PRELIMINARY ECOLOGICAL EVALUATION OF
SURFACE WATER DRAINAGES AT THE
CHEMFAX SUPERFUND SITE
GULFPORT, MISSISSIPPI
prepared for
WASTE MANAGEMENT DIVISION
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
ATLANTA, GEORGIA
prepared by
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
ATHENS, GEORGIA
June 1995
Revised December 1995
-------
2
Introduction
This document reports the findings of a preliminary ecological evaluation of surface water
drainages at the Chemfax Superfiind Site, Gulfport, Mississippi. The study was conducted by US
EPA Region IV Environmental Services Division (ESD), Ecological Support Branch (ESB) and
Environmental Services Assistance Team (ESAT) in cooperation with the Environmental
Compliance Branch, January 1995.
This preliminary ecological evaluation was performed to determine the need for a full-scale
Ecological Risk Assessment. The evaluation was based on toxicity tests conducted on surface
water and sediment samples collected both on and off-site, supported by in-situ water chemistry
measurements and chemical analyses conducted on portions of the same water and sediment
samples. Chemical, physical, and toxicological samples and data were collected simultaneously at
each station to provide complementary supporting data to aid in interpretation of the test results.
Objectives of this study were to evaluate the impact of previous activities at the Chemfax site on
the aquatic environment in and around the site and to determine if potentially toxic materials were
being transported off-site. The primary chemicals of concern were polynuclear aromatic
hydrocarbons (PAH's), various organic solvents, organic resins, and possibly some phenolic
compounds (USEPA 1994a).
Site Description
Chemfax occupies 11 acres and is located in an industrial park area. Surface waters that have
historically received effluent and/or surface water run-off from the Chemfax facility include two
man-made holding ponds and a number of intermittent surface water drainage ditches. At the
time of this study, Chemfax held an NPDES permit to release effluent into a surface water
drainage ditch that originates on-site. Their effluent entered the drainage ditch at a location just
downstream of the lower holding pond (Figure 1). Most of the surface water leaving the site,
including the permitted effluent, flows in a north or northeast direction, draining into the Bernard
Bayou.
Selection of Sampling Sites
Following a ground-truth survey and reconnaissance of the Chemfax site and surrounding areas
conducted on January 18, 1995, seven surface water/sediment sampling stations (Figure 1) were
selected from among 245 stations already established by EPA Region IV (USEPA 1994). Five
sampling stations were located on-site (stations 202, 204, 206, 210, and 217) and two on Bernard
Bayou (stations 223 and 224). One additional sampling station (234) was established on a small
drainage about 2 miles south of the Chemfax site (see map Fig. 1). Station 234 was selected as a
potential reference site. The 8 sampling stations can be described as follows:
-------
Station 202 On-site drainage ditch originating in center of Chemfax site and draining
northward along fence separating inactive and active facilities.
Station 204 On-site drainage ditch originating inside fence encompassing inactive area
and flowing north along entrance road.
Station 206 On-site drainage ditch approximately 60 feet downstream of lower holding
pond.
Station 210 On-site main ditch just before stream enters culvert at County Barn Road.
Station 217 On-site, former spray irrigation pond.
Station 223 Bernard Bayou immediately upstream of Chemfax outfall.
Station 224 Bernard Bayou immediately downstream of Chemfax outfall.
Station 234 Off-site, west side of Three Rivers Road, 0.5 miles south of main entrance
to Chemfax Inc.
Methods
At each sampling station, in-situ water chemistry was measured and a water and sediment sample
taken. At the time of collection, water and sediment samples were split. Portions of each sample
were labeled and packaged for shipment to the appropriate in-house or contract laboratories for
chemical analysis. Another portion of each sample was retained for toxicity testing. Toxicity tests
were conducted in the EPA Region 4 toxicity testing laboratory in Athens, Georgia. Chain-of-
custody was maintained throughout sampling, shipping, and testing.
Water Quality Measurements - In-situ dissolved oxygen (DO), pH, temperature, and conductivity
were measured using a calibrated Hydrolab® H20 Multiprobe. Alkalinity, hardness, and turbidity
were determined later (within 72 hrs.) in the laboratory using EPA approved methods (APHA
1992).
Water and Sediment Sampling - was conducted according to EPA standard operating procedures
(USEPA 1991). At the time of collection, each sample was split as follows:
Water
2 - 40 ml glass vials with teflon septum (volatile organics)
1 - 1 liter polyethylene bottle (metals)
1 - 500 ml polyethylene bottle (total organic carbon - TOC)
1 - 500 ml polyethylene bottle (turbidity)
-------
4
1 - 4 liter amber glass jug (pesticides/extractable organics)
1 - 4 liter cubitainer (toxicity testing)
Sediment
1 - 2 oz glass jar (volatile organics)
1 - 8 oz glass jar (metals)
1 - 8 oz glass jar (pesticides/extractable organics)
1 - 8 oz. glass jar (TOC)
1 -1 liter glass jar (toxicity testing)
1 - whirl pack (particle size analysis)
Immediately after collection, samples were stored on wet ice.
Toxicity Tests - were conducted according to EPA Region IV Ecological Support Branch
standard operating procedures (USEPA 1993a). Samples were kept at 4° C until toxicity tests
were initiated. Tests on water samples were initiated within 72 hours of sample collection. Tests
on sediment samples were initiated within 6 weeks of sample collection. The following tests were
performed:
Water samples
Ceriodaphnia 7-day Survival/Reproduction Test (SOP XV)
Selenastrum capricomutum 96 hr Growth Test (SOP XX)
Microtox® Basic Test
Sediment samples
Ceriodaphnia 7-day Whole Sediment Test (SOP XV A)
Microtox Basic Test (performed on sediment pore water)
Results
Water and Sediment - The results of in-situ water measurements (supplemented by laboratory
determinations of water alkalinity, hardness, turbidity, TOC), are summarized in Table 1. Other
water and sediment chemistry results are summarized in Tables 4 and 5.
Toxicity Tests - The results of toxicity tests conducted on water and sediment samples are
summarized in Tables 2 and 3 respectively. Copies of laboratory bench sheets for each test are
included in Appendix A.
-------
5
Ceriodaphnia 7-day Survival/Reproduction Test
One water sample (station 217) was clearly toxic to Ceriodaphnia dubia, producing a
statistically significant reduction in the number of young produced (Table 2). Three other
samples, 204, 206, and 210 also showed a statistically significant reduction in the number
of young produced but their biological significance is questionable (see Discussion
section). No significant mortality occurred among adult animals in any of the above water
samples.
In contrast, five sediment samples (Table 3) caused a significant reduction in the number
of young produced (samples 202, 204, 210, 217, and 234), and two of those samples (202
and 234) were also acutely toxic to adult Ceriodaphnia.
Selenastrum capricornutum 96 hr Growth Test
One water sample (station 217) significantly inhibited algal growth.
Microtox® Basic Test
None of the surface water samples were toxic (Table 2) to Microtox bacteria. However,
two sediment pore water samples (Table 3) from stations 204 and 206, elicited a toxic
response, producing EC50's of 82.55% and 15.41% respectively. Insufficient pore water
was obtained from sample 202. Therefore, no microtox test was performed on this
sediment sample.
Discussion
Toxicity tests indicate that potentially toxic water and sediment samples were restricted to on-site
sampling locations and to the single off-site location chosen as a potential reference station. No
toxic effects were observed in samples taken from Bernard Bayou.
Because samples collected at the reference station exhibited toxic effects, on-site samples were
statistically compared to laboratory controls (dilute mineral water). Due to the unusually high
number of young produced in the control sample to which the test samples were compared,
several water samples produced an endpoint significantly different from their respective controls
and therefore appeared toxic. This is a case where statistical significance does not necessarily
mean biological significance. Normally, it is preferable to test a site sample against a background
sample. If a background sample can not be obtained, then a reference sample is the next best
choice. In both cases any natural factors (e.g. alkalinity, hardness, pH, non-site-derived toxicity
etc.) that may prevent growth and survival of test organisms in site samples would also be
-------
6
expected to prevent growth and survival of test organisms in the background and/or reference
sample. Comparing test results of site samples against a corresponding background or reference
sample eliminates potential false positives that sometimes result when the test results of site
samples are compared to a laboratory control, which, by design, lacks natural inhibiting or toxic
factors. In the present study, all site samples were compared to a laboratory control.
Consequently, it is possible that false positives were generated in the Ceriodaphnia dubia tests for
water samples 204, 206, and 210 and for sediment samples 204, 210, and 217. Eventhough these
stations are marked as statistically significant in Tables 2 and 3, these test results were not
considered biologically significant (i.e. samples were not toxic to Ceriodaphnia) because of the
high number of ydiing produced and the lack of adult mortality.
Disregarding the false positives, the only surface water sample that appeared to have a toxic affect
on test organisms was from the irrigation pond (station 217). The pond appears to be isolated, it
does not connect with the drainage from which the other on-site samples were collected.
However, water from the pond significantly reduced the number of young produced in the
Ceriodaphnia dubia test and it inhibited the growth of Selenastrum capricomutum in the algal
test. However the source of the toxicity remains a mystery. Chemical analyses did not detect any
identifiable site-derived COC's in the water sample from station 217. Analysis did detect 17
unidentified compounds and phytol. Phytol is a breakdown product of chlorophyll. It is likely
that a chemical had been added to the pond to control a phytoplankton "bloom," resulting in a
residual of phytol and unidentifiable breakdown products that still inhibit algal growth and depress
production of young in Ceriodaphnia. In any case, the toxicity at this sampling location does not
appear to be a result of site-derived COC's.
Results of water chemistry from the remaining stations revealed a few elevated metals
concentrations. Copper exceeded the Region IV Water Management Division (WMD) fresh
water quality chronic screening value of 6.54 ng/L (USEPA 1993b) at stations 217 (29 ng/L) and
223 (33ng/L). Zinc exceeded the chronic screening value of 58.91 ng/L at stations 202 (83 ng/L)
and 206 (65 ng/L). However, these exceedences did not appear to cause a notable impact on test
organisms.
Sediment from stations 202, 204, 206, and 234 had a significant toxic effect on test organisms.
Sediment from stations 202 and 234 were acutely toxic to Ceriodaphnia dubia causing 90% adult
mortality (Table 3). Chemical analyses (summarized in Table 5) showed that sediment from
stations 202, 204, and 206 contained measurable levels of extractable organics (especially PAH's),
many of which exceeded Region IV WMD screening values for hazardous waste sites (USEPA
1994b). Station 202 sediments revealed measurable levels of purgeable organics and DDD.
Levels of copper (36 fig/L), lead (31 ng/L), and zinc (210 ng/L) at station 204 exceeded WMD
screening values of 28 ng/L, 21 ng/L, and 68 ng/L, respectively.
Toxicity in sediment collected at stations 204 and 206 was detected only in the pore water (see
Microtox in Table 3). Extractable organics, especially PAH's (naphthalene, acenaphthene,
phenanthrene etc.) and related purgeable organics (e.g. methylphenanthrenes) are the suspected
-------
7
source of toxicity in the Microtox pore water tests. Published Microtox EC50's for naphthalene,
acenaphthene, and phenanthrene are 1990, 293, and 73 ppb, respectively (Kaiser and Palabrica
1991). As shown in Table 5, levels of these chemicals in sediment from stations 204 and 206 (and
202, eventhough there was insufficient pore water for a microtox test) were above the published
EC50's.
Off-site, toxicity was detected in only one sample, sediment from the potential reference station
(234). Chemical analyses indicate that the toxicity at this location does not appear to be related to
site-derived COC's. This station was eliminated as a reference site.
-------
References
8
APHA. 1992. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, 8th Edition.
Greenberg, A.E., L.S. Clesceri, and A. D, Eaton, eds. American Public Health
Association. Washington, D.C. 20005.
Kaiser, Klaus L.E. and Virginia S. Palabrica. 1991. Photobacterium phosphoreum Toxicity Data
Index, Water Poll. Res. J. Canada. Vol. 26, No.3, pp.361-431.
USEPA. 1994a. Draft Work Plan for the In-house Remedial Investigation at the Chemfax, Inc.
Superfund Site Gulfport, Mississippi, December, 1994. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency Region IV, Environmental Services Division, Hazardous Waste Section, Athens,
Georgia and Region IV, Waste Management Division, South Superfund Remedial Branch,
Atlanta, GA.
USEPA. 1994b. Draft Region IV Waste Management Division Sediment Screening Values for
Hazardous Waste Sites (2/16/94 version). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region
IV, Atlanta, GA.
USEPA. 1993a. Region IV Ecological Support Branch Standard Operating Procedures for
Hazardous Waste Site Investigations. Prepared for U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region IV Environmental Services Division, Athens, Georgia. Prepared by
ManTech Environmental Technology, Inc. Environmental Services Assistance Team,
Athens, GA.
USEPA. 1993b. Region IV Waste Management Division Fresh Water Quality Screening Values
for Hazardous Waste Sites (10/13/93 version). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region IV, Atlanta, GA.
USEPA. 1991. Environmental Compliance Branch Standard Operating Procedures and Quality
Assurance Manual. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IV, Environmental
Services Division, Athens, GA.
-------
-------
Table 1. Water quality measurements for streams in the vicinity of Chemfax, Gulfport, Mississippi, January, 1995.
Sampling
Stations
Stream Water Quality data
In-situ measurements
Laboratory determinations
Temperature
(C°)
Dissolved 02
(mg/1)
PH
Conductivity
(^mhos/cm2)
Alkalinity
Hardness
(mg/1 CaCO,)
TOC
(mg/1)
CI-202-SW
17.11
2.91
7.28
277
113
18
8.3
CI-204-SW
17.23
4.75
7.06
297
135
142
7.7
CI-206-SW
14.85
3.26
6.87
215
85
36
15
CI-210-SW
16.08
2.24
6.82
173
63
38
16
CI-217-SW
16.10
11.43
8.65
68.9
42
16
11
CI-223-SW
14.01
7.59
6.60
241
10
32
5.8
CI-224-SW
14.07
7.69
6.58
294
11
38
5.6
CI-234-SW
12.69
7.78
6.41
97.7
28
40
5.5
-------
11
Table 2. Summary of toxicity test results on surface water samples collected in the vicinity of Chemfax, Gulfport, MS. January 1995.
Sample
ID#
Sampling
Location
Ceriodaphnia
7 day Chronic
Algae Growth
(mean cell
density in
fluorometer
units)
Microtox
LC50
(% sample)
Adult
Survival
Average
# Young
CI-202-SW
Main ditch (originating in center of Chemfax site)
10
25.3
4.246
>100
CI-204-SW
Drainage Ditch (along entrance road, originating just
inside fence encompassing inactive area)
9
18.3*
3.825
>100
C1-206-SW
Main Ditch (60' below lower holding pond)
10
189*
4.587
>100
CI-210-SW
Main Ditch (just before stream enters culvert at County
Barn Road)
10
19.9*
4.853
>100
CI-217-SW
On-site, former spray irrigation pond
10
13.1*
0.071*
>100
CI-223-SW
Bernard Bayou (immediately upstream of Chemfax outfall)
10
21.1
4.018
>100
CI-224-SW
Bernard Bayou (immediately downstream of Chemfax
outfall)
10
23.3
4.838
>100
CI-234-SW
Off-site reference station (west side of Three Rivers Rd.;
1/2 mile south of main entrance to Chemfax Inc.
10
22.4
4.160
>100
CONTROL
Dilute Mineral Water (DMW)
10' /102
27.81 / 20.6J
3.422
>100
1 - laboratory control value against which values for samples 202, 204, 206, and 210 were statistically compared. An * indicates a statistically significant difference.
2 - laboratory control value against which values for samples 217, 223,224, and 234 were statistically compared. An * indicates a statistically significant difference.
3 - LC50 values calculated from 5 minute readings.
-------
12
Table 3. Summary of toxicity test results on sediment samples collected in the vicinity of Chemfax Inc., Gulfport, MS. January, 1995.
Sample
ID#
Sampling
Location
Ceriodaphnia
7 day Chronic'
Microtox
LC50'
(%Sample)
Adult
Survival
Average
# Young
CI-202-SD
Drainage Ditch (originating in center of Chemfax site)
1*
2*
Insufficient pore
water
CI-204-SD
Drainage Ditch (along entrance road; originating just inside
fence encompassing inactive area)
10
18.4*
82.55
CI-206-SD
Main Ditch (60' below lower holding pond)
10
23.6
15.41
CI-210-SD
Main Ditch (just upstream of culvert at County Barn Road)
9
19.7*
>100
CI-217-SD
On-site, former spray irrigation pond
10
20.1*
>100
C1-223-SD
Bernard Bayou (immediately upstream of Chemfax outfall)
9
24.9
>100
CI-224-SD
Bernard Bayou (immediately downstream of Chemfax
outfall)
10
28.5
>100
CI-234-SD
Off-site reference station (west side of Three Rivers Rd.; 1/2
mile south of main entrance to Chemfax)
1*
2*
>100
CONTROL
Dilute Mineral Water (DMW)
10
24.2
>100
1 - test completed in 6 days.
2 - LCSO values calculated from 5 minute readings.
* - indicates the value is significantly different from the value for the laboratory control (at p=.05)
-------
Table 4. Summary of chemical analysis of surface water samples collected in the vicinity of Chemfax Inc.,
Gulfport Mississippi. January 1995.
ANALYSIS
PURGEABLE ORGANICS UG/L
STATIONS
202-SW
204-SW
206-SW
210-SW
217-SW
223-SW
224-SW
234-SW
U
U
U
u
U
U
U
U
EXTRACT ABLE ORGAN1CS UG/L
202-SW
204-SW
206-SW
210-SW
217-SW
223-SW
224-SW
234-SW
U
U
U
u
U
U
U
U
MISC. EXTRACT ABLE ORGANICS
UG/L
202-SW
204-SW
206-SW
210-SW
217-SW
223-SW
224-SW
234-SW
METHYLNAPHTHALENE
26 UNIDENTIFIED COMPOUNDS
5 UNIDENTIFIED COMPOUNDS
14 UNIDENTIFIED COMPOUNDS
12 UNIDENTIFIED COMPOUNDS
PHYTOL
17 UNIDENTIFIED COMPOUNDS
3000JN
100000J
901
300J
200J
2QJN
6000J
PESTICIDES / PCB i UG/L
202-SW
204-SW
206-SW
210-SW
217-SW
223-SW
224-SW
234-SW
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
METALS UG/L
202-SW
204-SW
206-SW
210-SW
217-SW
223-SW
224-SW
234-SW
ARSENIC
CHROMIUM
COPPER
LEAD
NICKEL
ZINC
4
83
37
6S
3J
33
29
3
34
33
10J
5
39
7
26)
38
J - ESTIMATED VALUE
IN - ESTIMATED VALUE \ PRESUMPTIVE EVIDENCE OF PRESENCE
U - MATERIAL WAS ANALYZED FOR BUT NOT DETECTED
-------
Table S. Summary of chemical analysis of sediment samples collected in the vicinity of Chemfax Inc.,
14
ANALYSIS
STATIONS
PURGEABLE ORGANICS UG/KG
202-SD
204-SD
206-SD
210-SD
217-SD
223-SD
224-SD
234-SD
TOLUENE
31
ETHYL BENZENE
13J
TOTAL XYLENES
45
PINENE
50JN
CAMPHENE
2QJN
PETROLEUM PRODUCT
N
Jt UNIDENTIFIED COMPOUNDS
400J
EXTRACT ABLE ORGANICS UG/KG
202-SD
204-SD
206-SD
210-SD
217-SD
223-SD
224-SD
234-SD
NAPTHALENE
1600
800
180J
49J
2-METHYLNAPHTHALENE
6900
16000
540
ACENAPHTHENE
330J
2800
160J
DIBENZOFURAN
690
FLUORENE
2400
PHENANTHRENE
1200
10000
1100
52J
ANTHRACENE
210J
FLUORANTHENE
950
420J
PYRENE
460
2200
1200
77J
BENZO (A) ANTHRACENE
87J
240J
CHRYSENE
200J
440J
360J
ETHYLNAPHTHALENE
9000JN
DIMETHY! NAPHTHALENE (5 ISOMERS)
50000JN
METHYLETHYLN APHTH ALENE
9000J N
TRIMETHYLNAPHTHALENE (4 ISOMERS)
30000JN
METHYLANTHRACENE (2 ISOMERS)
20000JN
METHYLPHENANTHRENE (2 ISOMERS)
10000JN
15 UNIDENTIFIED COMPOUNDS
200000J
METHYLPHENANTMIENE (3 ISOMERS)
4000JN
DIMETHYLPHENANTHRENE
2000JN
METHYLPYRENE
1000JN
24 UNIDENTIFIED COMPOUNDS
50000J
CARYOPHYLLENE
200JN
TETRAMETHYLPHENANTHRENE
2000JN
13 UNIDENTIFIED COMPOUNDS
10000J
4 UNIDENTIFIED COMPOUNDS
3000J
PESTICIDES /PCB'» UG/KG
202-SD
204-SD
206-SD
210-SD
217-SD
223-SD
224-SD
234-SD
ALDRIN
~ 4
1.7JN
4 , 4 -DDD (P , P' -DDD)
14
4.4J
METALS MG/KG
202-SD
204-SD
206-SD
210-SD
217-SD
223-SD
224-SD
234-SD
ARSENIC
2.SJ
5.9
3.9
CHROMIUM
18
1$
5.1
3.3
6.1
8.5
COPPER
19
36
13
16
13
21
11
8.9
LEAD
13
31
8.5
4.7
5.9
3.4
4.7
7.5
NICKEL
3.4J
6.7J
2.6J
3.9)
ZINC
46
210
21
21
9.4
8.9
10
7.8
J - ESTIMATED VALUE
JN - ESTIMATED VALUE \ PRESUMPTIVE EVIDENCE OF PRESENCE
N - PRESUMPTIVE EVIDENCE OF PRESENCE
-------
APPENDIX A
Toxicity Test Bench Sheets
-------
C^o-V - SoU
CitatfAV
Fi}.o»cs
Aiinlvtl: J. (i-LtjUUi Ki. uk/rtcly
Suiplt i
u4/ti •.
I C*Bt«lr*ll«*
P*X
ktfUtut
nz
It
huakir
•r V»u»|
ftuahir •(
f itnl«U| ¦
A'alit
V»u«l f«r
Atfull
1 (jttdbrvQ.
i
~
>/
~
v>
~
~
~
~
V
~
V
~
~
i
17-'
z
7-i"I 21-
ir
*LH
^!.U
I o
ho
1
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
1
*/
~
~
~
~
v'
~
~
*s
3
t
i
•
*2.
Y
V
JL_
V
*i
^W-
4
~
1
*
<
~
3
1
i
?
a
~
*!
?
?
H
?
74.
«
(f
*
2.
*
Hx
to
ii
I
I
7
TatkJ
'i-5"
,C1
/
IV
T-l
10
'J 11
*
i f.?-
u t-
1
V
~
v/
~
V
~
V
•w>
1/
I
w
1/
IX
~
ff-
f1
3
ST
*4*
v
?
Y
i'
MM
4
V
\S
~
1
v
V
1
J
/o
d
ff
?
?
IO
e\0
<
r~
r
r-
1
•>-
1 o
X..
(rW
7
1 1
7.i»i | 25-
-2-0
¦O
11 I'lS- 1 IVI ^0
•J-3 1 n-t,
1.0/
10
20, \
< ¦ I p finum inn '
a ¦ i «« m < ~
f • «c Rn
w • «r M«uiiriKiuii»f # ¦ »ujt
Figure AV.i tiic:f it. j. Chi jnic Vo.xkiiy .zsi — Cindoccran Summary Data
-------
C-UrV - 5* Is
w-a—k~
SUMMARY DATA >
IndusMSludy: CMcrd-**
Location: M <:
sor xv
ntibioD No. 4
Dale September 10,19JJ
18 of 10
P
XtiL,
DhIc: V/2x[q.
no a J
To-- i
11
~
~
~
~
~
4^"
>
~
~
3
r
r
3
10
11
f
» 1
11-
/3
/V
/V
' 3
fe
ff
io~h
rl ¦ I r-
l.i J
2-7
M
i-k
*-r
T-*
il_
2-V
is
i?
w
zzi
1
V
~
~
V"
V
~
~
V
1
w
~
~ '
~
~
3
fe
w
/(
Je_
_9_
i _a-
H
L>
f
5\
i
1—
V
) X-
*>»
*
i
M
S"
>
t
H
If
'f
-!!C
_a_
'V
J J?
7
TonJ
10
1JO
2-V
^7
7,9 1 M
r?5-
- /.o
2p.i'
•2-3 M-
1
V
w
~
V
~•
~
~
~
J
M
w
M
X
y
x
X
~
M
3
y
*
*
V
;
a,
X
4
~
J
~
M
t
7
1
EZ
TeJtJ
x
*
Y-
V
x
y
—
y
1
X
1.
'
i
J
J
4
1
(
7
TXiJ
1
I
J
4
i
*
7
Trf«J
1
2
)
4
i
«
7
7*10 |
1 1
X • T«l * i^Iim 4m4
• «f An yw»|
•rf • Htmhrr «f 4mi ^v»| M ¦ Ui|« »UiU|
4 • KUJl
Figure XV.4 Short-Term Chi -jnlc Toxicity Test - C!:iJoccran Summary Data
-------
c ^ \
sor xv
•Rttuloa No. 4
Dtlci St|>lcmbtr 10,1993
IB ol 10
SUMMARY DATA
InJmlry/SluJy: Chiminj(( 1v\c. .
Locution: GJf pr»+ (
rtJZ-
Dm(c: i/zofar
/»*5"
Attulysl: M u3
Sfcnpla S
taiJtr
ki|.Uttl t
NtunWir
•f V«u|
Nuafatr il
SurtltU|
A4.U.
f«UA| p
u
~
/»
~
~
r
~"
~
V
..
0
ClDYl-Wvl
i
*/
y/
~
~
6
DMu/
i
J
>
y
a.J
<#
~
U
If
4
V
V*
~
~
~
~
v'
'L
5
7
»P
14
j
if
/t>
V<\
<
1 c
II
1 "J-
>?
IS"
/Y
/f
13}
7
Ttiil
¦L%
fr
18-
i-iT
31
?o
¦?7^
/ 0
101.
1
~
V
v/
yS
~
~
V
0
1
y'
V
V
~ "
V
~-
r
~
~
~
~
0
1
£f
H
~
le
v
F
f
<»
r
~
p
_sL_
~
/
ar
4
V
~
?
V
~
r
i
S
11-
s
_1
«3
<
i?
'1
1
|l-
i3_
it>
/fc
IXO
7
TrfiJ
tU 1 2-fe> 11.3 1 tfc
ID
ZT.3
7.ot\
1
y
V
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
0
1
V
~
~
~
~
H
V
~
~
V/
~
0
3
H
3
2.
I
3
,7
3 If
4
>/
H
3
v'
\S
~
\S
I
V
Y
i
~
~
\c
L
I*-
r
U
HS
i
7
10
i
£,
?
'
9
Teld
«r
ii
I>
»b
—
I'S
/t,r
4
tS.l
Z cip
1
/
v
~
~
~
J
~
_SL
~
*/
~
1
V
~
s/
~
~
5"
t
>/
r
J"
~
~
0
3
H '
r
sr
w
3
3
41-
4
V
v'
It
t
~
~
3
L
/
1
~
V
(#
t
i
-V
ly
4
-7 —
II
ll
-9—
?
?
7«iJ
a*
*-\
xo
3-1
H
IT?
1 <4
1*
10
15-1
1\ D
I
~
~
~
V
~
«<
~
~
—y
V
0^
1
>/
~
~
~
s
s
£)
3
~
f,
r
$
r
-5-
f-
/
4
V
i
~
V
~
~
V>
n
5
fa.
b
$
r
t.
?
F
u
»
k
11
ii
|2«
1
>1
1
s
Ifi
T«*J
•|i*
aj.
*2
£4
ax
*1-
*n
lel
lq
-------
cW-^u3'1-
»r-
SUMMARY DATA
Induslry/Sludy:
SOP xv
nulsloo No. 4
Dtln S*p(BDbcr 10,199}
r*|t: It or 20
pi.K
Location: M;
3^k»c.
Dale
Analyst:
/I oo
fuspt. I
ulftr
HipUtti.
HunWtr
•r y*u«i
NuBkll >1
S«r?liU|
AJuki
(9UA| h1
Ad^U
i a
3 4
.{
•
7 ( » »«
V
i
~
-"v/
~
~
V
~
1 0
-
2
~
~
V*
~
\r
~
~
~
~
~
o
3 -
~
~
~
~
V
*/
J
M—
V
3
3
13
&HU)
4
H
H
f
*1,
V
~
~
J
!°
10
u
?
°i
7
/*
ST
4
7
V
11
it
~
\
%/
IH
/W
n
'/
HI
l.l iJ
'11
PH
af
2\
|o
*k>
•3-7
*l
2-Y
lLOb.\
10
2j0,fe
in
1
V
V
V
~
~
~
~
>/
^v/
0
1
~
V
v' '
~
-*-
~
0
3
~
V
~
~
~
l
I
S
"L
4
V
~
~
~
~
~
~
J
O
I
H
r
5"
¥
H
7.
<¥
V
37
«
U
?
1
16
JO
Ij
1
?
to
7
TXkl
it
/!>
1.4 1 1*1 * M \ \1
¦n-l Uf.' Ii /?(
IO
/J.I
1
V
V
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
6
1
J
V
\/
J
~
~
~
>/
~
~
O
J
H
3
<¥
r
V
.7
3
1/
31
4
1
V
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
i
J
?
~
?
I
T
1
Inl-
1
7
f
/i
'I
L_'"
IZ.
_3_
10^
TXU
7Q
iv
i-i-
11}
i?
¦vi
2-?
:Li i
10
2.M
2.1-4
> i
V
~
~
~
~
J
~
c
1
~
~
~
~
*/
~
~
~
O
3
U
5"
~
~
~
V
~
~
V
19
4
Y"
~
~
~
~
~
V
~
~
/
r>
J
•7-
lo
\S
~
*/
q-
~
~
~
~
ro
«
7
'JO
II
~
~
n
~
~ ¦
~
-%z-
'4
i
T*(U
7^1
at
0
0- ¦
0
1 P
I o
o-
I O
>0
10
&rc 1
-1
~
~
~
V
V
w'
s
~
0
1
V
V
V
~
~
~
~
0
3
k
V
3
r
S"
r
-V
4
~
V
V
~
~
~
~
V
~
~
6
i
,1
f
1
r
t
?
•f
I
vT
t
fi
•
1 «•
) e
1°
11.
9 •
jp
11-
1J
.II
ii
.'/
\ 99,
Trill
A*
i-H
,CV
s-H
>a.
2-0
to
7-Z.14-
ID
l»-4
1
3
4
J
«4
7
t
1.1 iJ | |
i i
! I
/ • T«l wpjibm fcH*
i'Jgure X
# • W«mt«v «f In |*v»|
' nvmin « «••
pw»|
• umi m pimia| 4 ¦ |iUI«
C'\~~n To-:Ic!ty Test — Clacoceran Summary Data
-------
ALCAL TOXICITY TEST
EPA, ESD, TES
AUG. 1990
INDUSTRY/STUDV > C, INITIAL INllOCULUHi ~ /O . CT^ CjJX,f
LOCATIONi ORGANISH2 JUCe a,c—* 4 1 c
o. DH b"
ci- 2,11
CT-2Z3 -5w
C l -Ttf ~J<
c. 1 - -s»
INITIAL
BLANK
INITIAL
READING OF
REP 11
C7.00 OO
O.Ol I
8
. 1 *8
^4-
o .027
O.O 2S"
o .033
0.Q-2-?
6.03*1
O. o t> &
O. oJt
0.07=1
0; M II.
o.ost>
O.Di J
O .3oa
S .10
5.00
o. So?
J.Ti-
M ,fe&
J.Oj
COMMENTS
r e 4 1 (« " 4 J .
ob
-------
(2.*TTH~, )
ALCAL TOXICITY TEST
EPA, ESD, TES
AUG. 1990
INDUSTRY/STUD* « ^*7*- ^~v-'
LOCATION I
DATE COLLECTED 1 Vlfl/^r
INITIAL IHIIOCULUM s 3. t 0 , <^V~v <-*M~ [M Q
ORGANISM: ^ f c^V '¦—
ANALYST:
vJ" • KK ex-iA J r
DATE TEST STARTED» */lf S r
ji-1 tftifrr r (.ifo
>¦* J/3-/9J"
/«V3
SAMPLE
ZD #
INITIAL
BLANK
INITIAL
READING OF
REP /1
96 I1R
BLANK
96 iin
REP /I
READING
96 un
REP 42
READING
96 HR
REP /3
READING
COHHENTS
rzoJ.
u-.
0. ooo
o '
0 .coo
¦L.r°)
1 . VfT
3 n~o
.C » \ 4-f •- * J
*2- 1 3-
O.I9I
o. ni
0 .0 2-12
O, q1£>
0. otv
O.OZj
~V*i C l U C ta.4
v\ rcH if-fJ i>'
^ T~ St ^ v
-------
STUDY: Chemfax Inc.
L0CAT10 Gulfport MS
STARTING DATE/TIM 1/21/95 1100
ENDING DATE/TIME 1/25/95 1100
ANALYST J. Maudsley
RELATIVE ALGAL GROWTH = T - B - IN
WHERE:
B = MEAN CELL DENSITY FOR 9G HOUR BLANK FLASK.
T = MEAN CELL DENSITY FOR TEST FLASK AFTER 96 H.
IN = MEAN INITIAL CELL DENSITY AT START OF TEST
INITIAL CELL DENSITY (IN) = (INITIAL READING REP #1) - (INITIAL BLANK)
SAMPLE
INITIAL
INITIAL
96 HR
96 HR
96 HR
96 HR
INITIAL
MEAN
READING
REP #1
REP #2
REP #3
CELL
CELL
ID#
BLANK
REP #1
BLANK
READING
READING
READING
DENSITY
DENSITY
(CorT)
CONTRO
0.000
0.028
0.000
3.440
3.730
3.180
0.028
3.422
CI202SW
0.011
0.039
0.256
4.540
4.350
4.700
0.028
4.246
CI204SW
0.041
0.068
0.635
4.150
4.510
4.800
0.027
3.825
C1206SW
0.028
0.056
0.565
5.220
5.220
5.100
0.028
4.587
CI210SW
0.045
0.079
0.146
4.950
5.150
5.000
0.034
4.853
CI217SW
0.358
0.412
0.250
0.308
0.410
0.408
0.054
0.071
CI223SW
0.027
0.056
0.270
4.610
4.590
3.750
0.029
4.018
CI224SW
0.025
0.055
0.149
4.950
5.420
4.680
0.030
4.838
CI234SW
0.033
0.061
0.432
4.610
4.240
5.010
0.028
4.160
RELATIVE
RELATIVE
RELATIVE
GROWTH
GROWTH
GROWTH
REP #1
REP #2
REP #3
3.412
3.702
3.152
4.256
4.066
4.416
3.488
3.848
4.138
4.627
4.627
4.507
4.770
4.970
4.820
0.004
0.106
0.104
4.311
4.291
3.451
4.771
5.241
4.501
4.150
3.780
4.550
-------
pi 1 '13
Microlox Daln Shcci
Study:.
C — (-*-/ ^ c-
LocaLion:_ ^ ^ I f'^ ^
Dnlc: // "*•J / ? •*
Analyst: /frig ci J/
Sample
Reading
Time
Cuvette Number
1
2
3
4
5
1 J
Initial
<77
*1
5 minute
* 1
h
n
P-L.
-------
/><>
Microtox Data Sheet
Study:.
Ota
c
Date:
I / Zo (*7 <"
Location:.
X4"t \Cf\*
*
A*5
Analyst:.
J . Aha kAsLs
f
Sample
Cuvette Number
Reading
Time
1
2
3
4 5
Initial
5o
9 /
I
Cf- 22M -Su
5 minute
%o
93
RO
15 minute
sv
S3
^JT
P>
SO
CI -231
Initial
73"
CjO
11
5 minute
? f
57
S3
g>'
*7
IS minute
? >'
81
*b
2*7
rt ruv\
C-l- 20I-SU
Initial
yw
*3
S3
5 minute
if
°to
?/
79
15 minute
°\ »*
11
*2-
13
Wju.
t^-V. k'-R.
Initial
77
nsr
*7
2C,
5 minute
°\ r
°I0
n
sf
81
15 minute
7$
(o!
i'J'
»-f
tjaU*"
Cl-2-Ot-sf)
Initial
1*-
°iO
72
7?
5 minute
H?
no
T2.
27
1"Z~
15 minute
<1W
")•>
sr
3f
/i"
81
p&rt
wu«.
Initial
HI
sv
8S~
9H
S minute
V /
SM
2?
/o
Uci-Zio-sft
I
15 minute
jr
7u
o
M
HIUJ ^
te«
l> 11 •*
«v
-------
Study:.
Microtox Data Sheet
Dale:.
f")
i/to nr
location: Gwl ^ p.
(-
/*i r
Analyst: T yVvcuA^-1^
X
<4
r »+a z
.U
> ^uk l ©4
f
Sample
Cuvcile Number
Reading
Time
1
2
3
4
5
lruyu K
Initial
S*
9>
4°?'
*<7
Sfc 1
ci - ?oH-*D
5 minute
vr
V">
7V
7L
MP 1
p rv» u ftte-s.
15 minute
1?
7 W
il
Initial
«i1
V
*3">
Z 3
15 minute
V?
•7 2-
2-M
p dVl
CI- 217-SD
Initial
1Z.
S>7
V/
5 minute
Ifc.
*1-
11
ts-
*7 2-
5 minute
V-T
j GO
cix-
*7
*\l
15 minute
10
>*-
nx-
e}<-
js«rv~« >-*
Ci- its -J 0
Initial
%>'
**>
5 minute
&?
S'
fl
15 minute
<7 I
<7V
? t
*?Z-
pr> « v«»ckt»-^
Initial
<7?
?o
/
S1
II
ci-Z'i'i -*D
5 minute
y-*-
?:*
* w
11
15 minute
?"
Sb
M
2 .xi«
Initial
*\»
lo
11
1 irl *• t-i-w*.
C t -V »>H -JD
f> «xi fcj —
5 minute
a
7"V
c.r
rr
15 minute
i *)
1H
6> J
S'fc
fl\t> 11
ritM"
«y. i ¦•>
------- |