WATER POLLUTION CONTROL RESEARCH SERIES
18050 GZZ 10/71
Chlorinated Municipal Waste
Toxicities to Rainbow Trout
and Fathead Minnows
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY •RESEARCH AND MONITORING
-------
WATER POLLUTION CONTROL RESEARCH SERIES
The Water Pollution Control Research Series describes the results
and progress in the control and abatement of pollution in our
Nation’s waters. They provide a central source of information
on the research, development, and demonstration activities in the
Environmental Protection Agency, through inhouse research and
grants and contracts with Federal, State, and local agencies,
research institutions, and industrial organizations.
Inquiries pertaining to Water Pollution Control Research Reports
should be directed to the Chief, Publications Branch, Research
Information Division, Research and Monitoring, Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. 20460.
-------
Chlorinated Municipal Waste Toxicities
to Rainbow Trout and Fathead Minnows
by
Bureau of Water Management
Michigan Department of Natural Resources
Lansing, Michigan 48926
for the
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Grant Number 18050 GZZ
October 1971
-------
EPA Review Notice
This report has been reviewed by the Environmental Protection Agency,
and approved for publication. Approval does not signify that the contents
necessarily reflect the views and policies of the Environmental Protection
Agency, nor does mention of trade names or commercial products constitute
endorsement or recommendation for use.
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402-Price 60 cents
11
-------
ABSTRACT
This project consisted of separate studies at four different Michigan
municipal wastewater treatment plants. Ten rainbow trout ( Salmo gairdneri )
and ten fathead minnows ( Pimephales promelas) , each previously acclimated
to the river, were held for 96 hours in live boxes in the receiving stream
above and below these plant outfalls. Fish held below these outfalls were
subjected to both chlorinated and non-chlorinated exposures during effluent
discharge. During fish exposure, the test waters were monitored chemically
and bacteriologically.
Total residual chlorine concentrations below three of the four plants were
toxic to rainbow trout at distances up to 0.8 mile. Fathead minnows
appeared adversely affected up to 0.6 mile downstream in two of four plants.
Total residual chlorine concentrations less than 0.1 mg/l were toxic to
fathead minnows in the plants.
The rainbow trout 96-hour total residual chlorine TL-50 concentration below
two plants was 0.023 mg/l.
This report was submitted in fulfillment of Project Number 18050 GZZ under
the (partial) sponsorship of the Water Quality Office, Environmental
Protection Agency.
111
-------
CONTENTS
SECTION PAGE
I CONCLUSIONS
II RECOMMENDATIONS.
III INTRODUCTION
IV METHODS
V STUDY 1
DESCRI PTION
RESULTS AND
CONCLUSION.
VI STUDY 2
DESCRI PTION
RESULTS AND
CONCLUSION.
VII STUDY 3
DESCRI PTION
RESULTS AND
CONCLUSION.
VIII STUDY 4
DESCRI PTION
RESULTS AND
CONCLUSION.
GENERAL DISCUSSION .
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS . .
REFERENCES CITED . .
APPENDICIES
DISCUSSION.
DISCUSSION.
DISCUSSION.
DISCUSSION.
....3
5
7
11
11
11
14
15
15
18
21
21
21
24
25
25
25
28
31
37
39
41
IX
X
XI
XII
V
-------
PAGE
1 TEST CAGE CONSTRUCTION AND DIMENSIONS
2 STOCK CAGE CONSTRUCTION AND DIMENSIONS
3 MAP OF CHARLOTTE AREA SHOWING STATION LOCATIONS
4 MAP OF WEST BRANCH AREA SHOWING STATION LOCATIONS
5 CHLORINE CONCENTRATION AND REGRESSION FOR PERCENT SURVIVAL
OF RAINBOW TROUT BELOW THE WEST BRANCH WWTP OUTFALL .
6 MAP OF ROSCOMMON AREA SHOWING STATION LOCATIONS
7 MAP OF MASON AREA SHOWING STATION LOCATIONS
8 CHLORINE CONCENTRATION AND REGRESSION FOR PERCENT SURVIVAL
OF RAINBOW TROUT BELOW THE MASON WWTP OUTFALL
9 CHLORINE CONCENTRATION AND REGRESSION FOR PERCENT SURVIVAL
OF RAINBOW TROUT BELOW MASON AND WEST BRANCH WWTP
OUTFALLS
FIGURES
8
.9
• . 12
16
• . 19
• . 22
26
29
vi
-------
TABLES
NO. PAGE
1 Percent survival of fish after 120 hours below the
Charlotte WWTP outfall 13
2 Characteristics of Charlotte WWTP effluent and river waters. 14
3 Percent survival of fish after 96 hours below the West
Branch WWTP outfall 17
4 Percent survival of fish after 48 hours of chlorinated
exposure below the West Branch WWTP outfall 17
5 Characteristics of West Branch WWTP effluent and river waters. 20
6 Percent survival of fish after 96 hours below the Roscommon
WWTP outfall 23
7 Percent survival of fish after 48 hours of chlorinated
exposure below the Rosconrion WWTP outfall 23
8 Characteristics of Roscomon WWTP effluent and river waters. 24
9 Percent survival of fish after 96 hours below the Mason
WWTP outfall 27
10 Percent survival of fish after 48 hours of chlorinated
exposure below the Mason WWTP outfall 27
11 Characteristics of Mason WWTP effluent and river waters 28
12 Sumary of bioassay results obtained below four Michigan
WWTP’s 32
13 Toxic total residual chlorine concentrations below three
Michigan WWTP’s and toxicities reported by other authors. . 33
vii
-------
SECTION I
CONCLUSIONS
1. Total residual chlorine concentrations below three of four Michigan
municipal wastewater treatment plants were toxic to rainbow trout
after four or more days. Fathead minnows were less affected by the
chlorinated wastes with toxicity observed below two of the four plants.
2. Long river reaches were rendered uninhabitable to many fish due to the
detrimental effect of chlorinated Michigan municipal effluents. Stream
reaches up to 0.8 mile long below these municipal outfalls were lethal
to rainbow trout after four days. Fathead minnows were adversely
affected up to 0.6 mile below two of four plants.
3. The major factor affecting the downstream extent of the toxicity to
rainbow trout was the waste dilution by the river. In two instances
after the waste was thoroughly mixed the waste was toxic up to 0.7
mile farther downstream.
4. Rainbow trout 96-hour TL-50’s in two rivers were 0.014 and 0.029 mg/l.
Results pooled from these two plants showed the total residual chlorine
96-hour TL-5O of rainbow trout to be 0.023 mg/l. Lethal levels for
fathead minnows were less than 0.1 mg/i.
1
-------
SECTION II
RECOMMENDAT IONS
With the large number of municipal and industrial plants that discharge
chlorinated wastes, the results of this study and others, indicate the
need to further document the effect of chlorinated wastes on fish life
and other aquatic life in the receiving streams.
This project was conducted during the winter months when fish survival and
river conditions should be most favorable. A parallel study during the
sumer months should be conducted to determine the toxicity of these wastes
under less favorable conditions.
An effort should be made to assess the affect of municipal discharges on
the upstream migration of anadromous fishes. This information would be
valuable in Michigan because of the extensive introduction of anadromous
fishes.
Public health considerations require adequate disinfection of wastes but
present chlorination practices can be toxic to aquatic life. Until ecologi-
cally proven safe disinfection practices are developed, it is recommended
that in-plant monitoring of chlorine be carefully controlled and a more
accurate analytical method be found to measure chlorine other than the
orthotolidine color comparator.
3
-------
SECTION III
INTRODUCTION
Recent research at the Duluth National Water Quality Laboratory and the
Michigan Water Resources Comission have indicated an urgent need for
further work on the effect of chlorinated municipal wastes on the aquatic
life in receiving streams.
This project attempted, under field conditions, to assess the effect of
these wastes on the fish life and to help support or reject laboratory
findings of other researchers. Further objectives were to arrive at
tolerance levels and determine the length of river below each plant out-
fall rendered unavailable to resident fish populations.
The extreme toxicity of free chlorine to fish has long been recognized.
Doudoroff and Katz (1950) cite early studies by Taylor and James (1928)
and Wilhelmi (1922). A number of more recent papers are listed by McKee
and Wolf (1963). In one of the most recent efforts Dandy (1967), working
with brook trout and investigating the responses of this species when
exposed to test chemicals, found a lethal threshold for a seven day
exposure of 0.01 parts per million (ppm) free chlorine.
Chlorine present in municipal wastewater discharges is aismost always
present in the combined form. It is usually combined with aninonia,
annionium hydroxide or ammonium ions to form mono-, di-, or trichioramine.
Sawyer and McCarty (1967) also list organic and inorganic reducing agents,
phenols, and organic compounds with unsaturated linkages as substances
which will react with free chlorine. Coventry, Shelford and Miller (1935)
found that water with a 0.05 ppm chloramine content killed trout fry within
48 hours. A recent author, Zillich (1970), has shown that chioramines
associated with chlorinated municipal sewage had a 96-hour 50 percent
tolerance level (TL-50) in the range of 0.05-0.16 mg/i. Artnur and Eaton
(1971) found that the lowest concentrations having no detrimental effects
to fathead minnows ( Pimephales promelas ) and amphipods ( Ganniarus
pseudolimnaeus ) were 16 and less than 3.4 micrograms per liter (ug/l),
respect i ye ly.
Various researchers have investigated the comparative toxicities of free
chlorine and chloramines. Merkens (1958), using a continuous-flow bioassay
set-up with rainbow trout as test fish, found the toxicity of free chlorine
and the chloramines all of the same order with free chlorine being the most
toxic. He found a safe concentration in the range of 0.004-0.08 ppm total
residual chlorine. McKee and Wolf (1963) cite Westfall who found chiora-
mines more toxic than free chlorine to warmwater fish; Westfall also reports
0.06 mg/i chloramines being lethal to trout fry. McKee and Wolf also cite
work done by the Washington Department of Fisheries using salmon as test
fish. They found, in aerated freshwater, chloramines were more toxic than
free chlorine.
5
-------
Field investigations of the effects of chlorine have been noticeably
lacking. One author (Tsai, 1968 and 1970) conducted field surveys of
the fish fauna in three Maryland streams receiving chlorinated wastes.
He found that the number of species and fish abundance decreased
drastically in the area imediately below chlorinated sewage outfalls.
Downstream from these outfalls, in organically enriched areas, the fish
coniiiunity composition changed although there were no changes in species
diversity indices calculated. He also reported that during their spawning
season upstream migrations of white catfish and white perch were blocked
by the chlorinated sewage effluents concentrated in the area immediately
below the sewage outfalls.
Wuerthele (1970 a and b) held fathead minnows in live boxes above and below
a Michigan wastewater treatment plant outfall. He found complete mortality
four miles downstream. Interpretation of results from this study was
complicated by the presence of industrial wastes in the municipal waste
and an industrial discharge upstream from the municipal outfall.
6
-------
SECTION IV
METHODS
Suitable study locations for this project were selected with the cooperation
of the basin engineers in the Wastewater Section of the Michigan Department
of Public Health. The final selection of wastewater treatment plants (WWTP)
discharging to Michigan rivers was based on the following criteria:
a. Absence of any public health danger when chlorination
was temporarily discontinued.
b. Absence of any other toxicants in the river or coming
into the WWTP.
c. Plant’s effluent comprising a significant portion of
the river flow.
ci. Presence of dependable operators at the plant.
e. Reasonably accessible conditions.
An effort was made to get a geographical distribution of plans as well as a
representative sampling of various types of waste treatment. The total
project consists of studies at four different WWTP’s. Each study included
a chlorinated phase and a non-chlorinated phase, during which separate sets
of fish were exposed to chlorinated and non-chlorinated wastes. The general
procedure at each study area was as follows: Fish were held in cages in the
river above and below an outfall. The fish held below the outfall were
subjected to chlorinated wastes for a period and mortalities noted. The
treatment plant stopped chlorinated, new fish were introduced and exposed
for a similar period to non-chlorinated wastes. While the fish were exposed,
chemical and bacteriological samples were taken to monitor possible causes of
mortality other than chlorine. Since sites were chosen where there were no
other known toxic materials coming into the plant or present in the river,
any differences in survival between the two exposures could be assumed to be
due to the chlorinated compounds in the waste.
In the preliminary portion of each study Rhodamine B dye was used to determine
the location of the WWTP’s discharge plume. Stations were located in this
plume and samples taken for total residual chlorine determination. Station
locations were chosen so as to have a wide range of total residual chlorine
concentrations. At each station, two seven foot steel fence posts were
driven into the river bottom approximately 15 inches apart. One test cage
was suspended from each post. The test cages, constructed of 3/4 inch
exterior plywood, each held a volume of nearly one cubic foot. Vertical
window screen openings were provided to allow limited water circulation
7
-------
(Figure 1). The test cages were suspended on the posts with U-bolts and
the two cages wired together to prevent oscillation in the river current.
Suspending the cages by the U-bolt arrangement allowed vertical movement
with changes in river stage. When the cages were in place, approximately
2 1/2 inches of each cage was above the water surface. At each upstream
control station plywood stock cages were placed to hold the stock of fish.
The stock cages were constructed of 3/4 inch exterior plywood and held a
volume of nearly six cubic feet.
Figure 1. lest cage construction and dimensions.
Window screen openings were provided to allow limited water circulation
(Figure 2). These cages were also held in the river by two seven foot steel
fence posts placed through U—bolts on both ends of each cage. A staff gage
was also placed at the upstream control station and was read each time a
sample was taken.
8
-------
HASP & HOOK
WINDOW
SCREEN
OPENING
Figure 2. stock cage construction and dimension.
Two species of test fish, rainbow trout ( Salmo gairdneri ) and fathead
minnows ( Pimephales promelas ) were obtained from the Michigan Department
of Natural Resources Wolf Lake Fish Hatchery and hauled to the study sites
in a 144-gallon truck mounted water tank. The minnows and trout ranged in
size from 2-3 inches and 4-5 inches, respectively. For six days prior to
each phase, 500 fish of each species were placed in separate stock cages
and acclimated to the river. At the start of each phase, the fish were
transported from the stock cages to the downstream test cages in a plexi-
glass aquarium. Ten fish of each species were rapidly and carefully placed
in each test cage.
9
-------
Samples were collected at each station and from the final effluent once a
day, usually at noon, throughout each phase. These samples were analyzed
for total residual chlorine, dissolved oxygen (DO), pH, temperature, and
total and fecal coliform organisms. In addition, ammonia (NH 3 ) samples
were collected from the effluent and the upstream control station. Once
during each phase, samples were collected every four hours at each station
starting at 8:00 a.m. for a 24-hour period. During these diurnal sample
collections DO, pH, temperature and chlorine determinations were made.
During the noon and 4:00 a.m. collections, NH 3 and bacterial samples were
also taken. Noon and 4:00 a.m. were normally the times at which the largest
and smallest volumes of waste were treated. Samples were also taken from
the river at the upstream control station and from the WWTP final effluent
and analyzed for various possible industrial toxicants.
Dissolved oxygen, pH, temperature, and chlorine determinations were made by
Michigan Water Resources Commission (MWRC) field personnel in each WWTP
laboratory while temperature determinations were made in the field. Dissolved
oxygen determinations were made by the azide modification of the Winkler
Method as given in Standard Methods . Determination of pH was made with a
glass electrode pH meter manufactured by the Beckman Instrument Company.
Total residual chlorine determinations were performed using a Fisher and
Porter Model 1711010 amperometric titrator. Ammonia and all other chemical
determinations were performed at the Michigan WRC Wastewater Laboratory in
Lansing using methods described in Standard Methods . Bacteriological samples
were analyzed using the membrane filter technique by Michigan Department of
Public Health personnel in Lansing.
Michigan WRC Hydrological Survey personnel gaged each stream to determine
river flows. In each instance the river was gaged at the upstream control
station and values found used as the basis for later computation of river
flows. River flows were estimated by two methods, 1) from United States
Geological Survey (USGS) rating curves if available or 2) by calculations.
Flows were calculated assuming that the river had vertical banks and that
for the changes in river stage observed there was no change in velocity.
For any change in stage the corresponding change in cross sectional area
was calculated. This cross sectional area was added to the cross sectional
area at the time the river was gaged. The new cross sectional area was
multiplied by the original velocity giving the new river flow. This is at
best an extremely rough estimate of the river flow, however, it was the
only estimate of flow available.
Survival of each species was observed after 48 and 96 hours of exposure in
each phase. Fish were counted as dead if there was no discernible muscular
or opercular movement and no visible heartbeat. Initially a fish check was
not performed after 48 hours because it was felt that lifting and opening
the cages might unnecessarily stress the fish. The first scheduled non-
chlorinated phase at Charlotte was washed out after 72 hours by a heavy
rain and runoff from melting snow. In subsequent studies a 48-hour fish
check was included. By checking fish after 48 hours in both phases it would
be possible to salvage 48-hour survival data from any later washed out phases.
10
-------
SECTION V
STUDY 1
Description: The Battle Creek River at Charlotte was the first study’ site.
The reach studied was from US-27 in Charlotte to the Broadway Highway
Bridge, a total distance of approximately two river miles (Figure 3). The
river flows through low farm land and partially wooded pasture. The river
width varied from 15 to 60 feet and the depth ranged from 1 to 4 feet. The
bottom is generally sand and mud except for isolated gravel and sand reaches.
Calculated river flows varied from 21 to 89 cfs. Like many southern Michigan
warni tater streams, this river contains suckers, smailmouth bass, pike, dog
fish and carp.
Waste treatment at the Charlotte WWTP, which serves 8,200 people, consists
of primary settling, trickling filter secondary treatment, final settling
and gas chlorination. Mean daily plant discharges for February and March
were 0.8955 and 0.7512 million gallons per day (mgd), respectively
(Appendix 2)
Results and Discussion : The fish were held for 120 hours in each phase
rather than 96 hours. Subsequent studies were conducted for 96 hours.
During the chlorinated phase, the plant operators attempted to maintain a
chlorine residual of a trace to 0.5 mg/l. To maintain this level, the
operators at the end of the workday (8:00 p.m.), decreased the chlorinator
settling to 1/2 of the daytime setting. Residuals measured by plant personnel
with the orthotolidine arsenite color comparator ranged from 0.0 to 2.0 mg/l
and were consistently lower than amperometric titrator determinations. Con-
current amperometri c ti trator total resi dual ch1orinec ncentrations ranged
from 0.96 to 2.94 mg/i and avera9ed h7L mg/i (Appendix 1). Before the fish
wer’ë placed in the téstcág s for the non-chlorinated exposure (March 2-7)
the chlorine was turned off for 24 hours to ensure that rio residual chlorine
remained.
Results in Table 1 show almost a complete kill of both species during the
chlorinated phase 0.6 mile downstream. Station 1, the upstream control, and
Stations 2 and 6, where no chlorine was detected, had low mortality.
Survival at Stations 2 and 3 graphically demonstrates the extreme waste
toxicity. These stations were approximately 10 feet apart, yet Station 3,
in the discharge plume, had no survival, while Station 2 averaged 85 to 89
percent survival of trout and minnows, respectively. Survival of both species
at Station 3 during the non-chlorinated phase was high. Results similar to
Station 3 were also noted at Stations 4 and 5 during the respective phases.
The minnow survival data was highly variable during both phases. It is
obvious that the chlorine compounds were toxic to minnows but due to this
variance no statistical analyses were attempted.
11
-------
Figure 3. Map of Charlotte area showing station locations.
Station Location
1 Midstream, 80 yards upstream from outfall
2 Midstream, at outfall, not in the discharge plume
3 Right bank, 10’ downstream from outfall directly in plume
4 Midstream, 150 yards downstream from outfall
5 Midstream, approx. 0.6 mile downstream, 75’ upstream from Kalamo Rd.
6 Left bank, approx. 2 miles downstream from outfall, 50’ downstream
from Broadway Highway
SCALE
‘CHARLOTTE
— — _J
KALAMO HIGHWAY
0 /2 IMILE
12
-------
Table 1. Percent survival of fish after 120 hours
below the Charlotte WWTP outfall.
STATIONS
SPECIES-PHASE 1 2 3 4 5 6
Rainbow Trout -
Chlorinated R(1) 80 80 0 0 0 90
L 70 90 0 0 10 90
Non-chlorinated R 100 100 100 100 100 100
L 100 100 100 100 100 100
Fathead Minnows
Chlorinated R 80 77(2) o(2) o(2) o(2) 40
L 90 100 0 0 25 90
Non-chlorinated R 100 80 60 50 40 70
L 50 70 90 90 50 90
Average Total Residual q1orine
Concentration (mg/l)( ) 0.000 0.000 0.647 0.045 0,007 0.000
(1)
= right cage, L = left cage
“ ‘More than 10 fathead minnows initially placed in test cages during
chlorinated phase.
Measured with an amperometric titrator.
Threshold lethal concentrations for both species would be in the range of
0.0 to 0.03 mg/i, the range of values at Station 5 where both partial survival
and total residual chlorine were found.
Calculated mean daily river flows were higher in the non-chlorinated phase,
64.5 versus 28.7 cfs (Appendix 1). It could be argued that due to lower flows
in the chlorinated phase increased concentrations of other waste materials
caused the mortality. High survival at Station 3 during the non-chlorinated
phase in nearly undiluted waste indicates that the mortality was due to the
chlorinated compounds and not some other toxicant.
Other parameters (00, pH, temperature and NH 3 ) did not differ appreciably
between the two phases (Appendix 1). High ammonia concentrations were found
in the effluent in both phases. High survival at all stations during the
non-chlorinated phase indicated that the mortality was not due to the ammonia.
Other possible toxicants were not found in high concentrations in either the
river or effluent (Table 2).
13
-------
Table 2. Characteristics of Charlotte WWTP
effluent and river water.
Parameter River Effluent
Time. . . . 4:00 p.m. 4:15 p.m.
Temperature 1°C 7.5°C
DO 10.0
COD . . . . 310
pH 7.8
0.10
Chlorides . 260
NH 3 —N . . . 27
N0 7 -N . . . 0.05
A ltZa linity. 405
Hardness. . 415
CN 0.00
CR 2 +6 . . . 0.00
Pr 0.0
Ni 0.0
Cu 0.1
Cd 0.00
Zn . . 0.10
1 A11 parameters
Conclusion : Total residual chlorine concentrations in the Charlotte WWTP
effluent was extremely toxic to both fish species. A river reach of 0.6
mile below the outfall could not support rainbow trout or fathead minnows
for 5 days. Extremely low total residual chlorine concentrations (0.0 to
0.03 mg/i) were found toxic to both species.
14
11.0
32
7.8
1.4
12
0.31
0.02
195
300
0.00
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.00
0.00
0.00
except pH expressed as mg/l.
-------
SECTION VI
STUDY 2
Description : Ogemaw Creek at West Branch in Ogemaw County was the second
study site. The river reach studied was from approximately 100 feet up-
stream from the West Branch WWTP discharge to approximately 50 yards down-
stream from the Flowage Lake dam, a total distance of approximately 1.8
river miles (Figure 4). The watershed consists mainly of second growth
forest wood lots and isolated farms. Trees and overhanging brush are the
predominant river bank cover. The river bottom is sand, silt and gravel.
Because of a steep gradient, few pool areas were found except immediately
above Flowage Lake. Widths varied from 15-40 feet and depth from 1-3 feet.
Calculated river flows varied from 1-4 to 45 cfs. Fish commonly found are
brown and brook trout northern pike, perch, largemouth bass, suckers,
bullheads and various minnows.
The West Branch WWTP serves approximately 2,000 people with treatment
consisting of primary settling and gas chlorination. Daily volumes dis-
charged during March varied from 220,000 to 321,000 gallons per day and
averaged 246,000 gallons.
Results and Discussion : Prior to the non-chlorinated phase (March 8-12,
1971) the chlorination was shut off for three days. In the chlorinated
phase (March 15-19, 1971) the plant operator tried to maintain a chlorine
residual of 0.5 mg/l. To maintain this residual, the chlorine residual was
checked and chlorinator adjustments made every two hours throughout the 96
hours. The range in chlorine residual observed by the operators using a
color comparator was 0.0-1.2 mg/i. The range found with the amperometric
titrator over the same period was 0.95-1.89 mg/i and averaged 1.35 mg/i. t
Results in Table 3 show that only 2 of 20 trout survived for 96 hours at
Station 3 and 10 of 20 at Station 5 (Table 3). Station 4, in Brewery Creek,
was included to insure the absence of any toxicants coming from this tribu-
tary. Survival of both species at Station 4 during both phases of the study
was excellent. Trout mortality at Stations 2, 3 and 4 did not occur until
the second half of the chlorinated exposure (Table 4). It is difficult to
determine if this mortality is due to a cumulative exposure effect or to
higher total residual chlorine concentrations in the second half of the
chlorinated exposure since river flows steadily decreased, being 20 cfs
lower at the end of the chlorinated exposure than they were at the
beginning (Appendix 3).
15
-------
Figure 4. Map of West Branch area showing station locations.
Locati on
1 Right bank, lO0 upstream from outfall
2 Midstream, 125’ downstream from outfall
3 Midstream, 300’ downstream from outfall
4 Midstream, Nelson Creek, 40’ up from confluence with Rifle River
5 Midstream, 150’ downstream from confluence with Nelson Creek, 500’
below outfall
6 Midstream, 0.6 mile downstream from outfall at M-76 bridge
7 Midstream, 1.3 miles downstream at inlet to Flowage Lake
8 Midstream, 100 yards downstream from dam, approximately 1.8 miles
downstream from outfall
I M-76
L
N
0 l/2MILE
SCALE
©SAMPLING STATIONS
Stati on
1-
16
-------
Table 3. Percent suvival of fish after 96 hours
below the West Branch WWTP outfall.
STATIONS
SPECIES-PHASE 1 2 3 4(2 ) 5 6 7 8
Rainbow Trout
Chlorinated RO) 90 0 0 - 50 100 100 100
L 100 0 20 100 50 100 100 100
Non-chlorinated R 100 100 100 - 100 100 100 100
L 100 100 100 100 100 90 100 100
Fathead Minnow
Chlorinated R 70 90. 80 - - 80 70 90 80
L 70 60 70- 80 60 90 90 90
Non-chlorinated R 70 90 90 - 70 90 90 70
L 90 100 40-. 100 100 100 90 90
Average Total
Chlorine Conce i-
tration (mg/l)’ ) 0.000 0.018 0.032 0.000 0.0140.002.0.000 0.000
= right cage; L = left cage
(2) tation in feeder stream, only one cage used
3 Measured with an amperometric titrator
***
Table 4. Percent survival of fish after 48 hours of
chlorinated exposure below the West Branch
WWTP outfall.
Rainbow Trout Fathead Minnow
Station Right Left Left
1 . . 90 100 80 70
2 90 100 100 100
3 80 100 100 90
4(1) . . . 100 100
5. . 90 80 100 90
6. . . . 100 100 100 90
7. . . . . . 100 100 100 100
8. . . . . 100 100 90 90
(l) Station 4 in feeder stream, only one cage used.
17
-------
At Stations 5 and 6, total residual chlorine was only detected during the
second half of the exposure indicating that the mortality in Station 5
occurred due to the increased total residual chlorine concentrations
during the second half.
Interpretation of the minnow survival data is complicated by the mortality
in the controls during both phases. Complete minnow mortality was not
observed at any station suggesting that total residual chlorine was not
high enough to kill this species in this river during a 96-hour exposure.
Dose-response data typically yields a sigmoid type curve. It was assumed
for the purpose of this report that the inflection region of the dose-
response curve was linear. Linear regression was then employed to determine
both the dose-response relationship in this inflection region and 96-hour
TL-50’s. In calculating the regression the lowest concentration at which
no fish survived and the highest concentration at which all fish survived
were assumed to encompass this inflection region. Data outside this region
was not included in the regression calculation. The regression was cal-
culated for log of mean total residual chlorine concentration on percent
survival at three stations in this test.
The r value was significant beyond the 0.01 level (Steel and Torrie, 1960),
implying that this relationship did account for a significant portion of
the variance in the inflection region of this dose-response data. The
96-hour TL-50 concentration taken from this regression line is approximately
0.014 mg/i (Figure 5).
Calculated mean daily river flows during the non-chlorinated phase were
lower than during the chlorinated phase, 17 versus 29 cfs (Appendix 3).
Decreased dilution of the non-chlorinated waste and excellent survival of
trout is added proof that the high mortality in the chlorinated phase is
due to the chlorine compounds. Unlike Charlotte, West Branch results are
not confounded by high waste ammonia concentrations. Mean ammonia concen-
trations in the effluent in both phases at West Branch were 1.88 and 3.26
mg/l. High concentrations of other toxicants were not found in either the
river or the effluent (Table 5) and DO, temperature and pH did not differ
appreciably in the two phases (Appendix 3).
Conclusion : Total residual chlorine concentrations below the West Branch
WWTP outfall were toxic to rainbow trout but not to fathead minnows. Five
out of ten rainbow trout in each cage died after 96-hours approximately 500
feet downstream. The average total residual chlorine concentration at this
station was 0.014 mg/i. The rainbow trout 96-hour TL-5O concentration
obtained was 0.014 mg/i.
18
-------
Figure 5.
Chlorine coicentration and regression for percent survival
of rainoow trou-c Delow the West Branch WWTP outfafl.
90 - I 90
80 xx 80
70- -70
60- LOG (V):I.77 1O6-O.0 1256 (X)
R 2 : 0.81312
50 R 0.90 173
s 2 y-x 0.13464
40 -
x
13.8 - ——
I0
9
8
7
6
5-
4-
3-
2—
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
I I
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
PERCENT SURVIVAL
60
50
40
30
20
I0
9
8
-7
6
5
4
3
2
30 -
20
z
0
I-
z
w
0
z
0
0
w
z
0
-J
I
0
\
\
—19—
-------
Table 5.
Characteristics of West Branch WWTP effluent and
river water.
Parameter
A11 parameters except pH
River
and conductivity expressed as mg/i.
20
Effluent
3:45 p.m.
8°C
110
480
7.6
0.30
97
2.4
710
0.03
210
240
0.00
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.00
0.05
Time
12:00 p.m.
Temperature .
1°C
COD
11
Total Solids
242
pH
8.2
N0 3 -N
0.20
Chlorides
27
NH 3 -N
0.24
Conductivity
390
N0 2 -N
Alkalinity
0.01
155
Hardness
180
CN
0.00
Cr 6
0.00
Pb
0.0
Ni
0.0
Cu
0.0
Cd
0.00
Zn
0.00
-------
SECTION VII
STUDY 3
Description : The South Branch of the AuSable River at Roscommon, Roscommon
County, was the third study area. The reach studied was from approximately
50 yards upstream from the Roscommon WWTP outfall to a point approximately
0.5 mile downstream from the Roscormion WWTP discharge, a total distance of
approximately 0.6 mile (Figure 6). The watershed is almost entirely
timbered. The bank cover consists mainly of tag alders, cedars, and mixed
hardwoods. The stream bottom is mainly sand and small gravel with isolated
areas of mud along the banks. The width varied from 50 to 80 feet averaging
approximately 60 feet. Depths at all stations varied from 3-5 feet. The
calculated river flows during this test varied from 119_cfStQ_1l9 ct .
Large numbers of brown_trout were introduced in the AuSable in the early
1920’s. They remain the dominant sport fish, maintaining excellent
populations of wild fish through natural reproduction. Brook trout are
commonly found in the diverse fish population which also includes various
minnows, sculpins, darters, small and largemouth bass, redhorse, suckers,
pike and members of the sunfish family.
Treatment at Roscomnion’s plant, which serves 900 people, consists of Imhoff
tank primary settling followed by gas chlorination. The mean daily volume
discharged during March 1971 was 47,890 gallons.
Results and Discussion : During the chlorinated phase (March 8-12, 1971) the
operator maintained a chlorine residual concentration of 2-2.5 mg/l as
measured by the orthotolidine color comparator method. Effluent total
residual chlorine concentrations measured by amperometric titration ranged
from 5.01 to 32.5 mg/i, averaging 18.92 mg/i. The range of values in the
color comparator was 0.0 to 2.5 mg/i which accounts for the failure to
detect higher chlorine residuals. The chlorination was turned off three
days prior to the non-chlorinated phase (March 15-19, 1971) to allow all
residual chlorine to dissipate.
Chlorine was only detected twice during this study, once each at Stations 2
and 4 (Appendix 5). The average volume of waste discharged was 50,600 gal-
longs (0.078 cfs) (Appendix 6). This volume comprised onlyO.06 percent of
the river. This large a dilution would account for the failure to detect
chlorine in the river when such high effluent residuals are found.
No excessive mortality was observed in trout or minnows except at Station 3,
50 yards below the Roscomon WWTP discharge (Table 6). Comparison of the 48
and 96-hour results show that this mortality occurred between 48 and 96 hours
(Table 7).
21
-------
Figure 6. Map of Roscomon area showing
station locations.
Location
1 Midstream,
2 Midstream,
3 Left bank,
4 Midstream,
5 Left bank,
50 yards upstream from outfall
20 feet downstream from outfall
50 yards downstream from outfall
100 yards downstream from outfall
1/2 mile downstream from outfall
SCALE
/t -I7? cP
f9Y) / ( # c L.)
o- .S
Station
U)
-4
C)
)OQ S va L
D’.
----,
o ___ I 4 1 12 3/4
I MILE
22
-------
Table 6. Percent survival of fish after 96 hours
below the Rosconimon WWTP outfall.
STATION
SPECIES-PHASE 1 2 3 4 5
Rainbow Trout
Chlorinated R(fl 90 100 20 100 100
L 100 lOU 0 100 100
Non-chlorinated R 100 100 100 100 100
L 100 100 100 100 100
Fathead Minnow
Chlorinated R 100 80 80 100 100
L 100 80 90 100 80
Non-chlorinated R 80 100 80 90 80
L 100 50 80 90. 80
Average Total Residual
Chlorine Concentration
(mg/1)(2) 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.002 0.000
= right cage; L = left cage
(2)Measured with an amperometric titrator
***
Table 7. Percent survival of fish after 48 hours
of chlorinated exposure below the
Roscommon WWTP outfall.
Rainbow Trout Fathead Minnow
Station Right Left Right Left
1 100 100 100 100
2 100 100 100 100
3 100 100 100 90
4 100 100 100 100
5 100 100 100 100
No mortality was observed at Station 2, 20 feet downstream from the outfall.
From field observations it appears that the river stage went down and the
plume moved to the center of the river away from Station 2. Stations 3 and
4 were in the plume but the high dilution could account for failure to
detect chlorine.
23
-------
Other possible toxicants were not found in high concentration in either the
river or the effluent (Table 8). Temperature, DO, pH and aniiionia did not
differ appreciably between the two phases at any station (Appendix 5).
Table 8. Characteristics of Rbscommon WWTP
effluent and river water.
parameter RI ver Effl uent
Time. . . .10:30 a.m. 10:30 a.m.
COD 22 150
Total Solids 100 444
pH 7.5 7.3
NO 3 -N 0.2 0.7
Chlorides 7 140
NH 3 -N 0.03 12
Conductivity 210 850
N02—N 0.00 0.06
Alkalinity 95 205
Hardness 110 220
CM 0.00 0.00
Cr 6 0.00 0.00
Pb 0.0 0.0
Ni 0.0 0.0
Cu 0.0 0.0
Cd 0.00 0.00
Zn 0.00 0.05
(1)All parameters except pH and conductivity expressed as mg/l.
Conclusion : High dilutions and changing river stage resulted in only two
instances of total residual chlorine detection. Trout mortality was observed
at only one station. Since total residual chlorine was not detected at this
station it is impossible to attribute the mortality to chlorine compounds
present in the waste.
24
-------
SECTION VIII
STUDY 4
Description : Sycamore Creek below Mason, in Ingham County, was the fourth
study site. The reach studied was from 50 yards upstream from the Mason
WWTP outfall downstream to the US-127 bridge, a total distance of approxi-
mately four river miles (Figure 7). Land use in the watershed is mainly
agricultural. The creek’s width varied from 15 to 40 feet and the depth
varied from 1 to 3 feet. The bottom is sand and mud downstream from the
Mason WWTP outfall, while upstream some gravel riffles were observed. The
calculated river flows varied from 21 to 25 cfs. Species of fish found in-
clude large and smalimouth bass, pike, and various members of the sunfish
and minnow families.
Treatment at the Mason plant, which serves 4,500 people, consists of primary
settling, activated sludge secondary treatment, final settling and gas
chlorination. Mean daily volumes discharged for March and April were 0.867
and 0.764 mgd, respectively (Appendix 8).
Results and Discussion : During the chlorinated phase (March 29-April 2, 1971)
the operators attempted to maintain a chlorine residual of 1.5 mg/i but no
chlorinator adjustment was made at the end of the work shift (4:00 p.m.).
The residual chlorine concentrations observed by the Mason WWTP operator
using a color comparator varied from 0.7 to 2.0 mg/i. Values found using
the amperometric titrator varied from 1 82 to 3 89 and averaged 2 64
(Appendix 7). Prior to the non-chlorinated phase (April 5—9, 1971) the H’
chlorinator was turned off for approximately 20 hours to ensure the absence
of any chlorine residual.
Results in Table 9 show that at Station 5, 0.8 mile downstream, 7 out of 20
trout survived, and minnow survival was similar to the stations downstream
where no total residual chlorine was observed. At Station 6, 1.5 miles
downstream, there was partial mortality of both species probably due to
natural mortality. Thus the chlorinated compounds in the Mason WWTP waste
were toxic to trout at least 0.8 mile downstream and to minnows at least
250 yards downstream. Station 3, in Rayner Creek, was utilized to assure
the absence of toxicants from this tributary. Survival of both species
during both phases was excellent at this station. The mortality at Station
2 occurred in the first half of the exposure in both species (Table 10). At
Station 4 mortality was observed in both halves of the exposure and at
Station 5 trout died during the second half of the exposure.
25
-------
Figure 7. Map of Mason area showing station locations.
Station Location
Midstream, 100 feet upstream from outfall
Right bank 7 feet down from outfall in discharge plume
Midstream, Rayner Creek, 15 feet upstream, 175 yards downs from
outfall
Right bank, 250 yards downstream from outfall
Midstream, 0.8 mile downstream from outfall at Howell Rd.
1iustream, 1.5 miles downstream from 0 outfall
Midstream, two and one—half idles downstream from outfall at Harper Rd.
Midstream, four miles downstream from outfall — 40 yds. upstream from US—127
ni gnway.
0.7
1
(c .)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
c.- L — LI
P
0 I 2
SCALE IN MILES
l- S 4.
—26—
-------
Table 9. Percent survival of fish after 96 hours
below the Mason WWTP outfall.
STATION
SPECIES—PHASE _L 3(2 ) 4 5 6 7 8
Rainbow Trout
Chlorinated R 1 100 0 0 30 100 100 100
L 100 0 100 0 40 80 100 100
Non-chlorinated R 100 100 100 (3) 100 100 100
L 100 100 100 100 (3) 100 100 100
Fathead Minnow
Chlorinated R 70 0 30 60 100 90 70
L 100 0 90 30 90 70 60 80
Non-chlorinated R 90 100 100 (3) 80 90 90
L 90 90 100 lOO (3) 80 90 100
Average total residual
chlorine concentration
(mg/l) 4) 0.000 1.132 0.000 0.072 0.0460.013 0.000 0.000
(1)
R = right cage; L = left cage
(2) tation 3 is in feeder stream, only one cage used
cages at this station were found missing after 24 hours
Measured with an amperometric titrator
***
Table 10. Percent survival of fish after 48 hours of
chlorinated exposure below the Mason WWTP
outfall.
Rainbow Trout Fathead Minnows
Station Right Left Right Left
1 100 100 100 100
2 0 0 0 0
3 l) 100 90
4 30 60 80 90
5 100 90 90 100
6 100 100 100 90
7 100 100 90 90
8 100 100 90 90
(1) tation 3 in feeder stream, only one cage used.
27
-------
Following the same procedure as was used at West Branch, linear regression
was employed to analyze the survival data and determine 96-hour TL-50’s.
The rainbow trout linear regression, based on results at three stations,
resulted in an r of 0.96043, significant beyond the 0.01 level, and an r 2
of 0.92242. Approximately 92 percent of the variance in these data can be
accounted for by this regression. The regression line presented graphically
in Figure 8 yielded a 96-hour TL-50 concentration of approximately 0.029 mg/i.
The minnow regression was not significant implying that the relationship be-
tween total residual chlorine concentration and percent survival did not
account for a significant amount of the variation in the inflection region
of these data. Effluent and river samples contained no unusually high con-
centrations of other toxicants (Table 11). There was no appreciable
difference in temperature, DO, and pH between the two phases. Ammonia
concentrations were moderately high in the effluent and at Station 2, directly
in the outfall, during both phases. The high survival observed in the non-
chlorinated phase indicates that the aninonia concentrations observed were
not toxic.
Characteristics of Mason WWTP effluent and
river water.
Parameter River __________
3:30 p.m. 3:30 p.m.
Time.
COD
17
150
pH
N0 3 —N
N0 2 -N . . . .
NH 3 -N .
Total P0 4 . . . . .
Conductivity. .
Alkalinity. . .
Hardness. . . .
8.1
2.7
0.01
0.02
0.06
630
215
390
7.5
0.34
0.23
13
6.8
1,050
380
400
CN
Cr 6
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Ni
. .
0.0
0.0
Pb
0.0
0.0
Cu
0.0
0.0
Cd
0.00
0.00
Zn
0.0
0.0
1 A11 parameters except pH and conductivity expressed as mg/i.
Conclusion : Total residual chlorine concentrations below the Mason WWTP were
highly toxic to both the rainbow trout and fathead minnows at a distance of
250 yards. For at least 0.8 mile downstream the waste was still toxic to
rainbow trout but not to the fathead minnows. At this distance, the average
total residual chlorine concentration observed was 0.05 mg/i. The 96-hour
TL-50 found was 0.029 mg/i.
Table 11.
Effluent
28
-------
Figure 8.
z
0
I—
I—
z
uJ
0
z
0
0
w
z
0
-J
I
0
Loicrine concentrations ann regressinq for percent survival of
rainbow trout nelow the Mason WWTP outfall.
PERCENT SURVIVAL
-------
SECTION IX
GENERAL DISCUSSION
This project’s primary objective was to deteniiine if chlorinated WWTP dis-
charges are actually lethal to fish present in the receiving streams. It
is obvious from our results that these wastes are toxic to fish held down-
stream from these outfalls. In three offourplants the wastes were extremely
toxic to rainbow trout. These wastes are not as lethal to fathead minnows
since two of four tests showed toxicity. The downstream extent of the
toxicity varied for rainbow trout from 500-4,200 feet and for fathead
minnows from 750-3,200 feet (Table 12). In a similar experimental design
Wuerthele (1970 a and b) found toxic reaches four miles long with fathead
minnows but his results were complicated by the presence of other toxicants
in his system.
The most important factor affecting the downstream extent of chlorinated
municipal waste toxicity to rainbow trout was the waste dilution by the river.
At Roscommon no mortality occurred from the chlorinated wastes with the high
chlorinated residual maintained (18.92 mg/l) (Table 12). The volume of waste
was extremely small and comprised only 0.06 percent of the river flow. At
Mason the waste contained an average total residual chlorine concentration
of 2.64 mg/l but comprised 5 percent of the river volume. Mortality was
observed in rainbow trout 4,200 feet downstream from the Mason WWTP outfall.
It is important to note that even after the waste is thoroughly mixed rainbow
trout mortality is still observable for considerable distances below the
Mason and Charlotte plants (Table 12).
One author, Tsai 1968 and 1970, has shown that chlorinated WWTP wastes blocked
the spawning runs of two species of estuarine semi-anadromous fishes. Similar
conditions are feasible below Michigan WWTP’s when the wastes are thoroughly
mixed and still toxic to the anadromous rainbow trout.
Actual lethal concentrations determined in the field were consistent with the
laboratory findings of others. In all instances, total residual chlorine
concentrations less than 0.1 mg/l were found toxic to rainbow trout. Table
13 presents a summary of our findings as compared to toxicities shown by
others. Charlotte and West Branch rainbow trout toxic concentrations are of
the same order but lower than concentrations reported by Westfall , Coventry,
Shelford and Miller (1935) Merkens (1958) and Washington Department of
Fisheries (1960). Additional stress may have been placed on the fish by
testing the two species together and having to maintain position in the
river current. Other possible factors causing a difference in results were
the characteristics of the diluent water, acclimation times, exposure times,
and methods of total residual chlorine measurement in the various studies.
31
-------
Table 12. Summary of bioassay results obtained below four Michigan WWTP’s.
Last Station Exhibiting Next Station Exhibiting
Effluent Apparent Mortaiity No Apparent Mortality
Down- Average Average
stream Total Total
Mean Dis- Residual Residual
Total Per- tance Distance Chlorine Distance Chlorine
Chlorine cent When Average from Concen- Average from Concen-
Residual of Mixed Survival Outfall tration Survival Outfall tration
Species-Plant ( mg/fl River ( feet) ( percent) ( feet) ( mg/i) ( percent) ( feet) ( mg/i)
Rainbow Trout
Mason. . . . 2.64 5.00 750 35 4,200 0.046 90 7,900 0.013
Charlotte. . 1.77 3.34 500 5 3,200 0.007 90 10,600 0.000
(O.02)(2)
West Branch. . . 1.35 1.50 500 50 500 0.014 100 3,200 0.002
Roscommon. . . . 18.92 0.06 200
Fathead Minnow
Charlotte 1.77 3.34 500 12.5 3,200 0.007 65 10,600 0.000
(O.02)(2)
Mason 2.64 5.00 750 30 750 0.072 75 4,200 0.046
(1)The last station exhibiting mortality that was obviously greater than natural or random mortality.
This was mortality attributable to chlorinated compounds present in the municipal WWTP wastes.
(2)Average value with “zero” values not included.
-------
Table 13.
Toxic total residual chlorine concentrations below three
Michigan WWTP’s and toxicities reported by other authors.
Study Site
or Author
Charlotte.
Lethal
Level
( mg/i )
• . . 0.007
(0.02)l
0.014
0.046
0.06
0.05
West Branch.
Test Fish
Rainbow Trout
Method of
Chlorine
Der-
ml nation
A. 1.
( )
C A )
Remarks
120 hour exposure.
Mason
Rainbow Trout
Rainbow Trout
A. T.
A. T.
96 hour exposure, 96 hour TL-50-0.0l4 mg/i.
96 hour exposure, TL-50-0.029 mg/i.
Westfall
Trout Fry
Not Given
Cited in McKee & Wolf.(1963)
Coventry, Sheiford .
Trout Fry
Ortho-
Killed all trout after 48 hour exposure. 0.03
& Miller (1935)
tolidine
ppm instantly fatal to trout.
Merkens (1958) . . .
0.08
Rainbow Trout
A. T.
Killed half of fish after 7 day exposure.
Washington Dept. of.
0.1
Chinook, Pike
Not Given
Critical level for 72 hour exposure, chloramines
Fisheries (1960)
& Silver Sal-
mon in Fresh
& Salt Water
not formed in salt water under their conditions.
Cited in McKee & Wolf. (1963)
Charlotte
0.007
(0.02)1
Fathead
Minnows
A.T.
120 hour exposure.
Mason
0.072
Fathead
Minnows
A.T.
96 hour exposure.
Zillich (1969 b) . .
0.05-
0.016
Fathead
Minnows
I.S.E.
96 hour TL-50, on-site bioassay trailer set up.
Lethal threshold 0.04 mg/i.
Zillich (1969 c) . .
0.08-
0.19
Fathead
Minnows
I.S.E.
96 hour exposure, on-site bioassay set-up.
Lethal threshold 0.05 mg/i.
Arthur & Eaton . . .
0.085-
Fathead
A.T.
96 hour TLM.
(1971)
0.154
Minnows
Average value with
A.T. - Amperometric
I.S.E. - Iodometric
“zero” values not included.
titration.
starch-iodide endpoint procedure given in Standard Methods.
-------
In all instances the toxic concentrations for fathead minnows were less than
0.2 mg/i. Toxic concentration for fathead minnows at Charlotte were lower
than those found by Ziiiich (1969 b and c) and Arthur and Eaton (1971). The
Mason minnow results agree with these authors. The fathead minnow survival
in these studies was highly variable. Rainbow trout appeared to survive
better than fathead minnows did under both chlorinated and non-chlorinated
exposures. A correlation coefficient was computed between the survival of
rainbow trout and fathead minnows at the control stations for all four studies
combined. An interaction or competition between species should result in a
significant negative correlation between survival of these two species. The
correlation coefficient computed was —0.02 indicating no significant cor-
relation between the survival of these two species. A fungal infection,
observed on some fathead minnows, seems the most probable cause of this
difference in survival.
A generalized relationship between total residual chlorine concentration and
rainbow trout survival at Mason and West Branch was computed by linear
regression (Figure 9). This combined regression resulted in an r of 0.86672
and r 2 of 0.75120. The r value was significant beyond the 0.01 level.
Approximately 75 percent of the data variance is due to the regression of
these two variables. The computed 96-hour TL-50 concentrations was approx-
imately 0.023 mg/I.
34
-------
Figure 9.
Cnlorine concentration ana regression for percent survi val
of rainbow trüut below Mason and West Branch WWTP’s outfall.
loG
90 -
80 -
70
60
50 -
40 -
______________________________________________________ -— I I I
LOG (Y):1.7941 1-O.00875 (X)
R 2 : 0.75120
XX R :0.86672
s 2 xy 0.16515
0 0
22.6 -
00
LEGEND:
X - MASON
0-WEST BRANCH
l0
9
8
7-
r
I I I
0 tO 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 00
PERCENT SURVIVAL
x x
30-
z
0
I—
a:
I-
z
L)
U i
z
a:
0
-J
0
20
:00
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
9
8
7
6
X
x
—35—
-------
SECTION X
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Michigan Department of Public Health personnel whose cooperation and
participation made this study possible were Donald Pierce, Merle Crowe,
Thomas Wasbotten and Thomas Hoogerhyde.
Statistical assistance and experimental design aid was given by Michigan
State University faculty members Dr. William Cooper, Dr. Charles Cress and
Dr. Howard Johnson.
Members of the Bureau of Water Management who participated in the project
include Robert Basch, Carlos Fetterolf, Michael Newton, James Truchan, Mark
Wuerthele, Richard Lundgren, George Jackson, Al Fraidenburg, John Dexter,
Thomas Newell, Paul Norton, Leon Vine, Michial Jones, Gerald Chesney,
Mercedes Fessell and Mary Sandborn.
Chemical analyses were done by Russell Krueger and T. K. Wu of the Bureau of
Water Management’s Wastewater Laboratory.
The Michigan Department of Natural Resources Fisheries Division personnel at
the Wolf Lake Hatchery supplied the fish used.
The operators at the wastewater treatment plants whose help and assistance
are greatly appreciated are Dale Pratt, James Marry and Bruce Nichols at
Charlotte; Douglas Norton at West Branch; F. Ted Wallace at Roscommon; and
James Marquardt and Harry Colby at Mason.
The WQA, EPA project officer was John Arthur whose assistance is greatly
appreciated.
37
-------
SECTION X I
REFERENCES CITED
Anon. 1959. Report of the Water Pollution Research Board, with the report of the
director of the Water Pollution Research Laboratory for the year 1958. Dept.
of Scientific and Ind. Res., H. M. Stationary Office, London: 64-67.
Anon. 1960. Toxic effects of organic and inorganic pollutants on young salmon and
trout. State of Washington, Dept. Fisheries Res. Bull. No. 5 (Cited by McKee
and Wolf).
Anon. 1970. 1969 Water Resources Data for Michigan, Part 1, Surface Water Records.
U.S. Dept. Interior, U.S. Geol. Surv., 255 pp.
Arthur, F. W. and J. G. Eaton. 1971. Chloramine toxicity to the amphipod Gamarus
pseudolimnaeus and the fathead minnow Pimephales promelas , Duluth, 17 pp., 5
tbls. Accepted for publication by the Journal of Fisheries Research Board of
Canada.
Coventry, F. L., V. E. Shelford, and L. F. Miller. 1935. The conditioning of a
chioramine treated water supply for biological purposes. Ecology. 16: 60-66.
Dandy, J. W. T. 1967. The effects of chemical characteristics of the environment
on the activity of an aquatic organism. Dissertation Abstracts. Feb. 1969,
Vol. 29, Number 8, 3132B - 3133B.
Doudoroff, P. and M. Katz. 1950. Critical review of literature on the toxicity of
industrial wastes and their components to fish. 1. Alkalies, Acids, and
Inorganic gases. Sewage and Industrial Wastes. 22 (11): 1432-1458.
Isom, B. G. 1971. Evaluation and control of macroinvertebrate nuisance organisms
in freshwater industrial supply systems. Presented at the 19th Annual meeting
of the Midwest Benthological Society.
McKee, J. E. and H. W. Wolf. 1963. Water Quality Criteria. Sec. Edition, The
Resources Agency of California, State Water Quality Control Board, Pub. No.
3-A. 548 p.
Merkens, J. C. 1958. Studies on the toxicity of chlorine and chloramines to the
rainbow trout. Water and Waste Treatment Journal. 7: 150-151.
Sawyer, C. N. and P. L. McCarty, 1967. Chemistry for Sanitary Engineers. Second
Edition McGraw-Hill, New York.
Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Waste Water. 1969. 12th Edition.
American Public Health Assoc. Inc. New York. 769 pp.
Steel, R. G. D. and J. H. Torrie. 1960. Principles and Procedures of Statistics
McGraw-Hill, New York. 481 pp.
39
-------
Taylor, R. S. and M. C. James. 1928. Treatment for removal of chlorine from city
water for use in aquaria. U.S. Bur. of Fisheries Doc. No. 1045. Dept. of
the U.S. Comm. of Fisheries, app. 7. 322-327 (Cited by Doudoroff and Katz).
Tsai, Chu-Fa. 1968. Effects of chlorinated sewage effluents on fish in Upper
Patuxent River, Maryland. Chesapeake Science. 9(2): 83-93.
____________ 1970. Changes in fish populations and migration in relation to in-
creased sewage pollution in Little Patuxent River, Maryland. Chesapeake
Science. 11 (1): 34-41.
Velz, C. J. and J. J. Gannon. 1960. Drought Flow Characteristics of Michigan
Streams. Prepared for the Water Resources Coninission of Michigan, 771 pp.
Westfall, B. A. Stream pollution hazards of wood pulp mill effluents. Dept. of
Interior Fisheries Leaflet 174. (Cited by McKee and Wolf).
Whitesjde, E. P., I. F. Schneider and R. L. Cook. 1963. Soils of Michigan. Mich.
State Univ. Ag. Expt. Sta. Special Bull. 402. 52 pp.
Wilhelmi, J. 1922. Ueber die Desinfektion des Wassers mit aktivem chlor, unter
besonder Ber icksichtigung der tierischen Organismen. Desinfektion. 7: 2-4.
(Cited by Doudoroff and Katz).
Wuerthele, M. R. l970a. The toxic effects of the Lansing wastewater treatment
plant effluent to the fathead minnow. Pimephales promelas . Michigan Water
Res. Corn. Rept. Unpublished. 8 pp.
____ _________ 1970b. Fish toxicity studies at the Lansing Wastewater Treatment
plant on the Grand River. Michigan Water Res. Comm. Rept. Unpublished. 5 pp.
Zillich, J. A. 1969a. The toxicity of the Wyoming wastewater treatment plant
effluent to the fathead minnow and the white sucker. Michigan Water Res.
Corn. Rept. Unpublished. 7 pp.
______________ 1969b. The toxicity of the Wyoming wastewater treatment plant
effluent to the fathead minnow. Michigan Water Res. Corn. Rept. Unpublished.
12 pp.
_________ l959c. The toxic effects of the Grandville Wastewater treatment
plant to the fathead minnow, Pimephales promelas . Michigan Water Res.
Rept. Unpublished. 9 pp.
_________ 1970. A discussion of the toxicity of combined chlorine to lotic
fish populations. Michigan Water Res. Rept. Unpublished. 13 pp.
40
-------
SECTION XII
APPENDICES
Page
1. Charlotte Sampling Data and Descriptive Statistics 42
2. Charlotte Wastewater Treatment Plant Final Effluent
Discharge Data 43
3. West Branch Sampling Data and Descriptive Statistics. . . . 44
4. West Branch Wastewater Treatment Plant Final Effluent
Discharge Data 45
5. Roscomon Sampling Data and Descriptive Statistics 46
6. Roscoimi on Jastewater Treatment Plant Final Effluent
Discharge Data 47
7. Mason Sampling Data and Descriptive Statistics 48
8. Mason Jastewater Treatment Plant Final Effluent
Discharge Data 49
-41-
-------
A pead12 I. Oharlo100 canpilof data .68 ,8e .r1pve1ltit .
Cal o olaC od
Date flow—cf. tine
2—10 —— 11:0060
2—11 30 9:00 076
2—11 30 1:30 0 74
2—11 29 4:00 016
2—11 30 9:00 PM
2—U 31 12:30 834
2—12 31 5:30 MI
2—12 34 12:00 Ff1
2—12 Si. 4:30017
2—13 22 11:30 *84
2—14 23 11:30434
2—15 22 9:30 MI
0 11
0 29
S 19.4
S. 4.4
Si 1.3
3—2 90 3:00 074
3—3 69 11:30 014
3—3 67 5:00 087
3—4 60 12:00 076
3—4 59 4:04) AX
3—4 53 8:00074
3—4 60 12 00 PM
3—9 45 12:00 P16
3—7 81 07:00 014
8 65
191.4
S. 13.8
50 4.6
Ott 1 , . ent
Total Oecal
c Oot. 0.0. .00 Chloe. collier. coilfot . 8054,,,, ,
7.0 8.4 7.2 1.63
7.0 8.2 7.8 2.94
8.0 7.8 7.5 1.43 100 .4 20 42.0
10.0 1.4 7.6 2.72 37,0
11.0 7.4 7.8 1.19 31.0
10.0 7.8 7.6 0.96 800 c 10 27.0
11.0 7.0 7.8 1.93 21.0
9.0 1.0 7.1 1.51 300 . 10 .77.0
9,0 1.0 7.7 1.51 28.0
6,0 6.0 7.4 2.36 100 ‘10 00.0
8.0 7.2 7.6 1.33 (100 00 28.0
7,0 7.6 1.7 2.92 100 010 23.0
12 12 12 12 6 0 10
8.6 1.6 7.6 1.71 (250 (10 30.0
2,68 0.24 0.04 0.310 0 19,000 0 30.90
1.64 0,49 0.19 0.610 281 0 5.60
0,41 0.14 0,06 0.180 (115 0 1.80
80)1
8.3 5,2 1.7 6 ’ 3,700,000 190,000 29,0
7,5 5.2 7.5 60,0 900,000 300,000 25,0
1.5 4.8 7.1
0.0 4.0 7.6 87.0 1,400,000 380,000 27.0
6.5 4,8 7.7
6.5 3.6 1.1
7.5 7.1 7.8 73.0 950,000 500,000 33.0
10,5 4.0 7.6 63.0 3,500,000 36,000 25.0
1.5 4.4 7.8 67.0 440,000 380.000 26,0
9 9 9 6 1,61.6.090 6 6
2.6 5.0 7.7 69.0 2.01 o 10 298.000 26.8
1.18 0.91 0.02 99.) ? 1,42 l0 2.69 a 1010 12.97
0,33 0.95 8.13 10.0 518,641 184,000 3.60
0,44 0.32 0.04 4.10 670,000 1.50
Towp er—
eUro 0.0, oo C#.1 r 0
1.0 10.0 8,6 0.00
1.0 13.4 8.3 0.00
2.0 01.4 8.5 0.00 19,000
3.0 11.8 .2 0.00
1.0 12.0 i.c 1.00
1.0 11.6 7.8 0.00 21.000
2.0 11.0 7.5 0.00
1.0 11.6 7.8 0.00 32,000
1.0 11.6 7.8 0.00
1.0 12.0 1.1 0.00 15,000
1.0 11.8 7.6 0.00 17,000
1.0 10.6 7.6 0.00 100
12 7.2 12 12
1.3 12.6 1.8 0 70.450
0.42 0.66 0.21 0 11? a 17°
0.03 0.61 0.46 0 10,821
0.19 0.23 0.13 0 4,421
000
2,0 12.2 1.1 4.2 120,000
2.0 10.8 7.7 3.3 (100
2.5 11.8 7.7
2.0 12.0 7.7 4.2 2,000
1.5 11.2 8.0
1.0 12.6 7.8
2,5 12,6 7,7 5.0 7,000
2.5 11,6 6.0 2,3 2,300
2.0 11.6 7,7 5.2 3,000
9 9 9 6 6
2.0 11.9 1,8 4.0 “22,400
0,25 0.32 0.02 1.18 2.28 io l o
0.50 0.57 0,15 1.09 047,868
0.17 0.19 0.05 0.44 019,546
180 0.27
0.25
0.27
120 0.25
0.26
240 0.32
0.24
80 0.24
00 0.26
50 0.26
6 10
17 ) 0.26
7,26? 0,000
85 0.000
35 0.000
400 0,24
(20 0.21
100 0.20
‘ 100 0.19
300 0.11
900 0.30
6 6
302 0.22
106,817 0.000
327 0.040
135 0.020
1.0 12.0 8.0 0.00
1.0 11.4 8.2 0.00
2.0 11.4 8.2 0.00 23,000
0.0 11.4 7,0 0,00
2.0 11,8 7.5 0,00
2.0 10.8 7,4 8,00 22,000
2.0 11.0 1.9 0.00
1.0 11.2 7.6 0.00 37,000
1.0 11.2 7.0 0.00
1.0 12.0 7.8 0,00 22,000
1.0 11,2 7.8 0.00 11,000
1,0 10.4 7.7 0.00 22,000
12 12 7.2 12 6
1,6 11.5 ‘.7 0.00 23,83
0.47 0,14 0.12 0.008 6.85 10
0.69 0.36 0,35 0.000 8.280
0.21 0,11 0.10 0.000 3.383
2.0 12.4 7.7 <‘1,000
2,0 11.6 7.7 <1,000
2.0 11.8 7.9
1.0 12.0 7.8 (1,000
1.0 12.4 7,9
0,9 12.4 7.6
1.5 12.4 7.9 4.6 22,000
2,5 10.4 7,9 200
2,0 11.8 7.8 2,000
9 9 9 1 6
1.6 12,0 7.8 4.6
0.42 0,49 0.01 0.00 (7.35 a 10
0,60 0.70 0.10 0.00 18,576
0,22 0,23 0,03 0,00 <3,500
1.0
3,0
190 6,0
6.0
2.0
120 2,0
2.0
460 2.0
0.0
68 2.0
20 3,0
60 2.0
6 12
152 2,8
26.337 2,37
162 1,60
66 0.46
‘100 0,25 2.5
(100 0,25 2,0
2,5
ciOO 0.19 3.0
0.0
1.0
(100 0,19 2.5
10 0.18 3.0
100 0.30 2.5
6 6 9
85 0.23 2,2
(1.350 0.002 0,57
0 37 0,040 0,75
(15 0,002 0.25
1.0
2.5
2.0
3.0
2.0
1,0
3.0
1.0
1.0
2.0
4.0
1.0
02
1.6
0,69
0.83
0.24
2.0
1.5
1,0
0.5
0.5
1,5
4.0
2.0
1.7
1.19
1,09
0.36
11.8 7.1 0.00
11.0 7.9 8,05
11.0 0.6 0.06 31,000 100
11.2 7.7 0.08
11.4 1.9 0.04
11. ). 7.8 0.00 38,000 60
11,2 7.8 0,00
11.2 7,8 0.03 45,000 190
11.2 1.8 0.03
11,4 7.7 0.10 400 ‘10
12.0 7.4 0.98 100 “10
(1.2 1,7 0,07 20,000 30
12 12 12 6 8
11,3 1,7 0.05 25,41? (61
0.08 0.02 0.001 390 a 106 . 04,821
0.29 0.18 0.034 69,119 ‘t69
0.08 0.04 0.010 8,060) ,a28
11.8 7.7 180,000 31,000 1.4
11.4 2.6 220,000 34,000 1.0
11.8 1.1
12.2 1.8 8.3 190,000 29,000 0.8
13.1 7.8
12.0 1.7
12,8, 7,0 7,1 260,000 52,000 1,3
11.6 7.8 270.000 50,030 1.3
11.4 1.7 100,000 13,000 1.2
9 9 2 6 6
12.0 7.7 8,0 2.03 a 10 35,833 1.2
0,33 0.01 0,18 3.82 l0 2.07 a joS 0,05
0.58 0.09 0,42 62,183 14,386 0.23
0.19 0.03 0.30 25,391 5,874 0.09
00041 Fetal
D.0. p O Chloe. toUter. tolifor. 7833
00.6 1.9 0.00
10.8 7.6 0,00
10.6 7.0 0.00 18,000 10
10.6 7.3 0.00
10.0 7.8 0.00
10.8 7.8 0.00 24,000 690
11.2 0.7 0.00
11.0 7.9 0,00 24.000 40
11.0 7.9 0.00
11.2 7,6 0,00 14,000 20
10.8 ‘.7 0.00 10,000 20
10.4 1.6 0.00 52,000 130
12 12 12 6 6
10.3 7.6 0.60 11,000 152
0,13 0,07 0.000 3.64 io 73,497
8.37 0.27 0.000 6,033 267
0.04 0,08 0.000 2,444 109
800
11.2 7.7 — 70,000 13,000 0.66
11.6 7.6 56,000 10,000 0,56
11.1 1.7
11,5 7,8 6,4 90.000 11,000 0.60
11.5 7.8
11.0 3.7
11,3 7.8 5.8 150.000 15,008 0.64
11.0 7,8 89.000 20,000 0.72
11.0 7,1 32,000 2,800 0.60
9 9 2 6 66
11,1 7,7 6.1 81,167 11.967 0.63
0.88 0.01 0.18 1,61 a io9 3.27 io’ 0,002
0.29 0.08 0.42 40,132 5.721 0,040
0.10 0.03 0.30 16,337 2.336 0,020
96 C c : 0.0. (dlow .lowd owy3a) • Qolor. (totol oblor1 r..0d ,,.1) • 10 (o ,1a) and 308 (bioeblcal any;.. daod) pre..od ow .11.
T (lpeoatora) — d. o..m CowUsoad.
1.0.1 tolifow. d 1.0831 roUter. -erowj.a1100 40
C a 0 ,t
341.61
4.15
4,15
4.14
4.10.
4.27
4,18
4.24
4.24
4.00
4.01
4,00
5.10
4,85
4,80
4.70
4,68
4.58
4,70
4,44 7’
3.00
T 0a1 - - . Fetal
Col00000 80
Totol Petal 0809.0— Total F.cal 0 0.9.0— Total
61ao.. oa1l0a . ._co,1i0,o. 80c aloe. 0.0. .00 COlor. toi0 0 0r . colifor. NH: aUra 0.0. eN C61o0. o1if.o .
10,0 7.4 0.22
9,8 7.6 0.46
8.4 7.5 1,03 1100 (10
8,8 7,6 1.39
10.0 7.8 1,04
11.6 1.8 0.26 100 710
10.4 7.9 ——
11,2 7.8 0,17 31,000 430
11.1 1.0 71.17
8.0 7.6 1,13 c ISC 30
10,4 7.5 0,11 .4100 (10
00.0 7.0 0.14 <100 (10
12 02 11 6 6
00,1 7.7 0.65 p6 .283 783
1.02 0,03 0.240<2,26 lOb (28,907
1,01 0,16 0,490 (15,048 c’170
0.29 0.05 0.150 (6,145 (69
000
11,8 7.7 33,000 9,500 1,5
11,0 7,6 56,000 9,800 0.5
11.1 7.6
10.0 1.6 37.0 820,000 240,000 7.8
11.5 7,7
11,8 7,8
12,0 7,2 19.0 630,000 140,000 5.3
7,2 7,7 640.000 280,000 10,0
10,0 7,7 240.000 30,000 1,6
9 9 2 6 66
10.0 7 7 28,0 406,300 118,207 5.5
2.52 0:00 162,00 1.1 • 10111.46 • 1800 14.20
1.59 0,01 13,00 3.5 c OS 1.2 a 10 3.72
0.53 0,02 9.00 1.35 i ’ 49,283 1.34
1,0
2.9
3.0
8.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1,0
I.0
12
2,1
‘.9’
0.98
71,52
3.0
2.5
2.0
2,0
0.5
1,0
1.0
3,0
2.0
0.0. 03 COloo.
10.8 0.2 0.00
11.4 8.3 0.00
1 1.0 6.9 0,00
10.8 1.3 0.03
10.4 7.3 0.00
11.2 7.3 0.00
11.4 7,6 0,00
10.0 7,7 0.00
10,0 7.7 0,00
11.4 7.6 0.02
31.6 1.6 0.02
01.74 7,7 0.01
02 02 12
11.0 7.6 0,00
0.36 0,15 0.000
0.60 0,18 0.010
0.17 0.01 0,003
800
11.7 7,7
12.4 7.6
11.8 7.7
12,2 7,6 6,4
17.6 7.8
13,3 7,8
12.6 7,6 7,0
11.6 7,8
10.2 7.1
Tot.l Focal
collier. colifor. alert
3,0
2,0
22,000 3.0
3.0
2,0
24,000 2.0
2.0
29.000 1.0
1,0
7.200 1.0
11,000 1,0
900 1.0
6 12
05,605 1,83
022 • 0,70
11.053 0,83
4,513 0,24
82,000 3,0
148.000 3.0
1.0
72,000 1,5
0.5
0.0
236,000 3.0
170.000 5.0
67,000 2.0
30
730
160
“10
00
<10
6
° 093
030,857
.284
<112
20,000 0.68
17,000 0.65
15,000 0.56
21,000 0,93
85. 0,76
8,200 0.82
9 9 9 2 6 66 9
1.9 12.1 2.1 6,7 123,300 33.333 0.73 2.3
0,00 0.50 0.01 0.16 4.80 . 6.87 • l0 0.020 1.88
0.64 0.71 0.09 0.42 60,287 26,219 0.130 1.37
0,30 0.24 0.03 0.30 28,292 10,706 0.000 0.46
-42-
-------
APPENDIX 2
Charlotte Wastewater Treatn ent Plant
Final Effluent Discharge Data
Suspended Weather
Suspended Volatile High Low
Date Flow—ct B0D—m /i_Solids—mg/i Solids—mg/i J F ]! F Precipitaticn _ i 1 ,es
2- 1-71 0.6909 125 78 54 8 -16 0.02
2- 2-71 0.6641 13 —17 0.00
2- 3-71 0.5731 90 64 54 29 8 0.11
2- 4-71 1.0937 33 21 0.20
2- 5-71 0.8449 89 82 74 47 23 0.90
2- 6-?) 0.7241 27 18 0.00
2- 1-71 0.5967 26 5 0.00
2- 8-71 0.6527 89 70 62 21 5 0.00
2- 9-71 0.6108 17 1 0.01
2-10-71 0.5790 97 74 70 23 7 0.00 v
2-11-71 0.6427 42 6 0.00 2
2-12-71 0.5903 86 54 38 39 20 0.17
2-13-71 0.6702 21 5 0.00 t2
2- 4-71 0.5350 23 -5 0.00 2
2-15-71 0.7024 88 62 52 31 19 0.02 5
-16-71 0.6407 35 22 0.00
2-17-71 0.7555 98 76 60 41 28 0.00
2-18-71 1.2083 47 32 0.15
2-19-71 1.7639 67 58 50 46 35 0.64
2-20-71 2.3297 47 30 0.09
2-21-71 2.0272 32 27 0.00
2-22-71 1.4876 101 76 66 33 25 0.11
2-23-71 0.7516 34 28 0.15
2-24-71 0.6831 78 44 38 38 16 0.00
2-25-71 0.8019 49 23 0.00
2-26-71 0.8699 82 78 68 5) 32 0.00
2-27-71 0.8689 51 31 0.07
2-28-71 0.7140 37 28 0.00
n 28 12 12 12
0.8955 91 68 57
0.2)140 200.9 135 137.0
0.45980 14.2 11.6 11.7
0.08690 4.1 3.4 3.4
— 1-71 0.7394 88 68 62 39 18 0.00
2-71 0.7040 34 18 0.00
3- 3-71 0.6245 82 52 38 29 16 0.00
3- 4-71 0. 7271 37 9 0.00 c c
3- 5—71 0.6291 63 S6 46 46 21 0.00
3- 6-71 0.7817 39 33 0.46
3- 7-71 0.6209 33 23 0.31 ‘—
3- 8-71 0.7291 88 68 60 25 J7 0.00
3- 9-71 0.6858 33 -2 0.00
3- 10-71 0.6367 90 6 6 58 34 26 0.21
3-11-71 0.6839 38 21 0.02
3-12-71 0.7112 90 97 82 36 16 0.02
3-13-71 0.7527 39 30 0.00
3. 14-71 1.0030 65 33 0.00
3-15-71 1.0783 90 76 58 59 36 0.17
3-15-71 .9976 39 25 0.03
3 17-7l 0.9080 93 58 38 16 0.00
3-18-71 ‘ 7)16 39 18 0.02
3-19-71 0.7997 81 4 42 37 30 0.3)
3-20-7) 0 7840 34 27 0.02
3-21-7) 0.6872 43 16 0.00
3-27-71 0.8344 97 47 42 39 20 Trace
3-23-71 0 7371 31 20 0.02
3-24-71 0.6884 93 70 66 30 1) 0.06
3-25-71 0.7018 35 7 0.00
3-26-71 0.6983 86 44 36 4) 20 0.00
3-27—71 0.7137 47 26 0.14
3-28-7) 0.6888 44 32 0.00
3-29-71 0. 7737 90 60 52 40 29 0.00
3-30-71 0.7436 47 17 0.00
j-31-71 0.7134 86 92 68 65 25 0.00
n 31 14 14 14
0. 7512 87 64 55
0.01210 65.3 267.2 169.1
0.11020 8.1 16.3 13.0
0.0198 2.2 4.4 3.5
-43-
-------
1 I30 . 00 . 5. 000.1 40 •,l)., 2.0. — 2501.003000
0.5 l 00101 - 997100* 09I l01*
5.1.1 3.15 5- 158 , 000.9 7.0 9.4 74 3,0 .5 36.840 0 100 l.a 3 l0 0 1.9 0.00 52.000 5720 0.10 3 12.2 7.6 0.01 74.000 00)00
508 3_06 8:00 80 34.1 7.0 9 O 8.4 1,71 100 510 2.0 2 170 8.1 084 30,000 3130 3 72.8 0.2 0.05 50.300 910
496 — 1—16 3-30 00 32.9 9.0 8.6 15 I 89 5.5 73 5 0.0 5 700 6 32.0 5.0 o. I I
4.80 3_I l 12:00 30 28.6 00.0 86 7 5 53 5.900 SIO 2,4 6 ¶3.0 73 0.84 12.000 4208 0.05 6 12.0 7 9 0.13 2,700 910 0,00
0.76 3-37 6.00 bO 274 9 8.4 74 3.40 2.4 8.0 0.00 1 os ,., o.iO
• 70 3—37 0-0089 26.0 9 8.0 7.7 0-95 2.4 00 0.00 9 70.4 0,0 0.05
4.72 5 3_IS 52:0010 26.5 7 9.6 72 089 0 33.4 7.7 0.00 1 32.4 7.8 0.05
4.12< 0-08 4:0000. 23.8 10.0 7 2 1,05 I, 200 0.9 3 03.0 7.0 0.00 4,550 3000 005 1 ¶3.4 7.9 509 700 30 0.7)
4.60 5—30 80080 23.3 7.5 0,0 7.8 107 9 03.2 0.0 5.00 3 ¶94 0.0 0.06
4.6’. 3.30 33050 25.4 6 0.6 7.5 * 50 2.3 ¶0.8 8.0 0.00 0.10 4 30,6 8.3 0,30
I 35 10 0 30 70 00 4 5 0 0 ¶0 70 6 4 4 30 30 0 is 0
O 29.4 1.7 9.0 26 7.15 5750 <00 3.9 4.0 *2.7 0.0 0.00 26.505 080j 008 14 30 7 7.9 5.08 13.050 11 -
s4 54.09 0.40 0.1 0.12 0,020 5.11 0 1O 7 0.8200 0,04 2.03 0.26 0.09 0.008 4.2 • 000 0.67 . 300 0.008 2.0)4 0,22 0 03 0.003 .oo . .o9 0.2.025 -
5. 6.19 0.56 0.63 0.03 0,360 7295 590 0.60 1.62 0.51 0.87 0. 20,686 3292 0.030 0.53 0,47 0.16 0.030 56.176 ‘ .5
25 0,39 0 )09 0.00 0.13 0,330 3047 54.5 0,07 0.65 0.6 0.06 0. 70.069 644 0.070 0.50 9,35 0.050.300 0,000 03 -
4.30 1—5 1000 010 037 5 90 74 04.000 3.100 3 3 0 73,4 8,0 2.000 2,000 0 II I 30.0 8.0 55000 00,000
4.40 10 3-30 70 3000 74 8 7.5 74 120,000 010.000 1.0 3 2.0 0,7 330.000 0,000 0.08 0 73.0 7 6 59,000 0
4.00 3-33 83000 8 6 0.0 07 I 016 8.’ 2 03,0 tO I . 000 040
4.60 5 3_Il 72-0005 78 II 8.0 7 7 05.000 4,650 4.0 4 33,4 8,0 ‘3.000 —— 007 5 304 83 85000
6.4251—1140000385 9 76 7.4 5 37,8 7,8 5 32.0 79
1.40 5.59 8-50010 10 1 0.0 Li 0 326 8,0 4 15,8 79
6.38 3—02 070000 374 6 16 7.7 2 332 8.1 3 32.6 2000 037
43 5 5—10 50000 33.4 32 8.8 8.3 I40. 0.300 7. ’ 0 .34 81 5.300 110 0.01 2 ¶2,4 87 68.
46 • 0-32 89280 34 II 8.4 7.9 020.000 5.900 2.9 3 3.4 81 27.000 0.200 0.05 0 30.4 8.7 50.
9 ‘ ‘ 9 ‘ 9 1 45
0 70 8 83 LI 009,809 073,405 3.3 a o5 , i.i 4O,o2 4*89 077 97 309 8.0 67. 6 0g ,, .‘ 9 0030
2,05 45 039 007 47403000780330 1,01 78 074 708 247.10- 2.72.30 0007 7,30 0.20 0.04 370 o l60
5 . 3 44 2 6 062 004 60.954 <20.610 II I I 7 0 60 0 II 69,08’ 5,134 0.010 3 45 5,62 0,0 20 7 73’. 0 20
5; 044 09 00) 009 80,850 9.I4l 053 0,6 071 0.06 00.267 2,428 0079 048 0.04 007 9.352
0 2 __________ 4 _______ ______— 0 ________________________
- 02 — 0030*, _____ .,. _ . , . . . ,._. , o., . o _ 8 0,0, — 004 00.. ,
4 70 0 70 5 1m 738,000
0 330 8 0 500 07,840
4 024 79 0,00
• ILl 00 009 1,840
40 004 1.9500
5 30 7 8.0 0.00
O II 8 7 8 0 08
I I) 1 1.8 0.02 7,300
080 80 0,03
S 726 0! 005
*0 00 30 00 1. 4 210151032 4 6 2 00 10 00 00 4 0 2 00 00 II 00 4 4 1
55 30_I 80 008 39,1 •10 074 5 30.8 79 0.09 5.0 10755 0.1.002.0 753 0.0001900105 0.200.702.3 0.0 0.00 20 421 .040 0.10
0.99 9 09 0.02 0,080 9.40 . 033 ‘.7,025 8000 2 I 0.23 0,07 0.000 1.54 . 1’ 627,350 0.002 2.0 0.94 0.02 0. 4.20 .138 001,126 0.000 0.08 0.04 0.00 0.000 1.08 0_los 0144,538 2.001
1,62 0,” 0.59 0.020 40.090 148 0,057 I 5 0.52 0.710.000 1.970 0.337 0,060 1,60 0.96 0.12 0.000 04440 150 0,040 2.04 0.40 0.11 0. 22.060 .30) 0.000
0.4.3 0 74 0,95 0,004 80.105 627 0.040 0.5 0,04 0.05 0 004 0985 0.65 0 030 0.0 0.10 0,02 0.009 11.1:3 334 0.025 0.40 0.05 0.03 0.00 11.191 0050 0.0)0
o u.S 0.0 8,700 20
9 73.0 8.0 23.000 600
0 13.2 8 0
39,4 8.2 4,900 40
I 02.8 8.7
2 00.1 8.0
o I2 8 8.0
0.77 0 3.6 8.0 30,000 300
I 32.4 80 22.00 70
0 9 0. I 9 5
0,25 0 13 0.1 37.302 51$
0030 2.4 02 0.00 3 60. 00 01570
0.000 3.6 0.4 0.30 00,309 0 7
0.030 0.5 0.0 0.06 4,609 577
22.000 0.2000
70.000 0,200
48.000 9.000 0.24
10.000 9.000 0.14
40,000 9.000
5 50
40.905 0.600 0.40
4.07 10 052.000 0.005
20.891 830 0.001
0,300 382 0.505
610.’ 8.0 (175.03.60 .,.7 0.800. (54003 *04.1*0 o..la..19 .0)4*03 (170 .0o....9 .0.60.60 .82I.
0 - 95060 0900 rd.
910.0 16? 11* — 104.0 50308050 — 0 010Il0 *8
0 *30 00)0,100* 1.001-
0200 ¶0.0 II 010.)
0040. 00
O I 1 o • ,_ ¶03*7 500.0 00500,—
-— I . 0 . . . .0 0 — — 10700. 00) .807.301,101* 0.0.
173.0 10,10
— 0410,. 1040001. so1i04o .
6100
82
30
I 30.6 38 0.00
I 38.4 0,3 050
S 12_S 79 3,50
0,10 4 70,4 7,5 984
5 Il 6 79 0.08
1 714 79 0,85
1 784 7.7 0.30
9,10 9 314 75 L X
0 71.0 80 0%
I 72)0 00 0,30
11,000
3820
4555
700
70
5704
4
2
0
503 4
4
12.0 7.8 0.00
44,4 3,0 0.05
02.0 8.0 0.00
03.0 8,0 0.02
00.0 0.1 0.00
02.4 4.0 0,02
94$ 3.7
*8.0 8.0 0.00
09.4 7,8 5.00
02.4 0.6 0.01
00,000
5,000
23.004
I®
1.020
00
0.05
4
0
0.1
2
5
1
9
0
0
0.5
40.0 7.0 0.00
42.0 1.0 0.90
00.4 1.0 0.30
10,0 0.0 0.00
10,87.901.0.
12.4 8.0 0.30
00.0 7.8 0.30
40.1 0.0 0.14
09.6 8.0 0.00
02.4 8.)
1000
0,020
350
6
0
0.16 8
2
4
4.808
07
9.00
0 130 0.0 53,300 20,080
3 736 8 0 120.080 32,000
2 73,4 44
4 33 2 8 I 320.080 0t0.0 0 32
5 120 4.?
5 058 81
Ill 80
2 72 6 I I 60.00 74.000
2 03.4 8,0 43.000 ¶6.500
9 9 9 5 5
329 8.0 pL80 8 36.000
3 8 0.53 0,01 8.8 • 100 o .
I 3 0.77 0.32 25,440 3,312
84 0.08 0.00 03.183 1.516
35,200 000
00,000 0000 0.00
10.000 270 0.09
0.040 1 .001 7 .o
1
2
1
07.0 0.0
00.2 6.1
11.4 $0
01.00
52.00
11,800
0,200
2
3
2
13,2 I.
10.2 0.8
10.2 6.0
0.00 3
0
3
00.0 0,0
42.2 11
12.6 0.4
48,000
00,000 0.20
3
9
2
13.2 0.5
11.0 1.0
01.8 1,0
0.05 2
10.4 0.0
04.00
0,000 0.00
0
02.0 7.5
0
19.2 I.?
54,00
8.000
0
10.0 7.0
2 9
2.84 2
0.880 2.0
0.000 0,3
0.0053 0.5
8 9
03,0 8.4
0.45 0.00
2.40 0,11
0.03 0.04
5
52,000
0.90 • 100 0.
20,003
9,000
5 2
10,140 5.10
41 • • 1 0,0.3
3,021 0.000
1.680 0.060
8
2
4.7
1.0
0.4
9 9
02.0 0.0
2.01 0.02
1.03 0.20
5.05 0.05
005.0 50040
1
0
6.5
2
5
S
3
13.4
13.0
42,0
13.2
02.6
0.2,4
00.0
7.6 6.00 47,00
7,0 0.08 1,100
fl.2 0.08
0,0 0.84 11,840
0.0 0.00
8.5 0.84
7.8 0.00
1,100 0 42.0 7.6 8.00 4,080
0. 3 12,0 1.8 0.00 8.108
3 12.0 1.9 0,00
1,080 0.16 0 12.0 8.1 0.00 3,708
3 12.6 0.8 0.84
9 12.6 4.0 0.84
1 42.2 1.8 0.84
400
190
110 0.07
0
1
40.0
10.8
tO 0.84
0.0 0.00
11,000
12 0.10 1 11.1 7.8 0.00 0,008
1 13.2 1.9 0.80
040 0.13
0
02.0
8.7 0.00
3.0 12.4 0.0 0.00
02
40
00 10
4
4 2 10 00 00
10 6
4 2
1.1
6.02
2.10
848
03.8
8.14
0.31
0.02
4.0 0.85 00,020
0.04 0.0 0360800
0,29 0.984 00.208
0.08 0. . 0 8.105
839 0.10 0 12.8 1.8 0.00 6,815
S2.229 0.002 1.5 0.01 0,02 0.84 4,16 • 101
816’ 0.019 0.2 0.65 0.13 0.00 3.000
490 9.080 6.4 0.44 0.03 0,704
200 0.19
60.300 0,001
Ill 0.030
64 0.020
8
2
2
2.5
0
08.0
08.4
Ill
00.0
12.0
7.9
0.,
4.0
0.0
0.0
76,000
N. . 0
00.00
4,008
5.00
7.00 0.05
200
—
1 00.4 0.8 29.00
2 00.2 0.0
0 9.9 0.0 30.00
2 11.6 0.0
I 12.0 8.0
1,900
1,600 0.76
2
I
0
02.0
02.4
07.0
.
0.9
8,0
.— —
30,000
44.00
1 18.0 5.8
8.180 0.02 1 13.2 1,120
0,700 0 40.0. 1.5 6,700
60 0.05
180
9
4.0
1.80
9
12.4
0.90
6
0.8
0,00
S S 2 I 0 7 0
03.00 0.003 0.19 2 12.0 0.0 15.625
8,29. 602.59. 10’ 0.000 0.4 1,3,6 0,01 761. o4
85.159 6,594 5 )880 0.4 1.40 3.80 10.603
11.292 810 0,084 0.8 0.51 0.03 0.016
42
080 0.19
020,300 0.028
00 0,630
400 0.484
-44-
-------
APPENDIX 4
West Branch Wastewater Treatment Plant
Final Effluent Discharge Data
Suspended
Suspended Volatile
BOO-mg/i SOlids g/i Solids—pg/i
24
32
36
16
37
35
24
43
36
Weather
High Low
Temp.°F Temp.°F
36 -l
38 0
26 3
34 8
43 18
36 14
30
)
U)
c’
-
I .
Date
3— 1—71
3- 2-71
3-. 3-71
3- 4-71
3— 5-71
3- 6-71
3- 7-71
3- 8-71
• Q . .71
.J_ J , 14.J
3-l0—71
0
—4
3- ll—71
3-12—71 -
3-13-7 1
3-14—7 1
3- 15—71
3-16-71
3- 17-71
3-18-71
3- 19-71
3-20-7 1
3-21 -71
3-22—7 1
n
x
2
sx
sx
FlOw-cfs
0.256
0.253
0.244
0.239
0.232
0.223
0.227
0.239
0.229
0.224
0.223
0.228
0.224
0.284
0.321
0.287
0.281
0.275
0.270
0.231
0.247
0.252
22
0.250
0.0006
0. 0244
0. 0052
2 1
3
26
19
22
42
10
36
5
3
13
20
53
6
23
19
28
52
48
16
24
53
43
31
20
31
35
33
10
39
10
50
57
37
41
17
Q)
-
.
o .
1 .
c
-4
.4
0
- - 4
—
(-)
26 — 36 41
37
53
53
12
12
13
8
24
170.0
13.0
4.6
9
32
185. 9
13.6
4.5
9
32
51.9
7.2
2.4
-45-
-------
Appc, ,dll 5 . Ro .:o..oo sapli. g data ad Jeserlp no.. slat.
.402 1 .8 . /I 4:41 III 12 14
I A , 6.14 14:10 Nfl 11, 11
.12 4—9 2:401 PM 134
71.97 “ 1-9 4:1011 744 126
3.91 3—9 14:04) 714 123
3.914 ‘ 3—10 12:00 AM 122
0.85 3—71) 4:00 1)14 119
0.95 3—10 0:45 AM 123
0.80 , 2 3—10 4:15 PH 1.20
0.86 3—11 2:15 P44 120
0.89 3—12 0:00 AM 122
n cr, , )
l,.I.,l F,:,,)
:64, , ,.
I P.: ;.o I:. ::
I :..4 I..? 0.0
1.5 6.1 .7 0.0
0.0 7.1 0.0
1 6.4 7.2 0.0
“.5 6.4 7.3 0.0
0 7.0 7.1 0.0
1 6.0 7.1 0.0
6.4 7.6 0.0
3 6.8 7.5 0.0
0 6.4 7.0 0.0
<1111) II : : I I. : :
<100 0 )0 .W.
‘ . 00/7 0.10 11.0
‘ .100 ‘.10 nfl. ::
01 11 3.1 11 10
2 028 1.7 6.5 7.3 0.0
S 2 098.0 0.441 0.12 0.30 0.00
14.0 0.90 0.35 0.33 0.00
SO 4.0 0.21 0.10 0.10 0.00
3 1.4 1.)
0 7.6 7.4
2 7.6 7.1
2 7.6 7.7
2 7.8 1.6
o 7.1) 7.7
1 7.6 7.1
0 7.4 8.1
1 7.2 1.8
9 9 9
1 7.5 1.7
1.0 0.03 0.03
1.0 0.02 0.10
0.3 0.06 0.06
6 1
(10 2.
0 0.001
0 0.003
0 0.010
5 5 7
4.1620 <.196 0.04
6 ,4.2 a 10 0 0.00
4.2044 0,340 0.025
914 (152 0.009
01 01 11 11
7 9.5 7.0 00.92
2.4 2.00 0.04 73.500
0.6 1.67 0.20 0.570
0.5 0.50 0.06 2.580
9 9 9
7 7.2 7.2
1.8 0.59 0.30
1.1 0.77 0.60
0.’. 0.26 0.20
6 I,
<10 34.:)
0 11.20
o 3.30
0 1.40
740,000 120.000 07.0
720,000 320,000 17.0
18.0
17.0
830,000 30,000 15.0
700,000 240,000 14.0
1420,000 52.300 15.0
5 3 14
764,000 132,400 16.0
3.2 a i0 9 1.5 jQlO 2.10
56,830 1.2 a 105 1.50-
25.420 55,620 0.60
tat 1 7.0.1 T p er—
3 4
tot .1 Fatal teepor—
....lIf.,, Nil. •t,,r nn. SI Ch1 0 .
Total tees)
-------
APPENDIX 6
Roscommon Wastewater Treatment Plant
Final Effluent Discharge Data
Weather
High Low
Date Flow Temp . °F Temp . °F Precipitation
3—1—71 55286 40 0
3—2—71 61530 32 —10
3—3—71 a 48490 28 8
3—4—71 . 64880 20 —3
3—5—71 45680 34 0
3—6—71 51420 42 30 0.2
3—7—71 56080 38 22 0.6
3—8—71
44980
20
8
3—9—71
49060
19
10
3—10-7!
30
10
3—11—71
57240
32
0
3—12—71
51140
39
3
3—13—71
20830
40
10
3—14—71
28070
42
32
3—15—71
3—16—71
3—17—71
3—18—71
3—19—71
44060
92040
39040
65460
-a’ ° ’
50
40
38
40
42
42
20
11
19
16
3—20—71 50600 34 27
3—21—71 22400 32 15
3—22—71 27050 40 3
3—23—71 49310 40 20
3—24—71 43870 35 10
3—25—71 40750 20 —10
n 24
x 47889
s 2 2.36x10 8
s 15350
s 3133
-47-
-------
I.,S2. 7. *8*52% 4.0. — d*. . ,tplI.. •1 80
Its.: 0.4. (8*00I 8 13. *2.0. 29.000 1.fla oatO — 08 00. — .007 1 .9000.0.0 — ./l.
0 o *l — — 8*00.0
050.2 801 .28* S. o .S a21 — .. 51 50 SI
000.0 0.4.1
73
4 050
780
Ito,. 0.8 70 (570, , .ll0,o. ,oIi0 .o, 00.
C —.
,_4_ 0 . 0•
7.38 3—70—77
7.08 1-70
0.79 .7-70
2 .79 80 .30
I,, ‘0.77
7.09 .9-80
0.22 0)30
• 20 34—2
7.02
• 06 4 .7
0.06 4-2
0,78 A—S—TO
2.0$ 8A
• .775 “U—i
70534-7
.
2 ‘8- I
2.70 0 0 .- i
0.0.
0. 0. — 04*0 ’.
0.0 76 7. S
5 0 7 2 2.40
4.2 7.6 0.90
5.8 73 7.75
0,0 7.5 I .02
2.0 7.4 2.29
2.0 7.5 7 22
3.2 7.2 780
7,2 71 3.87
2 2 7 3 2.17
2.6 7.2 2.98
3.4 7.4 2.64
I 20 0.03 0.750
7.50 0.76 0500
0 30 0.05 0 000
3.0 7.0
0.5 7.3
0.2 7.7
22 77
12 71
00 7.4
0.4 7.4
0 0 0.6
0.6 7.4
0.4 7.0
070 002
0.10 0.70
0,78 OS
70O
£700
107
4000
10700
065
070 70 5 00 7.5 000 7700 740 (.70 7 9.0 LI 0.00
(00 2 4 736 0.0 0,00 7207 040 007 6 lO 0 ... 070
7 0.4 7.0 0*0 0 0.8 7 5 006
5 104 7.7 0.00 8.5 9.5 7 0 1,01*
*70 74 I 704 1.9 070 2 60 0.0* 70 6.0 7.4 0.97
5 13.4 0.0 0 00 71 5 0,4 0.5 I 67
70.4 0.1 0.50 70 9.0 7.6 .50
I 0.6 7.7 0.00 77 8.0 76 0,07
050 000 Ii I 10.6 7.5 0.00 1307 50 0.07 7 8.0 7.5 766
7.5 00 0 7.9 070 70 7,0 74 I 46
0100 7.70 I I 4 02.2 7.2 0.00 9520 90 0.0 6 7.6 14 0.90
5 5 501710717 5 9 511700010
£ 040 .070 74 6.0 72.7 7.9 0.00 4829 728 0.02 9.2 8.6 7 5 I - ID
.08800 0 7.7 3.72 7.70 0.04 2.8* 5.1 . 70 0770 0.000 6,50 I 50 0 0’ 0-700
O 57 0 2.0 7,00 0.00 0.00 0.000 2080 57 0.000 1.62 1.70 0 70 0 070
*80 0 7,2 0.40 0,800,86 0.000 0790 04 0.008 0.80 (.40 OIl. 0.770
SI .500.8* *02.700 17 5 78.5 7.9 70.8* 7700 0 02 7 07,2
00.500.850 >75.000 70 5.5 720 0.0 3000 11.0 0,02 6 002
8 II 6 7.0 6 9.0
>0.500.500 715.050 0 7.5 70.4 TO 4000 402 9.04 9.5 I0 6
70.4 73.6 0.7 II S I0 4
7.5 79.6 75 00.0 0.6
• 70.0 8.0 9 0,0
240.8* 5080 0 6 70.2 7.9 5500 71.0 0,05. I 9,0
300.880 70.500 707074.4 0.0 0200 40 0.311215.0
*20.000 20.500 0 9.5 02.0 0.0 7340 050 0,00 Il 8.9
6 6 6 70 70 00 6 6 6 70 00
4 665.000 ‘*70.070 II 76 72.4 70 5117 469 0.02 9.0 00.0
404.001*7.2. o7 7,6 6.60 0.60 807 6.0. 101 0.0. 000 0000 4,60 2.40
79.7 • 005 082*97 7.0 2.60 0300.00 2588 600 0070 0.00 200
0,5 • 705 7 3870 0,5 0.10 0.57 0,08 7095 250 0.002. 0.70 0.95
200
470 11.0
.00 50
070
10
cOO 0.7
0 06 00
0 0 00
00.000 4900
‘900,000 7000
(.1 .10 104 T
7000 770 .5008 17010
485 80 75.0 70
70:80 02.6 78
3-5050 22.4 02
$800. 02.4 02
0050 22.4 08
620 80 72.4 23
0.5050 20.9 73
00:80 aM 22.0 08
48828 22.0 Ii
77:9050 296 08.3
72 00 052 25 8 72
0 00 52
0 23.1 00.7
0.0 0.00
S 1.0 0.58
09 0.0 0.10
120080 02.3 02
70:7500 22.3 07.5
• 1050 -22.2 00.3
77.10 28.8 01.5
40080 50.0 03
$5050 08.0 77.5
72.500. 00.9 II
4:50507 20.9 02
053077 20.9 74
7*5020 80,7 03
O 00 08
0 22.7 00.7
*f 0.48 0,40
8 * 0.69 5.70
00 0.02 088
000.7 70(27
£7.12. 00110... thur.
0.00 08* 070
000 — 440
0N
0 . 8 0
050 70.8* 060
ON
2-
000 8050 250
000
010 04. 7000
70 9 5
0.8 70.774
0,8* 7 00 • 005 7.6 • 7
8,8* 70.860 7230
0500 0026 980
0700 0.70
8250 050
2280 700
7280 0580 2.0
6000 808
0700 660
8 60
3,69 697 2.020
78* 083 0.000
0.2.0 7.000
647 5 .. 1.0270.. . 120. ..
8fl — COO
0750 008
• 50
0.10
I—
8.50 2808 00 0.52
0 , 8 0
0.00 7580 < 0
I I 5 5 2
0.00 (% 670 0.40
0.800 0.20 201 0 0.080
8.8* 0803 0 0.040
08* D8* 0 0770
5.055 65
73.500 050
72.8* 7008 0.07
00.040 10.000 0
•:
40.011 l8.00 0.1
570 • 0029%. o 0 040
505.750 7040 060
6290 7080 0.40
2.700 7.00
0700 ‘00
7.000 7.70 0’?
0.0. 8 00 .
72 0 3 9 0.07
70 6 0.0 0.09
02077 0.09
II 2 7,9 0.00
082 00 *29
02 * 5 0 0.07
704 0,0 807
95 70 0.08
000 0 -0 0.00
70870 000.
II. 70 087
77 7 7.0 0.07
7,000(0 0,00
70 0.90 0.220
0,900.00 0.000
73.4 74
77.0 70
72.4 0.5
IL’ 79
0 )0 77
07,0 7.8
9.6 79
7.6 70
00.0 8,2
00,0 00
77.0 7.8
0.00 0.03
0,400.70
0.500,56
0.5
7.6
05
70
76
00$
007.2 I.t.t 0..0 .,.
‘ 07 . ID-. D l I .0 . . 00700 ,00 0.0 2 .
0000 2.70 5 9 01.0 00
4700 2.70 5.3 7) 0 80
,S 000 TO
5 70.0 7 0
0700 olD 0 53 0 07.6 0,l
9 02.4 79
-. 00,087
9 0.6 TO
(700 <72 081 0 9.6 7 7
8* 770 0.0
76,907 .,l0 0 1U0 7.0
<090.9 407 001 0 7 70.7 7.0
• 70 0 0.070 1.00 7.00 0.00
0 0050 710 7,100.10
• 1:9,0 7 0 000 7.50 0.77 0.01.
70.000 600 8 70.6 7,0
77,070 7100 5 0 77.6 0.4
7 00.6 7.6
72.010 0000 0.56 0.5 71.0 70
II 72.0 7,0
70 96 79
9 0.0 7.9
777 7 9077
5 700 0.0
00.5 70.6 79
0 00 70 70
047 0.0 70.0 70
0,010 6,50 0,20 0.00
0.005 2.00 0.50 0.75
0.095 0 70 0.50 0.05
0.00
0 07
0 00
0 00
0 01
0 00
0,07
0.00
0.00
0(0005
0.0 70
0.707
005
006
0,06
0,00
0 00
004
00 3
005
0 07
0.0 0 0I
00 0
07.000 0900
04.200 2000
*0.000 6504
6 6
9l7* 2.5
9500 0597
0890 650
02000 0.0 80
• 000 19
4 7)4 7.6
I 17.0 75
4 01.2 78
00808
005 758 0.0
7 28.8 00
7 96 7.5
0 76 74
I 00.5 7.9
4 70.7 7. .
78 72.9 7.
500 2.0880.50.
0,60 I 600.00
0.10 0900.00
O 04,6 7.7
6.5 03.5 L•
S II 6 7,5
00.4 04 0 7.9
03 03.5 7.9
05 77.8 7.6
6 9.4 7.0
6 9.2 7.0
04 80.0 7.7
ItS 08.6 7.8
78 00 78
6.9 70.9 7.0
3.00 3.980,02
8,00 0.500,08
050 0639,06
2(00* 8.0. —
S 070 ,.9
05 72.0 0.4
S 02.0 7.0
3 70.8 Li
-. 00.8 9..
• 9.6 7.7
I 5.2 7.7
0.3 00,5 1. .
S 20.8 7.9
6.9 00.0 0.0
2.06 0.02 0,02
0.78 1,1 10.70
0.72 8.30006
5.4 02.2 7.6
6 72.0 7.6
7 08,4 7.6
• 72.8 7.0
72 226 7.8
70 8*6 0.0
4.9 0.0
• 9.0 7.8
25.5 00.2 0.0
00.5 00.0 0.0
08 0$ 00
5.8 76.8 7.0
4.90 7.05 *188
2,00 0,50095
0.80 0.800*
7000 1 70 0 40
1600 170
6b 0
47790 0 Sin 20
70.000 700
76.000 0000 0,0
5070 00018
7-9
0-I
07 7
0.0 0.4
0 00 4.50
050 0,00
000 040
70.5
‘5
‘. 0
2.50
000
0 . . ,.
2(020 8.4.
4 10.1.
4.5 00,0
• 02.4
08,4
70 02:6
. ,.:
O 00.1
05 20.6
6 070
3.40 0.79
7.00 0,55
0 40 0.15
5 03.0
6.9 02.0
7 00.8
02.0
70 27.0
00.2
8 9.0
2.70 5 9.0
02,7
2 II 20
0 54 8.7 70,0
0.002 6.40 0.86
0,8*2.00 0,20
8.0550.73 0.60
I O L O . 50070 0.0.
jI80 200 5 700 7.0
<000 .070 5 72.4 8.7
0.3 02473
5 II * 0.6
4700 000 0.00 5.5 0)0 0.0
9 03,4 7
006 8 I
85 170 7.7
£100 400 764 0 9.0 70
I 77008
4700 0200 S 0*4 70
52110017
0700 400 064 7.0 07.6 0 5
0 0 0001 700 070008
0 0 0.030 I 50 7 500.00
0 0 0.040 0 60 0.47 0 05
00.0*0 0100 8 710 1.1
70.000 7700 6.5 070 0.7
6 70-8 76
73.8* 0000 0.57 05 00,8 7 0
II 708 72
70 00,0 7.3
9 0.0 7.9
30.000 6700 0.25 7 9.2 0.9
48.500 1920 10.5 024 9 7
46.000 6800 775 III 79
6 6 0 00 ID 70
07.031 0739 0 79 0 0 .0 5 0 I
0,77 • 022 6.9 • 007 0.040 5 70 030 0 00
70.300 2220 2020 0,40 7,70 0 03
9440 905 0.700 0.50 0 50 0,05
— 700.0 0.0.0
14I . 40* 0• • .007000 802
7.9 0,80 0800 70
7.9 0.00 2500 50
7.9 0.80
7.5 0,00
7.9 0.80 2.000 60
7.9 0.50
0.0 0.00
7.7 0.20
0.4 8.50 ‘000 00 0.79
7.0 0.00
7.77 0.00 07.700 70
II 70 5 5 0
7.0 t00 7488 0,29
0.02 0.8* 7.5 • 707 080 0.000
0,75 0.8* *70 28 0.8*
0.03 0,880 8650 00 0.000
7.7 4650 90
7.7 8580 720
7.7
7.0 70.800 7200 0.80
7.,
8.0
S..
0.0 77.8* 0.06
0.7 27*
7.9 24.000 0000
00 6 62
7.9 ‘‘‘2 71 0.0 ,
•.01 5.9 • 707 0.9 • 005 0.007
0.4 7.640 627 0.860
0.06 3.009 248 8.019
00.8*
00.000
70 03
7.05.10
70, 0 )0
4700
4500 0.40
740
0700
0969 7.40
16. 70’ 0000
7900 0.000
775 0 000
5450
2.850 286
87.8.0 2050
6 6
74.2)1 0
6.6 • 704 0.6 0 0
$145 7092
8515 902
-48-
-------
APPENDIX 8
Date
3- 1-71
3- 2-71
3- 3-71
3- 4-71
3- 5-71
3- 6—71
3- 7-71
3- 8—71
3- 9-71
3-10-71
3-11—71
3-12-71
3-13—71
3-14-71
3-15-7 1
3- 16—71
3-17—7 1
3-18—7 1
3-19— 71
3-20-7 1
3-21—71
3-22—7 1
3-23-71
3-24-71
3-25-7 1
3-26-7 1
3—27—71
3-28-7 1
3-29—71
3-30-7 1
3-31-7 1
n
Flow
MGD
0.730
0.716
0.718
0.694
0.748
0.845
0.571
0.720
0.699
0.679
0.745
0.779
0.682
1.644
1.368
1.032
0.971
1.001
1.140
0.923
0.690
‘ 1.004
0.925
0.916
0.893
0.944
0.793
0.639
0.885
0.848
0.833
31
4- 1-71 0.862
4- 2-71 0.882
4- 3-lI 0.659
4- 4-71 0.718
4- 5-/Is u. 1?-
4- 6-71 0.801
4- 7-71 y L767
4- 8-71
4- 9-7L fJ .8O8
4-10-71 0.607
4-11-71 0.595
4-12-71 0.891
4-13-71 0.876
4-14-71 0.836
4-15-71 0.855
4-16-71 0.832
4-17-71 0.758
4-18-71 0.680
4-19—71 0.727
4-20-71 0.806
4-21—71 0.782
4-22-71 0.776
4-23-71 0.720
4-24-71 0.714
4-25-71 0.777
4-26-71 0.758
4-27-71 0.738
4-28-71 0.681
4-29-71 0.677
4-30-71 0.726
n 30
6
17
8
10
21
9
6
6
13
15
9
9
11
14
13
10
8
Mason Wastewater Treatment Plant
Final Effluent Discharge Data
54 31
38 _______ 23
36 _______ 20
51 23
58 31
67 51
60 42
70 63
77 46
48 27
48 30
60 34
70 48
62 48
62 33
68 37
74 43
52 40
59 31
61 28
48 30
52 36
50 29
45 41
49 39
48 28
56 38
Suspended Weather —
Suspended Volatile High Low
Sol ids.- /i Sol I ds— f 1 Precipl tation-In en . 1 Tecnp.e
13 9 38 19
13 9 32 18
10 8 23 12
16 8 36 15
30 24 0.12 44 30
0.54 36 25
0.15 30 19
17 14 25 6
18 12 0.09 33 13
11 7 0.10 30 25
34 19
22 10 0.02 33 29
44 32
63 44
21 19 0.25 42 28
14 11 30 21
19 14 35 21
15 10 0.20 38 27
16 14 0.15 36 30
32 20
40 20
15 11 0.01 39 23
14 10 30 16
12 9 0.04 29 9
36 18
41 28
44 34
____________________A l__
36 22
45 28
62 37
20
33
21
23
19
20
19
15
19
0.864
12
17
12
s
0.0482
26.8
36.o
21.7
5
0.2195
5.2
6.0
4.7
s
x
0.0394
1.2
1.4
1.1
15
16
9
.06
11
10
10
3.05
8
9
9
12
6
6
9
5
2
10
10
7
Tr&c
7
7
6
9
29
27
11
16
18
15
0.764 13
0.0059 47.0
1.49
0.08
0.03
0.05
0.06
0.03
9 7
7 6
16 9
14 7
26 21
23 18
18 6
8 8
12 10
15 15
13 9
38.3 22.6
6.2 4.8
1.6 1.2
x
0.0768 7.0
0.0140 1.8
-49-
-------
Accession Number 2 Subject Field & Grouu
SELECTED WATER RESOURCES ABSTRACTS
W INPUT TRANSACTION FORM
Organization
5
Michigan Bureau of Water Management
Department of Natural Resources -
Mason Building - Lansing, Michigan i 1 7
Title
o V t ER
Chlorinated Municipal Waste Toxicities to Rainbow Trout
and Fathead Minnows
1 0 Aufho s) io Project Designation
Basch, Robert E. EPA, WQO Grant No. 18050 GZZ
Newton., Michael E. Note
Truchan, James G.
Fetteroif, Carlos N.
22 Citation
23] Descriptors (Starred First)
*Chlorjnated, *Municipal Waste, *Toxjcjty, Fish, Trout, Minnows
25 Identifiers (Starred First)
*Toxicjty, *Chiorinated Municipal Waste, Fish
27 ]AbStr This project consisted of separate studies at four different Michigan municipal
wastewater treatment plants. Ten rainbow trout ( Salmo gairdneri ) and ten fathead
minnows ( Pimephales promelas) , each previously acclimated to the river, were held for 96
hours in live boxes in the receiving stream above and below these plant outfalls. Fish
held below these outfails were subjected to both chlorinated and non-chlorinated exposures
during effluent discharge. During fish exposure, the test waters were monitored chemically
and bacteriologically.
Total residual chlorine concentrations below three of the four plants were toxic to rainbow
trout at distances up to 0.8 mile. Fathead minnows appeared adversely affected up to 0.6
mile downstream in two of four plants. Total residual chlorine concentrations less than
0.1 mg/i were toxic to fathead minnows in the plants.
The rainbow trout 96-hour total residual chlorine TL-50 concentration below two plants was
0.023 mg/i.
SEND. WITH COPY OF DOCUMENT. TO: WATER RESOURCES SCIENTIFIC INFORMATION CENTER
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
WASHINGTON. D . C 20240
WR IO2 (REV. JULY 196 )
WAST C
institution
Abstractor
Robert E. Basch I Michigan Bureau of Water Management
*U. S. c VERNMENT PL4Ou. rP-, uj 1CS 1972—48 -482/34
* GPO: l97O—389 93O
------- |