 8.0-8.1 8.1-8.1
DO* (mg/1) 5.0 5.6 6.0 6.4 6.4 6.4
(range) 4.9-5.1 5.5-5.7 5.9-6.1 6.4-6.4 6.3-6.5 6.4-6.5
Mid Tech (2) Effluent - January 26, 1983
pH 8.0 8.1 8.1 8.1 8.1 8.2
(range) 8.0-8.0 8.0-8.1 8.1-8.1 8.1-8.1 8.1-8.2 8.2-8.2
(mg/1) 6.4 6.4 6.5 6.5 6.7 6.7
(range) 6.4-6.5 6.4-6.5 6.4-6.6 6.5-6.7 6.6-6.8 6.7-6.8
a Final daily value
-------
Table 36. Water quality data for the effluent toxicity tests on Cerlodaphnla
dubia/affinis.
_ Percent Effluent Concentrations (vol/volj
100 50 25 12.5 6.25 Control
Mean Fort Howard Paper Fffluent - January 12, 1984
pH 8.0 8.1 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2
(range) 8.0-8.1 8.1-8.2 8.2-8.2 8.2-8.2 8.2-8.2 8.2-8.2
DOa (mg/1) 6.2 6.5 6.6 6.8 6.9 6.9
(range) 5.7-6.8 6.5-6.7 6.3-7.3 6.4-8.0 6.5-7.9 6.4-8.1
Green Bay STP Effluent - January 26, 1984
pH 7.3 7.8 8.0 8.0 8.1 8.2
(range) 7.3-7.3 7.8-7.8 7.9-8.0 8.0-8.0 8.1-8.1 8.2-8.2
(mg/1) 6.4 6.5 6.3 6.4 6.6 6.4
(range) - - 6.3-6.4 6.3-6.5 6.6-6.7 6.3-6.5
a Final daily value
-------
Table 37. Water quality data for the effluent toxicity tests on Ceriodaphnia
dubia/affinis.
Percent Effluent Concentrations (vpl/vol)
Mejm
pH
(range)
D0a (mg/1)
(range)
pH
(range)
D0a (mg/1)
(range)
100
50
25
Neenah-Menasha STP
8.1
8.1-8.1
6.9
6.2-8.0
7.9
7.9-8.0
7.0
5.9-7.7
8.0
7.9-8.1
6.9
6.3-7.9
Appleton
8.1
8.1-8.1
6.3
5.7-7.8
8.2
8.2-8.2
6.8
6.3-8.1
STP Effl
8.1
8.1-8.1
6.3
5.7-7.8
12.5
Effluent -
8.2
8.2-8.2
6.8
6.3-8.1
6.25
January 12,
8.2
8.2-8.2
6.9
6.4-8.1
Control
1984
8.2
8.2-8.2
7.1
6.7-8.1
uent - January 12, 1984
8.2
8.2-8.2
6.5
6.0-7.9
8.2
8.2-8.2
6.5
6.0-8.0
8.2
8.2-8.3
6.6
6.1-8.0
a Final daily value
-------
L_
a-
i,
Hi
cn
X
o
Ol
c
UO
3
O
c
c
a
ro
ro
C
O
(/I
a*
x
o
C
a;
r
.a
ro
c_
o
ro
ro
CT
t-
ai
ro
3
oo
co
ai
ro
c
o
ro
-(->
to
Ol
a.
ro
oo
CTI
oc
LO
LO
CO
CM
c
ro
0)
CO
00
CTI
sr
CM
-C
u
f
ro
z:
00
LO r-*
i
r-. sr
«**'
CM
I-H 00*
1
00 1-1
*
cc
CM
0 CO
t
OC 0
ft
CO
1 i
t
o oc
1
CO C
00
c
CT OC
1
l~- CO
^
CO
C 00
1
00 O
t
00
CM
1-1 OC
1
00 C
co'
CM
r-1 00
1
00 O
cc
CM
r-1 CO
1
oo CTI
"^
CM
O 00
1
00 O
CO
CM
O CO
1
OC CT.
^
X"1*.
Ol
01
c
^" rO
Q. (-
oc
sr oc
1
00 CC
^
LO
LO CTi
1
CO CM
t
^
CO
LO CTi
1
OC f-
r-
CO
LO CTi
1
CO CTi
r-.
o
LO CT
1
00 0
CO
o
sr CTI
1
00 LO
*"*
o
LO CTi
1
oc cn
fj
o
LO CTI
1
00 O
CO
00
co oo
1
CC VO
^
o
un 01
1
CO Ol
l>-
Oi
un oo'
1
00 O
00*
Ol
E
+^f
o
r*"*i
1 ^-"*
ro 0,
i- Ol
*-> c
f* flS
C t_
cc
CM VO
1
LO sr
LO
1 (
I-H r*^
1
LO LO
uO
co
sr r--*
1
LC 00
uO
sr
o vo
1
LO LO
LO
CO
CTi LO
1
uo co
UO
UO
i I LO
i co
LO 00 00
CTi
LO i 1
A
sr uo
r-H
o vc
1 r
LO LC -i-
1 (
un a.
*t
CO
O vo
1
LO 00
un
00
sr
r- C71
4-1 C
r- ro
C (.
r--
CO LO
1
LO O
LO'
r-
LO <*O
* i
<*o o
LO
i-H
LO T***
1
LO CTI
uO
I 1
sr r
1
LO a^i
un
o
sr r-»
i
LO co
t
LO
i t
i 1 1
1 CO
LO LO CO
CTI
UO rH
A
CM CT
CM
cc r-
i f
UO l~- !-
* L_
sr a.
<
CM
co r~-
t i
LO 1
LO
sr
LO r~-
i
LO i-H
«
LO
CM
sr r-*
1
LO CC
t
LO
i 1
LO r
i
LO OC
UO
p
^^
Ol
E
0
cn *~**
^
i 01
ro C
CZ ^9
i- t_
CTI
LO r~
i
r~~ <^
^'
r-
sr oc
|
co co
9
00
r-»
sr oo
i
cc sr
CO
i
sr co
i
OO CM
00
LO
*"«f 00
1
00 CO
*
oo
r-
sr co*
|
oo co
00
^
sr oc
i
cc sr
00
LO
sr oo
oo co
CO
UO
sj- CO
OC CO
t
00
LO
sr oc
i
oc sr
oc
LO
sr oo
t
cc co
00*
x^>
(U
Ol
c
1 ro
a. t_
oc
uo co
1
oo sr
oo
o
LO CT
1
cc oc
r-
co
LO CC
1
CC 00
1
cc
vC CO
t 1
a sr
00
oc
uO CO
1
00 CO
00
c;
uO CTi
1
CO C
00
00
LO OC
1
00 CM
00
00
r~- oo
1
OC UO
cc
CT
LO 00
1
00 CTi
*
'"-
oc
LC OC*
1
oc co
oo
CT
LO 00
1
co co
cc
CT)
E
o
c.
r ^"^
ro Hi
r- 01
+> c
r- ro
c t-
LO
LO 1
1
LO LO
LO
uO
UO 1
1
LO co
9
LO
CM
LO !-
1
LO sr
LO
oc
11 LC
1
LO sr
LO
1 .
t
CTI f"-"
1
LO CTi
A
UO
CTi
co r-.'
1
tC 0s.
ID
o
0 r^
1
r^ co
LO
oo
i-H r-*
1
I-- CM
VC
oo
I-H P"H
1
i sr
*
LC
VC
,_ ,>J
i
r^- oc
LO
LC
cn r--
i
LQ O
LO
P
'S,,.^
Ol
E
0
O ^~»
0)
i Ol
ro C
C ^5
r- (..
-------
00
cr.
c
o
(/I
+-)
CU
-t->
>»
X
o
C
ai
r-
Jd
E
o
<4~
to
4->
a
CO
C
o
X
o
to
3
c/1
r-
C
.Q
3
T;
c
.c
a.
-o! o
o -r-
CTi
oo
I
a.
E.
LO
CO
re-
CO
00
en
i-H
^T
CM
f~
O
^
z
LO r**-
i
r*- ^"
CM
-H 00*
1
OO i-i
oc
CM
C X
1
cc o
X
,-,
C X
1
X C
x'
0
en x
i
P~ X
CO
O X
1
X 0
»
X
CM
t-i X
1
X C
*
X
CM
^ X
1
00 O
x"
CM
i-i X
1
x en
r-'
CM
O X
1
X O
CO
CM
o x'
1
x en
p^
'o?
o>
c
x re
a. t_
i * P--
i
P** CO
X
«3- P-~
1
P~ CO
^
LO
CM P«-
1
P*1"" ^"4
^
LO
CM P^
1
P-- en
vo
c
CO X
1
P- 00
LO
t
CO P--
1
P i-H
'"-
LO
CO P-~
1
p*^ t~l
r^-
LO
CM 1
1
r~ en
*>'
«j
CM P^
1
p~ en
CT C
(/) >» fQ
-(-XL-
CO
00
LO
C-
Q.
C
O
+J
c
re
c
o
o
CU
re
10
to
re
CT>
o
01
3
73
CU
3
C
C
O
o
to
to
CU
co
X
en
CM
cr>
^-~ > m ^*
to ^"* c to
C7> O CU C7>
c to en c
X re i/) >> re
Q. t- -r- X t-
^ cs c ^-^
«* 00
I
X CO
X
00
00
00
^- x
I
X CM
CO
>c
* X
I
X CO
X
«* X
I
X CO
X
r- X
l_
Q.
X
I
00
«fr X
I
X CO
t
X
LO
t
«r x
I
X CO
X
1C
*
X
oo
00
LO
<3- X
I
X CO
X
Ol
C7>
C
x re
a. c.
LO
P-.
CO
3-
I
CM
t
I
LO
LO
p*.
CTl
I
CO
P-x
I
o
00
un
I
CM
X
I
I
P-.
I
CM
X
I
I
CO
X
I
X
I
o>
c *
a>
> re -
r C CU
o c
wi >> re
r- X t-
Q O '
CU
>
>>
re
-o
re
c
-------
Figure 1. Fox River Stations
10
Green Boy STP
Green Bay Packaging
Proctor & Gamble
American Can
Fort Howard
DePere STP
Nicolet Paper
GREEN SAY
GREEN BAY
OE PERF
Wrightstown STP
NEENAH
KAUKAUNA
IENASHA
LAKE
WINNEBAGO
Heart of th» Valley STP
Thilmany Paper
Appleton Paper
Midtec
Appleton STP
Menasha SO East & West
Wisconsin Tissue
< u i ZF!r-G«orge Whiting
(imberly-Clarlc
4eenah.Menasha STP
"Bergstrom Paper
'Kimberly-Clqrk
Badger Globe
'fl«r* 1. Municipal and Industrial Waste Discharges to the Lower Fox River.
-32-
------- |