&EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Municipal Environmental Research EPA-600 2-80-1 33
Laboratory August 1980
Cincinnati OH 45268
Research and Development
Design
Optimization of the
Chlorination Process
Volume II
-------
RESEARCH REPORTING SERIES
Research reports of the Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, have been grouped into nine series. These nine broad cate-
gories were established to facilitate further deveJopment and application of en-
vironmental technology. Elimination of traditional grouping was consciously
planned to foster technology transfer and a maximum interface in related fields.
The nine series are:
1. Environmental Health Effects Research
2. Environmental Protection Technology
3. Ecological Research
4. Environmental Monitoring
5. Socioeconomic Environmental Studies
6. Scientific and Technical Assessment Reports (STAR)
7. Interagency Energy-Environment Research and Development
8. "Special" Reports
9. Miscellaneous Reports
This report has been assigned to the ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION TECH-
NOLOGY series. This series describes research performed to develop and dem-
onstrate instrumentation, equipment, and methodology to repair or prevent en-
vironmental degradation from point and non-point sources of pollution. This work
provides the ne_w or improved technology required for the control and treatment
of pollution-sources to meet environmental quality standards.
This document is available to the public through the National Technical Informa-
tion Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161.
-------
EPA-600/2-80-133
August 1980
DESIGN OPTIMIZATION OF THE CHLORINATION PROCESS
VOLUME II:
COMPARISON OF ACUTE TOXICITY OF
CHLORINATED EFFLUENTS FROM OPTIMIZED AND EXISTING FACILITIES
by
B. J. Finlayson, J. L. Nelson, and R. J. Hansen
California Department of Fish and Game
Water Pollution Control Laboratory
Rancho Cordova, CA 95670
Grant No. S803459
Project Officer
Albert D. Venosa
Wastewater Research Division
Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
MUNICIPAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
CINCINNATI, OHIO 45268
-------
DISCLAIMER
This report has been reviewed by the Municipal Environmental Research
Laboratory, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, and approved for publi-
cation. Approval does not signify that the contents necessarily reflect the
views or policies of the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, nor does
mention of trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement or
recommendation for use.
ii
-------
FOREWORD
The U. S. Environmental Protection Agency was created because of increas-
ing public and government concern about the dangers of pollution to the
health and welfare of the American people. Noxious air, foul water, and
spoiled land are tragic testimonies to the deterioration of our natural
environment. The complexity of that environment and the interplay of its
components require a concentrated and integrated attack on the problem.
Research and development is that necessary first step in problem solution;
it involves defining the problem, measuring its impact, and searching for
solutions. The Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory develops new and
improved technology and systems to prevent, treat, and manage wastewater and
solid and hazardous waste pollutant discharges from municipal and community
sources, to preserve and treat public drinking water supplies, and to mini-
mize the adverse economic, social, health, and aesthetic effects of pollution.
This publication is one of the products of that research and provides a most
vital communications link between the researcher and the user community.
This study was concerned with comparing the disinfection efficiencies of
various wastewater chlorination systems against an optimized system, and
evaluating the toxicities of the resulting effluents. Knowledge of criteria
which will successfully optimize chlorination systems will benefit both the
discharger by reduced chemical costs (chlorine and sulfur dioxide) and
improved efficiency, and man and his environment by adequate disinfection
for the proper control of disease transmission and continued preservation
and propagation of fish and wildlife. This investigation has greatly
contributed in the quest for these goals.
Francis T. Mayo, Director
Municipal Environmental Research
Laboratory
iii
-------
ABSTRACT
The California Department of Health Services in cooperation with the
California Department of Fish and Game developed and implemented a chlorine
optimization study which investigated several design criteria that may
improve the efficiency of wastewater chlorination systems and hence, provide
adequate disinfection without excessive chlorination and toxicity. The
study was conducted on-site at eight wastewater treatment plants in northern
California. Two mobile units were constructed for the project: a pilot
chlorination plant and a mobile toxicity testing and water quality laboratory.
They were operated by the Department of Health Services and the Department of
Fish and Game, respectively. The pilot chlorination plant tested several
optimized chlorination design criteria against existing wastewater treatment
plant chlorination systems. The mobile laboratory evaluated the toxicity of
the optimized and existing chlorinated effluents.
The toxicity associated with the existing unchlorinated and dechlori-
nated effluents increased with un-ionized ammonia concentrations. Most of
the toxicity associated with the unchlorinated and dechlorinated effluents,
however, was the result of an artificial increase in pH created by a toxicity
test design problem. The optimized chlorinated effluents, with one exception,
had lower and more stable chlorine residuals than did the existing chlori-
nated effluents and hence, were generally less toxic. The toxicity of all
effluents investigated increased proportionately with increased chlorine
residual.
This report was submitted in fulfillment of Grant Number S803459 by the
California Department of Fish and Game under the sponsorship of the Environ-
mental Protection Agency. Work was completed in September 1979.
IV
-------
CONTENTS
Foreword iii
Abstract iv
Table of Contents v
Figures vi
Tables viii
Abbreviations and Symbols ix
Acknowledgments x
1. Introduction 1
2. Conclusions 3
3. Recommendations 4
4. Materials and Methods 5
Project Schedule 5
Mobile Laboratory 5
Toxicity Testing Methods 10
Data Analysis 12
5. Results 14
Effluent Toxicity and Quality 14
Toxicity of Unchlorinated and Dechlorinated
Effluents 34
Comparative Chlorine Toxicity 40
6. Discussion 44
References 49
Appendices 51
B-l. Chemical analyses for dilution water supplies 51
B-2. Effluent toxicity and quality data for
San Leandro WTP 53
B-3. Effluent toxicity and quality data for
San Pablo WTP 57
B-4. Effluent toxicity and quality data for Pinole WTP ... 66
B-5. Effluent toxicity and quality data for
South San Francisco WTP 77
B-6. Effluent toxicity and quality data for
Sacramento Northeast WTP 85
B-7. Effluent toxicity and quality data for
Roseville WTP 94
B-8. Effluent toxicity and quality data for
Dublin/San Ramon WTP 100
B-9. Effluent toxicity and quality data for
Ross Valley WTP 106
-------
FIGURES
Number Page
1 Locations of wastewater treatment plants investigated
in the chlorine optimization study 6
2 The California Department of Fish and Game mobile
toxicity and water quality laboratory 8
3 Floor plan of Department of Fish and Game toxicity
and water quality laboratory 9
4 Schematic diagram of waste and dilution water flow
through the mobile laboratory 11
5 Chlorine residuals in optimized and existing effluents
at San Pablo WTP during the first week of comparative
testing 22
6 Chlorine residuals in optimized and existing effluents
at San Pablo WTP during the second week of comparative
testing 23
7 Chlorine residuals in optimized and existing effluents
at Pinole WTP during the first week of comparative
testing 25
8 Chlorine residuals in optimized and existing effluents
at Pinole WTP during the second week of comparative
testing 26
9 Chlorine residuals in optimized and existing effluents
at South San Francisco WTP during the first week of
comparative testing 27
10 Chlorine residuals in optimized and existing effluents
at South San Francisco WTP during the second week of
comparative testing 28
11 Chlorine residuals in optimized and existing effluents
at Sacramento Northeast WTP during the first week of
comparative testing 30
vi
-------
FIGURES (Continued)
Number Page
12 Chlorine residuals in optimized and existing effluents
at Sacramento Northeast WTP during the second week of
comparative testing 31
13 Chlorine residuals in optimized and existing effluents
at Roseville WTP during the first week of comparative
testing 32
14 Chlorine residuals in optimized and existing effluents
at Roseville WTP during the second week of comparative
testing 33
15 Chlorine residuals in optimized and existing effluents
at Dublin/San Ramon WTP during the first week of
comparative testing 35
16 Chlorine residuals in optimized and existing effluents
at Dublin/San Ramon WTP during the second week of
comparative testing 36
17 Chlorine residuals in optimized and existing effluents
at Ross Valley WTP during the first week of comparative
testing 37
18 Chlorine residuals in optimized and existing effluents
at Ross Valley WTP during the second week of comparative
testing 38
19 The LC50 effluent concentration vs. TRC content of
undiluted effluents for fathead minnows and golden
shiners 43
vii
-------
TABLES
Number
1 Schedule for toxicity testing of Department of Health
Services chlorinated (DOHC1), and existing unchlori-
nated (UnCl), chlorinated (EC1), and dechlorinated
(DeCl) effluents at various wastewater treatment
plants (WTP) in California during the period of
February 1978 through May 1979 ,
Continual-flow toxicity testing levels for Department
of Health Services chlorinated XDOHC1), and existing
unchlorinated (UnCl), chlorinated (EC1), and dechlori-
nated (DeCl) effluents at wastewater treatment plants
(WTP) in California from February 1978 through
May 1979 -. 15
Summary of mean total residual chlorine, ammonia, pH,
and temperature in the undiluted Department of Health
Services chlorinated (DOHC1), and existing unchlorinated
(UnCl), chlorinated (EC1), and dechlorinated (UnCl),
chlorinated (EC1), and dechlorinated (DeCl) effluents
of wastewater treatment plants (WTP) in California from
February 1978 through May 1979 18
Differences in TRC between Department of Health Services
(DOHC1) and existing (EC1) chlorinated effluents 21
Differences between total ammonia, temperature, pH, and
un-ionized ammonia in the unchlorinated (UnCl) and
dechlorinated (DeCl) effluents 39
Differences between the TRC residual in undiluted
existing (EC1) and Department of Health Services
(DOHC1) effluents, the toxicities of EC1 and DOHC1
effluents, and the sensitivities of chlorine and
ammonia to golden shiners (GS) and fathead
minnows (FH) - 41
viii
-------
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND SYMBOLS
ABBREVIATIONS
DeCl
DOHC1
EC1
FH
GS
LC50, 96-h
m3/d
mg/L
NH.,
NH
P
P
r
SD
ug/L
UnCl
VAC
WTP
existing wastewater treatment plant chlorinated
effluent which has been dechlorinated with sulfur
dioxide
existing wastewater treatment plant unchlorinated
effluent chlorinated by the Department of Health
Services Pilot Plant
existing wastewater treatment plant unchlorinated
effluent chlorinated by the existing wastewater
treatment plant system
fathead minnows, Pimephales promelas
golden shiners, Notemigonus crysoleucas
concentration of a substance which causes 507°
mortality to the population in 96-h
cubic meters per day
milligrams per liter
un-ionized gas fraction of total ammonia
total ammonia
probability of Type I error
phase of electricity
correlation coefficient
standard deviation
micrograms per liter
existing wastewater treatment plant unchlorinated
effluent
volts of alternating current
wastewater treatment plant
ix
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
S. Flannery, D. Yoshikawa, D. Roberts, and D. Konnoff assisted with
the data collection, and D. Langdon kept financial records and prepared the
final manuscript. D. Wood and H. Rectenwald helped design and construct the
mobile laboratory. J. Horton of DFG, B. Anona of the Department of Environ-
mental Studies at University of California, Davis, and the U. S. Bureau of
Reclamation provided assistance with the computerized data analyses.
-------
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
The practice of treating wastewater effluents with chlorine continues
to be used for the control of pathenogenic organisms. A dilemma is created
when chlorinated effluents are discharged into the environment since they
represent a hazard to aquatic organisms. Numerous studies have defined the
toxicity of chlorinated wastewaters to fish and other aquatic organisms
(Zillich 1972; Brungs 1973; 1976; Arthur et al. 1975; Mattice and Zittel
1976; Ward et al. 1976; Finlayson and Hinkelman 1977). However, no studies
have attempted to improve the situation by optimizing the amount of chlorine
needed for disinfection, thus making the effluents less toxic.
The California Department of Fish and Game (DFG) has many times wit-
nessed the inefficient and excessive application of chlorine to wastewater
effluents at wastewater treatment plants (WTP) in California. Effluents
with chlorine residuals in excess of 10 mg/L (total residual chlorine) have
been observed entering the State's receiving waters (Finlayson 1977). These
excessive residuals are over 1,000 times the recommended "safe" level (3 to 5
ug/L IRC) for chlorine (DeGraeve et al. 1978). Usually, excessive chlorine
residuals are the result of either improper chlorine application or an
ineffective residual chlorine control system or both. Because of this need
to optimize wastewater chlorination systems, DFG welcomed the opportunity to
participate in a chlorination optimization study. The results of such a
study will help to minimize chlorine usage, chlorine residuals, and use of
other chemicals such as sulfur dioxide in dechlorination.
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the influence and importance
of three chlorine application optimization design criteria on wastewater
chlorination systems. These design criteria which were developed by the
California Department of Health Services (DOH) are:
1) a rapid and complete initial mixing between chlorine and waste;
2) a 30-min minimum contact time in a well designed tank between the
chlorine and waste; and
3) a sound and workable chlorine residual control system.
Two mobile units were developed for the project. The DOH unit was a
pilot chlorination plant designed to test chlorine application optimization
criteria against existing WTP chlorination systems at selected sites (Sepp
and Bao 1980). The DFG unit was developed to test and document the compara-
tive toxicities between optimized and existing chlorinated effluents of WTP
which employ different disinfection system designs. The purpose was to
evaluate the influence and importance of various design factors which are
-------
capable of minimizing toxicity. The DFG field laboratory was designed
specifically to simultaneously monitor toxicity and quality of three effluent
types:
1) existing WTP unchlorinated (UnCl) effluents;
2) existing WTP chlorinated (EC1) effluents; and
3) DOH optimized pilot plant chlorinated (DOHC1$ effluents.
The analyses of the data in this paper are intended to demonstrate:
1) the differences between chlorine residuals in optimized and
existing chlorinated effluents;
2) the differences between toxicities of optimized and existing
chlorinated effluents;
3) the differences between toxicities of chlorine in ammoniated
and ammonia-stripped (nitrified) effluents;
4) the toxicity of unchlorinated and dechlorinated effluents;
and
5) the toxicity of chlorine to the two test fish; fathead minnow,
Pimephales promelas, and golden shiner, Notemigonus crysoleucas.
-------
SECTION 2
CONCLUSIONS
1. The optimized pilot plant employed by the California Department of
Health Services produced lower and more stable total chlorine
residuals (TRC) in wastewaters than existing full-scale chlorination
systems.
2. Thesejlower and more stable pilot plant wastewater chlorine
residuals represent an average of 49.7% reduction in TRC below
that of existing effluents.
3. These lower and more stable pilot plant wastewater TRC caused an
average of 42.97o reduction in acute toxicity below that of existing
effluents.
4. This reduction of TRC and toxicity in the optimized chlorinated
effluents was much less noticeable in nitrified effluents.
5. Chlorine was the most toxic constituent of the effluents tested.
6. The toxicity [percent (7o) effluent concentration] of chlorinated
effluents was predictable based on mean TRC concentration of the
undiluted wastewater.
7. Dechlorination of chlorinated effluents with sulfur dioxide removes
all acute toxicity associated with chlorine.
8. The toxicity associated with the unchlorinated and dechlorinated
effluents increased with increased un-ionized ammonia concentrations.
9. Most of the un-ionized ammonia toxicity associated with the
unchlorinated and dechlorinated effluents was caused by an artificial
increase in pH (0.5 pH units) in the toxicity testing aquaria.
Un-ionized ammonia concentrations in the 1007<> effluent aquaria were
1447o higher than in the undiluted waste streams. The increase in pH
is a toxicity test design problem caused by aeration and partial
confinement of the effluent during the test.
10. Nitrification of wastewaters prior to chlorination under some
circumstances can reduce the toxicity of TRC.
11. Fathead minnows were significantly more sensitive (23.6 percent) to
TRC than were golden shiners.
-------
SECTION 3
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. The optimized design criteria effect significant savings in the
amount of chlorine applied during the disinfection of wastewaters
and result in less toxic effluents. Hence, they should be consid-
ered in designing chlorination systems.
2. Nitrification of wastewaters, because it can reduce the toxicity
of TRC and eliminate un-ionized ammonia toxicity, should perhaps
be considered as a beneficial treatment process for wastewaters.
3. Because of artificial pH increases during effluent toxicity tests,
the following test designs should be used in this order of
preference: (1) continuous-flow (flow-through); (2) continual-flow
(intermittent-flow); and (3) static.
4. Dechlorination of wastewater effluents should be practiced to remove
all toxicity associated with chlorine.
-------
SECTION 4
MATERIALS AND METHODS
PROJECT SCHEDULE
Both the DFG mobile laboratory and DOH pilot plant were operated at
eight wastewater treatment plants in northern California (Figure 1)
between February 1978 and May 1979 (Table 1). We collected comparative
toxicity and water quality data between optimized and existing chlorinated
effluents for seven of the eight plants; the DdH pilot plant was not func-
tioning correctly at the San Leandro WTP (Sepp and Bao 1980).
MOBILE LABORATORY
The toxicity testing and water quality monitoring were performed in a
mobile field laboratory, an 8 x 4 by 2.7 m trailer (Figure 2). The labora-
tory was transported by a 910 kg (1-ton) stakeside truck. The material cost
of the mobile laboratory was approximately $30,000.
The mobile laboratory is functionally segregated into three separate
areas (Figure 3):
1) water control room;
2) toxicity testing room; and
3) laboratory.
The water control room receives up to three wastes as well as the
dilution water for the toxicity tests. All plumbing in the trailer was
constructed of SCH 40 and 80 polyvinyl-chloride (PVC) pipe. Equipment in
this room includes a chiller, heat exchangers, and an air pump. There are
four heat exchangers, one for each of the wastes and one for the dilution
water. The heat exchangers were available to lower the temperatures of
wastes and incoming water. They were constructed of 10.2-cm and 15.2-cm
diameter (100-cm and 250-cm long) PVC pipe with stainless steel tubing
(6-mm 0-D. x 3-mm I.D.) coils inside. The heat exchangers work on the
principle of heat transfer from the waste and water streams to chilled
ethylene glycol inside the stainless tubing. Temperatures are lowered as
the waste and water streams flow through the PVC pipes. The chilled
ethylene glycol was supplied from a 2700 kg (3-ton) 58,000 kj (@ 29°C),
air cooled, water chiller.
The toxicity testing room contains three Mount and Brungs (1967) propor-
tional diluters and thirty-six, 10.-L, over-flowing aquaria for three
continual-flow toxicity tests. Predilution systems upstream of the diluters
-------
WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
MAJOR METROPOLITAN AREA
SACRAMENTO
NORTHEAST
WTP
ROSEVILLE WTP
1 WTP SAN
O FRANCISCO
SOUTH
SAN FRANCISCO,
O WTP
\
I UN/
SAN RAMON WTP
SAN LEANDRO WTP
SAN FRANCISCO
BAY 0 20 40
f I I
80
SCALE IN KILOMETERS
Figure I. Locations of wastewater treatment plants investigated in the
chlorine optimization study.
-------
Table 1. SCHEDULE FOR TOXICITY TESTING OF DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES CHLORINATED (DOHC1), AND
EXISTING UNCHLORINATED (UnCl), CHLORINATED (EC1), AND DECHLORINATED (DeCl) EFFLUENTS AT
VARIOUS WASTEWATER TREATMENT PALNTS (WTP) IN CALIFORNIA DURING THE PERIOD OF FEBRUARY 1978
THROUGH MAY 1979.
WTP
San Leandro
San Pablo
Pinole
South
San Francisco
Sacramento
Northeast
Roseville
Dublin/
San Ramon
Ross Valley
a/ FH = Fathead
F/ GS = Golden
Date begin
12-11-78
27-11-78
10-IV-78
17- IV- 78
24- IV- 78
12- VI- 78
19-VI-78
26- VI- 78
8- VII- 78
14- VIII- 78
28- VIII- 78
11- IX- 78
2-X-78
10-X-78
16-X-78
13-XI-78
27-XI-78
9-IV-79
23-IV-79
14-V-79
21-V-79
a/
Effluent type Test species—
UnCl & EC1
UnCl & EC1
UnCl, EC1, & DOHC1
UnCl, EC1, & DeCl
UnCl, EC1, & DOHC1
UnCl, EC1, & DOHC1
UnCl, EC1, & DeCl
UnCl, EC1, & DOHC1
EC1
EC1
UnCl, EC1, & DOHC1
UnCl, EC1, & DOHC1
UnCl, EC1, & DOHC1
UnCl, EC1, & DeCl
UnCl, EC1, & DOHC1
UnCl, EC1, & DOHC1
UnCl, EC1, & DOHC1
UnCl, EC1, & DOHC1
UnCl, EC1, & DOHC1
UnCl, EC1, & DOHC1
UnCl, EC1, & DOHC1
FH
FH
FH
FH
FH
FH
GS
GS
FH & GS
FH & GS
FH
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
Test series
SL-1 & 2
SL-3 & 4
SP-1,2, & 3
SP-4,5, & 6
SP-7,8, & 9
P-1,2, & 3
P-4,5, & 6
P-7,8, & 9
P-10 & 11
SSF-1 & 2
SSF-4,5, & 6
SSF-7,8, & 9
SN-1,2, & 3
SN-4,5, & 6
SN-7,8, & 9
R-1,2, & 3
R-4,5, & 6
DSR-1,2, & 3
DSR-4,5, & 6
RV-1,2, & 3
RV-4,5, 6e 6
Plant outflow
Cm3/d)
23,694
23,126
26,722
26,911
27,858
4,163
4,126
4,050
4,126
30,658
29,901
30,658
64,534
64,459
64,875
15,291
14,761
12,301
13,702
17,449
16,199
minnow, Pimephales promelas.
shiner, Notemigonus crysoleucas.
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVIC
FIELD LABOI
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF W ft G
AL SERVICES BRANCH
Figure 2. The California Department of Fish and Game mobile toxicity and water
quality laboratory.
-------
OBJECT KEY:
R/F = REFRIGERATOR VF = TRANSFORMER
p/Ds PROPORTIONAL DILUTER A/c s AIR CONDITIONING
%J= WATER QUALITY MONITOR PROBE
A/p = AIR PUMP
H/E = HEAT EXCHANGER
= HOT WATER HEATER
VO
TABLE / CABINETS
LABORATORY
ROOM
r 1
I DISTILLED ,
. WATER .
j TANK
II
TOXICITY TESTING ROOM
• '• '• ^ I^^H^^V VH^H^V
I A/c I
AQUARIA
AQUAR
P/D
3
P/ D
2
AQUARIA
P/D
1
WATER
CONTROL
WATER
[CHILLER
E
E H/
WATER &
EFFLUENT KEY
D= DILUTION WATER
1 s DOH CL EFFLUENT/EXISTING DECL
EFFLUENT
2= EXISTING CL EFFLUENT
3s EXISTING UNCl EFFLUENT
SCALE IN METERS
Figure 3. Floor plan of Department of Fish and Game toxicity and water quality laboratory.
-------
have the capacity to dilute the waste to a maximum of 57., of the original
strength. The proportional diluters and aquaria were constructed of 6.3-mm
thick clear plexiglass. An air conditioner, a waste and dilution water
delivery system, and an automatic water quality monitor system are also
present. The monitor cyclically records pH, temperature, dissolved oxygen,
and conductivity of each undiluted waste stream. The cycle can be adjusted
from 30 min to 12 h. The automatic water quality monitor has 4 flow-through
reservoirs; one contained the multiparameter probe (measuring unit) and one
for each of the three wastes.
The laboratory houses the electronic controls for the proportional
diluters and the water quality monitor as well as the various instruments
needed for the chemical and physical monitoring of the toxicity testing
aquaria. The control unit of the water quality monitor, in addition to
recording the four water quality parameters on paper and cassette tapes,
records a code for each waste as well as the time-of-day.
The mobile laboratory operates on 240/120 VAC electrical current which
can be supplied from two sources. Generally, a 3P 480 VAC source was obtain-
ed from the WTP and connected to the trailer. The IP of the 3P supply was
converted to IP 240/120 VAC through a IP 480/240 VAC transformer located
underneath the trailer. A IP 240 VAC portable, diesel-powered alternator
was also available to provide electricity.
Water and waste flow through the mobile laboratory is schematically
diagramed (Figure 4). Nylon garden hoses connected to submersible pumps
supplied wastes to the trailer. Pressurized, dechlorinated tap water from
the WTP was used as the dilution water source in the toxicity tests.
Complete mineral and metal analyses were conducted for all the dilution
water supplies using standard methods (American Public Health Association
1975). The results of the dilution water analyses are presented in
Appendix B-l. Dechlorination of tap water was accomplished by passing the
water through activated charcoal inside the large (dilution water) heat
exchanger. The flows of the wastes and dilution water in the mobile labora-
tory were controlled by a series of PVC ball valves (which functioned as
shunts) located downstream of the heat exchangers. In addition to supplying
the proportional diluters, proportions of the waste streams were diverted to
the water quality monitor.
TOXICITY TESTING METHODS
Standard 96-h continual-flow toxicity tests (Peltier 1978) were used
to evaluate toxicities of the various effluents. Fathead minnows, Pimephales
promelas, and golden shiners, Notemigonus crysoleucas. were used as test
organisms. The fish were obtained commercially from Golden State Fisheries*
and acclimated for at least one week at the DFG Water Pollution Control
Laboratory before being used as test organisms. The test fish were further
acclimated to the dilution water at each WTP for 24 h prior to testing.
All fish were between 30 and 51 mm fork length (length from tip of snout
to notch in tail fin).
* Address: 12001 S. Carrolton Road, Escalon, CA 95320.
10
-------
OUTFALL
EXISTING
LORINA
2° AND 3°
WASTE WATER
DON
PILOT PLANT
CHLORINATION
LAB
WATER
SUPPLY
ACTIVATED
CHARCOAL
CL REMOVAL
HEAT
EXCHANGER
HEAT
EXCHANGER
HEAT
EXCHANGER
HEAT
EXCHANGER
WATER
LITY
ONITOR
|PROPORTIONAL DILUTED] [PROPORTIONAL DILUTERJ {PROPORTIONAL DILUTERj
100
10
32
56
C
18
32
| 100
I 10
18
56
C
96-H CONTINUAL-FLOW TOXICITY TESTS
Figure 4. Schematic diagram of waste and dilution water flow through the mobile laboratory.
-------
The proportional diluters supplied five continual waste concentrations
in a geometric series of dilutions (100, 56, 32, 18, 107.) and a control
(100% dilution water) to the testing aquaria. The volume of each aquarium
was exchanged every 2.5 h. All waste concentrations and the control were
tested in replicate. Fifteen fish were exposed in each replicate (30 fish
in total per concentration). Adequate dissolved oxygen was supplied to the
test aquaria by aeration, and the temperature of the aquaria was controlled
by overhead air conditioning. The heat exchangers did not have to be used
for temperature control.
Several chemical and physical parameters were manually measured using
standard methods in each aquarium every 6 h during the tests. Dissolved
oxygen and temperature were measured with a dissolved oxygen meter and
probe, and pH was determined using an expanded- scale meter and combination
electrode. Total residual chlorine was determined with an amperometric
titrator using Method C (APHA 1975). Total ammonia (NH/1" + NH 3) was
determined with a specific-ion meter and ammonia gas-sensing electrode;
un- ionized ammonia was determined from the equation:
(1) NH3 = f (NH + NH3)
where f = l/(lOpka"pH + 1), pka = 0.0901821 + 2729. 92/T, and T = test
temperature (C) + 273.16.
During the tests, total residual chlorine and total ammonia were
manually determined at 2-h intervals in each undiluted waste stream along
with the automatically monitored levels of dissolved oxygen, pH, temperature,
and conductivity.
DATA ANALYSIS
Manually collected toxicity and effluent quality data were transcribed
onto computer cards from data sheets, edited, and analyzed in ALGOL® by a
Burroughs® 6700 computer. The electronically collected effluent quality
data of the undiluted waste streams were transcribed onto a 7-track tape
from the cassette tape and analyzed in a similar manner. Standard statistics
of mean and standard deviation were caldulated for all effluent quality data.
Fish mortality was determined every 24 h during the 96-h test. If
less than 85% survival occurred in the controls during a test, the entire
test was considered invalid and no mortalities were calculated. To evaluate
the toxicities of all effluents, we calculated a 96-h LC50 using log-logit
(effluent and TRC concentrations vs. mortality) analysis (Finley 1971) or
noted the percent mortality at the highest concentration tested. The
mortality estimates used in the log-logit analysis were first adjusted for
control mortality using the equation:
(2) m = (1 - S /S ) 100
x c
where m is percent mortality, Sx is the survival in waste concentration x
and S is the survival in the controls. '
n
12
-------
Statistically significant (p < 0.05) differences among mean chlorine
residuals, effluent toxicities, and other chemical parameters were determined
by subjecting the data groups to two-tailed t-tests (Sokal and Rohlf 1969).
Significant correlations (p < 0.05) between the toxicity ("I, effluent) and
the mean chlorine residuals of the chlorinated effluents (mg/L IRC)
were calculated using linear regressions by the method of least squares
(Sokal and Rohlf 1969).
13
-------
SECTION 5
RESULTS
Fifty-nine toxicity tests in replicate were done at eight wastewater
treatment plants on unchlorinated, chlorinated, and dechlorinated effluents.
Generally, little or no mortality was associated with the unchlorinated and
dechlorinated effluents, and the toxicity of the chlorinated effluents
increased with increased chlorine residual (Table 2).
EFFLUENT TOXICITY AND QUALITY
San Leandro WTP
The undiluted, UnCl (Series SL-1 and SL-3) effluents were not acutely
toxic to fathead minnows even though un-ionized ammonia concentrations were
as high as 428 ug/L NH» (Table 2). There was no DOHC1 effluent available
for toxicity testing. The EC1 effluents produced a 96-h LC50 to fathead
minnows of 1.8 and 3.87= effluent concentration during the first (Series SL-2)
and second (Series SL-4) weeks of testing, respectively. The mean test
chlorine residuals in the EC1 effluents during the two weeks were 9.47 and
6.24 mg/L TRC, respectively (Table 3). Effluent toxicity and quality data
for the toxicity tests are presented in Appendix B-2.
San Pablo WTP
The undiluted, UnCl (Series SP-1, SP-4, and SP-7) and DeCl (Series SP-6)
effluents were not acutely toxic to fathead minnows (Table 2). The undiluted
effluents had un-ionized ammonia concentrations <1.0 ug/L NH-. The 96-h
LC50 of the EC1 (Series SP-2) effluent during the first week of comparative
testing was not determined while that of the DOHC1 (Series SP-3) effluent
was 46.5% effluent concentration. During the second week of comparative
testing, the toxicity of the EC1 (Series SP-8) effluent (96-h LC50 = 31.5%
effluent) was higher than the DOHC1 (Series SP-9) effluent (96-h LC50 = 46.5%
effluent). The mean test chlorine residuals of the EC1 effluents were 2.29
and 2.44 mg/L TRC while those of the DOHC1 effluents were 2.16 and 2.14 mg/L
TRC for the first and second weeks of comparative testing, respectively
(Table 3). The mean TRC of the EC1 effluent was not significantly higher
than that of the DOHC1 effluent during the first week of comparative testing
but was significantly higher during the second week of comparative testing
(Table 4). The DOHC1 effluent was less variable in TRC than the EC1 during
both the first (Figure 5) and second weeks (Figure 6) of comparative testing.
The effluent toxicity and quality toxicity tests are presented in Appendix
B-3.
14
-------
Table 2. CONTINUAL-FLOW TOXIGITY TESTING LEVELS FOR DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES CHLORINATED (DOHC1),
AND EXISTING UNCHLORINATED (UnCl), CHLORINATED (EC1), AND DECHLORINATED (DeCl) EFFLUENTS AT
WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANTS (WTP) IN CALIFORNIA FROM FEBRUARY 1978 THROUGH MAY 1979.
Test
WTP series
San Leandro SL-1
SL-2
SL-3
GS
GS
GS
r"C
uo
n.Q
Effluent
type
UnCl
EC1
UnCl
Ffil
UnCl
FP1
DOHC1
UnCl
FP1
•CiviJ.
T^ ^ll
DeCl
Ilnfl
Ullwi.
FP1
TVMir1!
iAJnUJ.
UnCl
_,-,-
JliL.1
DOHCl
TT ^ll
UnCl
"P^*1
EC1
DeCl
UnCl
T?P1
£iL* J.
nr»Hf!l
Undiluted
unchlorinated effluents
Mortality NH3
(%) (ug/L)
00.0 325
00.0 428
00.0 <1
00 0 <1
r\r\ f\ -^ -i
00.0 <1
nn n
n.ifi
:s
NH3
(ug/L)
6
ND
.
MT4
JNJJ
1 O
13
1 *3
1J
1Q
-------
Table 2. (Continued)
WTP
Pinole
(Cont.)
South
San Francisco
Sacramento
Northeast
Test
series
P-10
P-ll
SSF-1
SSF-2
SSF-4
SSF-5
SSF-6
SSF-7
SSF-8
SSF-9
SN-1
SN-2
SN-3
SN-4
SN-5
SN-6
SN-7
SN-8
RN_Q
Test-/
species
GS
FH
FH
GS
FH
FH
FH
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
Undiluted
unchlorinated effluents
Effluent Mortality MS
type (%) (ug/L)
UnCl 40.0 615
UnCl 80.0 846
UnCl 33.3 411
UnCl 6.7 600
DeCl 3.3 148
UnCl 16.6 721
96-h LC50
chlorinated effluents
Effluent cone,
(%)
5.8
5.2
7.6
8.1
11.8
4.7
5.0
7.4
3.5
5.6
4.7
4.2
10.7
TRC
(mg/L)
0.21
0.15
0.11
0.16
0.07
0.10
0.19
0.17
0.10
0.12
0.15
0.13
0.09
NH3
Cng/L)
17
21
45
42
52
32
53
60
18
14
20
33
69
-------
Table 2. (Continued)
WTP
KO s e v 2. j. j. e
Dublin/
San Ramon
T>_ _ _ T7~1 1 ~«.
Koss Valley
a/ FH = Fathead
GS = Golden !
Test
series
Ri
— i
R-2
R-3
R/.
"H-
RC
•" J
R_fi
nCDI
DSR-2
DSR-3
DSR-4
T\CT> R
UaK-3
nco ft
DDK— Q
DW 1
KV — 1
UW 9
K.V — £.
r\\r O
KV-O
RV-4
n\r c
KV-D
PW A
Jxv™O
minnow,
shiner ,
Test
species
PC
LjO
GS
GS
pc
V?D
PQ
\jO
P
-------
Table 3. SUMMARY OF MEAN TOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE (TRC), AMMONIA, pH, AND TEMPERATURE IN THE UNDILUTED
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES CHLORINATED (DOHC1), AND EXISTING UNCHLORINATED (UnCl),
CHLORINATED (EC1), AND DECHLORINATED (DeCl) EFFLUENTS AT WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANTS (WTP)
IN CALIFORNIA FROM FEBRUARY 1978 THROUGH MAY 1979.
oo
Test
WTP series
San Leandro SL-1
SL-2
SL-3
SL-4
San Pablo SP-1
SP-2
SP-3
SP-4
SP-5
SP-6
SP-7
SP-8
SP-9
Pinole P-l
P-2
P-3
P-4
P-5
P-6
P-7
P-8
P-9
Effluent
type
UnCl
EC1
UnCl
EC1
UnCl
EC1
DOHC1
UnCl
EC1
DeCl
UnCl
EC1
DOHC1
UnCl
EC1
DOHC1
UnCl
EC1
DeCl
UnCl
EC1
DOHC1
TRC residual
(mg/L)
0.00+0.0^
9.47+2.41
0.00+0.00
6.24+2.00
0.00+0.00
2.29+0.66
2.16+0.29
0.00+0.00
2.71+0.47
o.oo+p.oo
0.00+0.00
2.44+0.31
2.14+0.31
0.00+0.00
5.03+2.32
3.01+0.44
0.00+0.00
4.42+2.16
0.14+0.52
0.00+0.00
8.00+4.16
2.62+0.36
Total ammonia
(mg/L)
14.3+4.3
12.8+4.5
18.0+3.6
17.6+3.2
<0.1+0.0
<0.1+0.0
<0.1+0.0
<1. 0+0.0
<1. 0+0.0
<1.0+0.0
<1. 0+0.0
<1. 0+0.0
<1.0_+0.0
15.7+4.1
14.8+4.0
15.3+4.4
23.5+7.8
22.9+6.5
23.9+7.3
19.2+8.1
19.2+8.4
19.4+7.7
pH
7.2+0.1
7.3+0.4
6.8+0.0
6.5+0.1
6.8+0.1
6.8+0.1
6.7+0.1
6.9+0.1
6.9+0.1
6.9+0.1
6.8+0.1
6.7+0.1
6.6+0.1
6.7+0.1
6.3+0.1
6.5+0.2
6.9+0.1
6.5+0.1
6.3+0.1
6.9+0.1
6.3+0.1
6.7+0.2
Temperature
(°c)
19.7+0.5
13.7+1.8
21.3+1.0
23.5+0.8
20.0+0.3
20.0+0.8
19.7+0.9
17.4+1.4
17.1+1.4
17.4+1.5
20.1+0.5
19.8+1.1
19.0+1.1
23.3+1.1
23.2+0.9
22.2+1.5
23.5+1.0
23.5+0.8
23.4+0.7
23.0+0.4
22.0+0.4
21.8+0.7
Un- ionized
ammonia (ug/L)
78.3+51.8
74.3+23.5
18.9+13.8
34.9+12.2
<1+0
<1+0
<1+0
<1+0
<1+0
<1+0
<1+0
<1+0
<1+0
41.3+14.8
15.2+5.9
23.6+12.2
96.8+29.9
40.2+13.9
30.1+8.7
97.9+50.4
27.2+14.2
56.9+30.1
-------
Table 3. (Continued)
WTP
Pinole
(Cont.)
South
San Francisco
Sacramento
Northeast
Ro Seville
Test
series
P-10 & 11
SSF-1 & 2
SSF-4
SSF-5
SSF-6
SSF-7
SSF-8
SSF-9
SN-1
SN-2
SN-3
SN-4
SN-5
SN-6
SN-7
SN-8
SN-9
R-l
R-2
R-3
Effluent
type
EC1
EC1
UnCl
EC1
DOHC1
UnCl
EC1
DOHC1
UnCl
EC1
DOHC1
UnCl
EC1
DeCl
UnCl
EC1
DOHC1
UnCl
EC1
DOHC1
TRC residual
Cmg/L)
4.39+2.19
4.07+2.72
0.00+0.00
1.50+1.42
4.27+1.67
0.00+0.00
4.51+3.78
3.50+1.55
0.00+0.00
7.63+1.25
3.74+0.64
0.00+0.00
7.63+1.05
0.00+0.00
0.00+0.00
6.37+0.79
2.16+0.46
0.00+0.00
5.09+0.28
2.42+0.32
Total ammonia
Cmg/L)
24.2+11.7
64.5+28.0
42.V+23.5
45.4+24.0
39.9+20.9
34.2+11.0
34.4+10.3
34.7+14.3
23.6+10.6
25.6+10.2
25.1+9.5
22.6+2.2
21.6+1.9
23.1+1.7
23.7+1.8
22.4+2.0
23.3+1.9
17.8+1.9
17.5+1.6
16.7+1.3
pH
6.3+0.2
6.74+0.28
7.15+0.13
7.02+0.14
6.91+0.15
7.16+0.15
6.93+0.16
6.97+0.12
7.09+0.08
6.90+0.11
6.89+0.11
7.13+0.08
6.96+0.09
6.48+0.16
7.15+0.03
7.00+0.05
7.02+0.04
6.91+0.08
6.75+0.01
6.81+0.08
Temperature
(°c)
23.8+1.2
24.6+1.8
24.5+0.6
24.2+1.0
22.6+1.2
24.9+0.7
24.3+1.2
23.4+1.2
25.5+1.9
25.6+1.6
24.7+JL.3
25.1+1.6
25.4+1.3
24.2+2.0
24.2+1.4
24.5+1.2
23.7+0.09
18.6+0.4
18.2+0.4
17.3+0.6
Un-ionized
ammonia (ug/L)
35.1+35.4
246.5+224.3
340.6+222.6
283.0+192.5
178.4+130.7
291.4+139.6
259.3+140.1
188.6+140.6
175.6+108.2
111.2+65.5
116.5+70.2
177.2+43.8
119.8+31.0
40.3+16.0
182.6+39.1
125.4+24.9
126.0+22.5
55.8+10.0
36.8+6.7
37.7+6.4
-------
Table 3. (Continued)
WTP
Roseville
(Cont.)
Dublin/
San Ramon
Ross Valley
Test
series
R-4
R-5
R-6
DSR-1
DSR-2
DSR-3
DSR-4
DSR-5
DSR-6
RV-1
RV-2
RV-3
RV-4
RV-5
RV-6
Effluent
type
UnCl
EC1
DOHC1
UnCl
EC1
DOHC1
UnCl
EC1
DOHC1
UnCl
EC1
DOHC1
UnCl
EC1
DOHC1
TRC residual
(mg/L)
0.00+0.00
4.66+0.89
2.19+0.40
0.00+0.00
13.08+4.61
6.12+1.48
0.00+0.00
11.18+2.88
6.94+0.99
0.00+0.00
5.58+2.24
3.18+0.59
0.00+0.00
8.40+4.42
3.40+0.53
Total ammonia
(mg/L)
11.7+2.3
11.0+2.8
11.1+2.7
-
-
19.9+8.5
21.4+10.9
19.3+7.0
19.3+6.3
19.0+5.8
21.2+5.2
pH
6.90+0.09
6.75+0.18
6.73+0.12
7.10+0.11
6.89+0.13
6.82+0.13
7.07+0.11
6.87+0.12
6.83+0.10
7.31+0.15
7.22+0.17
7.12+0.14
7.30+0.14
7.14+0.15
7.12+0.12
Temperature
(°C)
18.5+0.4
18.4+0.5
17.6+0.7
19.7+1.9
19.2+1.0
19.8+0.4
20.3+1.9
20.3+0.8
20.8+0.6
19.8+1.2
19.9+2.2
19.3+1.2
20.4+1.5
20.2+1.9
19.9+1.1
Un-ionized
ammonia (ug/L)
28.0+8.0
17.4+6.7
19.1+7.7
:
-
196.8+151.0
163.1+127.7
108.1+68.4
173.6+99.8
117.2+62.5
116.5+50.1
a,/ Mean +_ SD.
-------
Table 4. DIFFERENCES IN TRC BETWEEN DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
SERVICES (DOHC1), AND EXISTING (EC1) CHLORINATED
EFFLUENTS.
Source of
variation
EC1 x DOHC1
SP-2 x SP-3
SP-8 x SP-9
P-2 x P-3
P-8 x P-9
SSF-5 x SSF-6
SSF-8 x SSF-9
SN-2 x SN-3
SN-2 x SN-9
R-2 x R-3
R-5 x E-6
DSR-2 x DSR-3
DSR-5 x DSR-6
RV-2 x RV-3
RV-5 x RV-6
n
37
49
48
48
48
44
48
48
48
48
47
46
47
41
df
36
48
47
47
47
43
47
47
47
47
46
45
46
40
ta
1.35
6.96*
5.57*
8.75*
-10.86*
1.66
19.19*
26.74
42.20*
24.55*
14.02*
10.37*
6.59*
7.24*
Asterisks denote significance at p < 0.05 and negative values
denote a higher TRC in DOHC1 than ECl.
21
-------
OPTIMIZED
SERIES SP-3
24 48
TIME, hours
72
NJ
ro
4.0
_ 3.0
E 2.
«
U
£ i.o
\
EXISTING
SERIES SP-2
24 48
TIME, hours
72
Figure 5. Chlorine residuals in optimized and existing effluents at San Pablo WTP
during the first week of comparative testing.
-------
OPTIMIZED
SERIES SP-9
TIME, hours
U>
24
EXISTING
SERIES SP-8
48
TIME, hours
72
96
Figure 6. Chlorine residuals in optimized and existing effluents at San Pablo WTP
during the second week of comparative testing.
-------
Pinole WTP
The undiluted , UnCl (Series P-l, and P-4, and P-7) and the DeCl (Series
P-6) effluents were acutely toxic (00.0 to 12.5% mortality) to fathead
minnows and golden shiners (Table 2). This toxicity could be attriubuted
to un-ionized ammonia since the test ( Series P-4) with the highest un-ionized
ammonia concentration (193 ug/L NH-) did not produce any acute toxicity.
No toxicity comparison could be made betwesn the two chlorinated effluents
(Series P-2 and P-3) during the first week of testing because of excessive
mortality due to infection (Columnaris sp.) of the fathead minnow test fish.
During the second week (Series P-8 and P-9) of comparative testing, the
DOHC1 effluent (96-h LC50 - 12.2% effluent) was less toxic to golden shiners
than the EC1 effluent (96^h LC50 = 4.8% effluent). The mean test chlorine
residuals of the EC1 effluent were 5.03 and 8.00 mg/L TRC while those of the
DOHC1 effluents were 3.01 and 2.62 mg/L TRC for the first and second weeks
of comparative testing, respectively (Table 3). The mean chlorine residuals
of the EC1 effluents were significantly higher than those of the DOHC1
effluents during both weeks of comparative testing (Table 4). The DOHC1
effluent was less variable in TRC than the EC1 during both the first
(Figure 7) and second weeks (Figure 8) of comparative testing. The effluent
toxicity and quality data for the toxicity tests are presented in Appendix
B-4.
South San Francisco WTP
The undiluted, UnCl (Series SSF-4 and SSF-7) effluents produced acute
toxicity to fathead minnows (40.0%) and to golden shiners (80.0%). In both
cases, the toxicity was probably due to un-ionized ammonia which was quite
high (up to 846 ug/L NH,) in the undiluted, UnCl effluents (Table 2). During
the first week of comparative testing the EC1 (Series SSF-5) effluent (96-h
LC50 = 11.8% effluent) was less toxic to fathead minnows than the DOHC1
(Series SSF-6) effluent (96-h LC50 = 4.7% effluent). The DOHC1 (Series
SSF-9) effluent (96-h LC50 - 7.4% effluent) was less toxic to golden shiners
than the EC1 (Series SSF-8) effluent (96-h LC50 = 5.0% effluent) during the
second week of comparative testing. However, the South San Francisco WTP
effluents did not have to meet disinfection criteria as did the DOHC1
effluents, and thus, there are no valid criteria for comparing the toxicities
of the two effluents. The mean test chlorine residuals of the EC1 effluent
were 1.50 and 4.51 mg/L TRC while those of the DOHC1 effluent were 4.27 and
3.50 mg/L TRC for the first and second weeks of comparative testing,
respectively (Table 3). The mean TRC of the DOHC1 effluent was significantly
higher than that of the EC1 effluent during the first week of comparative
testing, whereas there are no significant differences in the mean TRC between
the two chlorinated effluents during the second week of comparative testing
(Table 4). The DOHC1 effluent was slightly less variable in TRC than the
EC1 effluent during the first (Figure 9) and second (Figure 10) weeks of
testing. The large variability in TRC of both effluents could have been
caused by the noticeably large variability of the effluent quality. The
effluent toxicity and quality data for the toxicity tests are presented in
Appendix B-5.
24
-------
OPTIMIZED
SERIES P-2
48
TIME, hours
72
96
9.2 8.9 9.9 11.5
u
EXISTING
SERIES P-2
48
TIME, hours
Figure 7. Chlorine residuals in optimized and existing effluents at Pinole WTP during
the first week of comparative testing.
-------
EXISTING
SERIES P-8
Figure 8. Chlorine residuals in optimized and existing effluents at Pinole WTP during
the second week of comparative testing.
-------
6.0
oi
E
U
at
N>
EXISTING
SERIES SSF- 5
TIME, hours
Figure 9. Chlorine residuals in optimized and existing effluents at South San Francisco
WTP during the first week of comparative testing.
-------
r-0
oo
10.0
EXISTING
SERIES SSF-8
48
TIME, hours
11.4 14.8
96
Figure 10. Chlorine residuals in optimized and existing effluents at South San Francisco
WTP during the second week of comparative testing.
-------
Sacramento Northeast WTP
The undiluted, UnCl (SN-1, SN-4, and SN-7) effluents produced variable
acute toxicity (6.7 to 33.4% mortality) to golden shiners (Table 2). Some
acute toxicity (3.3% mortality) was produced with the undiluted, DeCl (SN-6)
effluent. There was no direct relationship between mortality and un-ionized
ammonia concentrations in the UnCl and DeCl effluents. The DOHC1 (Series
SN-3 and SN-9) effluents (96-h LCSO's = 5.6 and 10.7% effluent, respectively)
during both weeks of comparative testing were less toxic than the EC1 (Series
SN-2 and SN-8) effluents (96-h LCSO's = 3.5 and 4.2% effluent, respectively).
The mean test chlorine residuals of the EC1 effluents were 7.63 and 6.37
mg/L TRC while those of the DOHC1 effluent were 3.74 and 2.16 mg/L TRC for
the first and second weeks of comparative testing, respectively (Table 3).
The mean TRC of the DOHC1 effluents were significantly lower than those of
the EC1 effluents during both weeks of comparative testing (Table 4). The
TRC of the DOHC1 effluent was less variable 1^han those of the EC1 effluent
during both the first (Fugure 11) and second (Figure 12) weeks of comparative
testing. The effluent toxicity and quality data for the toxicity tests are
presented in Appendix B-6.
Roseville WTP
The undiluted, UnCl (Series R-l and R-4) effluents were not acutely
toxic to golden shiners (Table 2). The un-ionized ammonia concentrations
were quite low (197 ug/L NH^ maximum) in the undiluted, UnCl effluents.
The DOHC1 (Series R-3) effluent (96-h LC50 = 12.9% effluent) was less toxic
than the EC1 (Series R-2) effluent (96-h LC50 = 6.4% effluent) during the
first week of comparative testing. The DOHC1 (Series R-6) effluent (96-h
LC50 = 10.67o effluent) was also less toxic than the EC1 (Series R-5) effluent
(96-h LC50 = 4.67° effluent) during the second week of comparative testing.
The mean test chlorine residuals of the EC1 effluents were 5.09 and 4.66
mg/L TRC while those of the DOHC1 effluent were 2.42 and 2.19 mg/L TRC during
the first and second weeks of comparative testing, respectively (Table 3).
The mean TRC of the DOHC1 effluents were significantly lower than those of
the EC1 effluents for both weeks of comparative testing (Table 4). The TRC
of the DOHC1 effluent was less variable than those of the EC1 effluent
during both the first (figure 13) and second (Figure 14) weeks of comparative
testing. The effluent toxicity and quality data for the toxicity tests are
presented in Appendix B-7.
Dublin/San Ramon WTP
The undiluted, UnCl (Series DSR-1 and DSR-4) effluents were not acutely
toxic to golden shiners (Table 2). No ammonia measurements were made at
this location. However, the WTP employed nitrification and thus, un-ionized
ammonia concentrations should have been <1 ug/L NH3 in the undiluted
effluents. The DOHC1 (Series DSR-3) effluent (96-h LC50 = 1.4% effluent)
was more toxic than the EC1 (Series DSR-2) effluent (96-h LC50 = 1.6%
effluent) during the first week of comparative testing. The DOHC1 (Series
DSR-6) effluent (96-h LC50 = 2.2% effluent) was less toxic than the EC1
(Series DSR-5) effluent (96-h LC50 = 1.97o effluent) during the second week
of comparative testing. The small differences between the toxicities of the
29
-------
6.0
OPTIMIZED
SERIES SN-3
u>
o
EXISTING
SERIES SN-2
24
48
TIME, hours
72
96
Figure 11. Chlorine residuals in optimized and existing effluents at Sacramento Northeast
WTP during the first week of comparative testing.
-------
o>
•«t
U
Of
OPTIMIZED
SERIES SN-9
Oi
E
U
24
EXISTING
SERIES SN-8
48
TIME, hours
72
96
Figure 12. Chlorine residuals in optimized and existing effluents at Sacramento Northeast
WTP during the second week of comparative testing.
-------
U 1.0
O£
^
0
24
OPTIMIZED
SERIES R-3
48
TIME, hours
72
96
UJ
IS)
U
24
EXISTING
SERIES R-2
48
TIME, hours
72
96
Figure 13. Chlorine residuals in optimized and existing effluents at Roseville WTP
during the first week of comparative testing.
-------
3.0
o» 2.0
U 1.0
oc
24
OPTIMIZED
SERIES R-6
48
TIME, hours
72
96
CO
EXISTING
SERIES R-5
Figure 14. Chlorine residuals in optimized and existing effluents at Roseville WTP
during the second week of comparative testing.
-------
DOHC1 and EC1 are surprising since the EC1 effluents had mean chlorine
residuals approximately twice those of the DOHC1 effluents. There were *.
substantial differences in the amounts of TRC at the 96-h LC50 level between
the two effluents which suggests there was some other toxic substance that
was affecting the toxicity of TRC at this location. The mean test chlorine
residuals of the EC1 were 13.08 and 11.18 mg/L TRC while those of the DOHC1
were 6.12 and 6.94 mg/L TRC during the first and second weeks of comparative
testing, respectively (Table 3). The mean TRC of the DOHC1 effluents were
significantly lower than those of the EC1 effluents for both weeks of
comparative testing (Table 4). The TRC of the.DOHCl effluent was less
variable than those of the EC1 effluent during both the first (Figure 15)
and second (Figure 16) weeks of comparative testing. The effluent toxicity
and quality data for the toxicity tests are presented in Appendix B-8.
Ross Valley WTP
The undiluted, UnCl (RV-1 and RV-4) effluents were toxic (3.3 to 6.7%
mortality) to golden shiners (Table 2). This slight toxicity may have been
due to un-ionized ammonia concentrations (440-540 ug/L NH^). The DOHC1
(Series RV-3) effluent (96-h LC50 = 5.1% effluent) was less toxic than the
EC1 (Series RV-2) effluent (96-h LC50 = 2.9% effluent) during the first week
of comparative testing. The DOHC1 (Series RV-6) effluent (96-h LC50 = 6.4%
effluent) was also less toxic than the EC1 (Series RV-5) effluent (96-h LC50
= 3.17<> effluent) during the second week of comparative testing. The mean
test chlorine residuals of the EC1 were 5.58 and 8.40 mg/L while those of the
DOHC1 were 3.18 and 3.40 mg/L during the first and second weeks of compara-
tive testing, respectively (Table 3). The mean TRC of the DOHC1 effluents
were significantly lower than those of the EC1 effluents during both weeks
of comparative testing (Table 4). The TRC of the DOHCl effluent was less
variable than those of the EC1 effluent during both the first (Figure 17)
and second (Figure 18) weeks of comparative testing. The effluent toxicity
and quality data for the toxicity tests are presented in Appendix B-9.
TOXICITY OF UNCHLORINATED AND DECHLORINATED EFFLUENTS
Fish mortality in the undiluted UnCl and DeCl effluents varied from
0.0 to 80.0%. In general, the toxicity in the 1007o effluent concentrations
increased with increased un-ionized ammonia concentrations. The 96-h LC50
for un-ionized ammonia to golden shiners derived from mortality in the 1007»
effluent concentrations was 1245 ug/L NHj using log-logit analysis.
The un-ionized ammonia concentrations used to calculate the 96-h LC50
were measured in the 1007» waste aquaria and not in the undiluted, UnCl and
DeCl effluent streams. By comparison, the effluent streams generally had
a significantly less (647<>) un-ionized ammonia concentration, a significantly
higher temperature, a significantly lower total ammonia concentration, and a
significantly lower pH value than the 10070 waste aquaria (Table 5). The
lower temperature in the aquaria was caused by the chilling of our toxicity
testing room, and the slightly lower total ammonia concentration was probably
the result of ammonia loss by aeration during the course of a test. The
34
-------
8.0i—
u
oc
t—
4.0
0
~^J>"« ^S^"* TH^OPTIMIZED^
SERIES D-3
24 48 72 9
TIME, hours
Ul
18.0
24
48
Tl ME , hours
72
96
Figure 15. Chlorine residuals in optimized and existing effluents at ,Dublin/San Ramon
WTP during the first week of comparative testing.
-------
•- 10.0
o>
m
U
oc
5.0
24
OPTIMIZED
SERIES D-6
48
TIME, hours
72
96
u>
20.0
24
EXISTING
SERIES D-5
48
TIME, hours
72
96
Figure 16. Chlorine residuals in optimized and existing effluents at Dublin/San Ramon
WTP during the second week of comparative testing.
-------
OPTIMIZED
SERIES RV-3
Co
24
48
TIME, hours
72
96
15.4
EXISTING
SERIES RV-2
I
24
48
TIME, hours
72
96
Figure 17. Chlorine residuals in optimized and existing effluents at Ross Valley WXP
during the first week of comparative testing.
-------
00
O)
U 0
3.0
10.0
O)
»
U
5.0
24
25.9
OPTIMIZED
SERIES RV-6
48 72
TIME, hours 13>3 1t 6
48
TIME, hours
96
EXISTING
SERIES RV-5
Figure 18. Chlorine residuals in optimized and existing effluents at Ross Valley WTP
during the second week of comparative testing.
-------
Table 5. DIFFERENCE BETWEEN TOTAL AMMONIA, TEMPERATURE, pH, AND UN-IONIZED
AMMONIA IN THE UNCHLORINATED (UnCl) AND DECHLORINATED (DeCl)
AFFLUENTS.
Parameter
Undiluted
Effluent
Streams
mean SD
Undiluted
Effluent
Aquaria
mean SD
Variation
df &
Total ammonia
(mg/L)
22.01 + 7.50
18.36 + 4.65° 15 2.70
Temperature
22.4 + 2.4
18.9 + 1.0
15 7.98
PH 7.0 + 0.3
Un-ionized ammonia 128 +_ 96
(ug/1)
7.5 + 0.3
370 + 243
15 -15.98
15 -5.60*
aj Asterisks denote significant differences at p<0.05 and negative
~~ values indicate aquaria as higher
b/ Data averaged from Table 3.
£/ Data averaged from Appendices B-2 through B-9.
39
-------
increase in pH (.5 pH) in the aquaria, which caused the large increase in
un-ionized ammonia concentration, was probably the result of chemical changes
taking place in the effluent during its temporary confinement aeration.
COMPARATIVE CHLORINE TOXICITY
Existing and Optimized Effluents
Overall, the DOHC1 effluents had a significantly lower (49.77.) mean
TRC than did the EC1 effluents (Table 6). The results from South San
Francisco are not used in this comparative analysis because the EC1 effluents
were not meeting disinfection criteria during the tests. Coupled with the
lower TRC, the DOHC1 effluents (96-h LC50 x = 7.45% effluent concentration)
were significantly less toxic (42.9%) than the EC1 effluents (96-h LC50 x =
3.6% effluent concentration). The DOHC1 effluents at the 96-h LC50 level,
therefore, contained approximately twice the other effluent constituents as
the EC1 effluents. This increase in waste constituents may explain why the
DOHC1 effluents (96-h LC50 x = 0.15 mg/L TRC) had a significantly more toxic
(20%) chlorine residual to golden shiners than the EC1 effluents (96-h LC50
x = 0.12 mg/L TRC). Un-ionized ammonia was slightly higher in the DOHC1
effluents than in the EC1 effluents at this level, but the difference was
not significant. Therefore, differences in un-ionized ammonia concentrations
were probably not the entire cause of the differences in chlorine residual
toxi-cities between the DOHC1 and EC1 effluents. Other possible toxic waste
constituents, such as organics and metals, were not measured.
Fathead Minnows and Golden Shiners
Both fathead minnows and golden shiners were used as test organisms
in the toxicity tests. The golden shiners had to be substituted for fathead
minnows when disease epidemic (Columnaris sp.) occurred in our fathead minnow
stock. We then continued to use golden shiners as our test fish even though
their stocks also suffered lesser outbreaks of the disease. However, fish
which noticeably had the disease were not used in the tests.
We found fathead minnows (96-h LC50 x = 0.11 mg/L TRC) to be signifi-
cantly more sensitive (23.6%) to chlorine than golden shiners (96-h LC50 x =
0.14 mg/L TRC) (Table 6). Because of the obvious increased resistance of
chlorine at the San Pablo WTP in fathead minnows, the results from this WTP
are not used in this comparative analysis. The difference in chlorine
sensitivity between the two species could not be attributed to a difference
in un-ionized ammonia at the 96-h LC50 level and therefore must be a true
difference in species sensitivity to chlorine.
San Pablo WTP and All Other WTP
Chlorine was found to be significantly less toxic (3317o) to fathead
minnows at San Pablo WTP (96-h LC50 x = 0.47 mg/L TRC) than the other WTP
investigated (Table 6). There were no obvious differences between the
effluent quality of the WTP groups. San Pablo WTP (because of nitrification)
did have total ammonia levels consistently below 1.0 mg/L while the other
WTP (with the exception of Dublin/San Ramon) had ammonia levels in excess of
40
-------
Table 6. DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE TRC RESIDUAL IN UNDILUTED EXISTING (EC1) AND DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
SERVICES (DOHC1) EFFLUENTS, THE TOXICITIES OF EC1 AND DOHCl EFFLUENTS, AND THE SENSITIVITIES
OF CHLORINE AND AMMONIA TO GOLDEN SHINERS (GS) AND FATHEAD MINNOWS (FH).
Variation
Effluents TRC
Source Identification n
EC1 (mg/L TRC)
c
DOHCl (mg/L TRC)C
Effluent toxicity
Species toxicity
96-h LC50, GS,
96-h LC50, GS,
96-h LC50, GS,
96-h LC50, FH,
EC1 (% effluent)0
(ug/L TRC) .
(ug/L NH3)d
DOHCl (7. effluent)0
(ug/L TRC)
(ug/L NH3)Q
(ug/L TRC)
(ug/L NH3)d
(ug/L TRC)e
(ug/L NH,)e
A
B
C-l
C-2
C-3
D-l
D-2
D-3
E-l
E-2
F-l
F-2
12
12
9
11
9
9
11
9
24
20
7
7
mean
6.64
3.34
3.67
150
23
7.45
125
29
144
24
110
26
Source of ,
SD Variation dfa t
3.10
1.^2 AxB
4.51
35
18
4.23 ClxDl
30 C2xD2
22 C3xD3
33
18
43 ElxFl
17 E2xF2
11 5.62*
8 -3.95*
10 2.51
8 -1.13
29 2.25*
25 -0.21
Chlorine toxicity 96-h LC50, FH, all WTPe
(ug/L TRC)
96-h LC50, FH, San Pablo WTP
(ug/L TRC)
F-l
G-l
110
491
43
75 FlxGl
a/ Equal sample numbers denote paired observations.
F/ Asterisks denote significant differences at P < 0.05.
c"/ Results from SSF-1 through SSF-9 not included in comparisons.
~&J Ammonia not measured at DSR-1 through DSR-6.
e/ Results from SP-1 through SP-9 not included in comparisons.
-10.93*
-------
10.0 mg/L (Table 3). The Dublin/San Ramon WTP also employed nitrification
but its chlorine residuals were just as toxic as the other WTP. Therefore,
there must be some other factor which accounts for the difference in chlorine
toxicity.
We found significant correlations between the 96-h LC50 and the corre-
sponding mean TRC of the undiluted EC1 and DOHC1 effluents for both fathead
minnow Cr = .89) and golden shiner (r = .86) (Figure 19). Since there was
such a good correlation between fish toxicity and TRG, chlorine can be viewed
as the most toxic component of chlorinated, wastewater treatment plant
effluents. A nonsignificant correlation (r = .71) was found between the
same two variables for the chlorinated, San Pablo WTP effluents,
42
-------
arcsin(y)= -
22
18
I 14
UI
o
m
c
'in
B
(0
10
r=.89
J5 y .9
TRC.mg/L
GOLDEN SHINERS
1.1
Ill
s
U
c
"in
B
(0
orcsii%)= -13.88 log^a) + 21.24
211-
13
9-
r=.86
arcsin(y) = -62.47 login(x) + 62.75
10'
.1 .3 .5 .7 .9
,TRC,ing/L
FATHEAD MINNOWS
UI
g
-------
SECTION 6
DISCUSSION
Toxicity tests were conducted on UnCl, EC1, DOHCl, and DeCl effluents
from 8 WTP in northern California. UnCl effluents were investigated to
determine if the wastewater effluents were toxic prior to chlorination.
Additionally, DeCl effluents were investigated to determine if dechlorination
eliminated all toxicity caused by chlorination.
Nineteen series of toxicity tests in replicate demonstrated that there
was little acute toxicity (x = 10.47., mortality) associated with the undiluted,
UnCl effluents. There was even less acute toxicity (x = 5.3% mortality)
associated with DeCl effluents. Most of the mortality associated with the
UnCl and DeCl effluents was probably caused by un-ionized ammonia since there
was increasing mortality with increasing un-ionized ammonia concentrations.
Mortality of golden shiners in the 1007o effluent concentrations of the UnCl
and DeCl effluents produced a 96-h LC50 of 1245 ug/L NH^. Although we were
vmable to locate a LC50 for un-ionized ammonia to golden shiner in the
literature, Willinghem et al. (1978) reported that the 96-h LC50 values for
warmwater fish varied from 500 to 2000 ug/L NH3. Our 96-h LC50 for golden
shiner was within this reported range.
The mortality associated with the UnCl and DeCl effluents, if caused by
un-ionized ammonia, was an artifact created by the experimental design of the
toxicity tests. Confinement and aeration of the effluents in the aquaria
during the tests caused the pH of the effluents to increase an average of
0.5 pH units above that of the continuous, undiluted effluent streams. This
increase in pH caused the un-ionized ammonia concentrations to be 144% higher
than those present in the undiluted waste streams. An average increase of
0.5 pH units (7.0 to 7.5) and decrease of temperature, 3.6 C (22.0 to 18.4 C),
as happened in our tests, theoretically should cause un-ionized ammonia
concentrations to increase 1437o (Morgan and Turner 1977). With the possible
exception of the South San Francisco WTP tests, all mortality associated with
the UnCl and DeCl effluents should have disappeared if continuous-flow,
rather than continual-flow (intermittent-flow), toxicity tests had been used.
This is because a continuous-flow system would have had a shorter hydraulic
retention time than the continual-flow system we used (one aquarium volume
change per 2.5 h). The concentrations of un-ionized ammonia in the effluent
streams at South San Francisco WTP were = 300 ug/L NI^j which would have
caused some mortality while all other WTP had un-ionized ammonia concentra-
tions < 200 ug/L NHg which should have not caused mortality.
44
-------
This phenomenon of a pH increase (and subsequent increases of un-ionized
ammonia concentrations) during continual-flow toxicity testing conditions
suggests that this methodology may not be valid for testing the toxicity of
wastewater effluents. If partial confinement and aeration of the effluent
during the test are the underlying causes for these increases, the static
test conditions should lead to an even greater pH increase. Therefore, we
recommend that continuous-flow tests be preferred for monitoring effluents
with high total ammonia concentrations (>10 mg/L) followed by continual- flow
and static tests in that order of preference.
Three separate studies at the San Pablo (Series SP-4 through SP-6) ,
Pinole (Series P-4 through' P-fr), and Sacramento Northeast (Series SN-4
through SN-6) WTP demonstrated that dechlorination with sulfur dioxide (S02)
reduced the toxicity to a level equivalent to or less than that of the
unchlorinated effluents .
The SO-, in water forms sulfurous acid (l^SOj) which reacts with TRC
(free chlorine, Equation 3; mono-chloramine, Equation 4) to produce small
amounts of sulfuric and hydrochloric acids:
(3) HS0 + HOCLH_SO, + HC1
(4) NH_C1 + H-SO, + H00 ^NH.HSO. + HC1
2 232 ^r 4 4
Dechlorination with SC>2 decreased the pH of the EC1 effluents to a maximum
of 0.5 pH units at the Sacramento WTP. There was no pH change at the San
Pablo WTP following dechlorination.
Chlorine has been reported to be the single most toxic constituent of
most wastewater effluents (Martens and Servizi 1975; Beeton, Kovacic, and
Brooks 1976). The toxicities of the chlorinated effluents to golden shiner
and fathead minnow were predictable with a great degree of accuracy (r = 0.88
and 0.86, respectively) based on the TRC content of the ECl and DOHC1
effluents .
With the exception of the first week of comparative studies at South
San Francisco WTP (Series SSF-4 through SSF-6), the DOHC1 effluents were
characteristically lower in TRC than the ECl effluents. Overall, the DOHC1
effluents contained 49.7% less TRC than the ECl effluents. The results from
South San Francisco WTP are not used in this comparative analysis since the
WTP did not have to meet any disinfection criteria. The reductions in
chlorine varied between a low of 5.7% less TRC during the first week at San
Pablo WTP (Series SP-1 through SP-3) and a high of 67.2% less TRC during the
second week at Pinole WTP (Series P-7 through P-9).
In conjunction with containing an average of 49.7% less TRC, the DOHC1
effluents had less variable TRC than did the ECl effluents. Standard devia-
tions of the mean TRC in the ECl effluents varied from +0.31 mg/L to + 4,16
mg/L TRC with a grand mean of ± 2.14 mg/L TRC, while those of the DOHC1
effluents varied from + 0.28 mg/L to + 4.61 mg/L TRC with a grand mean of
45
-------
+0.72 mg/L TRC. Both the EC1 and DOHC1 effluents appeared to be less
variable at San Pablo and Roseville WTP and more variable at South San
Francisco, Pinole, and Hoss Valley WTP.
The DOHC1 effluents on the average were significantly less toxic (42.97.)
than the EC1 effluents in 10 of the 12 comparative studies at 6 of the 7 WTP.
Again, the results from South San Francisco WTP are not used in this analysis
and no comparative studies were done at San Leandro WTP. In 9 of these 10
comparative studies, the DOHC1 effluents were less toxic than the EC1
effluents. The exception to this was the first comparative study at Dublin/
San Ramon WTP (DSR-1 through DSR-3). The results obtained during the first
week of comparative studies at San Pablo and Pinole WTP also are not included
in this analysis because of problems (either too little or too much mortality)
which arose during the test and therefore precluded the estimation of an LC50.
However, since the DOHC1 effluents at San Pablo and Pinole WTP had slightly
lower mean TRC than the EC1 effluents, the toxicities of the DOHC1 effluents
should have been less. The 42.9% reduction in toxicity corresponds to the
49.7% reduction in TRC associated with the DOHC1 effluents.
Although the DOHC1 effluents were, in general, significantly less toxic
than comparable EC1 effluents (on a "I, effluent basis), the EC1 effluents
generally had a significantly less toxic (20%) TRC to golden shiner than the
DOHC1 effluents at the 96-h LC50 level. However, the DOHC1 effluents had
approximately twice the effluent constituents at the 96-h LC50 level than
did the EC1 effluents. These other constituents presumably added to the
toxicity of the effluent or interacted with chlorine to make it more toxic.
This phenomenon cannot be entirely explained by the slightly higher un-
ionized ammonia concentrations at the 96-h LC50 level in the DOHC1 effluents.
We found fathead minnow to be significantly more sensitive (23.6%) to
chlorine than golden shiner. Our mean 96-h LC50 values for fathead minnow
(0.11 mg/L TRC) and golden shiner (0.14 mg/L TRC) agree remarkably well with
those values in the published literature (Arthur et al. 1975; Esvelt,
Kaufman, and Selleck 1971) for wastewater treatment plant effluents. The
toxicity of chlorine in wastewater effluents to both species was fairly
consistent, producing excellent regressions between the 96-h LC50 (% effluent
concentration) and the mean TRC content of the undiluted waste.
We found the fathead minnow to' be significantly more sensitive (331%,)
to TRC at the other WTP than at the San Pablo WTP. Obviously, the nitrified
effluents at San Pablo WTP (which had total ammonia concentrations <1.0 mg/L)
had less toxic chlorine residuals (96-h LC50 x = 0.47 mg/L TRC). All other
WTP had total ammonia concentrations > 10.0 mg/L with the exception of
Dublin/San Ramon WTP, which also produced a nitrified effluent and had total
ammonia levels < 1.0 mg/L (Sepp and Bao 1980). Even though the Dublin/
San Ramon WTP effluent was nitrified, the effluent (96-h LC50 x = 0.12 mg/L
TRC) TRC was slightly more toxic to golden shiner than the other WTP (96-h
LC50x=0.14 mg/L TRC) where nitrification was not practiced. Hence, the
practice of nitrification of wastewaters prior to chlorination by itself does
not explain the drastic reduction of toxicity to fathead minnow. However,
the influence of wastewater ammonia on TRC toxicity has been documented
46
-------
elsewhere. Finlayson (1977) found chlorine in ammoniated wastewaters to be
significantly more toxic (3077.) to rainbow trout, Salmo gairdneri, fry than
in nitrified effluents containing < 0.5 mg/L total ammonia.
Complete nitrification (<1.0 mg/L total ammonia) of wastewaters prior
to chlorination should allow for break-point chlorination if the chlorine
dose is >10 times the total ammonia concentration (wt. to wt. basis). At
break-point ammonia is lacking; consequently, free chlorine (Equation 5),
tri-chloramine (Equation 8), and complex organic chloramines (Equation 9)
are produced between the chlorine and the effluent. Conversely, when ammonia
is present and abundant (>10.0 mg/L total ammonia), mono- (Equation 6) and
di-chloramines (Equation 7) are the primary reaction products.
Rosenberger (1971) suspected mono- and di-chloramines to be more toxic
than the reaction products formed at break-point chlorination. Rosenberger
(1971) also showed that although free chlorine was the most toxic residual
chlorine (TRC) species, the toxicity of mono- and di-chloramines was reduced
when a small amount of free chlorine was present. However, we suspect that,
because of the way Rosenberger «s (1971) experiments were conducted, these
less toxic mono- and di-chloramines may have been in fact tri-chloramines
and organic chloramines. There is no published literature regarding the
toxicities of these two latter chloramines. However, we suspect these
species are less toxic than free chlorine, mono-, and di-chloramines since
they are further reduced and thus less reactive in water:
(5) C12 H- H20 HOCl + H+ + Cl
(6) HOC1 + NH
(7) HOC1 + NH2C1
(8) HOC1 + NHC1
(9) CH0C^H,S00H + HOC1 + NH, CH,C,H_SO NCI + 2H 0
3643 J r^ .3 o 3 L L
All of the abovementioned TRC species will completely or partially
titrate as TRC in the amperometric titration (APHA 1975). If these less
toxic break-point chloramines made up the bulk of the TRC in the nitrified
effluents at San Pablo WTP, the result would be that the test fish would
have been able to withstand a higher TRC than fish at the other WTP. The
same should be true at the Dublin/San Ramon WTP. However, 807. of the TRC
at Dublin/ San Ramon WTP was free chlorine (Sepp and Bao 1980) and the balance
of 20% was probably tri-chloramine and organic chloramine. The abundance of
free chlorine at the Dublin/ San Ramon WTP probably explains why its effluent
was slightly more toxic than that of the ammoniated (mono- and di-chloramines)
effluents. We have no comparable data for the San Pablo WTP, although we
suspect that free chlorine was probably not nearly so high. Evidently, there
was a greater time-lag between chlorination of the nitrified effluent and
toxicity testing at the San Pablo WTP than there was at the Dublin/ San Ramon
-------
WTP. Hence, the greater the lag time, the more time the free chlorine in
nitrified effluents has to form the less toxic, more stable, tri-chloramines
and organic chloramines.
48
-------
v REFERENCES
American Public Health Association. 1975. Standard Methods for the
Examination of Water and Wastewater. 14th ed. APHA, New York.
N.Y. 1193 pp.
Arthur, J.W., R.W. Andrew, V.R. Mattson, D.T. Olson, G.E. Glass, B.J.
Halligan, and C.T. Walbridge. 1975. Comparative toxicity of sewage
effluent disinfection to freshwater aquatic life. Environ. Prot.
Agency, Ecological Res. Ser. EPA-600/3-75-012. 53 pp + Appendix.
Beeton, A.M., P.K. Kovacic, and A.S. Brooks. 1976. Effects of chlorine
and sulfite reduction on Lake Michigan invertebrates. Environ. Prot.
Agency, Ecological Res. Ser. EPA-600/3-76-036. 122 pp.
Brungs, W.A. 1973. Effects of residual chlorine on aquatic life.
Water-Poll. Contr. Fed., J., 45:2180-2193.
Brungs, W.A. 1976. Effects of wastewater and cooling water chlorination
on aquatic life. Environ. Prot. Agency, Ecological Res. Ser.
EPA-600/3-76-098. 46 pp.
DeGraeve, G.M., W.J. Blogoslawski, W.A. Brungs, J.A. Fava, B.J. Finlayson,
T.P. Frost, T.M. Krischan, J.W. Meldrim, D.T. Michaud, R.E. Nakatani,
and G.L. Seegret. 1979. Chlorine, pp 67-75. In: Review of the
EPA Red Book: Quality Criteria for Water. R.V- Thurston, R.C. Russo,
C.M. Fetterolf, T.A. Edsall, and Y.M. Barber, Jr. (Eds.). Water Quality
Section, American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, MD.
Esvelt, L.A., W.J. Kaufman, and R.E. Selleck. 1971. Toxicity removal from
municipal wastewaters. Univ. of Calif., Sanitary Engin. Res. Lab.
Rep. No. 71-7. 153 pp.
Finlayson, B.J. 1977. Evaluation of four wastewater treatment facilities
in Sacramento County, CA. Calif. Dept. Fish and Game, Fish and
Wildlife Water Pollution Control Lab. Memo. Rep. No. 77-3. 22 pp +
Appendices.
Finlayson, B.J. and L.A. Hinkelman. 1977. Effects of chlorinated power
plant cooling water on aquatic life. Calif. Dept. Fish and Game,
Environ. Services Br. Admin. Rep. No. 77-5. 53 pp.
Finley, D.J. 1971. Probit analysis. 3rd ed., Syndics of Cambridge
University Press, New York, N.Y. 265 pp.
49
-------
Martens, D.W. and J.A. Servizi. 1975. Dechlorination of municipal sewage
using sulfur dioxide. Internal11 Pacific Salmon Fish. Commission,
New Westminister, B.C., Prog. Rep. No. 32. 24 pp.
Mattice, J.S. and H.E. Zittel. 1976. Site-specific evaluation of power
plant chlorination. A proposal. Water Poll. Contr. Fed., J.,
48:2284-2308.
Morgan, N. and J. Turner. 1977. Calculation of un-ionized ammonia for
fresh water. Calif. Dept. Fish and Game, Environ. Services Br.
Admin. Rep. No. 77-1. 14 pp.
Mount, D.I. and W.A. Brungs. 1967. A simplified dosing apparatus for
fish toxicological studies. Water Res. 1:21-29.
Peltier, W. 1978. Methods for measuring the acute toxicity of effluents
to aquatic organisms. Environ. Prot. Agency, Environ. Monitoring Ser.
EPA-600/4-78-012. 52 pp.
Roberts, M., R. Diaz, M. Bender, and R. Huggett. 1975. Acute toxicity
of chlorine to selected marine species. Fish. Res. Bd. Can., J.,
32:2525-2528.
Rosenberger, D.R. 1971. The calculation of acute toxicity of free chlorine
and chloramines to coho salmon by multiple regression analysis. M.S.
Dissertation, Michigan State University. March 1971. 33 pp + Appendix.
Sepp, Endel and P.Y. Bao. 1980. Design optimization of the chlorination
process. Volume I: Comparison of optimized pilot system with existing
full scale systems. U.S. Environ. Prot. Agency, Research and Develop.
Series (in press).
Sokal, R.R. and F.J. Rohlf. 1969. Biometry. W.H. Freeman and Company,
San Francisco, California. 776 pp.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1976. Quality criteria for water.
256 pp.
Ward, R.N., R.D. Giffin, G.M. DeGraeve, and R.A. Stone. 1976. Disinfection
efficiency and residual toxicity of several wastewater disinfectants.
Volume I - Grandville, Michigan. Environ. Prot. Agency, Environ. Prot.
Tech. Ser. EPA-600/2-76-156. 131 pp.
Willinghem, W.T., J.E. Colt, J.A. Faya, B.A. Hillaby, C.L. Ho, M.Katz, R.C.
Russo, D.L. Swanson, and R.V. Thurston. 1978. Ammonia, pp 51-65.
In: Review of thre EPA Red Book: Quality Criteria for Water. R.V.
Thurston, R.C. Russo, C.M. Fetterolf, T.A. Edsall and Y.M. Barber, Jr.
(Eds.). Water Quality Section, American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, MD.
Zillich, J.A. 1972. Toxicity of combined chlorine residuals to freshwater
fish. Water Poll. Contr. Fed., J., 44(2):212-220.
50
-------
APPENDIX B-l CHEMICAL ANALYSES OF DILUTION WATER SUPPLIES
APPENDIX B-l. Water quality analyses for dilution water supplies at the wastewater treatment plants.
Chloride, nitrate, phosphate, sulfate, calcium, sodium, potassium, magnesium, and total
dissolved solids concentrations in mg/L and other metal concentrations in ug/L.
Parameter
Alkalinity
(CaCO3 mg/L)
Hardness
(CaC03 mg/L)
pH
Specific conductance
(umhos/cm)
Total dissolved solids
Al
Ag
As
Ca
Cd
Cl
Cu
Fe
SL
21.0
26.0
7.4
81
44
<100
<1
<5
9.0
8.0
3.2
10.0
<20
SP
37.0
54.0
7.4
170
93
<100
<1
<5
16.0
<5.0
13.0
70.0
200
P
78.0
118.0
7.9
367
193
400
<1
<5
29.0
8.6
32.0
10.0
<20
SSF
91.0
140.0
7.7
436
267
<100
<5
<5
28.0
<5.0
49.0
<10.0
<20
SN "
80.0
65.0
7.7
184
132
<100
<5
<5
18.0
<5.0
4.7
<10.0
<20
R
25.0
37.0
8.4
90
42
<100
<5
<5
12.0
<5.0
4.5
50.0
<20
DSR
241.0
304.0
8.1
730
440
<100
<5
<5
61.0
<5.0
54.0
680.0
<20
RV
67.0
86.0
7.6
208
133
400
<5
<5
18.0
<5.0
11.0
10.0
<20
-------
APPENDIX B-l. (continued).
Ln
N)
Parameter
Hg
K
Mg
Ma
Na
Ni
N03(as N)
Se
so4
Zn
SL
0.4
0.8
0.8
<10.0
1.9
<10.0
0.19
—
0.8
40.0
SP
0.4
1.1
3.4
<10.0
8.7
<10.0
0.37
—
15.0
260.0
P
0.2
0.9
1.1
<10.0
23.0
-------
APPENDIX B-2
LO
APPENDIX - B-2.
EFFLUENT TOXICITY AND QUALITY DATA FOR SAN LEANDRO WTP
Test organism
FH
Diluted
Concentration
100.0-1
100.0-2
56.0-1
56.0-2
32.0-1
32.0-2
18.0-1
18.0-2
10.0-1
10.0-2
0.0-1& -2
Temp.
(C)
a
17.9+0.9
17.9+0.8
17.6+0.6
17.5+0.7
17.0+0.7
17.2+0.7
16.9+0.7
16.8+0.8
16.8+0.8
16.7+0.7
16.8J+0.8
pH
7.8+0.1
7.7+0.1
7.7+0.1
7.7+0.1
7.7+0.1
.7.7+0.1
7.7+0.1
7.7+0.1
707+0.1
7.7+0.1
7.6+0.1
D.O.
(mg/L)
7.4+0.8
7.2+0.6
8.2+0.7
8.1+0.6
8.7+0.7
8.5+0.6
8.9+0.6
8.8+0.8
8.9+0.7
9.1+0.7
9.2+0.8
TRC
(ug/L)
00+0
00+0
oo+p
oo+p
oo+p
00+0
oo+p
oo+p
oo+p
oo+p
oo+p
NH. + NH,
4 3
(mg/L)
14.76+_2o87
15.09+4.44
8.47+1.36
9.44+2.85
5.05+1.20
6.05+2.15
3.64+0.40
4.04+0.77
1.59+0.17
1.64+0.23
0.23+0.06
(ug/L)
327+92
323+142
196+40
204+47
107+29
117^28
68+_16
82+.16
28+8
28+3
3+0
No.
Obs.
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
34
Mortality
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
+ SD.
-------
APPENDIX - B-2.
Ln
Test series SL-2 Effluent type EC1
Test organism
FH
Diluted
Cone en tr ation
15.0-1
15.0-2
8.4-1
8.4-2
4.8-1
4.8-2
2.7-1
2.7-2
1.5-1
1.5-2
0.0-1&-2
Temp.
(c)
a
16.7+0.6
16.3+0.7
16.4+0.6
16.3+0.7
16.4+0.7
16.2+0.7
16.2+0.7
16.1+0.6
16.0+0.7
16.0+0.7
16.1+0.7
pH
7.6+0.0
7.6+0.7
7o6+0.1
7.6+0.1
7.6+0.2
7.6+0.1
7.6+0.1
7.6+0.1
7.6+0.1
7.6+0.1
7.6+0.1
D.O.
(mg/L)
9.8+0.7
9.6+0.9
9.5+0.7
9.61+0.8
9.5+0.8
9.1+0.7
9.3+0.7
9.3+0.6
9.3+0.6
9o3+0.7
9.4+0.9
TRC
(ug/L)
700+120
640+370
340+130
350+_120
230+90
150+_50
130+30
120+38
70+21
80+25
00+1
+
(mg/L)
2.97+1.48
3.08+1.31
1.63+0.74
221+0.13
1.45+0.08
0.94+0.06
0.55+0.22
0.40+0.22
0.44+0.17
0.35+0.14
<0.10+0.00
(ug/L)
40+18
40+6
19+3
33+12
20+8
18+8
7+3
7+3
6+3
5+2
00+0
No.
Obs.
5
5
5
5
5
13
13
17
17
17
34
Mortality
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100 00
100.0
60.0
50.0
0.0
.15.0
+ SD.
-------
APPENDIX -B-2.
Ul
Test series SL-3
Effluent type UnCl
Test organism
FH
Diluted
Cone entr at ion
100.0-1
100.0-2
56.0-1
56.0-2
32.0-1
32.0-2
18.0-1
18.0-2
10.0-1
10.0-2
0.0-1&-2
Temp.
(c)
a
19.0+0.8
19.1+0.7
18.4+0.8
18.5+0.7
18.0+0.8
18.1+0.7
17.9+0.7
17.9+0.6
17.7+0.7
170 7+0.7
17.1+005
pH
7.7+0.1
7.6+0.1
7.8+0.1
7.6+0.1
7.7+0.1
7.6+0.1
7.6+0.1
7.5+0.1
7.5+0.1
7.5+0.1
7.4+0.1
D.O.
(mg/L)
7.5+0.6
7.0+0.7
8.3+0.5
8.1+0.4
8.4+0.3
8.3+0.4
8.4+0.4
8.4+0.5
8.61+p04
8.4+0.4
8.8+0.2
TRC
(ug/L)
oo+p
oo+p
oo+p
oo+p
oo+p
oo+p
00+0
00+0
oo+p
oo+p
oo+p
(mg/L)
19.29+3.89
18.31+3.54
10.73+_1.37
9.92+1.33
5.98+JL.36
6.27+0.98
3.57+0.38
3.77+0.57
1.97+0.37
1.88+0.26
0.42+0.13
(ug/L)
484+133
372+109
288+_92
160+46
121+45
95±25
62+27
52+15
27+_9
23+6
5±3
No.
Ob 8.
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
34
Mortality
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
+ SD.
-------
APPENDIX - B-2
Ui
Test aeries SL-4
Effluent type EG1
Test organism
FH
Diluted
Concentration
(%)
10.0-1
10.0-2
5.6-1
5.6-2
3.2-1
3.2-2
1.8-1
1.8-2
1.0-1
1.0-2
0.0-1&-2
Temp.
(O
a
16.6+0.4
16. 6+0.4
17.1+0.6
17.0+0.6
17.2+0.6
17.1+0.7
17o2+0.7
17.4+0.7
17.0+0.6
17.4+0.5
16.8+0o6
pH
7.5+0.1
7.5+0.1
7.5+0.1
7.5+0.1
7.4+0.1
7.5+0.1
7.4+0.1
7.4+0.1
7.4+0.1.
7.4+0.1
7.4+0.2
D.O.
(mg/L)
9.7+0.3
9.7+0.3
9.3+0.4
9.4+0.5
9.1+0.4
9.2+0.4
9.1+0.5
9.2+0.4
9.2+0.5
9o2+0.5
9.2+9.5
TRC
(ug/L)
510+232
530+191
250+104
250+104
120+48
160+57
100+24
100+37
60+30
60+29
00+1
+
NH, + NH
(mg/L)
2.50+0.70
2.53+0.60
Io34+0.22
1.19+0.21
0.97+0,28
0.93+0.20
0.60+0.07
0.53+0005
0.36+0.03
0.51+0.12
0.23+0.12
NH,
(ug/L)
29+0
30+1
18+5
16+4
Ll+^5
12+4
7+2
6+_2
4+1
6+1
3+1
No.
Ob a.
5
5
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
34
Mortality
(%)
100.0
100.0
93.3
9303
33.3
40.0-
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
'"Mean + SD.
-------
Ul
APPENDIX Bi-3
APPENDIX - B-3.
EFFLUENT TOXICITY AND QUALITY DATA FOR SAN PABLO WTP
Test series SP-1 Effluent type UnGl Test organism FH_
Diluted
Cone en tr ation
(7.)
100.0*1
100.0-2
56.0-1
56.0-2
32.0-1
32.0-2
18.0-1
18.0-2
10.0-1
10oO-2
0.0-1&-2
Temp.
(C)
a
18.1+0.8
17.9+0.8
17.7+0.7
17.4+0.8
17.4+0.8
17.5+0.8
17.4+0.8
17.4+0.7
17.2+0.8
17.2+0.9
17.1+0.8
PH
7.4+0.0
7.3+Ool
7.4+0.1
7.4+0.1
7.4+0.1
7.4+0.1
7.4+.01
7.4+0.1
7.4+0.1
7.4+0.1
7.5+0.2
D.O.
(mg/L)
7.1+0o8
7.3+0.9
7.5+0.9
7.3+0.9
7.6+0.9
7.6+008
7.6+0.8
7.8+0.9
7.8+0.8
7.9+0.9
7.9+0.8
TRC
(ug/L)
00+0
oo+p
oo+p
oo+p
oo+p
00+0
00+0
oo+p
oo+p
oo+p
00+0
NH. + NH,
4 3
(mg/L)
<0.10+0.00
<0.10+0.00
<0.10+0.00
<0.10+0.00
<0.10+0.00
<0.10+0.00
<0.10+0.00
-------
APPENDIX - B-3.
In
00
Test series SP-2
Effluent type EG1
Test organism
FH
Diluted
Cone entr at ion
50.0-1
50.0-2
28.0-1
28.0-2
16.0-1
16.0-2
9.0-1
9.0-2
. 5.0-1
5.0-2
Temp.
(C)
a
17.4+0.8
17.4+0.9
17.2+0.7
17.1+0.6
17.1+0.7
17.1+0.8
17.1+0.7
17.2+0.8
16.1+0.8
16.0+0.9
pH
7.4+0.1
7.4+0.1
7.4+0.1
7.4+0.1
7.5.+p.l
7.5+0.1
7.5+0.1
7.5+0.1
7.5+0.1
7o4+0.1
D.O.
(mg/L)
7.9+0.7
7.7+1.1
7.7+0.9
7.9+0.8
7.9+0.7
8.1+0.6
8.1+0.9
8.2+Oo8
7.8+0.6
8,6+0.4
TRC
(ug/L)
460+121
520+114
180+72
280+63
130+35
170+.45
100+26
60+13
50+11
90+7
NH4 + NH3 NH3
(mg/L) (ug/L)
<0.10+0.00 <1+0
-cO.lO+p.OO <1+0
-------
APPENDIX -B-3.
Test series SP-3
Test organism
FH
vo
Diluted
Concentration
62.0-1
62.0-2
34.7-1
34o7-2
19.8-1
19.8-2
11.2-1-
11.2-2
6«2-l
6.2-2
0.0-1&-2
Temp.
(0
a
17.2+0.5
17.5+0.4
.7.3+0.9
17.1+0.8
17.1+0.8
17.1+0.9
17.1+0.8
17.2+0.6
17.2+0.8
17.3+0.7
16.9+0.6
PH
7.2+p.l
7.4+0.2
7.4+0.1
7.4+0.1
7.4+0.1
7.5+0.1
7.4+0.1
7.5+0.1
705+0.1
7o5+0.1
7.5+0.1
D.O.
(mg/L)
6.9+0.4
7.6+0.6
8.0+p07
8.1+0.6
8.2+0.4
8.3+0.6
7.9+0.8
8oO+0.5
8.5+0.6
8.4+0.5
8.2+0.3
TRC
(ug/L)
690+234
970+562
270+40
310+_52
170^36
190+42
130+24
100+66
240+145
200+_148
10+10
+
MH -!• NT1 MH
43 3
(mg/L> Cug/L)
<0.10+0.00 <1+0
<0.10+0.00 <1+0
<0.10+0.00 <1+0
-------
APPENDIX - B-3.
Test series SP-4 Effluent type UnCl
Test organism
FH
Diluted
Concentration
100.0-1
100.0-2
56.0-1
56.0-2
32.0-1
32.0-2
18.0-1
18.0-2
10.0-1
10.0-2
0.0-1&-2
Temp.
CO
a
17.6+0.7
17o9i0.8
17.2+0.6
17.4+0.4
17.2+0.4
17.0+005
17.1+0.5
17.2+0.4
16.8+0.5
16.7+0.6
16.5+0.5
pH
7.4+0.1
7.3+0.1
7.5+0.1
7.4+0,1
7.5+0.1
7.5+0.1
7.5+0.1
7.5+0.1
7.5+0.1
7.5+0.1
7.5+0.1
D.O.
Cmg/L)
7.8+0.5
7.6+0.4
8.2+0.7
8.1+0.7
8.3+0.4
8.6+0.5
8.6+0.3
8.7+0.5
8.7+0.6
8.9+0*9
9.1+0.7
TRC
Cug/L)
oo+p
oo+p
oo+p
oo+p
oo+p
oo+p
oo+p
00+0
oo+p
oo+p
1+2
Cmg/L)
-------
APPENDIX -B-3.
Test series SP-5
Effluent type EC1
Test organism
FH
Diluted
Concentration
62.5-1
62.5-2
35.0-1
35.0-2
20.0-1
20.0-2
11.2-1
11.2-2
6.21-1
6.21-2
Temp.
(C)
a
17.5+0.3
17.3+0.4
16.9+0.4
16.8+0.4
16.8+0.4
16.7+0.5
16.7+0.5
16.6+0.6
16.7+0.5
16.5+0.4
pH
7.5+0.1
7.5+0.1
7.6+0.1
7.6+0.1
7.6+0.1
7.6+0.1
7.6+0.1
7,6+0.1
7.6+0.1
7.7+0.1
D.O.
(mg/L)
8.8+0.5
8.7+0.4
9.0+0.3
8.8+0.2
8.7+0.3
8.8+0.4
8.7+0.3
8.7+0.4
8.9+0.2
8.8+0.4
TRC
(ug/L)
700+256
700+_277
450+120
390+120
200+52
260+74
130+35
130+37
110+32
70+27
(rag/L)
<0.10+0.00
-------
APPENDIX - B-3.
o\
K)
Test series SP-6
Effluent type DeCl
Test organism
FH
Diluted
Concentration
100.0-1
100.0-2
56.0-1
56.0-2
32.0-1
32.0-2
18.0-1
18.0-2
10.0-1
10.0-2
0.0-1&-2
Temp.
(c)
a
17.7+0.6
17.6+0.5
17.4+0.3
17.4+0.6
17.0+0.8
17.0+0.6
17.1+0.8
17.0+0.9
17.0+0o6
17.0+0.6
16.8+0.6
pH
7.4+0.1
7.4+0.1
7.5+0.1
7.5+p0l
7.7+0.1
7.6+0.1
7.6+0.1
7.5+0.1
7.5+Ool
7o6+0.1
708+p.l
D.O.
(mg/L)
8.5+0.5
8.4+0.4
8.6+0.4
8.8+0.5
8.8+0.4
8.9+0.6
8.8+0.8
8.9+0.5
8.8+0.4
9.0+0.5
8.8+0.5
TRC
(ug/L)
OOjp
oo+p
oo+p
00+0
oo+p
oo+p
oo+p
oo+p
oo+p
oo+p
00+0
NH. + NH,
4 3
(mg/L)
<0.10+0.00
<0.10+0.00
<0.10+0.00
<: 0.10+0. 00
<0.10+0.00
<0.10+0.00
<0.10+0.00
<0.10+0.00
-------
APPENDIX - B-3.
U>
Test series SP-7
Effluent type UriCl
Test organism
FH
Diluted
Concentration
(7.)
100.0-1
100.0-2
56.0-1
56.0-2
32.0-1
32.0-2
18.0-1
18.0-2
10.0-1
10.0-2
0.0-1&-2
Temp.
(c)
a
17.8+0.6
18.2+0.5
17.5+0.4
17.8+0.4
17.6+0.4
17.2+0.3
17.5_+0.4
17.1+0.3
17.4+0.5
17.1+0.3
17.1+0.4
pH
7.5+0.1
7.4+0.1
7.6+0.1
7.5+0.1
7.6+0.1
7.6+0.1
7.6+0.1
7.6+0.1
7.6+0.1
7.6+0.1
7.6+0.1
D.O.
(mg/L)
7.6+0.5
7.8+0.3
8.3+0.4
8.4+0.4
8.6+0.3
8.6+0.3
8.7+0.3
8.7+0.4
8.9+0.3
8.9+0.4
8.8+0.4
TRC
(ug/L)
oo+p
00+0
00+0
oo+p
00+0
00+0
00+0
oo+p
00+0
00+0
oo+p
(mg/L)
<0.10+0.00
<0.10+0.00
<0.10+0.00
<0.10+0.00
<0.10+0.00
<0.10+0.00
<0.10+0.00
<0.10+0.00
<0.10+_0.00
<0.10+0.00
-------
APPENDIX - B-3.
Test series SP-8 Effluent type EC1 Test organism FH
Diluted
Concentration
(7.)
100.0-1
100.0-2
56.0-1
56.0-2
32.0-1
32.0-2
18.0-1
18.0-2
10.0-1
10.0-2
0.0-1&-2
Temp.
(0
a
18.2+0.3
18.5+0.6
17.8+0.6
17.6+0.8
17.7+0.5
17.7+0.5
17.5+0.4
17.5+0.6
17.5+0.5
17.4+0.6
17.2+0.8
PH
7.3+0.1
7.2+0.1
7.5+0.1
7.4+0.1
7.5+0.1
7.5+0.1
7.6+0.1
7.6+0.1
7.6+Ool
7.6+0.1
7.610.1
D.O.
(mg/L)
8.6+0.3
8.5+0.6
8.8+0.3
8.8+0.4
8.7+0.6
8.9+0.5
8.8+0.3
8.7+0.2
8.5+0.5
8.8+0.6
8.9+0,4
• TRC
(ug/L)
1610+205
1660+328
820+175
1000+195
460+77
510+82
280+41
250+43
190+42
280^103
20+5
(mg/L) (ug/L)
<-€.10+p.OO <1+0
<0.10+0.00 <1+0
<0.10+0.00 <.'l+p
<0.10+0.00 <1+0
<0.10+0.00 <1+0
<0.10+0.00 <1+0
-------
APPENDIX - B-3.
Test series SP-9 Effluent type PQHCI Test organism FH
l/i
Diluted
Concentration
100.0-1
100.0-2
56.0-1
56.0-2
32.0-1
32.0-2
18.0-1
18.0-2
10.0-1
10.0-2
0.0-1&-2
Temp.
(c)
a
17.6+0.6
17.5+0.4
16.9+0.5
16o8+0.7
16.7+0.5
16.6+0.6
16.5+0.8
16.4+0.7
1605+p.8
16.5+009
16.6+0.9
PH
7.3+0.2
7.2+0.2
7.5+0.1
7.5+0.1
7.6+pol
7.6+p0l
7.6+0.1
7.7+0.1
7.7+0.1
7.6+0.1
7.5+0.1
D.O.
(mg/L)
8.5+0.4
8.3+0.2
8.8+0.2
9.0+0.3
9.1+0.2
9.0+0.3
9.0+0.3
8.9+0.4
9.2+0.3
8.9+0.3
8.8+0.4
TBC
(ug/L)
1560+445
1620+651
540+158
600+141
370+60
400+126
230+31
230+39
150+24
120+_23
20+5
NH, + NH,
4 3
(mg/L)
<0.01+0.00
100.0
100.0
13.0
60.0
6.0
0.0
000
0.0
000
OoO
OoO
+ SD.
-------
APPENDIX B-4 EFFLUENT TOXICITY AND QUALITY DATA FOR PINOLE WTP
APPENDIX - B-4.
Test series P-1
Effluent type UnCl
Test organism
FH
Diluted
Cone en tr ation
(%)
100.0-1
100.0-2
56.0-1
56.0-2
32.0-1
32.0-2
18.0-1
18.0-2
10.0-1
10.0-2
0.0-1&-2
Temp.
(0
a
20.5+1.2
20.2+1.3
19.3+0.8
19.5+1.0
19.5+1.0
18.7+0.7
19.3+0.8
19.1+0.8
19.4+0.9
19.1+1.0
19.1+0.6
pH
7.3+0.3
7.2+003
7. 6+0 o 2
7.6+0.1
7.6+0.1
7.7+0.1
7.6+0.1
7.7+0.1
7.6+0.2
7.6+0.1
7.740.1
D.O.
(mg/L)
7.6+0.6
7.7+0.6
8.8+0.3
8.6+0.3
8.6+0.3
8.7+0.3
8.6+0.3
8.6+2.4
8.6+0.4
8.7+0.4
9.0+0.2
TRC
(ug/L)
00+p
00+0
00+0
00+0
00+0
oo+p
oo+p
00+0
00+5
00+5
20+5
NH4+ + NH3
(mg/L)
13*24+6.73
13.5U6.56
6.50+3.99
4.37+_4.92
4.45+2.89
3.79+1.52
2.37+0.95
2.44+0.75
2.47+_1.34
1063+0.86
<0.10+0.00
NH3
(ug/L)
137+_91
128+86
106+69
59+61
77+45
74+32
45+16
49+12
56+35
33+_18
<1+_0
No.
Obs.
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
34
Mortality
(%)
16.0
7.0
16.0
7.0
9.0
14.0
0.0
7.0
0.0
7.0
13.5
4- SD.
-------
APPENDIX - B-4.
Test series P-2
Effluent type EC1
Test organism
FH
Diluted
Concentration
(%)
15.4-1
15.4-2
8.6-1
8.6-2
4.9-1
4.9-2
2.8-1
2.8-2
1.5-1
1.5-2
0.0-1&-2
Temp.
CO
a
18.8+0.8
19.0+0.4
19.0+0.8
19.3+0.7
19.1+0.6
19.1+0.6
19.3+0.6
19.1+0.5
19.3+0.6
19.0+0.6
19.5+0.6
PH
70 5+0.1
7.5+Ool
7.7+Ool
7,6+0.1
7.7+0.1
7.7+0.1
7.7+0.1
7.7+0.1
7.7+0.1
707+p.l
7.7+0.1
D.O.
(mg/L)
900+0.7
9.0+0o5
8.9+0.5
9el+0.5
809+p,3
9.0+0.3
8.9+0.3
8.9+0.3
9oO+0.3
9.0+0.3
9.0+0.3
TRC
(ug/L)
650+272
700+309
260+137
300+152
130+93
160+97
70+48
70+44
50+32
50+34
20+10
NH. + NH0
4 ^3
(mg/L)
00 72+0.32
0.77+0.31
0052+0.17
Oo48+0.16
0.81+0.31
0.73+0.38
0.44+0.20
0.42+0.22
0.28+0.12
0.31+0.14
<0.01+0.00
(ug/L)
11+4
11±3
11+2
10+0
17+7
18+_11
10+_5
10+4
7+3
7+4
,l±0
No.
Obs.
5
5
5
5
17
17
17
17
17
17
34
Mortality
100.0
NA
100.0
NA
NA
85.0
NA
100.0
NA
65.0
80.0
+ SD.
-------
APPENDIX - B-4.
Test series P-3 Effluent type DOHC1 Test organism
FH
00
Diluted
Concentration
(%)
33.3-1
33.3-2
18.5-1
18.5-2
9.6-1
9.6-2
6.0-1
6.0-2
3.3-1
3.3-2
0.0-1&-2
aMean + SD.
Temp.
CO
a
18.0+0.7
17.8+0.5
18.2+0.7
17.4+0.6
18.4+0.5
17.9+0.6
18.3+0,6
18.1+0.5
18.2+0o4
18.3+0.5
18.5+0.6
PH
7.4+0.2
7.4+0.1
7.5+0.1
7.5+0.2
7.6+0.1
7.6+0.1
7.6+0.1
7.6+0.1
7.6+0.1
7.6+0.1
7.6+0.1
D.O.
(mg/L)
9.0+0.6
8.9+0.5
8.9+J3.6
9.1+0.6
8.9+0.4
8.8+0.6
9.0+0.4
9.1+0.4
9.0+0.3
9.0+0.3
9.0+0.4
TRC
(ug/L)
730+60
750+118
350+25
260+54
190+21
190+37
90+37
110+31
50+_11
60+14
30+10
"C + ^3
(mg/L)
2.44+1.50
2.24+1.57
1. 39+0 o 58
1.36+0.63
1.19+0.50
1.23+0.51
1.17+0.34
1.02+0.42
0.56+0.18
0.47+0.12
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
lOOoO
100.0
40.0
33.0
14.0
14.0
10.0
-------
APPENDIX - B-4.
VO
Test series P-4
Effluent type UnCl
Test organism
68
Diluted
Concentration
100.0-1
100.0-2
56.0-1
56.0-2
32.0-1
32.0-2
18.0-1
18.0-2
10.0-1
10.0-2
0.0-1&-2
Temp.
(c)
19.8+0.5
19.3+0.4
18.2+0.5
18.7+0.3
18.7+0.4
18.2+0.3
18.9+0.7
18.0+0.4
18.2+0.5
17.7+0.4
17.9+0.3
PH
7.4+0.1
7.5+0.1
7.6+pol
7.4+0.1
7.5+0.1
7.6+0.1
7.6+0.1
7.6+0.1
7.6+0.1
7.6+0.1
7.6+0.1
D.O.
(mg/L)
7.9+0.4
8.1+0.3
8.9+0.3
8.6+0.2
8.9+0.3
9.0+0.3
9.2+0.2
9.2+0.2
9.2+0.3
9.2+0.2
9.3+0.3
TRC
(ug/L)
oo+p
oo+p
oo+p
00+0
oo+p
oo+p
oo+p
oo+p
10+_5
10+5
30+4
NH. + NH,
4 3
(mg/L)
15.06+2.66
14.76+13.00
7.45+1.84
7.33+1.06
4.28+0.79
3.65+0.88
1.58+1.12
2.17+0.77
1.26+0.52
1.10+0.38
<0.10+0.00
(ug/L)
190+55
197+66
120+27
89+_15
69+18
59+12
30+19
36+12
20+_7
18+6
,1±P
No.
Obs.
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
34
Mortality
0.0
0.0
0.0
13.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
+ SD.
-------
APPENDIX - B-4.
Test series P-5
Effluent type EC1
Test organism
GS
Diluted
Concentration
15.4-1
15.4-2
8.6-1
8.6-2
4.9-1
4.9-2
2.8-1
2.8-2
1.5-1
1.5-2
0.0-1&-2
Temp.
(c)
a
18.7+0.4
18.6+0.5
18.9+0.7
18.3+0.3
18.3+0.4
18.3+0.6
18.4+0.4
18.2+0.3
18.4+0.4
18.4+0.4
18.5+0o5-
PH
7.4+0.1
7.4+0.1
7.6+0.1
7.6+0.1
7.6+0.1
7.6+0.1
7.7+0.1
7.6+0.1
7.6+0.1
7.6+0.1
7o6+0.1
D.O.
(mg/L)
9.1+0.3
9.2+0.1
9.1+0.1
9.2+0.2
9.2+0.2
9.2+0.2
9.2+0.2
9.2+0.2
9.1+0.1
9.2+0.2
902+0o2
TRC
(ug/L)
310+278
290+256
160+136
180+99
70+39
110+58
50+25
60+35
30+12
40+16
30+3
NH4 +NH3
(mg/L)
2.24+0.75
2.23+0.69
1.23+0.44
1.30+0.37
0.72+0.26
0.75+0.24
0.34+0.10
0.38+0.14
0.23+0.05
00 22+0.05
<0.10+0.00
(ug/L)
25+7
23+_7
18+5
20+5
13+5
12+4
6+2
6+2
4+1
4+1
«I«P
No.
Obs.
5
5
5
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
34
Mortality
100.0
100.0
100.0
93.0
20.0
13.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
13.0
0.0
+ SD.
-------
APPENDIX - B-4.
Test series P-6
Effluent type DeCl
Test organism
GS
Diluted
Concentration
(7.)
iob.o-1
100.0-2
56.0-1
56.0-2
32.0-1
32.0-2
18.0-1
18.0-2
10.0-1
10.0-2
0.0-1&-2
Temp.
(c)
. a
17.9+0.7
19.2+0.5
18.8+0.5
17.9+0.5
17.4+0.6
18.1+0.5
18.5+0.4
17.2+0.5
18.5+0.6
18.0+0.4
pH
7.2+0.1
6.8+0.1
7.0+0.1
7.2+0.1
7.4+0.1
7.2+0.1
7.3+0.1
7.5+0.1
7.4+0.1
7.5+0.2
D.O.
(mg/L)
8.7+0.3
8.0+0.3
8.4+0.3
8.3+0.2
9.0+0.4
9.0+0.2
9.0+0.2
9.2+0.2
8.9+0.5
9.3+0.2
TRC
(ug/L)
00+0
10+22
00+15
oo+p
00+5
10+_22
10+24
10+31
10+11
30+4
NH. + NH,
4 3
15.36+3.66
15.84+3.99
6.97+2.77
7.64+2.35
4.25+1.26
4.46+1.85
3.21+1.30
2.96+1.40
1.64+0.99
<0.10+0.00
(ug/L)
75+18
Wrtl
28+8
47+16
46+12
30+JL1
26+9
37+16
18+13
-------
APPENDIX - B-4.
Test organism
GS
to
Diluted
Concentration
(%)
100.0-1
100.0-2
56.0-1
56.0-2
32.0-1
32.0-2
18.0-1
18.0-2
10.0-1
10.0-2
0.0-1&-2
Temp.
(c)
a
19.3+0.4
19.6+0.4
18.8+0.3
18.2+0.3
18.7+0.3
18.2+0.2
18.6+0.5
17.7+0.3
18.1+0.4
18.0+0.3
17.9+0.3
pH
7.3+0.1
7.2+0.1
7.4+0.1
7.4+0.1
7.5+0.1
7.5+0;l
7.5+0.1
7.5+0.1
7.6+0.1
7.6+0.1
7.5+0.1
D.O.
(mg/L)
7.9+0.2
7.9+0.3
8.6+0.1
8.5+0.2
8.8+0.2
8.9+0.1
8.9+0.1
8.9+0.1
9.0+0.1
9.1+0.1
9,2+0.1
TRC
(ug/L)
00+0
00+0
00+0
00+0
00+0
oo+p
10+5
10+_5
20+6
10+_5
40+_5
+
NH. + NH,
4 3
(mg/L)
13.31+3.36
13.80+2.84
7.26+_1.57
6.94+1.96
4o 74+1.88
4.37+1.58
2.81+0.94
2.75+0.66
1.37+0.29
1.20+0.30
<0.10+0.00
NH3
(ug/L)
118+_50
112+36
83+_20
65+_18
. 60+_23
55+16
36+10
31+_9
21+4
19+_1
<1+0
No.
Obs.
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
34
Mortality
(%>
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
+ SD.
-------
APPENDIX - B-4.
Test series P-8 Effluent type EG1
Test organism
GS
. . ... ...
Diluted
Concentration
15.4-1
15.4-2
8.6-1
86. -2
4.9-1
4.9-2
2.8-1
2.8-2
1.5-1
i
1.5-2
0.0-1&-2
Temp.
(c)
a
18.4+0.4
18.3+0.4
18.6+0.2
18.2+0.5
18.2+0.4
18.0+0.4
18.1+0.2
18.1+0.4
18.3+0.3
18.2+0.4
18.2+0.3
t
pH
7.5+0.1
7o5+0.1
7.5H0.1
7.5+0.1
7.6+0.1
7.6+0.1
7.5+0.1
7.6+0.1
7.6+0.1
7.6+0.1
7.6+0.1
D.O.
(mg/L)
9.1+0.5
9.3+0.3
9.4+0.2
9.2+0.2
9.1+0.1
9.1+0.1
9.2+0.1
9.0+0o2
9.0+0.1
9.0+0.1
9.1+pol
TRC
(ug/L)
770+517
840+571
300+202
350+248
150+88
180+105
120+_71
100+60
60+_33
70+39
40^7
NH + NH
(mg/L)
2.11+0.52
2.03+_1.42
0.54+0.00
0.40+0.07
0.64+0.17
0.49+0.14
0.35+0.12
0.30+0.13
0.22+0.09
0.20+0.11
<0.10+0.00
(ug/L)
32+.16
30+_16
11+0
8+2
12+4
9+2
6+1
6±1
4+1
4+1
<«,
No.
Obs.
5
5
5
9
17
17
17
17
17
17
34
Mortality
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
660 7
73.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
+ SD.
-------
APPENDIX - B-4.
Test series P-9
Effluent type DOHC1 Test organism
GS
Diluted
Concentration
43.6-1
43.6-2
24.4-1
24.4-2
13.9-1
13.9-2
7.8-1
7.8-2
4.4-1
4.4-2
0.0-1&-2
Temp.
(C)
a
17.7+1.0
17.6+0.5
18.2+0.9
17.8+0.7
17.2+0.7
17.6+0.3
17.8+0.8
17.9+0.6
17.7+0.8
17.7+0.3
17.9+0.5
PH
7.5+0.1
7.3+0.1
7.5+0.1
7.6+0.1
7.6+0.1
7.5+0.1
7.6+0.1
7.5+0.1
7.6+0.1
7.6+0.1
7.6+0.1
D.O.
(mg/L)
9.2+0.2
9.1+0.2
9.2+0.1
9.2+0.2
9.3+0.1
9.3+0.2
9.2+0.2
9.3+0.3
9.2+0.1
9.2+0.1
9.2+0.1
TRC
(ug/L)
530+64
700+87
270+76
210+96
160+^51
230+24
110+12
120+14
70+10
80+^12
40+6
NH. + NH,
4 3
(mg/L)
4.45+0.00
5.04+0.57
1.96+0.72
1.58+0.62
1.35+0.24
1.21+0.32
0.78+0.26
0.88+0.32
0.43+0.34
0.43+0.16
<0. 10+010
(ug/L)
69+17
41+12
26+JL4
25+8
23±5
14+3
13+3
26+0
6±5
6+_3
<«,
No.
Obs.
5
5
9
17
17
9
17
17
17
17
34
Mortality
100.0
100.0
100.0
86.7
93.3
100.0
0.0
606
0.0
0.0
0.0
+ SD.
-------
APPENDIX - B-4.
•vj
Ln
Test series P-10
Effluent type EC1
Test organism
GS
1
Diluted
Concentration
18.0-1
18.0-2
10.1-1
10.1-2
5.8-1
5.8-2
3.2-1
3.2-2
1.8-1
1.8-2
0.0-1&-2
Temp <
CO
18.0+0.
18.7+0.
19.4+1.
18.0+0.
18.5+0.
17.8+0.
18.7+1.
17.7+0.
18.9+0.
17.5+0.
»
a
4
5
0
4
8
4
0
4
8
,5
18.4_+0.9
pH
7.5+0.1
7.4+0.1
7.5+0.1
7.5+0.1
7.6+0.2
7.6+0.2
7.6+0.2
7.6+0.2
7.7+0.2
7.7+0.2
7.7+0.2
D.O.
(mg/L)
9.0+0.2
8.8+0.2
8.7+0.2
8.7+0.3
9.0+0.3
8.9+0.3
8.9+0.3
8.9+0.3
8.9+0.3
9.0+0.2
8.6+0.3
TRC
(ug/L)
590+159
760+215
360+102
360+_79
190+68
170+50
130+51
90+28
90+31
60+18
40+8
Nl
(mg/L
3.23+0.
3
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
<0
.07+0.
089+0.
.99+0.
.00+0.
.16+0.
.63+0.
.75+0.
.40+0.
)-
66
60
53
66
39
60
23
15
26
.53+0.37
(ug/L)
40+8
38+6
25+6
27+6
17+8
17+9
12+_6
17+0
7+3
8+3
.10+0.00 <1+0
No.
Ob a.
4
4
4
4
17
17
17
17
17
17
34
Mortality
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
20.0
20.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
+ SD.
-------
APPENDIX - B-4.
Test series P-H Effluent type EC1 Test organism
FH
Diluted
Concentration
16.0-1
16.0-2
9.0-1
9.0-2
5.1-1
5.1-2
2.9-1
2.9-2
1.6-1
1.6-2
0.0-1&-2
'Stean + SD.
Temp.
(0
19o4+l.oa
19.2+0.9
19o6+0.7
19.8+0.9
18.9+0.8
18.5+0.9
19.0+0.9
1808+po9
18.9+0.8
18.6+0.8
18.9+0.9
pH
704+0.1
7o4+0.1
7.5+0.1
7.4+Ool
7.7+0.2
7.7+0.2
7.7+0.2
707+0.2
7.6+002
7.6+Oo2
7.6+0.2
D.O.
(mg/L)
8.7+0.1
8.7+0.1
8.7+0.1
8.6+0.1
8.9+0.2
9.0+0.3
8.9+0.3
8.8+0.3
808+0.3
809+po3
8.9+0.3
TRC
(ug/L)
550+217
570+239
220+83
330+126
100+50
120+64
80+33
70+29
60+20
50+17
40+9
(mg/L)
2.25+1.06
2.25+0.99
1.45+0.71
.94+0 .00
1.14+.04
1.09+0.43
0.76+0.29
0.44+0.26
0.31+0.16
0042+0.26
<0.10+0.00
(ug/L)
28+8
29+6
21+3
18+0
25+10
17+6
13+4
8+4
6+4
7+4
<1+0
No.
Ob s.
4
4
5
4
17
17
17
17
17
17
34
Mortality
100.0
100.0
lOOoO
100.0
6.7
46o7
000
0.0
0.0
OoO
0.0
-------
APPENDIX B-5
APPENDIX - B-5.
EFFLUENT TOXICITY AND QUALITY DATA FOR SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO WTP
Test series SSF-1 Effluent type EC1 . Test organism
FH
• • •
Diluted
Concentration
(%)
18.0-1
18.0-2
10.1-1
10.1-2
5.8-1
5.8-2
3.2-1
3.2-2
1.8-1
1.8-2
0.0-1&-2
Temp.
(c)
a
17.9+0.3
17.8+0.4
18.4+0.5
18.1+0.4
17.4+0.4
18.5+0.4
18.7+0.4
17.4+0.5
18.4+0.4
18.3+0.3
18.5+0.2
pH
7.9+0.2
7.9+0.1
7.7+0.2
7.8+0.2
7.8+0.3
7.7+0.3
7.7+0.3
7.8+0.2
7.8+0.2
7.7+0.3
7.7+p02
D.O.
(mg/L)
9.3+0.3
9.3+0.3
9.1+0.3
9.2+0.3
9.3+0.2
9.2+0.3
9.1+0.2
9.3+0.2
9.2+p03
90 1+0.2
9.1+0.1
TRC
(ug/L)
280+183
270+170
140+90
140+99
90+46
110+73
70+38
40+20
30+19
30+15
10+4
+
NH. + NH,
4 3
(mg/L)
2.83+0.79
2.61+0.55
1.65+0.98
1.70+1.06
0.83+0.16
1.04+0.48
0.61+0.32
0. 65+0 o 48
0037^.21
0.31+0.18
-------
APPENDIX - B-5.
-vl
oo
Test series SSF-2 Effluent type EC1
Test organism
GS
• •
Diluted
Concentration
16.0-1
16.0-2
9.0-1
9.0-2
5.1-1
5.1-2
2.9-1
2.9-2
1.6-1
1.6-2
0.0-1&-2
Temp.
(c)
a
18.9+0.4
18.8+0.2
19.1+0.5
18.6+0.5
19.1+0.4
18.5+0.5
19.3+0.5
18.7+0.4
18.9+0.5
18.8+0.4
19.0+0.5
pH
7.9+0.2
7.9+0.2
7.7+0.2
7.8+0.2
7.8+0.2
7.7+0.2
7.8+0.2
7.7+0.2
7.7+0.2
7.7+0.2
7.7+0.2
D.O.
(mg/L)
9.2+0.3
9.1+0.3
8.9+0.2
9.1+0.2
9.0+0.3
9.0+0.2
8.9+0.2
9.1+0.2
9.1+0.2
9.0+0.2
TRC
(ug/L)
250+245
220+164
230+181
230+166
120+95
90+55
60+42
50+34
30+20
30_+20
10+5
NH. + NH,
4 3
1.95+0.0
2.25+3.5
2.08+1.35
1.36+0.61
0.81+0.32
1.03+0.39
0.62+0.24
0.58+0.18
0.40+0.23
0.30+0.07
<0.10+0.00
(ug/L)
82+0
72+14
60+40
41+15
24+11
21+8
16+7
14+6
11+6
10+6
.up
No.
Obs.
9
5
17
17
17
17
17
\
17
17
17
34
Mortality
100.0
100.0
60.0
40.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
+ SD.
-------
APPENDIX - B-5.
Test series SSF-4
Test organism
FH
•vj
VO
MMB«M^MBM«M»- . „ . "- •"— , _
Diluted
Concentration
(%)
100.0-1
100.0-2
56.0-1
56.0-2
32.0-1
32.0-2
18.0-1
18.0-2
10.0-1
10.0-2
0.0-1&-2
Temp.
(c)
i . i — — =j-.
20.6+1.9
19.3+1.0
19.9+0.5
19.3+0.6
19.7+0.4
18.8+0.4
19.2+0.3
18.7+0.7
18.8+0.4
19.2+0.4
18.8+0.3
pH
7.6+0.1
7.8+0.2
7.7+0.1
7.7+0.2
7.7+0.2
7.8+0.1
7.9+0.2
7.9+0.2
7.8+0.2
7.9+0.1
D.O.
(mg/L)
7.4+0.8
7.9+0.7
8.2+0.4
8.3+0.3
8.4+0.3
8.7+0.2
8.8+0.2
8.8+0.2
9.0+0.2
8.9+0.2
TRC
(ug/L)
OQ+p
oo+p
00+0
00+0
oo+p
00+0
oo+p
oo+p
00+0
00+0
10+4
+
NH. + NH,
4 3
(mg/L)
23.19+5.52
21.73+5.40
11.55+4.08
10.48+3.55
7.47+_2.06
5.53+_1.87
3.22+1.03
3.00+0.73
2.08+0.22
1.77+0.29
<0.10+0.00
NH3
(ug/L)
••••'•^••'^"•^^^•••wiBiWBi
510+189
722+240
245+123
258+130
173+90
187+81
133+_44
71+33
49+13
<1+0
No.
Obs.
•MPV*V«MHPM«Mfll
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
34
Mortality
C%)
40.0
40.0
13.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0-0
+ SD.
-------
APPENDIX - B-5.
oo
o
Test series SSF-5 . Effluent type EC1
Test organism
Ffl
. - -.-
Diluted
Concentration
25.0-1
25.0-2
14.0-1
14.0-2
8.0-1
8.0-2
4.5-1
4.5-2
2.5-1
2.5-2
0.0-1&-2
Temp.
(O
a
19.1+0.4
18.2+0.4
18.9+0.4
19.2+0.3
19.2+0.3
18.4+0.8
19.2+0.3
18.9+0.3
19.2+0.3
19.0+0.6
19.2+0.3
pH
7.8+0.1
7.9+0.1
7.9+0.1
7.8+Ool
7.9+0.1
7.9+0.2
7.9+0.1
7.9+0.1
7.9+0.2
7.9+0.1
8.0+0.1
D.O.
(mg/L)
9.9+0.2
9.1+0.2
9.0+0.3
8.9+0.2
9.0+0.2
9.0+0.3
8.8+0.4
8.8+0.2
9.0+0.3
9.0+0.2
9.0+0.4
TRC
(ug/L)
210+176
160+108
80+67
90+77
40+31
50+47
30+29
30+21
20+_14
20+24
10+4
4*3
(mg/L)
3.39+1.02
2.71+1.07
2.54+1.09
2.03+0o59
1.12+0.31
1.19+0.41
0.71+0.22
0.57+0.21
0.61+0.26
0.63+0.28
^0.10^.00
(ug/L)
109+39
89+38
91+57
58+18
38+12
31+5
23+_4
18+3
22+11
21+10
<«
No.
Obs.
13
13
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
34
Mortality
100.0
100.0
20oO
26.7
0.0
6.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
+ SD.
-------
APPENDIX - B-5.
oo
Test series SSF-6 'Effluent type DOHC1 Test organism
FH
Diluted
Concentration
25.0-1
25.0-2
14.0-1
14.0-2
8.0-1
8.0-2
4.5-1
4.5-2
2.5-1
2.5-2
Temp.
(C)
a
18.7+0.5
18.1+0.4
19.0+0.4
18.3+0.4
18.1+0.5
18.9+0.2
19.2+0.4
17.8+005
18.6+0.2
pH
7.8+0.1
7.9+0.1
7.9+0.1
8.0+0.1
7.9+0.1
7.9+0.1
7.9+0.1
7.9+0.1
7.9+0.1
7.9+0.1
D.O.
(mg/L)
9.1+0.5
9.2+0.2
9.1+0.1
9.2+0.4
9.2+0.2
9.1+0.2
9.0+0.2
9.1+0.2
9.1+0.2
TRC
(ug/L)
680+382
550+235-
330+167
290+135
150+49
130+138
110+55
80+32
70+27
50+28
NH. + NH.
4 3
(mg/L)
3.35+0.31
3.26+0.54
2.33+0.41
2.14+0.49
1.60+0.61
1.42+0.47
0.75+0.18
0.99+0.51
0.55+0.24
0.51+0.20
(ug/L)
98+13
110+32
85+13
100+_32
59+_29
54+18
24+8
3.6±25
21+9
No.
Obs.
5
5
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
Mortality
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
93.3
100.0
46.7
26.7
000
6.7
0.0-1&-2 18.7+0.3 7.9+0.1 9.1+0.2 10+4 <0.10+0000
34
0.0
aMean + SD.
-------
APPENDIX - B-5.
Test organism
GS
oo
NJ
Diluted
Concentration
(7.)
100.0-1
100.0-2
56.0-1
56.0-2
32.0-1
32.0-2
18.0-1
18.0-2
10.0-1
10.0-2
0.0-1&-2
Temp.
CO
a
21.0+0.9
20.4+1.2
19.8+0.4
18.5+0.6
19.3+0.4
18.8+0.4
19.4+0.4
18.2+0.3
19.1+0.5
18.2+0.3
pH
7.6+0.1
7.6+0.2
7.7+0.2
7.7+0.2
7.8+0.2
7.8+0.1
7.8+0.2
7.8+0.2
7.8+0.1
7.8+0.2
8.0+0.1
D.O.
(mg/L)
6.5+0.7
7.6+0.5
8.1+0.5
8.1+0.5
8.1+0.5
8.4+0.1
8.4+0;3
8.7+0.2
8.6+0.3
8.7+0.3
9.0+0.3
TRC
(ug/L,
00+0
oo+p
oo+p
oo+p
oo+p
oo+p
oo+p
00+0
oo+p
oo+p
00+4
+ -~
NH. + NH,
4 3
(mg/L)
29.87+10.02
28.50+2.02
11.26f6.82
12.50+4.32
11.3+2.03
7.91+6.27
7.34+1.49
6.76+1.69
2097+_1.62
3083+2.02
<0.10+0.00
NH3
ag/L)
731+_73
960+_310
246+156
305+106
288+88
172+_130
189+67
165+99
99+_94
111+0
<1+0
No.
Obs.
9
9
17
17
17
9
17
17
17
17
34
Mortality
C%>
80.0
80.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
100.0
0.0
6.7
6.7
6.7
0.0
*Kean + SD.
-------
APPENDIX - B-5.
Test organism
GS
oo
Diluted
Concentration
(7.)
20.0-1
20.0-2
11.2-1
11.2-2
6.4-1
6.4-2
3.6-1
3.6-2
2.0-1
2.0-2
0.0-1&-2
Temp.
(c)
a
19.2+0.2
19.2+0.6
19.4+0.7
19.0+0.3
19.3+0.6
18.5+0.5
18.8+0.4
19.1+0.5
19.0+0.4
19.0+0.4
19.2+0.4
pH
7.9+0.1
7.7+0.1
7.8+0.1
7.9+0.1
7.9+0.1
7.9+0.1
7.9+0.1
7.8+0.1
7.9+0.1
7.8+0.1
7.8+0.1
D.O.
(mg/L)
8.6+0.2
8.6+0.3
8.6+0.2
8.8+0.2
8.8+0.3
8.9+0.3
8.8+0.3
8.7+0.3
8.8+0.3
8.8+0.3
8.7+0.3
TRC
(ug/L)
1110+509
1210+666
600+370
580+274
220+174
180+182
90+_72
120+85
80+60
90+62
10+8
NH. + NH,
4 3
(mg/L)
6.40+0.50
6.68+0.77
3.55+JL.49
3.37+0.68
1.94+0.42
1.96+0.47
1.42+0.27
1.31+0.20
1.00+0.17
0.97+0.18
< 0.10+0. 00
(ug/L)
247+14
174+55
112+65
131+24
67+22
61+28
49+19
38+12
34+12
30+10
«up
No.
Obs.
5
5
5
5
17
17
17
17
17
17
34
Mortality
0)
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
93.3
80.0
0.0
20.0
6.7
0.0
0.0
+ SD.
-------
APPENDIX - B-5.
oo
Test series SSF-9 . Effluent type DOHC1 Test organism
GS
Diluted
Concentration
(7.)
2900-1
29.0-2
16.2-1
1602-2
9.3-1
9.3-2
5.2-1
5.2-2
2.9-1
2.9-2
0.0-1&-2
Temp.
CO
a
1705+p.3
18.4+0ol
18.9+0.1
18.2+0.1
18.9+0.4
17.6+0.3
18.5+p06
17«,9+p03
18.5+p05
18.1+0.4
18.4+0.4
••••MMMMMWMHMM
PH
70 9+0.1
7.8+0.2
7.9+0.1
7.8+0.1
7o8+p0l
7.9+0.1
7.9+0.1
708+0ol
7.8+0.1
7.8+0.1
7.8+Ool
•"•^•MH*iM.MMBM^MB
D.O.
(mg/L)
8.7+0.4
8.5+p05
8.5+0.5
900+0.4
8.8+0.4
8.8+0.4
8.8+p04
8o9+0.3
8o8+p.4
•MMBMMHVHHMMMMMMBB
TRC
(ug/L)
560+223
890+366
490+268
380+132
210+134
200+95
120+57
100+46
70+31
60+26
10±6
mmmmmmm*mmmmm*m*i^mtm^*i*m*^**i^
ft 3
3 o 50+0. 49
4*63+p025
2.85+0.71
2. 80+0 o 21
2.37+0.38
2.22+0.41
1.62+0.30
1.67+p034
1.09+0.17
0.98+0.15
<0.10+0.00
••••••••••••••••^•••••i
(ug/L)
127+14
148+37
108+14
86+4
70+.21
76+25
47+_15
47+_12
31+11
28+12
.up
No.
5
5
5
5
8
17
17
17
17
17
34
•H*BM^M*liHMPHBBBBB>llllllllll*>>BI^»*iBK
Mortality
lOOoO
100.0
100.0
100.0
1-00.0
86.7
33.3
0.0
0=0
0.0
3»3
+ SD.
-------
00
Ui
APPENDIX .B-6 EFFLUENT TOXIGITY AND QUALITY DATA FOR SACRAMENTO NORTHEAST WTP
APPENDIX - B-6.
Test series SN-1
Test organism
GS
•
Diluted
Concentration
(%)
100.0-1
100.0-2
56.0-1
56.0-2
32.0-1
32.0-2
18.0-1
18.0-2
10.0-1
10.0-2
0.0-1&-2
Temp.
(C)
a
20.4+0.6
18.6+0.8
19.1+0.5
18.5+0.5
19.0+0.5
17.9+0.5
17.6+0.4
18o3+0.4
18.1+0.4
17.8+0.5
17.4+0.3
pH
7.7+0.1
7.8+0.2
7.7+0.1
7o8+00l
7.7+0.1
7.8+pol
708+0.1
7.8jjp.l
7.8+0.1
7.8+Ool
7.8+0.1
D.O.
(mg/L)
7o4+0.6
8ol+0.7
7.8+0.3
8.3+0.2
8oO+0.3
8.5+0.3
8.7+0.2
8.4+0.2
8.8+0.3
8.6+0.4
8.7+0.2
TRC
(ug/L)
00+0
00+0
oo+p
oo+p
00+0
oo+p
oo+p
oo+p
oo+p
oo+p
00+0
+
NH. + NH.
4 3
(mg/L)
19.53^4.14
14.49+5.46
6.75+0.92
5.93+1.43
5.66+1.32
5.63+1.00
2.60+1.10
2.96+1.08
2.57*1.61
3.74+3.31
26.7
40.0
6.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
6.7
OoO
+ SD.
-------
APPENDIX - B-6.
oo
Test series SN-2
Effluent type EC1
Test organism
GS
Diluted
Concentration
(%)
16.0-1
16.0-2
9.0-1
9.6-2
5.1-1
5.1-2
2.9-1
2.9-2
1.6-1
1.6-2
0.0-1&-2
Temp.
(C)
a
16.8+0.5
17.2+0.3
17.2+0.3
17.5+0.3
17.0+0.3
16.5+0.3
16.9+0.3
16.4+0.2
16.9+0.3
.16.7+0.4
17.0+0.3
PH
7.8+00l
7.7+pol
7.8+0.1
7.8+0.1
7.8+0.1
7.8+0.1
7.8+0.1
7.8+0.1
7.8+0.1
708+p.l
7.8+0.1
D.O.
(mg/L)
9.0+p02
8.7+0.1
8.9+p02
8.7+0.1
8.9+0.2
9.0+0.3
8.9+0.2
8.9+0.2
9.0+0.2
8.8+0.2
8.8+0.2
TRC
Cug/L)
920+118
1160+187
480+40
640+114
160+63
200+80
120+37
80+28
20+13
30+11
00+0
NH4+ + NH3
(mg/L)
3.73+0.04
3.30+0.26
2.06+0.13
1.81+0.01
0.92+0.42
0.85+0.42
0.42+0.18
0.42+0.17
0.27+0.10
0.23+0.07
<0.10+OoOO
NH3
(ug/L)
66+2
63+7
50+10
46+20
24+13
18+8
10+4
11+4
7+3
5+2
<1+0
No.
Obs.
5
5
5
5
17
17
17
17
17
17
34
Mortality
(%)
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
73.3
93.3
46.7
6.7
607
OoO
0.0
aMean + SD.
-------
APPENDIX - B-6.
Test series SN-3
oo
Effluent type DQHC1 Test organism
GS
Diluted
Concentration
25.0-1
25.0-2
14.0-1
14.0-2
8.0-1
8.0-2
4.5-1
4.5-2
2.5-1
2.5-2
0.0-1&-2
Temp.
(0
a
18.0+0.4
17.0+0.8
17.2+0.3
17.0+0.7
17.4+0.3
17.5+0.4
17.4+0.4
16.6+0.5
17.3+0.3
17.0+0.3
17.0+0.4
PH
7.7+0.0
7.4+0.0
7.7+0.0
7.8+0.1
7.9+0.1
7.7+0.1
7.7+0.1
7.8+0.1
7.8+0.1
7.7+0.1
7o8+00l
D.O.
(mg/L)
8.5+0.1
8.7+0.4
8.5+0.2
9.0+0.3
8.9+0.2
8.6+0.4
8.6+0.4
8.9+0.3
8o9+0.2
8o8+0.3
8.7+0.3
TRC
(ug/L)
800+230
650+174
320+_52
340+62
140+58
240+39
120+_28
70+JL6
40+21
60+38
00+3
NH. + NH,
4 3
(mg/L)
3.82+1.84
4.02+0.02
1.89+0.82
2.59+0.23
1.14+0.58
1.05+0.75
0.44+0.16
0.52+0.15
0.41+0.50
0.34+0.37
.O.UHO.OO
(ug/L)
69+_34
76+_2
40+15
53+5
27+13
20±12
11+4
12+6
10+12
7+7
<1+0
No.
Obs.
5
5
5
5
.17
9
17
17
17
17
34
Mortality
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
86.7
lOOoO
40.0
0.0
0.0
6.7
0.0
+ SD.
-------
APPENDIX - B-6.
oo
oo
Test series SN-4
Effluent type UnCl
Test organism
GS
Diluted
Concentration
/«M \
\ foj
100.0-1
100.0-2
56.0-1
56.0-2
32.0-1
32.0-2
18.0-1
18.0-2
10.0-1
10.0-2
0.0-1&-2
Temp.
(c)
19*0+0. 63
19.8+0.5
18.6+0.4
18.4+0.4
18.2+0o3
17.9+0.3
17.8+0.2
17.0+0o2
17.3+0.2
16.7+0.1
20.0+002
PH
7.8+0.1
7.7+0.1
7.7+0.1
7.8+0.1
7.8+0.7
7.8+0.1
7.8+0.1
7.8+0.1
7o8+0.1
7o4+1.0
7.8+0.1
D.O.
(mg/L)
8o2+0.3
7.7+0.2
80 2+0. 4
8.3+0.3
8.5+0.3
8.9+_0.4
8.6+0.3
9.2+0.3
9 = 1+0 .-2
8.9+Oo4
9.0+0o3
TRC
(ug/L)
00+0
00+0
oo+p
oo+p
oo+o
oo+o
00+0
00+0
00+0
00+0
00+0
NH. + NH,
4 3
(mg/L)
23.50+4o50
22.14+5.13
10.89+2o81
11.71+2.75
6.88+JL.61
7.17+1.54
3 0 29+0. 76
3.00+0.69
1.76+0.32
1.58+0.28
<0. 10+0. 00
(ug/L)
703_+154
517+_109
243+_58
283+79
168+46
189+_47
82+20
79+20
47+8
37+13
-------
APPENDIX - B-6.
00
Test series SN-5 Effluent type EC1
Test organism
GS
Diluted
Concentration
16.0-1
16.0-2
9.0-1
9.0-2
5.1-1
5.1-2
2.9-1
2.9-2
1.6-1
1.6-2
Temp.
(c)
a
17.0+p.l
16.8+0.1
17.2+0.2
17.0+0.1
16.9+0.2
16.8+0.2
16.8+0.2
16.6+0.2
16.9+0.1
16.9+0.2
pH
7.9+0.0
7.8+0.1
7.9+0.1
7.9+0.1
7.8+0.1
7.8+0.1
7.8+0.1
7.8+0.1
7.8+0.1
7.8+0.1
D.O.
(mg/L)
9.1+p02
9.0+0.2
9.0+0.2
9.1+0.3
9.2+0.2
8.8+0.3
9.2+0.2
9.1+0.1
9.1+0.2
9.1+0.2
TRC
(ug/L)
630+128
650+138
290+80
340+83
170+37
200+48
110+17
90+13
30+_7
50+11
NH. + NH,
4 3
(mg/L)
2.04+0.17
2o02+0ol2
1.24+0.07
1.19+0.06
1.06+0.32
0.91+0.26
0.62+0.19
0.53+0.15
0.41+0.12
0.32+0.08
(ug/L)
59+6
52+6
38+5
37+5
26+_7
21+5
15+_3
13+_2
10+_3
8+2
No.
Obs.
5
5
5
5
17
17
17
17
17
17
Mortality
100 oO
100.0
100.0
100.0
4607
33.3
13.3
0.0
0.0
OcO
0.0-1&-2
16.9+0.2 7.8+0.1 8.9+0.2 00+0
<0.10+0.00
34
0,0
SD.
-------
APPENDIX - B-6.
Test series SN-6
Effluent type DeCl
Test organism
GS
Diluted
Concentration
U)
100.0-1
LOO. 0-2
56.0-1
56.0-2
32.0-1
32.0-2
18.0-1
18.0-2
10.0-1
10.0-2
Temp.
(O
a
19.5+0.7
17.8+0.3
18.2+0.5
17.7+0.4
17.7+0.5
17.7+0.5
17.5+0.3
17.0+p02
17.3+0.3
17.1+0.2
MMMMOTMMMMMM
PH
7.0+0.2
702+p.l
7.3+0.1
7.4+0.1
7.4+0.1
7.4+0.1
7.6+0.1
7.6+0.1
7.7+0.1
70 7+0.1
.
D.O.
(mg/L)
7.5+0.3
8.3+0.3
8.5+002
8.7+0.4
8.6+0.3
8.4+0.4
8.9+0.4
8.9+0.5
8.9+Oo4
8.8+0.5
••••••••••^•••••HMBMH
TRC
(ug/L)
00+p
oo+p
oo+p
oo+p
00+0
00+0
oo+p
oo+p
oo+p
00+0
••••^^^•^••muWB^i^WIIIMMMBaMHMHiMM
NH. + NH,
4 3
23.58+2.23
23.49+1.78
12.89+1.20
13.34+1.20
7.86+0.48
7.58+1.00
4. 61+0 o 28
5.73+0.43
2.26+0.21
1.92+0.18
••^•^•Mi^M^HBHHHMHHIHB
Cug/L)
127+51
169+_43
125+_36
138+40
93+_24
86+25
74+16
84^17
43+_7
37+6
^•^•••^•M^MH
No.
Obs.
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
Mortality
6.7
OoO
0.0
6.7
6.7
0.0
6.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0-1&-2
17.0+001 7.9+000 8.7+0.6 00+0 <0.10+0.00
34
0.0
SD.
-------
APPENDIX - B-6.
VO
M
Test series SN-7 Effluent type UnCl
Test organism
GS
Diluted
Concentration
100.0-1
100.0-2
56.0-1
56.0-2
32.0-1
32.0-2
18.0-1
18.0-2
10.0-1
10.0-2
000-l&-2
Temp.
(c)
a
18.6+0.3
2000+p.5
18.9+0.3
18.1+0.3
18.1+0.2
18.0+0.2
17.8+0.3
17ol+0.1
17.5+0.3
17.4+0.2
17.1+0.15
PH
7.9+0.1
7.7+0.1
7.8+0.0
7.8+0.0
7.8+p.l
7.8+0.1
7.8+0.1
7.9+0.1
7.9+0.1
7.9+0.1
7.9+Ool
D.O.
(mg/L)
8.4+Oo2
7.5+0.2
8.0+0.2
8.5+0.2
8.4+Oo2
8.4+0.3
8o6+0.2
9.0+0.2
900+0.1
9.0+0.2
8.9+Oo2
TRC
(ug/L)
00+0
oo+p
00+0
00+0
00+0
oo+p
oo+p
00+0
00+0
00+0
00+0
NH. + NH,
4 - 3
(mg/L)
23.54+2.05
23.48+2.49
13.14+1.70
13.29+JL.41
8.88+0.89
8.76+0.96
4.45+0.54
4.08+0.44
2.01+0.32
1.88+0.50
<0.10+poOO
(ug/L)
847+155
596+JL30
328+53
399+67
234+31
226+32
119+24
127+24
67+15
60+24
.up
No.
Obs.
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
34
Mortality
20.0
13.3
6.7
OoO
607
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
+ SD.
-------
APPENDIX - B-6.
vo
Teat eeries SN-8
Effluent type EC1
Test organism
GS
Diluted
Concentration
(7.)
16.0-1
16.0-2
9.0-1
9.0-2
5.1-1
5.1-2
2.9-1
2.9-2
1.6-1
1.6-2
_
Temp.
(c)
a
17o2+0.4
1 17,0+0.3
17.5+0.4
16.8+0.5
17.1+0.2
16.8+0.2
17.0+0.1
16.8+0.2
17.0+0.1
17.0+0.3
•MM-MBMMMMMM^M
PH
7.8+0.0
7.8+0.0
7.8+0.1
7.9+0.0
7.9+0.1
7.9+0.1
7.9+0.1
7.9+0.1
7.9+0.1
7.9+0.1
HMB^MMBM^MBIMHMBI
D.O.
Cmg/L)
8.2+0.1
8.7+p02
8o6+0.4
9.1+0.1
9.0+0.2
9.0+0.2
9.0+0.2
9.1+0.1
9.0+0.3
9.0+0.2
••••••VBMMMMIMIIIIMMB^^HHB
TRC
(ug/L)
1110+299
930+133
510+135
390+219
150+48
191+125
100+46
80+31
20+9
40+JL4
•^••••••••••••••••••^^•^••B
NH. + NH.
4 3
(mg/L)
5.93+JL.16
5.21+0.69
4.81+3.69
3.02+1.38
1.51+0.59
Io31+0.72
0.90+0.48
0.81+0.50
0.56+0.33
0.50+0.34
I^^M^B^V^B^MB^VBM^MHM
(ug/L)
145+29
124+_13
112+_77
88+44
46+26
36+_22
26+22
24+21
19+17
15+14
•^•••••••iWi^RMai^
No.
Obs.
5
5
5
5
17
17
17
17
17
17
^.MMMMMW^M^MMM^^^MB*
Mortality
lOOoO
lOOoO
100.0
100.0
53.3
100.0
607
0.0
0.0
000
0.0-1&-2
17.1+0.2 7.9+0.1 8.8+0.2
00+0
0.10+0.00
34
0.0
SD.
-------
APPENDIX - B-6.
vo
u>
Test series SN-9 Effluent type DOHC1 Test organism
GS
Diluted
Concentration Temp.
(%) (C)
33.3-1
33.3-2
18.6-1
18.6-2
10.7-1
10.7-2
6.0-1
6.0-2
3.3-1
3.3-2
0.0-1&-2
a
17o2+0.2
16.9+0*5
16.7+0.14
16o7+0o4
16.9+0.3
16.5+0.5
16.8+0.2
16.1+0.6
16o7+0.2
16o4+po4
16o4+0.2
PH
7.8+0.1
7.8+0.1
7.9+0.1
7o 9+0.1
7.8+p0l
7.9+Ool
7.9+0.1
7.9+0.1
7o9+0ol
709+p.l
7.9+0.1
D.O.
(mg/L)
8.7+0.2
8.8+0.2
9.1+0.2
9.0+0.2
9.1+0.3
9oO+0.4
9.1+0.2
9.3+0.3
9.1+0.2
8.6+0.3
9ol+0.2
TRC
(ug/L)
450+154
490+167
190+77
200+42
80+^30
110+112
50+.26
40J+26
10+5
20+_14
00+0
+
NH. + NH.
4 3
(mg/L)
8.34+0.89
8.10+1.20
4.83+0.91
4.68+0.63
2.67+0.36
2.48+0.28
1063_0.24
2.08+0.18
Oo92+0o25
0.82+0.16
-------
APPENDIX B-7
APPENDIX - B-7.
EFFLUENT TOXICITY AND QUALITY DATA FOR ROSEVILLE WTP
Test series R-l Effluent type UnCl Test organism GS
1
Diluted
Concentration
(7.)
100.0-1
100.0-2
56.0-1
56.0-2
32.0-1
32.0-2
18.0-1
18.0-2
10.0-1
10.0-2
0.0-1&-2
•••• i . •• „
Temp.
(c)
17.6+0.7
17.3+0.9
16.9+0.8
17.0+0.8
16.9+0.7
16.7+0.7
16.7+0.7
16.7+0.7
16.7+0.6
16.7+0.7
16.6+0.8
•^•^••mHMMWHMW
PH
7.5+0.1
7.6+0.1
7.6+0.1
7.4+0.1
7.5+0.1
7.5+0.1
7.5+0.1
7.5+0.1
7.5+0.1
7.4+0.1
7.5+0.2
""^^•-^••- • in
D.O.
Cmg/L)
8.1+0.4
8.7+0.2
8.7+0*2
8.4+0.2
8.9+0.2
9.1+0.2
9.0+0.2
9.0+0.2
8.9+0.4
8.9+0.5
9.1+0.2
+ \
^«*«iBIMMW«HHM»HMiiiMH
TRC
(ug/L)
00+0
00+0
00+0
00+0
00+0
oo+p
00+0
oo+p
oo+p
00+0
OO+o
L
MMMMHMBMMVMMH—IMHM,
+
NH. + NH.
4 3
(mg/L)
18.00+0.00
18.10+0.50
5.60±2.90
7.35+3.10
4.65+_2.60
4.95+_2.50
2.90+1.70
2.90+_1.65
1.70+0.75
1.65+0.50
0.25+0.12
^
•••••••••••••••^MBIilll^MW
NH3
(ug/L)
195+25
200+20
109+21
89+25
55+_19
57+12
25+_15
20+13
8+3
9+_2
3_+l
•••••••••••••MIMMI
No.
Obs.
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
34
^••••••^••••••l 1 •!! • -
Mortality
C%>
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
000
0.0
0.0
+ SD.
-------
APPENDIX - B-7.
Test series R-2
Test organism
GS
vo
Ul
Diluted
Concentration
20.0-1
20.0-2
11.2-1
11.2-2
6.4-1
6.4-2
3.6-1
3.6-2
2.0-1
2.0-2
0.0-1&-2
Temp.
(c)
a
16.8+1.9
16.6+1.7
16.6+0.8
16.7+1.3
16.5+0.9
16.3+1.0
16.4+0.8
16.2^1.0
16.4+0.7
16.3+0.9
16.2+0.5
pH
7.5+0.2
7.5+0.1
7.5+0.1
7.5+0.1
7.5+0.1
7.5+0.2
7.5+0.1
7.5+0.1
7.5+0.1
7.5+0.1
7.6+0.2
D.O.
(mg/L)
9.2+0.2
9.1+0.3
9.3+0.2
9.3+0.3
9.2+0.2
9.3+0.2
9.2+0.2
9.3+0.2
9.2+0.4
TRC
(ug/L>
720_+195
930+215
290+55
450+58
170+93
140+40
90+30
70+35
60+14
50+9
00+0
NH + NHL
(mg/L)
1.90+0.10
1.15+0.15
1.18+0.05
0.68+0.00
0.80+0.10
0.55+0.00
0.46+0.02
0.17+0.02
(ug/L)
25+5
14+2
16+2
8+0
9+2
6+1
5+1
2±L
No.
Obs.
5
5
13
5
17
17
17
17
17
17
34
Mortality
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
85.8
13.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
3.3
+ SD*
-------
APPENDIX - B-7.
Test series R-3
Effluent type DOHC1 Test organism
GS
Diluted
Concentration
33.3-1
33.3-2
18.6-1
18.6-2
10.6-1
10.6-2
6.0-1
6.0-2
3.3-1
3.3-2
0.0-1&-2
•— — — —••"•i— i«»-«™
Temp.
(c)
a
16.4+0.8
16.2+0.7
16.5+0.7
16.2+0.7
16.3+0.6
16.2+0.7
16.2+0.6
16.1+0.6
16.2+0.6
16.1+0.6
16.2+0.6
PH
7.5+0.1
7.5+0.1
7.5+0.1
7.5+0.1
7.5+0.1
7.5+0.1
7.5+0.1
7.5+0.1
7.6+0.1
D.O.
(mg/L)
8.9+0.3
9.1+0.3
9.1+0.2
9.1+0.2
9.2+0.3
9.2+0.2
9.2+0.2
9.2+0.3
9.2+0.2
9.2+0.3
9.2+0.3
••^•••••••••••••••••••••••••i
TRC
(ug/L)
340+111
360+193
250+75
230+87
170+26
150+_53
100+32
80+23
70+16
60+15
oo+p
HHBH_WHMH,^^B.^^^^^^
NH. + NH,
4 3
(mg/L)
4.30+0.00
2.21+0.12
2.0+0.13
1.63+0.00
1.62+0.00
1.00+0.00
1.10+Q.OO
0.72+0.10
0.63+0.05
0.15+0.05
MMBMBMHBMMPHMIBBB^M^
(ug/L)
52+0
25±5
20+_7
18+0
17+0
11+0
11+0
8+2
2+.1
••••••••••••••^
No.
5
9
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
34
Mortality
100.0
100.0
93.3
93.3
53.3
6.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
*Mean + SD.
-------
APPENDIX - B-7.
vo
Test series R-4
Effluent type UnCl
Test organism
GS
Diluted
Concentration
100.0-1
100.0-2
56.0-1
56.0-2
32.0-1
32.0-2
18.0-1
18.0-2
10.0-1
10.0-2
Temp.
(c)
a
17.8+0.9
17.3+1.0
16.2+0.8
16.2+0.7
16.5+0.7
16.4+1.0
16.4+0.8
16.3+1.0
16.4+0.7
16.1+0.8
PH
7.4+0.1
7.5+0.2
7.3+0.1
7.5+0.1
7.4+0.1
7.4+0.1
7.4+0.1
7.4+0.1
7.4+0.1
7.4+0.1
D.O.
(mg/L)
7.6+0.7
8.3+0.2
8.6+0.5
8.8+0.3
8.7+0.2
8.7+0.2
8.9+0.2
8.9+0.2
8.7+0.3
8.8+0.4
TRC
(ug/L)
00+0
00+0
00+0
oo+p
00+0
00+0
00+0
00+0
00+0
00+0
NH. + NH,
4 3
(mg/L)
12.85+2.50
13.67+4.60
6.78+3.80
6.40+_2.15
4.65+1.89
4.89+1.51
2.63+0.85
2.71+0.74
2.25+0.18
2.15+0.15
(ug/L)
120±50
175+40
36±0
45+_20
41±10
32+8
18+5
17+_3
14+8
15+6
No.
Obs.
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
Mortality
0.0
0.0
13.3
0.0
0.0
6.7
6.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0-1&-2
16.0+1.0 7.3+0.1 9.0+0.2 00+0
0.25+0.15 3+1 34
0.0
SD.
-------
APPENDIX - B-7.
V£>
GO
Test series R-5
Effluent type EC1
Test organism
GS
Diluted
Concentration
(7.)
20.0-1
20.0-2
11.2-1
11.2-2
6.4-1
6.4-2
3.6-1
3*6-2
2.0-1
2.0-2
0.0-1&-2
MMM^M^^nmMIHIBHMM.,^
Temp.
(c)
a
15.4+0.8
15.2+0.8
15.0+0.6
14.7+1*1
15.8+0.9
14.9+0.5
15.6+0.7
15.4+0.8
15.4+0.7
15.3+0.7
150 2+0.5
•MM^M^MMMMMMH
PH
7.4+0.1
7.4+0.1
7.4+0.1
7.3+0.1
7.3+0.1
7.3+0.1
7.3+0.1
7.4+0.1
7.4+0.1
7.3+0.1
7.4+0.2
— --
D.O.
(mg/L)
9.1+0.3
9.1+0.3
9.1+0.4
9.2+0.3
9.0+0.3
9.3+0.3
9.1+0.2
9.1+0.3
9.1+0.2
9.1+0.2
9.1+0.2
•^•••••••WIWIIIIIIIIMMMM^^HB
TRC
(ug/L)
930+174
990+209
530+_130
380+86
200_+53
290+33
110+31
130+24
80+15
70+13
oo+p
MMH^.^M«MIIIMMMM.H«aiMHIHH«
NH. + NH,
4 3
(mg/L)
4.35+0.15
3.80+0.70
2.27+0.10
2.10+0.18
0.85+0.25
0.75+0.25
0.50+0.25
0.40+0.20
0.35+_0.15
0.31+0.10
0.10+0,00
^^
3 No.
(ug/L) Obs.
19+_2 5
14+2 5
14+2 5
12+_1 5
6+2 17
5+1 9
3+1 17
3+1 17
2+_l 17
2+_l 17
1+1 34
•. •-• '
Mortality
100 00
100.0
100.0
100.0
80.0
100.0
33.3
13.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
+ SD.
-------
APPENDIX - B-7.
VO
VO
Test series R-6
Effluent type DOHC1
Test organism
GS
Diluted
Concentration
(%)
33.3-1
33.3-2
18.6-1
18.6-2
10.6-1
10.6-2
6.0-1
6.0-2
3.3-1
3.3-2
0.0-1&-2
Temp.
(C)
a
15.6+0.-4
15.4+0.4
15.4+0..5
15.5+0.5
16.0+0.6
15.9+0.7
16.0+0.7
16.1+0.8
16.0+0.8
15.8+0.7
16.0+0.7
pH
7.4+0.1
7.4+0.1
7.3+0.2
7.3+0.1
7.3+0.1
7.3+0.1
7.3+0.1
7.3+0.1
7.3+0.1
7.3+pol
7.3+Ool
D.O.
(mg/O
9.2+0.3
9.2+0.3
9.3+0.4
9.3+0.3
9.0+0.4
9.0+0.4
9.1+0.4
900+0.3
9.1+0.4
9.0+0.4
9.1+0.4
TRC
(ug/L)
420+149
430+159
220+91
220+86
100+54
110+48
80+35
50+28
50+19
40+13
00+0
+
NH. + NH,
4 3
(mg/L)
4.25+0.15
4.50+0.20
2.27+0.10
2.06+0.18
2.00+0.50
1.70+0.25
1.00+0.45
0.96+0.48
0.55+pc24
0.57+0.13
0.20+0.10
NH3
(ug/L)
32+19
36+15
12+0
12+_2
7±3
9+2
5+2
5+2
3+_l
3+1
2+1
No.
Obs.
5
5
5
9
17
17
17
17
17
17
34
Mortality
(%)
lOOoO
100.0
lOOoO
100.0
53.0
40.0
0.0
000
0.0
0.0
OoO
aMean + SD.
-------
O
O
APPENDIX B-8
APPENDIX - B-8.
EFFLUENT TOXICITY AND QUALITY DATA FOR DUBLIN/SAN RAMON WTP
Test series DSR-1 Effluent type UnGl Test organism
GS
Diluted
Concentration
(7.)
100.0-1
100.0-2
56.0-1
56.0-2
32.0-1
32^0-2
18.0-1
18.0-2
10.0-1
10.0-2
0.0-1&-2
Temp.
(O
17.6+1.0
16.9+0.6
17.0+0.6
17.0+0.7
17.1+0.6
17.0+0.6
17.1+0.1
16.8+0.5
16.9+0.5
16.8+0.6
16.3+0.2
pH
7.7+0.2
7.8+0.2
7.7+0.1
7.8+0.1
7.7+0.2
7.8+0.1
7.8+0.2
7.8+0.2
7.8+0.2
7.8+0.2
7.8+0.2
D.O.
(mg/L)
8.9+0.4
8.9+0.6
8.9+0.4
8.9+0.4
8.9+0.4
9.0+0.3
9.2+0.3
9.1+0.4
9.1+0.4
9.2+0.3
9.2+0.3
TRC "C + ""3
(ug/L) (mg/L)
oo+o
oo+o
00+0
00+0
00+0
oo+o
oo+o
00+0
oo+o
00+0
15+5
m* «
3 No.
(ug/L) Obs.
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
34
Mortality
c%>
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
3.3
''Mean + SD.
-------
APPENDIX -B-8.
Test series DSR-2
Test organism
GS
Diluted
Concentration
10.0-1
10.0-2
5.6-1
5.6-2
3.2-1
3.2-2
18.1-1
18.1-2
1.0-1
1.0-2
0.0-1&-2
Temp.
(C)
a.
16.8+0.2
16.8+0.2
16.8+0.3
16.7+0.3
16.7+0.4
16.6+0.5
16.7+0.5
16.7+0.4
16.6+0.4
16.7+0.4
16.7+0.4
pH
7.8+0.2
7.7+0.1
7.7+0.1
7.8+0.1
7.9+0.2
7.9+0.2
7.9+0.2
7.8+0.1
7.9+0.2
7.8+0.1
7.9+0.1
D.O.
(mg/L)
9.5+0.6
9.5+0.6
9.4+0.6
9.6+0.2
9.3+0.5
9.2+0.5
9.3+0.4
9.3+0.4
9.3+p04
9o3+0.4
9.3+0.4
TRC 4 3
(ug/L) (mg/L)
764+275
910+364
444+116
450+131
268+61
287+77
186+43
179+45
100+30
144+39
21+15
3 No.
(ug/L) Ob e.
5
5
5
5
13
-— 9
17
17
17
17
34
Mortality
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
66=7
27.3
0.0
20eO
3.3
*Mean + SD.
-------
APPENDIX -B-8.
o
ho
Test series DSR-3
Effluent type DOHC1
Test organism
GS
Diluted.
Cone entr ation
20.0-1
20.0-2
11.2-1
11.2-2
6.4-1
6.4-2
3.6-1
3.6-2
2.0-1
2.0-2
0.0-1&-2
Temp.
(O
a
16.6+0.2
16.5+0.4
16.7+0.4
16.6+p04
16.4+0.5
16.6+0.3
16.6+0.3
16.5+0.4
16.4+0.3
16.5+0.4
16.5+0.3
pH
7.7+0.2
7.8+0.1
7.8+0.2
7.9+0.2
7.9+0.2
7.9+0.2
7.8+0.1
7.9+0.1
7.9+0.2
7.8+0.1
7.9+0.2
D.O.
(mg/L)
9.4+0.4
9.3+0.4
9.4+0.4
9.3+0.4
9.4+0.4
9.3+0.5
9.3+0.3
9.3+0.3
9o3+0.3
8.7+0.5
9.3+0.3
TRC ^4 + ^S
(ug/L) (mg/L)
646+159
578+193
382+107
344+103
240+64
256+83
209+53
198+43
126+53
117+51
25+_25
m3 No.
(ug/L) Obs.
5
9
9
9
17
9
17
13
17
17
34
Mortality
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
73.3
100.0
53.3
13*3
0.0
+ SD.
-------
APPENDIX -B-8.
o
U)
Test series DSR-4 Effluent type UnCl
Test organism
GS
Diluted
Concentration
(7.)
100.0-1
100.0-2
56.0-1
56.0-2
32.0-1
32.0-2
18.0-1
18.0-2
10.0-1
10.0-2
Temp.
(c)
a
18o 2+1.0
17.4+0.5
17.4+0.4
17.6+0.6
17.8+0.6
17.3+0.4
17.6+0.4
17.4+0.4
17.5+0.5
17.2+0.4
pH
7.7+0.1
7.8+0.2
7.9+0.1
7.8+0.1
7.8+0.1
7.8+0.1
7.8+0.1
7.9+0.1
7.9+p02
7.9+0.2
D.O.
(mg/L)
8.9+0.3
9.0+0.2
9.0+0.2
9.0+0o2
9.0+0.2
9.1+0.3
9.1+0.3
9.2+0.2
9.1+0.3
9.2+0.3
TRC 4 3
(ug/L) (rag/L)
oo+p
oo+p
oo+p
oo+p
oo+p
oo+p
oo+p
oo+p
oo+p
oo+p
NH, M
3 No.
(ug/L) Obs.
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
Mortality
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
6.7
6.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0-1&-2
17.3+0.4 7.9+0.2 9.2+003
20+13
34
3.3
aMean + SD.
-------
APPENDIX - B-8.
Teat series DSR-5
Effluent type EC1
Test organism
GS
Diluted
Concentration
10.0-1
10.0-2
5.6-1
5.6-2
3.2-1
3.2-2
1.8-1
1.8-2
1.0-1
1.0-2
0.0-1&-2
Temp.
(c)
a
17.3+0.4
17.'2+0.3
17.3+0.3
17.3+0.4
17.2+0.3
17.1+0.3
17.4+0.3
17.3+0.3
17.4+0.3
17.3+0.3
17.4+0.4
PH
7.9+0.1
7.8+0.1
7.9+0.1
7.8+0.1
7.8+0.1
7.8+0.1
7.9+0.1
7.8+0.1
7.8+0.1
7.9+0.1
7.8+0.7
D.O.
(mg/L)
9.5+0.2
9.4+0.2
9.4+0.3
9.4+0.1
9.3+0.1
9.3+0.2
9,2+0.2
9.1+0.2
9.2+0.2
9.3+0.2
9.2+0.3
+
TRC ^4 * ^3
(ug/L) (mg/L)
902+389
960+437
480^164
558+187
259+58
346+111
156+40
135+32
74+19
99+21
20+15
NH, „
3 Ho.
(ug/L) Obs.
5
5
5
5
9
5
17
17
17
17
34
Mortality
a)
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
60.0
6.7
26.7
0.0
6.7
+ SD.
-------
APPENDIX - B-8.
Test series DSR-6
Test organism
GS
Diluted
Concentration
20.0-1
20.0-2
11.2-1
11.2-2
6.4-1
6.4-2
3.6-1
3.6-2
2.0-1
2.0-2
0.0-1&-2
Temp*
(C)
16.9+0.6
16.9+0.6
17.1+0.5
16.9+0.5
16.7+0.6
16.9+0.5
17.1+0.3
16.9+0.4
17.1+0.4
17.1+0.4
17.1+0.4
pH
7.7+0.1
7.6+0.1
7.8+0.1
7.7+0.1
7.8+0.1
7.8+0.1
7.9+0.1
7.9+0.1
7.9+0.1
7.9+0.1
7.8+0.1
D.O.
(mg/L)
9.4+0.1
9.4+0.1
9.4+0.6
9.4+0.1
9.4+0.1
9.4+0.2
9.3+0.2
9.3+0.2
9.3+0.2
9.3+0.2
9.2+0.2
TRC
(ug/L)
722+206
794+JL99
388+_56
379+112
258+,40
274+62
168+35
174+29
126+_25
112+28
20+_30
NH4 + NH3 NH3 No<
(mg/L) (ug/L) Obs.
5
5
___ ___ -5
9
9
9
17
16
17
17
34
Mortality
0)
lOOoO
100.0
lOOoO
100.0
100.0
100.0
90.0
88.2
33.3
9.1
6.7
+ SD.
-------
APPENDIX B-9 EFFLUENT TOXICITY AND QUALITY DATA FOR ROSS VALLEY WTP
APPENDIX - B-9.
Test series RV-1
Effluent type UNG1
Test organism
GS
Diluted
Cone en tr ation
(%)
100.0-1
100.0-2
56.0-1
56.0-2
32.0-1
32.0-2
18.0-1
18.0-2
10.0-1
10.0-2
0.0-1&-2
Temp.
(0
a
18.0+0.8
17.8+0.6
17.3+0.6
17.6+0.7
17.4+0.9
16.8+0.4
17.1+0.7
16.9+0.7
16.9+0.7
16.7+0*6
16.4+0.5
pH
7.8+0.1
7.8+0.1
7.7+0.1
7.8+0.1
7.7+0.1
7.7+0.1
7.7+0.2
7.7+0.2
7.7+0.2
7.7+0.2
7.9+0.4
D.O.
(mg/L)
8.1+0.6
8.3+0.5
8.4+0.5
8.4+0.4
8.7+0.5
8.8+0.4
9.0+0.4
9.1+0.4
9.0+0.4
9.1+0.4
9o2+0.4
TRC
(ug/L)
0+00
o+po
o+po
0+00
o^po
o+po
o+po
0+00
o+po
o+po
10+_7
NH4* + NH3
(mg/L)
17.50+1.86
17.01+1.94
7.03+1.82
7.11+1.96
3.59+1.41
4.16+0.77
3.41+1.16
2.73+0.78
1.21+0.38
1.26+0.32
<0.10+_0.00
NH3
(ug/L)
442+100
439+102
156+41
206+JLO
81+34
95^27
76+39
54+28
27+16
26+15
<1+0
T
No.
Obs.
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
34
Mortality
C%)
6.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
+ SD.
-------
APPENDIX - B-9.
Test series RV-2
Effluent type EG1
Test organism
GS
Diluted
Concentration
10.0-1
10.0-2
5.6-1
5.6-2
3.2-1
3.2-2
1.8-1
1.8-2
1.0-1
1.0-2
0.0-1&-2
Temp.
(G)
16.2+0.4
16.1+0.5
16.5+0.8
16.1+0.4
16.7+0.9
16.5+0.7
16.7+0.9
16.6+0.8
16.6+0.7
16.6+0.9
16.7+0.8
pH
7.5+0.1
7.5+0.1
7.5+0.1
7.4+0.2
7.7+0.2
7.6+0.2
7.6+0.2
7.740.2
7o6+0.2
7.6+0.2
7.8+0.3
D.O.
(mg/L)
9.2+0.5
9.0+0.7
9.0+0.6
8.0+1.6
9.2+0.4
9.2+0.4
9.2+0.4
9.2+0.5
9.2+0.4
9.2+0.4
9.2+0.3
TRC
(ug/L)
720+575
790+655
320+193
396+300
169+135
106+38
105+73
93+67
43+22
68+43
20+10
NH. + NH,
4 3
(mg/L) "
1.42+0.20
1.46+0.13
0.68+0.14
0.65+0005
0.40+0.06
0.45+0.09
0.26+0.05
0.37+0.10
0.18+0.03
0.18+0.04
<0.10+0.00
(ug/L)
17+5
16+5
10+5
7+3
8+4
9+4
5±2
7±3
3+1
3+2
<1±1
No.
Obs.
5
5
5
5
17
17
17
17
17
17
34
Mortality
100.0
100.0
100.0
lOOoO
93.3
6.7
0.0
25.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
*Mean + SD.
-------
APPENDIX - B-9.
o
00
Test series RV-3 Effluent type DOHC1 Test organism
GS
-
Diluted
Cone en tr at ion
(7.)
25.0-1
25.0-2
14.0-1
14.0-2
8.0-1
8.0-2
4.5-1
4.5-2
2.5-1
2.5-2
0.0-1&-2
Temp.
(C)
a
16.7+0.7
16.6+0.6
16.8+0.8
16.6+0.7
16.6+0.6
16.5+0.6
16.6+0.6
16.6+0.8
16.6+0.6
16.5+0.7
16.4+0.5
pH
7.5+0.1
7.6+0.2
7.6+0.1
7.5+0.2
7.6+0.2
7.6+0.2
7.6+0.2
7.6+0.2
7.6+0.2
7.6+0.2
7.6+0.2
D.O.
Cmg/L)
8.8+0.3
8.8+0.5
8.8+0.4
8.8+0.5
9.1+0.3
9.1+0.4
9.1+0.3
9.1+0.3
9.1+0.3
9.1+0.4
9.1+0.4
TRC
(ug/L)
526+56
484+104
252+45
230+62
158+28
188+50
95+32
125+30
51+20
62+21
20+_7
NH4 + NH3
(mg/L)
3.65+1.78
3.71+2.07
1.91+0.96
2.10+1.06
0.98+0.50
1.09+0.37
0.70+0.26
0.76+0.16
0.42+0.14
0.31+0.10
<0,10+0.00
NH3
(ug/L)
50+20
56+32
28+17
27+9
16+10
17+9
12+7
13+5
6+3
5+3
<1+0
No.
Obs.
5
5
5
5
13
13
17
17
17
17
34
Mortality
a>
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
33.3
40.0
0.0
d.o
0.0
''Mean + SD.
-------
APPENDIX - B-9.
Test series RV-4
Effluent type UnCl
Test organism
GS
Diluted
Concentr ation
(%)
100.0-1
100.0-2
56.0-1
56.0-2
32.0-1
32.0-2
18.0-1
18.0-2
10.0-1
•,
10.0-2
0.0-1&-2
Temp.
(c)
a
18.5+0.8
17.3+0.7
17.8+0.9
17.2+0.6
17.7+0.8
16.9+0.6
17.4+0.8
17.1+0.6
17.2+0.6
16.8+0.6
16.9+0.5
pH
7.8+0.1
7.9+0.1
7.8+0.1
7.8+0.1
7.8+0.1
7.9+0.2
7.9+0.2
7.9+0.2
7.9+0.2
7.9+0.2
7.9+0.3
D.O.
(mg/L)
7.8+0.5
8.6+0.5
8.4+0.6
8.6+0.4
8.8+0.4
8.9+0.3
9.0+0.4
9.0+0.3
9.1+p03
9.1+0.3
90 2+0.2
TRC
(ug/L)
00+0
00+0
00+0
oo+p
oo+p
00+0
oo+p
00+0
oo+p
oo+p
20+9
+
NH. + NH,
4 3
(mg/L)
17.06+5.74
15.64+_5.25
8. 39+2 o 35
8.37+2.69
4.09+1.36
3.99+1.46
4.03+1.29
4.03+JL.15
1.57+0.66
Io33+0.47
<0.10+0.00
NH3
(ug/L)
551+164
532+163
221+103
211+91
146+73
135j99
135+64
135+81
64+46
57+38
<-l+0
No.
Obs.
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
34
Mortality
a>
13.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
6.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
+ SD.
-------
APPENDIX - B-9.
M
O
Test series RV-5 Effluent type EC1
Test organism
GS
Diluted
Cone en tr ation
15.0-1
15.0-2
8.4-1
8.4-2
4.8-1
4.8-2
2.7-1
2.7-2
1.5-1
1.5-2
Temp.
(c)
a
16.5+0.1
16.5+0.2
16.5+0.1
16.4+0.2
16o6+0.4
16.4+p03
16.7+0o6
16.6+0.5
16.5+0.5
16.6+0.5
PH
800+p,2
8.0+0o2
8.0+0.2
8.0+0o2
8.0+0.1
800+p0l
8oO+0.1
8oO+Ocl
8.0+p0l
800+0.2
D.O.
(mg/L)
9.5+0.3
9.4+0.3
9o5+003
905+p.3
904+0.3
9.3+p03
9.3+0.2
9.3±p.2
9.2+0.3
903+p.3
TRC
(ug/L;
808+_226
910+300
448+144
460+144
225+61
238+69
129+46
109+43
71+20
87+24
NH4+ + NH3
(mg/L)
Io53+0.37
1.52+0.33
0.89+0.21
1.15+0.37
0.54+0.09
0.53+0.11
0.37+0009
0.36+p004
0.30+0.05
0.27+0.04
3 No.
(ug/L) Obs.
64+42 5
57+29 5
34+21 5
46+27 5
19+11 8
19+8 9
13+4 16
13+5 16
14+_5 16
10+5 16
Mortality
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100 cO
66.7
6.7
0.0
0.0
0.0-1&-2 16.6+0.3 8.0+p02 9.4+0.3 30+7 <0.10+0.00 <1+0 34
0.0
*Hean + SD.
-------
APPENDIX - B-9.
Test series RV-6 Effluent type DOHC1
Test organism
GS
Diluted
Concentration
(7.)
25.0-1
25.0-2
14.0-1
14.0-2
8.0-1
800-2
4.5-1
4.5-2
2.5-1
2=5-2
0.0-1&-2
Temp.
(O
a
16.6+0o3
16.4+003
16.5+0.5
16.5+0.3
16.5+0.5
16.5+0.3
16.5+0.4
16o6+0.5
16 o 4+0. 4
16.5+p05
16o4+0.2
pH
709+p0l
7. 9+0 01
7.9+0.1
7.9+0.2
7o9+0a
7.9+Oel
7.9+0.1
7.9+p02
709+0.2
7o9+0.2
800+0o2
D.O.
(mg/L)
9a+p06
8o9+0o5
900+0.4
9.3+0.2
9ol+0.3
9o2+0o2
9.1+0e3
9.2±0.2
9a+0.3
9o2+0.3
9.3+p04
TRC
(ug/L)
438+214
366+_147
221+86
214+^79
136+33
151+41
91+_19
101+26
56+15
59+14
25+10
NH, + NH-
4 3
(mg/L)
2.11+0.98
Io81+0.76
I055+0o50
1.32+0.67
1. 15+0 o 28
1.13+6.19
0.88+0.16
0. 84+0 0 10
0.69+_0020
-o.uw.oo
(ug/L)
61+_29
52+15
54+28
40_+2
39+22
43+14
34+19
32+17
25+17
^
No.
Obs.
5
5
13
5
16
16
17
17
17
17
34
Mortality
100.0
lOOoO
100.0
100.0
73.3
86.7
20oO
13.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
+ SD.
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
1. REPORT NO.
EPA-600/2-80-133
2.
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION-NO.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
DESIGN OPTIMIZATION OF THE CHLORINATION PROCESS,
VOLUME II: COMPARISON OF ACUTE TOXICITY OF CHLORINATED
EFFLUENTS FROM OPTIMIZED AND EXISTING FACILITIES
5. REPORT DATE
August 1Q8Q (Issuing Date)
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHOR(S)
8. J. Finlayson, J. L. Nelson, and R. J. Hansen
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
California Department of Fish and Game
Water Pollution Control Laboratory
Rancho Cordova, CA 95670
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
PE55B1C, Task A/08, SOS#5
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
S803459
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory--Gin., OH
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Final Feb. 1977-Sept. 1978
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA/600/14
16. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
Project Officer: Albert Venosa (513) 684-7668
16. ABSTRACT
The California Department of Health Services in cooperation with the California
Department of Fish and Game developed and implemented a chlorine optimization study of
eight wastewater treatment plants in northern California. Two mobile units were con.-
structed for the project: a pilot chlorination plant and a mobile toxicity testing
and water quality laboratory. The pilot chlorination plant tested several optimized-
chlorination design criteria against existing wastewater treatment plant chlorination
systems. The mobile laboratory evaluated the toxicity of the optimized and existing
chlorinated effluents.
The toxicity associated with the existing unchlorinated and dechlorinated efflu-
ents increased with un-ionized ammonia concentrations. Most of the toxicity associated
with the unchlorinated and dechlorinated effluents, however, was the result of an
artificial increase in pH created by a toxicity test design problem. The optimized
chlorinated effluents, with one exception, had lower and more stable chlorine residuals
than did the existing chlorinated effluents and hence, were generally less toxic.
The toxicity of all effluents investigated increased proportionately with increased
:hlorine residual.
7.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b.lDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
COSATI Field/Group
oxicity, Chlorine, Disinfection, Aquatic
animals, Fishes, Waste treatment, Coliform
acteria, ammonia
LC50, Chlorine residual
Free chlorine, Fathead
minnows, Golden shiners
Dechlorination
06C
13B
8. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Release to Public
19. SECURITY CLASS (ThisReport)'
Unclassified
21. NO. OF PAGES
122
20. SECURITY CLASS (Thispage)
Unclassified
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
112
•if U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1980--667-165/0095
------- |