Acute Toxic Effects of Chlorinated
Primary Sewage Effluent
on
Brook Trout and Brown Trout
Manchester, Vermont
Batten Kill River
United States
Environmental
Protection Agency
Region I
NEW ENGLAND REGIONAL LABORATORY
60 WESTVIEW AVE. LEXINGTON MASSACHUSETTS 02173
-------
Acute Toxic Effects of Chlorinated
Primary Sewage Effluent
on
sBrook Trout and Brown Trout
Manchester, Vermont
Batten Kill River
Peter M. Nolan
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region I
New England Regional Laboratory
60 Westview Street
Lexington, Massachusetts 02173
April 1979
-------
Acknowledgement
This study was made possible with the close cooperation of the
Town of Manchester, Vermont, and the State of Vermont Water
Resources and Fish and Game Divisions.
-------
Table of Contents
Page
List of Tables iii
List of Figures iv
Conclusions
Recommendations vi
Introduction 1
Manchester Waste Water Treatment Facility 2
Batten Kill River 3
Methods 3,5
Test Organisms 5
Test Design 7
Results 7,13
13,17
Discussion 17,21,22
References 23
Appendices Ai to 1 -6
-------
List of Tables
Table Description Page
1 7 Q Low Flows For Batten Kill River At 4
Arlington and Manchester, Vermont
2 Test Animal Data 6
3 Results: Chlorine Toxicity Study 9
Manchester, Vermont, July 1978
Batten Kill River Phase I
4 Combined Results: Chlorine Toxicity Study 10
Manchester, Vermont, July 1978
Batten Kill River Phase I
5 Results: Chlorine Toxicity Study 11
Manchester, Vermont, July 1978
Batten Kill River Phase II
6 Combined Results: Chlorine Toxicity Study 12
Manchester, Vermont, July 1978
Batten Kill River Phase II
7 Manchester, Vermont, Batten Kill River 14
LC 50 Results
Total Residual Chlorine mg/i
8 Calculated Instream Total Residual Chlorine 21
Concentrations for 7 Q Low Flows At Various
Discharge Volumes and TRC Values
Bitten Kill River, Manchester, Vermont
-------
List of Figures
Figure Description Page
1 Fluctuating Total Residual 8
Chlorine Concentrations At
Two Exposure Levels
Manchester, Vermont July 1978
2 Toxicity Curve From LC 50S 15
Phase I Brown Trout
3 Toxicity Curve From LC SOS 16
Phase II Brook Trout
4 Theoretical InStream TRC 18
Concentrations Vs.7Q Low Flows For
Three WWTP Discharge Volumes At
1 mg/i TRC Batten Kill River At
Arlington, Vermont
5. Theoretical InStream TRC Concentrations 19
Vs. 7Q Low Flows For Three WWTP
Discharge Volumes At 1 mg/i TRC
Batten Kill River At Manchester, Vermont
iv
-------
Conclusions
1. Chlorinated primary sewage effluent from the Town of Manchester,
Vermont is acutely toxic to brown and brook trout.
2. Chlorine toxicity was exhibited over a range of total residual
chlorine (TRC) concentrations to both trout species with median
survival levels found at the 2 through 96 hour time intervals.
Most mortalities occurred during the first 24 hours of exposure.
3. The estimated 96 hour LC 50 1 s for brown and brook trout are
.04 mg/i and .06 mg/i TRC respectively.
4. Application of the acute toxicity information gathered in the
study together with instream estimates of TRC concentrations
derived from low flow data, and projected chlorination levels
and discharge volumns indicates that acutely toxic TRC levels
may occur in the Batten Kill downstream of the new Manchester
waste water facility discharge.
5. Potential for low level chronic chlorine toxicity greatly
increases at periods of low river flow. Long term fish produc-
tivity could be adversely affected in areas downstream of the
chlorinated discharge.
p
-------
Recommendations
1. To help insure the protection of the aquatic life and the
salinonid fishery in the Batten Kill River, a maximum allowable
TRC concentration of 0.1 mg/I should be adopted for the new
Manchester WWTF secondary discharge during periods of low flow
and other critical times such as::the:fΰll spawfling for the
indigenous trout species.
2. A flexible chlorination policy should be developed by the State
of Vermont so that end of the pipe chlorine limits can be
set on a case by case basis which both safeguards public health
and protects aquatic life.
3. Dechlorination, seasonal chlorination, adoption of the 200/loOml
fecal coliform standard and other disinfection techniques need
to be evaluated by the State of Vermont as viable alternatives
to across the, board chlorine standards particularly for new and
planned waste water treatment plants.
v - i
-------
Introduction
In the State of Vermont chlorine toxicity has become an issue of
concern, particularly in regard to rivers and streams which support
Vermonts economically important salmonid sport fishery. Presently
in Vermont, several municipalities have new waste water treatment
facilities planned or in some phase of development in order to meet
state and federal water quality standards. Where municipal waste water
is discharged to streams for which the protection of aquatic and
fisheries resources is of prime importance, water resource and fish
and game authorities are being required to make important policy
decisions regarding the usage of chlorine as a waste water disinfectant.
Although several investigations have been conducted (1,2,3) which
demonstrate the toxicity of chlorine to aquatic life, no documented
study has been performed which discusses the effects of a chlorinated
discharge to a native Vermont stream. In view of this, the Vermont
Agency of Environmental Conservation requested the assistance of the
Environmental Protection Agency, New England Regional Laboratory to
investigate the toxicity to trout of chlorinated waste water from the
Mandhester, Vermont waste water treatment plant located near the
Batten Kill River.
Online continuous flow 96hour acute bioassays were performed by
the Environmental Protection Agency during July 10 19, 1978 using
brook trout and brown trout as the test animals, chlorinated primary
sewage as the toxicant and the Batten Kill River water as diluent.
1
-------
Coordinated live cage toxicity studies using trout, and analysis
of benthic animal populations were performed by the Vermont Water
Resources Division. The University of Vermont (D. Merrill) conducted
studies on fish exposed to chlorinated waste water to determine
mechanisms of chlorine toxicity in trout.
Manchester Waste Water Treatment Facilj y
The Waste Water Treatment Facility for Manchester, Vermont is an old
primary plant consisting of a cornininutor and wet well, a single primary
clarifier, chiorinators, contact well and discharge pipe. The plant treats
approximately 200250 thousand gallons of domestic waste (little or no
industrial waste) daily and operates on a fill and draw principle which
results in an intermittent discharge to Bourne Brook, a tributary to the
Batten Kill River. Chlorination is achieved by manually set mechanized
chiorinators which cycle on and off according to the flow from the primary
clarifier. In theory, the rate of chlorination is set based on the dis-
charge volume in order, to achieve a total residual chlorine (TRC) of
approximately 1 mg/i. The TRC in the effluent was found to vary widely,
however, depending on the time of day, and week, whether or not chiorinatOrs
were operating properly and to some extent the nature of the sewage. For
example, on Sunday, July 16 at 12:50 p.m. the sewage before chlorination
had a TRC in excess of 1 mg/i TRC. At present a new secondary waste
water treatment facility for Manchester, Vermont is now operating with
all construction nearly completed. The new plant disinfects with chlorine
and discharges directly into the Batten Kill River. The old plant is to
be phased out of operation and become a pumping station for the new plant.
2---
-------
Batten Kill River
The Batten Kill River is the most famous trout stream in the East
and is prized by the State of Vermont as its number one blue ribbon
trout water. The Kill has broad riffle areas, deep pools, narrow
swift rips and deep channels with undercut banks. Most of the year it
is a moderately flowing river, with peak flows occurring during spring
runoff and low flows occurring during the dry summer months at which
time the river is subject to a broad range of rise and fall during
periods of intermittent heavy precipitation. During the July 1978
study period river temperatures ranged from 1417°C and dissolved
oxygen concentrations ranged from 5.68.8 mg/i. Normally, D. 0. was in
excess of 70% saturation. pH values ranged from 7.67.9 and conducti-
vity was approximately 360 umhos/cm
In addition to the discharge from the new Manchester WWTF, a
planned WTF for Arlington, Vermont will also discharge to the Batten
Kill.
Table 1 lists- the sevenday low flow data for the river at
Arlington and Manchester, Vermont. By back calculation the flow data
at Manchester was estimated using 7QlO data provided by the State of
Vermont and the USGS flow data for Arlington. It is assumed that the low
flow varies similarly at Manchester and Arlington. Batten Kill water
was used as the dilution water source and for fish acclimation.
Methods
EPAS Methods for Measuring the Acute Toxicity of Effluents to
Aquatic Organisms (4) were generally followed. Bioassays were
-------
Table 1
Estimated
Flow at Manchester
CFS mgd
45.8 29.6
33.3 21.5
30.4 19.6
24.1 15.6
19.9 12.9
18.1 11.7
17.0 11.0
15.6 10.1
14.9 9.6
1
Source USGS
Source State of Vermont
Year
1.01
1.11
1.25
2
5
10
20
50
100
7 Q Low Flows For Ba ter _ Ki11 River
At Arlington and Manchester, Vermont
Flow at Ar1ington
CFS mgd
129 83.4
94 60.8
84 54.3-
68 43.9
56 36.2
51
48 31.0
44 28.4
42 Z )
-------
conducted on location in a 28 foot mobile trailer equipped for con-
tinuous flow toxicity studies. (3) Chemical methods used were those
recommended by EPA (5,6).
Measurement of total residual chlorine (TRC) in the Manchester
primary waste water presented a problem. Apparently, high levels of
organic matter cause residual chlorine to exist in a combined state.
Considerable residual can exist in this form while chlorine demand
simultaneously exists. Reagents added using the recommended procedures
for TRC can alter these relationships causing the residual chlorine to
be lost during analysis. (6) Although the lodometric back titration
method is recommended for waste water with high organic content, we
found this method to give inconsistent TRC measurements.
By modifying the amount of reagents added (excess K I (Ig),
4 ml pH 4 buffer) and performing an amperometric forward titration, we
were able to achieve consistent TRC measurement with a relatively good
accuracy level.
Test Organisms
Young of the year brown trout ( Sairno trutta ) and brook trout
( Salvelinus fontinalis ) were used as the test organisms. Both fishes
were supplied by the Vermont Fish and Game from the Bennington State
Fish Hatchery. The brown trout used initially, were in fair condition,
most suffered from fin rot and some body lesions. The brook trout were
in good condition and apparently healthy. Table 2 lists the mean weight
and length of the fish including the standing and dynamic loading per
exposure chamber.
-------
Table 2
Test Animal Data
Test Species Mean WT STD Dev. Mean Length STD Dev. Loading Standing Loading Dynam.
g cm g/l g/l
Brown trout 35.9 11.3 15.6 1.7 18 .7
Salmo trutta
Brook trout 33.6 10.8 14.9 1.1 16.8 .65
Salvelinus fontirialis
-------
Test Design
Shortterm 24 hour and 96 hour exposure times were used to measure
the acute toxic effects of chlorine disinfected primary sewage on brook
trout and brown trout. Initially the test was solely designed as a
96 hour bioassay using brown trout, during operation of the assay most
of the fish died within the first 24 hours except the controls and those
exposed to the lowest chlorine concentrations. The study was then
extended into a second phase with some major modifications. Because
the brown trout had visible signs of impaired health, they were replaced
as the test animal with the healthier appearing bLook trout.
To reduce the toxicity of the chlorinated waste water so that a
definitive 96 hour bioassay could be performed, the effluent was pre
diluted. This was accomplished by continuously pumping dilution water
and chlorinated effluent into a 280 gallon tank at a ratio of approxi-
mately 7 parts diluent to 1 part effluent. This also served the added
purpose of smoothir g out sudden changes of TRC which would have affected
test results. Even with this, broad daily fluctuations in TRC did occur.
Figure 1 demonstrates the range of chlorine concentrations to which fish
were exposed over a 96 hour period for the 12.5% and 25% prediluted
effluent tanks.
Results
The bioassay results for Phase I using brown trout and for Phase II
using brook trout are listed in Tables 3 and 4, and 5 and 6, respectively.
For each of the studies two data sets are presented, one for each
replicate analysis using te fish and the combined results of the replicates
using 20 fish. Also included are the mean values for the chemical and
.7--
-------
Figure 1
Fluctuating Total Residual Chlorine Concentrations
At Two Exposure Levels Manchester, Vermont 7/78
I
I
I
Noon l 2 i
Mid-
night
24 3b 3 if24 54 6 6 7
Noon Mid- Noon Mid- Noon
I
7 8 0 9
Mid- Noon
p 25% effluent*
... . 12.5% effluent*
*predj luted
.15._
H
0
ci)
C
1 I
0
r-1
H
(U
V
. 1 -I
U I
a)
H
(U
0
13_
.1 2_..
:L1_
.10
09
.0 8_
.0 7._
.0 6_
.05.....
.0 4_
.03.
.02..-
.0 ]_
I
I
/ %
I
I
/
I
I
S.
I
I
L I I
I Ig
I
I
I
4
% 11 1
night night night
-------
Table 3
ELfluent TQnk # #Test Mean
Species TRC
mg/i
Mean Mean Mean
T°C Ph D.O.
ppm
Results: Chlorine
Toxicity ! 4y La s LL &rj pnt, July 1978
Batten Kill River Phase I
No. of Brown Trout ( Salmo trutta ) Deed i tt
2hr. 4hr. 6hr. 8hr. l2hr. 24hr. 4Bhr. 72hr. Ά.Ghr .
100
01
10
0.51
17.9
7.68
8.13
10
100
02
10
0.39
17.5
7.63
8.48
10
87.5
03
10
0.56
17.3
7.67
8.29
10
87.5
04
10
0.56
17.4
7.73
8.76
10
75
05
10
0.49
17.5
7.75
8.32
10
75
06
10
0.50
17.3
7.75
8.27
10
66.7
07
10
0.50
16.7
7.72
8.10
10
66.7
08
10
0.50
17.4
7.59
7.78
10
50
09
10
0.34
16.4
7.70
7.49
5
10
50
10
10
0.33
16.5
7.79
7.44
2
10
33.3
11
10
0.24
16.4
7.73
7.20
0
9
10
33.3
12
10
0.23
16.0
7.69
6.60
0
4
10
25
13
10
0.14
16.5
7.80
7.59
0
0
4
6
9
10
25
14
10
0.17
16.7
7.76
7.86
0
1
4
7
10
10
12.5
15
10
0.08
16.5
7.70
5.89
0
0
0
0
1
8
12.5
16
10
0.06
16.5
7.68
5.96
0
0
0
0
1
3
0
17
10
0.00
16.0
7.84
6.50
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 18 10
0.00 16.1 7.83 6.01 0 0 0 0 0
0
-------
Table 4
Combined Results: Chlorine Toxicity Study Manchester, Vermont, July 1978
Batten Kill River Phase I
Effluent Tank # 4 Test
Mean
Mean
Mean
Mean
No. of Brcwn Trout (Salmo
trutta)
Dead
At
Species
TRC
T°C
Ph
D.O.
2hr.
4hr. 6hr.
Bhr. l2hr.
24hr.
4Chr.
72hr. 961-ir .
lug/i
ppm
100
01
02
20
0.45
17.7
7.65
8.30
20
87.5
03
04
20
0.56
17.4
7.70
8.52
20
75
05
06
20
0.50
17.4
7.75
8.30
20
66.7
07
08
20
0.50
17.0
7.66
7.94
20
50
09
10
20
0.34
16.4
7.74
7.46
7
20
33.3
11
12
20
0.24
16.2
7.71
6.90
0
13
20
25
13
14
20
0.16
16.
7.78
7.72
0
1
8
13
19
20
12.5
15
16
20
0.07
16.5
7.69
5.92
0
0
0
0
2
11
0
17
18
20
0.00
16.0
7.84
6.26
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-------
Table 5
Results: Chlori e oxicity Study Manchester, Vermont, July 1978
Batten Kill River Phase II
Effluent Tank # #Test Mean Mean Mean Mean No. of Eastern Brook Trout ( Salvelinus fontinalis )
Species TRC T 0 C Ph D.O. Dead At:
mg/i ppm 2hr. 4hr. 6hr. 8hr. l2hr. 24hr. 48hr. 72hr. 96hr.
100 01 10 0.43 15.0 7.58 7.15 1 10
100 02 10 0.42 15.1 7.52 7.35 4 10
87.5 03 10 0.50 15.0 7.60 6.9 1 10
87.5 04 10 0.50 15.2 7.65 6.8 5 10
75 05 10 0.41 15.2 7.61 6.0 1 9 10
75 06 10 0.39 14.8 6.0 - 2 9 10
66.7 07 10 0.36 13.9 7.59 1 8 10
66.7 08 10 0.33 16.2 7.57 6.41 0 6 10
50.0 09 10 0.26 14.7 7.53 5.7 0 0 5 10
50.0 10 10 0.26 14.5 7.72 7.31 0 0i,. 1 10
33.3 11 10 0.18 15.0 7.71 6.8 0 1 1 2 9 10
33.3 12 10 0.14 15.3 7.76 7.76 0 0 0 0 5 10
25 13 10 0.11 14.8 7.76 7.28 0 0 0 0 0 0 10
25 14 10 0.095 15.4 7.76 6.96 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 10
12.5 15 10 0.048 15.3 7.74 6.63 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 2 2
12.5 16 10 0.044 15.3 7.72 6.41 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 17 10 0.0 15.0 7.81 6.63 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
A 1 in 0 1 A C a, n A A n
-------
Table 6
Combined Results: Chlorine Toxicity Study_Manchester, Vermont, July ]J978
ΰ tθKi]X vrPhase II
Effluent Tank # #Test Mean Mean Mean Mean No. of Eastern Brook Trout ( Salvelinus fontinalis )
Species TRC T°C Ph D.O. Dead At:
mg/i ppm 2hr. 4hr. 6hr. Bhr. l2hr. 24hr. 48hr. 72hr. 96hr.
100 01 20 0.42 15.0 7.55 7.25 5 20
02
87.5 03 20 0.50 15.1 7.62 6.85 6 20
04
75 05 20 0.40 15.0 7.61 6.00 3 18 20
06
66.7 07 20 0.34 15.0 7.58 6.41 1 14 20
08
50 09 20 0.26 14.6 7.62 6.50 0 0 6 20
10
33.3 11 20 0.16 15.2 7.74 7.28 0 1 1 2 14 20
12
2S 13 20 0.10 15.1 7.76 7.12 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 20
14
12.5 15 20 0.046 15.3 7.73 6.52 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 2 2
16
0 17 20 0.0 15.0 7.80 6.72 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
18
-------
physical parameters tested and mortalities totalled for a specified time
interval.
From this data the LC 50 can be determined for a period of time.
Figures Al A6 appended are representative plots used to estimate the
LC 50 s for both Phase I and Phase II.
LC 50 1 s
Table 7 lists the estimated LC 50 values for Phase I and Phase II
using 20 test animals. Brown trout ( Salmo trutta ) overall have lower
5O particularly during the first 24 hours of testing. For the 48,
72, and 96 hour time intervals the LC 50 data for Phase I was extrapo-
lated from the toxicity curve shown in Figure 2, extended from real
data plotted for 24 hours. Figure 3 is the toxicity curve drawn for
Phase II. The likeness of the two curves indicates that both trout
species exhibit a similar toxic response to chlorinated primary sewage
although at slightly different concentrations. For both test organisms
the greatest toxicity is exhibited during the first 24 hours of exposure.
With respect to time both toxicity curves approach the asymptote at
72 hours and reach it at about 96 hours. The concentration at which this
occurs is often referred to as the incipient lethal dose or the concen-
tration and time at which 50% of test animals can live indefinitely.
This information gives an idea of concentration of TRC at which acute
toxicity ceases and sublethal effects begin and can be of practical value
for predicting and identifying potential instream problems where fish and
aquatic life are endangered.
The somewhat greater sensitivity to TRC by brown trout versus
13-
-------
Table 7
Manchester Vermont, Batten Kill River
LC 50 Results I
Total Residual Chlorine mg/i
Time Phase I Phase II
Hours Day Saimo trutta Salvelinus fontinalis
2 .37 .42
4 .22 .32
6 .17 .28
8 .13 .20
12 .5 .10 .14
24 1 .06 .08
48 2 .05* .07
72 3 .05* .06
96 4 .04* .06
1
Based on 20 test animals
* Estimated from Phase I toxicity curve
14
-------
- -r r
r 1
L.
:1,
I-:- - J
;
1
--F-
- ... . -.
F 11
1
) J
Mean TRC Concentration mg/i x 10-1.
5
-
9 -1
EELLL
j:
Li4411 .IIII
LJ4 LJ
HJ Li L
_i ti_L__ -
IjT T
i r
. .
4 5 6 78 1
4. ..T. ______________ I ______________
t .
I
- . . - a- :
- - I 1-i- I :
. J.I_ _j_ T .
l _ :- t
Figure 2
Toxicity Curve From LC 50 s
Phase I - Brown Trout
I
-
-1
T1
72
i-H t
-
A
-- -l
0
i z
L 4 L . -
I,
:2
- . -- .. - --
1 .
1- -
9.
-
- . ..-
_..J i__
-
- ----± - - - - -- - ----+-
L
- 1
II
. -
2
I
-3--,-
,
: -
15
-------
1!
ic
W3 b/o .j 2 3 4 5 2 4 567891
-- = __ ± H4
_ L Figure 3
ToxicityCurve From LC 50 1 s
Phase II Brook Trout
j
I : 1. I.
:tm j___ ___
F
: - i I
T L LLH
__ __-
__ L
H
L
0 }
a 24 I.
r r
- ---.. -,. - -
_ i t L
N- - -t
p __ 4
v . 1
\ --- - f -- --
- L
__ - - -
I
[ - H -
I I
2 ___
1 t I
_H
Mean TRC Concentration mg/i x 101
16
-------
brook trout may be the result of many factors. The weakened condition
of the browns, because of fin rot and body lesions, the test design
where Phase II exposures using brook trout were made with prediluted
waste and Phase I was not, and a species specific response are among
the possible explanations.
Discussion
In Vermont, fishing and related activities generates approximately
sixtythree million dollars to the general economy of the State. (7)
The Batten Kill River reportedly realizes some $50,000.00 per fishable
mile, (8) and is the States top rated trout stream. Presently, a new
secondary waste water treatment facility is on line in Manchester,
Vermont. Treated effluent is discharged into the Batten Kill River and
chlorination is used for disinfection. A new WWTF is currently in the
planning stage for the Town of Arlington, Vermont, located approximately
14.4 kilometers (9 miles) downstream. This plant as well will discharge
into the Batten Kill and chlorination is being considered for disinfection.
When chlorine enters a stream its fate is not entirely known, some
is lost through dilution, dissapation and volatilization. Other chlorine
complexes such as chioramines and haloforms formed during chlorination
may persist in time at low concentrations. In actual field conditions
measurement of total residual chlorine below .01 mg/i is not easily
accomplished with conventional methods. Often, estimates of instream
chlorine concentrations are only possible by calculation. Figure 4 and
5 illustrate instream TRC values calculated for the Batten Kill at
17
-------
Figure 4
Theoretical In Stream TRC Concentrations VS. 7Q Low Flows for
Three WWTP Discharge Volumes at 1 mg/i TRCBattenkill River at
Arlington, Vermont
96
hr
LC p
Chlorinated Secondary & Tertiary Sewage Brook Trout
96
hr
LC 50
Chlorinated Primary
Sewage Brook
Trout
96
hr
LCηft
Chlorinated Primary
Sewage Brown
Trout
EPA Safe Concentration .002 mg/i
65
I
45
I
35 25
I I
1.11 1.25
7 0 Low Flows mgd/Time (Years)
-i- ---------I I- i 1
2 5 10 2050 100
.20
Q2
. 06
.04
-a
.ao
.Q
.Qal
.ann
.a05
.Q
.aQ3
I-I
E
0
.1-I
4 - I
(0
I 1
4 - I
U
C
0
01
C
(-I
0
-I
U
I-I
f U
0
-4
U)
0 )
r1
(0
4 J
0
El
.002
.001
i
75
1.01
18
-------
Figure 5
Theoretical In Stream TRC Concentrations VS. 7Q Low Flows for
Three WWTP Discharge Volumes at 1 mg/i TRCBattenkili River at
Manchester, Vermont
96 hr LC Chlorinatpd S r ond irv £ PerH rv7
m .. 1.
Proposed EPA Safe Concentration .002 mg/i
18 l if
,. 1.1 1.25
7 Q Low Flows mgd/Time (years)
39 8 6 ?
.25 @ .1 mg/i TRC
1.2 19
o 100
12
LQ
aa
.07
.06
1
03
.02
p - I
E
0
.4
. 1-)
w
0
0
0
-1
C
--I
0
-I
0
-1
3
3
I
C l )
c i i
-I
.iJ
0
.5
.01
.ao
.iia
.S 2
.Q
.004
.003
.002
- nfl
19
-------
Arlington and Manchester, Vermont using a total residual chlorine
standard of 1 mg/i, discharge volumes of .25, .5 and 1 mgd, and the
1.01 100 year 7 day low flows. Acute toxic responses of trout to
chlorinated secondary (2) and tertiary (3) waste water are delineated
with the toxicity information generated for this study. The recommended
EPA criteria of .002 mg/l (2.0 ugh) for salmonici fish is also delineated.
Under Vermonts existing chlorination regulations total residUal
chlorine discharged from the new Manchester plant would likely be in
the range of 14 mg/i. using TRC values of this magnitude with the
above flow and discharge volumes, instream concentrations of TRC are
given in Table 8 specifically for the Batten Kill River at Manchester.
Figures 4 and 5 and Table 8 are intended to serve as guidelines
with which to predict potential impact on aquatic life in the Batten
Kill caused by total residual chlorine and as well to assist in making
judgements regarding chlorination policy. Practical application of the
LC 50 data generated using primary chlorinated sewage, Batten Kill water
and brown and brook trout with the theoretical instream TRC values,
indicates that acutely toxic levels of TRC may be approached under low
flow conditions. It is also apparent that during most periods of low
flow subacute and chronic TRC concentrations exist. Fish populations
can be affected by low levels of chlorine through decreased reproduction,
reduced growth rates and eventual death. Fish egg and larval stages
tend to be most sensitive to chronic levels of TRC with hatchability and
survivability being affected.
The Vermont Fish and Game presently does not stock trout into the
-------
Table 8
Calculated Instream Total Residual Chlorine Concentrations for 7Q Low Flows at
Various Discharge Volumes and TRC Values Batten Kill River, Manchester, Vt.
Flow .25 mgd Discharge .5 mgd Discharge 1.0 mgd Discharge
. 15 TRC mc i/i TRC mci/i
Year CFS mgd TRC ig/l 1.0 2.0 4.0 - 1.0 2.0 4.0
4.0
1.0
2.0
1.01
45.8
.008
c
.016
.032
.017
.034
.068
.034
.068
.136
1.11
33.3
21.5
.012
.024
.048
.023
.046
.092
.046
.092
.184
1.25
30.4
19.6
.013
.026
.05 ?
.025
.050
.110
.05
.10
.20
2
24.1
15.6
.016
.032
.064
.032
.064
.128
.064
.128
.256
5
19.9
12.9
.019
.038
.076
.039
.078
.156
.077
.154
.308
10
18.1
11.7
.021
.042
.084
.043
.086
.172
.085
.170
.34
20
17.0
11.0
.023
.046
.092
.045
.090
.180
.090
.180
.36
50
15.6
10.1
.025
.050
.10
.05
.10
.20
.10
.20
.40
100
14.9
9.6
.026
.052
.104
.052
.104
.208
.104
.208
.416
-------
Batten Kill River. Fish populations are sustained totally through
natural propagation. This together with the economic considerations
involved, indicates that even a small loss in the streams fish produc-
tivity because of chlorine toxicity would have an unacceptable impact
on the sport fishery in the Batten Kill River.
EPAs proposed safe TRC concentration of .002 mg/i for salmonid
fish should be applied to the Batten Kill River because of the naturally
reproducing trout population that exists there. A TRC discharge limit
for the new Manchester facility not to exceed .1 mg/i at a projected
discha:ge volume of .5 mgd would place estimated instream TRC values
within the same magnitude as the recommended safe concentration. This
effluent limit should be applied during periods of low flow and at other
critical times such as the fall spawning time for brown and brook trout.
The .1mg/i TRC level should be manageable from both an operational point
of view and it is well within the detection limits of most approved and
commonly used analytical methods. (6)
From the foregoing, accomplishments in this direction will require
the development of a flexible chlorination policy by the State of Vermont
so that end of the pipe chlorine limits can be set on a case by case
basis which both safeguard public health and protect aquatic life.
Dechlorination, seasonal chlorination, adoption of the 200/100 ml fecal
coliform standard, and alternative disinfection techniques used separately
or in some combination need to be evaluated for implementation into the
operation of not only Manchesters new treatment plant but for all others
as well where chlorine toxicity in receiving waters is considered a
potential hazard.
-------
References
1. Brungs, W.A., 1973, Effects of Residual Chlorine on Aquatic Life.
J. Water Poll. Cont. Fed. 45: 21802193.
2. Arthur, J.W., 1975, Comparative Toxicity of Sewage Effluent
Disinfection to Freshwater Aquatic Life. U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Duluth. Ecological Research Ser. EPA600/375
012, Nov. 1975 62pp.
3. Nolan, P.M. , A. Johnson, 1977. Chlorine Toxicity Study, Mad River,
Waterville Valley, N. H., U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region I, New England Regional Laboratory, Lexington, Mass.
April 1977, 48 pp.
4. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1978, Methods for Measuring
the Acute Toxicity of Effluents to Aquatic Organisms. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental Monitoring & Support
Laboratory, Cincinnati, EPA600/4780l2, July 1978, 52 pp.
5. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1974 Methods for Chemical
Analysis of Water and Wastes. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
National Environmental Research Center, Methods Development and
Quality Assurance Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, 298 pp.
6. American Public Health Association 1976. Standard Methods for the
Examination of Water and Wastewater, 14th Edition, Washington, D.C.
1193 pp.
7. Correspondence File, Vermont Department of Fish and Game, Letter
Dated January 19, 1978.
8. Personal Communication, Vermont Fish and Game 3/28/79.
9. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1976. Quality Criteria for
Water, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D. C.
EPA-440/976023, 501 pp.
23
-------
APPENDIX
-------
: .
-1-
1:E. :
.
.L
;: - ::
c_) H_::_
4 .-. . --
E-4 :
.
c:
-
: :- :-:; -
----
- . :
: = -; -t_:; :
-; :. [ - - :E
:-;: : =.r::
.01
0 10 20 30
40 50 60 70 80 90 100 ____
Percent Survival
Figure Al
. . Plotted Data Phase I @ 12 hr.
: LogConcentration vs. % Survival
H.: 4-. I
- -
. - 4- --- -. - -. -------4--- .:
-: . : :- -- : ::. : --:- :: - tj
J
1 .. .
! : .
- .-,----..- 4 -
--- --- t
_.:.t
------ H-+- __f __T
: _ j : . - _
- - - 1W
: :
rr4r
- -
-H -:--- -- -
:
-
-- 4
-4 ...-.
t:: -
T
-
.--t-. - -
- .- . -- --
- --
.-.- -
t-.-
-. -- . .- ---
- - -
:::
.
: : :
: -
-.
,
--.---.
.
- - ---- -,--
.
- - -.
. ::i t
-- -
- 1- - ±
..--.
- --..
-
- - - -
-. - : .
---- ---
.---
.. r -
==
- .- -
:
: - :
L
T I:*
T:
il:: :::i:
- ji -
- :
:
. :: r -: -
-
H
:
.- -
:L iii : :
e --- - - -
L -
- - i
: : :4. t ::.
1t .
: T
8
7
6
5
4-
3
2
1.
.9_
8
.7.-.
.6
.5
.4 -
.3
.2
1 -
.09
.08
.07
.06
.05
.04
.02
------ -L--
H -
- ----, ---.
= - : :
: : :
1 H
:: i: ::. : :. .: :
::
-
L ::T:j
- --.--
- i::
-
-
- --
-_ .
.
:
s.:. -.. T -1
H .
- . I
L----.-:- :
.:
- :i -:
.-
T L I.
.: -
:- :::. iJ -_ . : :
:::
: :
-E:: : -.
. ::±
±
L: --
.:::::
-
: ::
..-- -.---
* - -1-. - - - -
$--------. -.
---t-. ----.-.
_.T . - -
ii
1:1
V L
= 10 1
::::
::
- ---
L
::
-
I
:-.
.- -
- --____
--___
: I :_ : - - - --
- --- -- - - - - -
1 i
-
.
__ _ __._ ._i-
-
----- . .
: :::_:.
-.
- --
--------
L_
H
H iP
i : - -
j :
- -- -
- t--- - -
Ai
-------
:i.:..
- - TIII
4
i:::
--- --..-----
-
-
-
I
- ;- - -- -- -. -.
9
8
7
1
9--
.8 -
.7 --
6
5 :_-
.4 E4:
0:
1-4 -- - - -
.1 -I-
U
4 J- - - -
a,
0
o
cJ__
_ _ I
-
-
- __ i _ I - -
1igure A2
Plotted Data Phase I @ 24 hr.
LogConcentration vs. % Survival
__ __
---r -
I - -
I
: i ::.t:i
- :__ -
- -- - __ -
- : :I
- - - - - - _ j -
- - - -
I : j - - -
I
t: : :
-
- - -
L :: -.r - -.
- - - -
:t: -.
::::::::
- -
::
.06 riiil
-- -- --
______ LCc = .06
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 TO
Pcvcent Survival
- _i -
9
.08
.07.
.06
: i1
80 9O _1OU
-------
Percent Survival
A-3
:t: : .:
::
L . :: . .
: .::::1 . . .
. .
Figure A3
Plotted Data Phase II @ 12 hr.
LogConcentration vs. % Survival
ii
-
1 ..
- --+-- - -
.
.
I
-r -
8 ________________
7 ________
6 _________ ________
5 _________ ________
3 ___________________
2.
I ,. - . __________ __________
.9 _____ _____
.8 ____________
.7. _____________
.6. ________
.5 ______________
. + _____________
.03 t- -
.07 L._..H
.06.
i : :
-
I _____
E -
:
I
° :: :::: .
L:
: . J -
.. 1:: ::1 4.. . . - f.::
. .
-
___
r I &
-- ti- -_ t- --
:..t. . . J: .
- H - - -!T JET - ti:
: t -.
- - .
:iiij..
-____
..
- _ --+--
I .
.1
.
- .-. . r
, . 1
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 jOO
-------
Figure A4
4.
0 10 20 30 70 80 00
PcLccnt Survival
A4
:.:T
4
. - S.
.
.,:
Plotted Data. Phase II @ 24 hr.
LogConcentration vs. % Survival
1
. - - .
9 [ _ S 5 - i:
- . . . - 1
8 - ___ ____
7 _____________
5 __________ ___________
5 _________________________ ___________ __________
3 ______________________ ______________________
1. _________
.9
.8
.7 ________ _____
.6
I±E ±± -EI-tI
-- -
:
= -
.
L
- .1-i ..
. . . I
I
I -
- -.5--. 5. - - I.--
I . I
- H -
---- -
5.
S
-
-
-
.
r--
. 5-
S
0
c___,_____________
o
0. .. -
L it
- __ ---____
- - - - - -
.:.J .z .- . .
---55-. 5.. .5 5 S
------ - . . - .
. - __ iI_1i_iiii±i -____
- - -1 - - - - - -
. .:4 .:.... . .
-5 T - - - -1
.---- - -- ---- -- - -- .. 4
. . .. 4
S
. - - .5--.,. .5.----- --
...
.H..
E I1i___
.0
.07 =
.c
.0
- TT. - . :
- .
.03 -
.02
-------
Percent Survival
A- 5
ri. :
: : - -i
- I ,
.--- -. +-l
1 L. ::
. t-
E i: : :r!i: f
Plotted Data Phase II @ 48 hr.
LogConcentration vs. % Survival
: J _ T L T::E
_: :: : :_:I:t_t::- -
- -- : : T-L - _
-- TL
: -
. i
. -;. - -.
E T t i iI
t::;-_ ::
-+--- ---p - -
-- - .+- -r---------
- - .
-
-f-H- H±
.
:4 a ::. :: _____
.-- - -- 4----- - .-:-.
. -- -r - -
7
6
5
4
3 -.
2..
.9
.5. ---
.6
.5-
.4
.3
,1
.09.
.08
.07
.06
.05
L 1
---
. i
+I
. .
t
1rn -
Hi
- -
-
----- -- -- -H--
-. -.1
..,-,.-. . -
- r
j I
. -
.-
it____
--
t : :
i--: - ._ --.:
iI
-
.- : :-.- r:
tt_
E
i :- i.
L ? i
:
- - . - --
--
4 : t- - L .:
-:T;: :- : ii : :- .. :
±; E E E J
::
:: -:-Li-j - - -t-.
-
- i - . f:: ----- I-
.,- :. ::,;: T.:: : T- - - - L.
-1-- .-- .- - ---4- -- - - -f- -- . - -t- --- - -- - - - -
4 :..t : -
- ---- +- ..- 4i
o _ t ___ =
- - - -I f ff i - - -
- - --- -k- - . - - - - - - _
- - - - - I - -
-_____ - - T 1 - - -- -
: ±: ± : : z:Ji:;T . 4 . :.
- --- -i - --- -- t- -- - - - - t=- _____
- - IF = i- _: - .
:- - - : t
- -; -- --. V-. .4 - - V - - - -
-
;V: ::::1:L :j :; ::.i : -: - V .:: t::: - V
- j
I - --
.04
.03
.02
- - -.
tittV
- 44V
- *V _V VV
. O1 1
0 10 50
- r
60
4±
70 80 90 100
-------
Percent Survival
.- . -- 4-
--- - - -..-- -..--.-- 1
Plotted Data Phase II
@ 72 & 96 hr.
LogConcentration vs. % Survival
L
t--- _ __ _____ .
,
.j - jr ::
:L: .:
i
:.:.: 4
;: :
::
7
r)
5
4
3
2.. .
it.--
.9
.8.
.7
.5
3.
2
.1
.c .
.O1
06
H
.
.
--
- .
:j L
-
- -
± {u1 Th_
H-
:
.O
.04
- - :.:
- . .; ..: .::.: .: .
.03
- -- --
.
Tim 1 I -
-10 20 30 40 50 6070 80 90 100
------- |