Findings of Chronic Bioassays at •
Champion International Paper Mill,
Frenchtown, Montana
May 13 - June 12, 1985
by
Del Wayne Ninraol
Jim Lazcrchak1
Denise Link!
Steven Potts2
Mark Kerr3
Iwater Management Division
State Program Management Branch
Water Quality Requirnents Section
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region VIII Denver, Colorado
2Montana Operatons Office
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Helena, Montana
^Environmental Sciences Division
Montana Department of Health and Environmental Sciences
Helena, Montana
-------
DISCLAIMER
This report has been reviewed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
but has not been approved for publication. Mention of trade names or
commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.
i
-------
ABSTRACT
Thirty-day flow-through bioassays were conducted on the button-up stage
of rainbow trout, Salmo gairaneri, using dilutions of waste water from the
Champion International Paper Mill near Frenchtown, Montana. A seven-day
daphnid, Ceriodaphnia dubia, life-cycle test was conducted on a similar series
of dilutions as those used for the trout. In addition, a Ceriodaphnia dubia
static-renewal life-cycle test was conducted on samples of Clark Fork River
water from nine stations above and below Champion (ambient test).
Test dilutions used in the study and endpoints used as indicators of
effects follow. Dilution waters used for each test were from two sources:
(1) Clark Fork River water taken above champion property and (2) unchlorinated
well water. For the trout the percentages of waste for each dilution water
were 2, 1.5, 1.12, 0.64, 0.36, 0.2 and 0 (control) percent. For the C. dubia
test, the series was 4, 2, 1.5, 1.12, 0.64, 0.36, 0.2, and 0 (control)
percent. For the ambient test using C. dubia and river water, samples were
taken daily at each of nine locations, returned to the laboratory unpreserved
and the test organisms transferred daily into the new sample. Endpoints of
effects for the trout was mortality and growth measured two ways: weights and
lengths. Any other indication of effect was noted. For the tests with C.
dubia, mortality and reproduction were used as endpoints.
Mortality of fish in both series of dilution waters and waste was
extremely low and no indications of reduced growth could be attributed to
increased concentrations of Champion's waste water. No abnormal swimming or
feeding behavior, incidences of disease, nor pathology were apparent during or
after the test. No evidence was found to indicate that test dilutions were
chronically toxic to trout.
Using reproduction as an endpoint of effect, the number of young daphnids
produced by each female C. dubia was significantly less in the four percent
waste dilution using Clark Fork River water. Control mortality in the
dilutions of unchlorinated well water was 60 percent indicating
incompatibility with this water.
Ceriodaphnia dubia survived and reproduced in ambient water from nine
locations on the Clark Fork River and no indication of toxicity was found at
any of tne stations. Greatest reproduction was in water taken at Huson, the
station immediately below Champion.
ii
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The assistance of the following individuals is gratefully acknowledged.
Mr. Bruce Binkley of the Operations Division, National Enforcement
investigations Center (NEIC), Denver, Colorado for driving NEIC's mobile
bioassay vehicle to the study site and assisting in the preparation of the
laboratory. Mr. Robert Harp, Chief, Assistance Director of Operations (NEIC)
for the loan of the vehicle. Ms. Maureen Martin of EPA Region VIII
Environmental Services Division for assistance in set-up at the bioassay. Mr.
Daniel potts, Plant Manager of the stone Container Corporation (formerly
Champion International) for his support of the project. Messers Larry Weeks,
Bill Henderson and Dick Kulawinski for assisting in the day-to-day activities
at the study site such as laboratory support, providing water, electrical
power and access to the area. Mr. Tom Pruitt of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
hatchery Creston, Montana for providing the test fish. Finally, Dr. Loren
Bahls, Department of Health and Environmental Sciences for providing
assistance in locating space, transporting samples, making travel
arrangements, contacting managers at the stone Container Corporation and
providing valuable technical assistance. Without his assistance this project
would not have been possible.
iii
-------
CONTENTS
Page
Abstract ii
Acknowledgements iii
Introduction 1
Background of the Study 1
Request for Assistance 2
Consideration of Test Procedure and Conditions ~ 2
Site Description 3
Methods and Materials 3
Procedures 3
Sampling Dates and Parameters 6
Results 9
Clogged Drain System 9
Mortality 9
Growth of Fish 9
Ceriodaphnia Growth and Reproduction in Waste water 13
Ceriodaphnia Growth and Reproduction and Below Outfall_ 13
Analysis of Chemical Constituents 17
Discussion 18
Recommendations 19
Literature Cited 20
Appendices
A. Outline for Chronic Fish Bioassay: Champion international Paper
Mill, Frenchtown, Montana.
B. Means (and Ranges) of Chemical Parameters Measured On-site:
Champion international Waste water Diluted with Unchlorinated Well
Water.
C. Means (and Ranges) of Chemical Parameters Measured in the
Laboratory: Champion International Waste Water Diluted with
Unchlorinated Well Water.
D. Means (and Ranges) of Chemical parameters Measured in the
Laboratory: Champion International Waste Water Diluted with
Unchlorinated Well Water.
-------
E. Means (and Ranges) of Chemical Parameters Measured On-Site:
Champion International Waste Water Diluted with Clark Fork River
Water.
F. Means (and Ranges) of Chemcial Parameters Measured in the
Laboratory: Champion International Waste Water Diluted with Clark
Fork River Water.
G. Means (and Ranges) of Chemical Parameters Measured in the
Laboratory: Champion International Waste Water Diluted with Clark
Fork River Water.
H. Organic Analysis Data Sheet - Champion Waste 5/17/85.
I. Organic Analysis Data Sheet - Champion waste 5/31/85.
J. ICAP Analyses Data Sheets, Champion Waste Water, Well Water, and
Clark Fork River Water, collected on 5/17/85 and 5/31/85.
-------
INTRODUCTION
In a letter dated January 9, 1985, the Regional Administrator of EPA's
Region VIII received a request for assistance from the Department of Health
and Environmental Sciences, State of Montana, for use of a mobile bioassay
facility to conduct a long term test using rainbow trout on treated waste
water from Champion International Paper Mill.
For some time, there had been public concern about water quality in the
lower Clark Fork, River, in particular the long-term impacts from the
discharge of treated waste water from Champion International. The question
was whether Champion waste water had deleterious effects on the early-life
stages of trout inhabiting the Clark Fork River. Results of such a study
would aid in conducting a modified discharge permit originally issued by the
State of Montana in April 1984. Assistance was requested to conduct long-term
chronic bioassays using trout eggs through post hatch.
Background of the Study
The champion international Paper Mill, formerly Hoemer-Waldorf and
recently purchased by the Stone container Corporation, located at Frenchtown,
Montana, began operation in 1957. At startup, mill production of unbleached
kraft pulp totalled 250 tons/day (TPD). Since 1957, mill expansions have
occured in 1960, 1966, 1970, and 1976; with the current production, a maximum
of 2005 TPD unbleached kraft pulp and liner board. At present, Champion waste
water receives the equivalent of secondary treatment (aeration) followed by a
minimum of 10 days retention. An intricate and convoluted series of retention
ponds is shown by diagram in Figure I. Three non-chloro-phenolic biocides are
used to treat the paper machine stock systems and the minimum amount of
dilution the waste water would receive in the Clark Fork River is 200 parts
river water to 1 part waste water. A more detailed summary concerning issues
in the Clark Fork follows.
According to the publication, Montana Water Quality 1984, the two largest
dischargers to the lower Clark Fork are the City of Missoula and Champion
International. Both have been asked to expand their self-monitoring programs
to provide data needed by the state to assess water quality impacts. A
modified permit, issued in April 1984, allowed Champion to increase its yearly
load of suspended solids to the river and to discharge year-round, but only
when flows in the river exceed 1,900 cubic feet per second (cfs). Nutrients,
heavy metals and suspended solids, expecially organic solids had been issues
raised. Concern has been expressed about Champion and the City of Missoula as
point sources of nitrogen and phosphorus which may have stimulated undesirable
algal growth in downstream reserviors and in Lake pend Oreille, Idaho. Heavy
metals which originate upstream in the Butte mining district, may have been
mobilized by lowered dissolved oxygen and lower pH of bottom waters
downstream, thereby making them more toxic to fish and aquatic life.
1
-------
-------
Request for Assistance
Therefore, the request from the State of Montana involved testing the
long term effects of wastewater using two options:
1. a 30-day test from fertilized trout eggs to hatch, or
2. a 60-day test from the eyed-egg stage of a trout through 30 days of
growth.
The first option has the advantage of testing at what was believed to be the
most sensitive stage of embryological development, the period immediately
after fertilization. The second option allowed for measurement of rate of
growth and survival, two sensitive endpoints. Because the American Society
for Testing and Materials procedure (ASTM, 1985) recommended the eggs should
be incubated at 10°C and at extremely low light intensity, the development
of eggs using either option was extremely lengthy due to the low temperature.
EPA responded to the request for assistance with a workplan outlining an
optional approach to address the concerns in the letter of request (Appendix
A).
Considerations of Test procedure and Conditions
The Montana Department of Health and Environmental Sciences requested
that tests be conducted on the most sensitive stages of fish inhabiting the
Clark Fork River. Specifically, tests were requested using the egg stage of
the rainbow trout life cycle. Wastes from the pulp mill lagoon system were to
be mixed with dilution water from the Clark Fork River and pumped through a
"flow-through" dilution system to test chambers containing trout eggs.
However, information received from Dr. C.E. Warren at Oregan State
University (personal Communication 2-4-85) indicated that the most sensitive
stage of a salmonid species exposed to stable unbleached kraft pulp mill
waste, was the period from button-up stage to the juvenile stage in the life
cycle. Therefore, EPA Region VIII personnel proposed the following tests:
(1) rainbow trout exposed to dilutions of waste from the button-up stage
through 30 days, and (2) a seven-day Ceriodaphnia dubia life cycle test,
exposed to a series of waste dilutions similar to those used in the studies
with trout.
2
-------
In addition to the test above, a seven-day Ceriodaphnia life cycle test
was used to determine ambient toxic conditions in the Clark Fork River at nine
sites above and below Champion International. Each day from May 10 to 16, a
grab sample of water from the CLark Fork was transported to the study site at
Champion International to be used in the testing.
Site Discription
The Champion International Paper Mill is located about five miles
northwest of Missoula, Montana near Frenchtown. The mill and waste ponds are
located on the left side of the river (north bank) with some treatment ponds
close enough to the river to seep wastes into the river. The mobile
laboratory was located on Champion1s property next to the River at a power
source close to ponds 1A and 2 (Figure 1). Treated waste water was hauled
(daily) to the mobile laboratory and mixed with Clark Fork River water for one
series of dilutions. A separate set of dilutions was obtained by mixing the
waste with unchlorinated well water from wells adjacent to the mobile
laboratory.
METHODS AND MATERIALS
Procedures
The following procedures were used as guidance for conducting the test
with rainbow trout: ASTM, 1985; Birge and Black, 1981; and Peltier and Weber,
1985. Larval rainbow trout, Salmo gairdneri, were obtained from the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife hatchery, Creston, Montana on May 3, 1985 and transported to the
mobile laboratory. They were acclimated to and held in unchlorinated well
water until testing began on May 13, 1985. During this period of ten days the
fish began to actively feed on trout chow and from this stage through the 30
days of testing they were fed a rate of 4% diet (dry weight/fish weight/day)
as suggested in the ASTM, draft No. 8 document. Test temperature was 12 + 1.5
C throughout the test period and test dates, May 13 - June 12, 1985. Forty
fish were used in each aquarium, resulting in 80 fish per waste dilution.
We used the following methods to test Ceriodaphnia dubia: Mount and
Norberg 1984; Horning and Weber 1985; and Hamilton 1984. To begin a test,
twelve-hour-old daphnids, one per test container and ten replicates per
dilution of Champion International waste water or ambient site water from the
Clark Fork River, were used. Each day, for seven consecutive days, the
daphnids were transferred into renewed test solutions. On day four, the
females began to produced young and within three days and two additional
broods, about 30 + daphnids/female daphnid in "control" water are produced.
Their diet consisted of a mixture of dried cereal leaves, trout chow and
bakers' yeast.
3
-------
For the fish tests, dilutions of Champion's waste water were
predetermined to provide the following series using Clark Fork River as
dilution: 4/200; 3/200; 2.24/200; 1.28/200; 0.72/200; 0.4/200; and 0/200
(control). A second series of identical dilutions were also tested using
unchlorinated well water. This latter series was tested because of the
possibility of metals in Clark Fork River water confounding the results using
the Champion waste. The result was 'a median dilution between 1/200 and
0.72/200 diluter setting in both series of dilutions. In terms of percentages
of waste to dilution water, the.series were 2, 1.5, 1.12, 0.64, 0.36, 0.2, and
0 (control) percent.
For the cerioaaphnia.tests, the percentages of waste using either the
Clark Fork River water or unchlorinated well water were 4, 2, 1.5, 1.12, 0.64,
0.36, 0.2 and 0 (control) percent.
To test ambient conditions in the Clark Fork River with Ceriodaphnia,
each day from May 10 to 16, grab samples of water from nine sites on the Clark
Fork River were transported to the study site at Champion1s. These sites were
above and below the plant and the locations are listed in Table 1. Each day
test animals were transferred to new solutions (static renewal) and events
such as mortality or reproduction were noted and recorded.
4
-------
Table 1„ Locations of Sampling Stations on the Clark Fork River, (CFR)
May 10-16, 1985.
Station Number
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Description
CFR Below Milltown Dam
CFR Above Missoula WWTP
CFR Harper Bridge
CFR At Huson (below Champion)
CFR At superior
CFR Above Flathead confluence
CFR Thompson Falls
CFR Below Thompson Falls
CFR Below Noxon Dam
5
-------
Sampling Dates and parameters
Samples were collected from each of 14 aquaria according to the schedule
in Table 2. In some instances, samples were taken from a single replicate.
All sample collection, handling and preservation followed the guidelines
established in the following: EPA, 1983; Peltier and Weber, 1985.
Information regarding sample size, container, perservative and special
handling for various parameters to be analyzed is summarized in Table 3.
6
-------
Table 2. Sample parameters and Frequency Champion International Paper Mill,
Frenchtown, Montana
Analysis
D.O.
Temp.
Hardness
Alkalinity
pH
Conductivity or TDS
NH3-N
Dissolvent Organic Carbon
Total Organic Carbon
BOD
Color
Chlorides
Sulfide
ICAP Metals
Organic Priority Pollutants
Frequency
Daily
Continuous
Daily
Daily
Daily
Weekly
Daily
Weekly
Weekly
Weekly
Weekly
Daily & Weekly
Weekly
6 Samples
6 Samples
Lab Location
Mobile Lab
Mobile Lab
State
Mobile Lab
Mobile Lab
State
Mobile Bioassay
State
State
State
State
State
State
State
Denver-EPA
Denver-EPA
7
-------
Table 3
Sample Requirements for Chemical Samples Sent to the state and EPA Laboratories
Chemical
Samples Size Container
Preservative
NH3-N, Total
NO3-N
no2-n
1 liter
Cubitainer
2ml cone H2SO4
TDS, Conductivity and 1 liter
Hardness
Cubitainer
Chilled
Priority pollutant
Organics
1 quart
Glass Jar
Chilled
ICAP-Metals
1 quart
Cubitainer
5ml conc. HNO3
8
-------
RESULTS
Clogged Drain System
One unfortunate event interrupted an otherwise problem-free study at
Champion. On day 12, a drain system evacuating test water from each of the
test aquaria, became clogged. As a result, the test dilutions delivered to
aquaria, were not drained. The aquaria finally filled and overflowed into the
temperature control bath. As this process was occurring, test fish escaped
into the bath, and eventually mixed with fish from other aquaria.
Consequently, certain data could not be used in the analyses because of
increased numbers of fish in two aquaria while most had reduced numbers of
fish. As a result, aquaria with the 0.2 percentage wastewater dilutions were
not used in the analysis of data.
Mortality
Mortality during the tests was extremely low in both river and well water
dilutions. Using a base of 80 fish per dilution, the percentage of deaths was
10% or less in the dilutions of river water; 8.75% or less in the well water
dilutions. No fish died in the last nine days in the well water and only one
died in the last ten days in the river water dilutions. Approximately half of
the fish that died in the first 20 days of the test were recorded as
"pinheads" or non-feeding larvae.
Growth of Fish
Means of condition coefficients, determined by dividing the wet weight by
the (length)3, are shown in Table 4. Although significant differences in
coefficients occurred among several test groups and controls (0.0), there was
no relationship between coefficients and dilution of waste water. Based on
condition coefficients, significant differences occurred between control and
test fish in the 1.12 and 1.5 percent waste water diluted with river water.
Also, in waste water diluted with well water, fish were smaller in the 0.64
and 1.5 percent. We note that some fish exposed to dilutions of river water
appeared to be healthier (based on condition coefficients) than those in well
water; however, the grand average of the two test regimes (all groups in river
water vs. those in well water) were the same, i.e. 165.9 mg for river water
and 165.8 my for well water.
9
-------
Means and 95 percent confidence limits of wet weights of fish are shown
in Table 5. These data are provided to address the varying number of fish in
a tank with regard to their growth due to overcrowding and competition for
food, or effects of behavior because of in an uneven number of fish per tank.
Inspection of wet weights again did not show a dose-response effect with
increased concentration of Champion waste water, although fish in dilutions of
riverwater of 0.36, 0.64, 1.12 and 1.5 weighed significantly less than
controls, interestingly the heaviest fish were the controls in river water,
the next heaviest were fish in the 2.0 percent waste water/river dilution. VJe
also noted that the lowest number (33) of fish in any test dilution (2.0
percent of wastewater/river; 1.12 percent dilution wastewater/well), were
heavier than those in other dilutions, but these differences were not
significant. The grand average of mean weights of all fish in the river water
dilutions were 15 percent greater than those in dilutions of well water
suggesting that some factor in the well water was not compatible with
successful weight gain of the fish.
10
-------
Table 4
Means (x) and 95% Confidence intervals of Condition Coefficients of Rainbow
Trout, Tested in Various Dilutions of Champion International Waste Water.
RIVER WATER
Percentage
Means (x)
95% Confidence
Number of
Waste water
Condition
Interval
Fish Per
Dilution
Coefficient
Dilution
0.0
173.7
166.9-180.5
56
0.2
182.7
176.8-188.72
85
0.36
164.4
156.7-172.2
66
0.64
160.0
152.5-167.4
58
1.12
159.0
154.4-163.63
76
1.5
148.3
142.6-154.13
48
2.0
173.2
168.8-177.6
33
WELL WATER
0.0
164.0
158.2-169.7
49
0.2
146.9
143.7-150.02
111
0.36
172.2
166.9-177.5
70
0.64
175.9
171.9-179.93
74
1.12
175.0
168.5-181.5
33
1.5
159.3
150.3-168.33
39
2.0
167.6
162.8-172.3
49
1 Conuition coefficients were calculated by dividing the wet weights of each
fish alive at the end of the study by the (length)3, multiplied times
104. This procedure provided a measure of the "health"or"plumpness" of the
fish expressed as whole numbers.
2 Excluded from analysis due to co-mingling of fish; data used in the
analysis are from the replicates showing number of fish as > 40 each
3 Significantly different from control fish based on 95% confidence limits.
11
-------
Table 5
Means (x) and 95% Confidence intervals of Wet Weights of Rainbow Trout, Tested
in Various Dilutions of Champion international Waste Water.
Percentage
Means (x)
95% Confidence
Number of
Waste Water
Wet
Interval
Fish Per
Dilution
Weiqhts (ma)
Dilution
RIVER WATER
0.0
909.7
828.7-990.7
0.2
837.6
775.6-899.61
66
0.36
742.0
678.9-805.52
0.54
666 .6
611.2-722.02
58
1.12
732.6
678.7-787.02
76
1.5
697 .3
649.1-745.52
48
2.0
900.2
815.3-985.1
33
WELL WATER
0.0
675.9
645.5-706.4
49
0.2
597.8
567.2-628.41
111
0.36
708.0
651.6-764.4
70
0.54
673.6
618.1-729.1
74
1.12
724.0
645.2-802.8
33
1.5
697.1
634.0-760.2
39
2.0
612.7
555.5-669.9
49
1. Excluded from analysis due to co-mingling of fish; data shown are from the
replicates showing total number of fish as > 40 eacii.
2. Significantly different from control fish based on 95% confidence limits.
12
-------
Ceriodaphnia Growth and Reproduction in Waste water
Tests with Ceriodaphnia (chronic seven-day static renewal) using waste
water and dilutions of well water were not considered acceptaule for
analysis. Control mortality was 60% in this study, indicating something in
the test dilution (well) water affected the survival of daphnids.
Test with the daphnids and wastewater diluted with Clark Fork River water
were completed successfully and these data are shown in Table 6. Using the
95% confidence intervals to indicate differences, the number of neonates
produced per female was significantly lower in the 4% (8/200) dilution than in
controls. We also noted that reproductive success of the 4% dilution-group of
daphnids was significantly less than in the 0.2, 0.36, 1.12, 1.5, dilutions as
well.
Ceriodaphnia Growth and Reproduction, Above and Below Outfall
Using ambient water from the Clark Fork River sampling stations above and
below Champion's outfall as test water, Ceriodaphnia survived and reproduced
in water from all locations (Table 7). Survival was 90% and above, and
reproduction in water from all stations equalled or exceeded the controls
(Table 3). Stations 10, 11, and 12 were considered as "controls" because they
were upstream of Champion1s outfall. Stations 14 through 18 were considered
as "test" stations because they are below Chanpion. Interestingly, there were
no statistical differences among any stations with respect to survival (all
greater than 90%), or reproduction (Table 7), except that station 13 (Iiuson
below Champion), reproduction (measured as number of young per female) was
significantly greater than all others (Table 7). This difference was
significant using data from the 3rd, 4th, or 5th brood releases in the
calculations. For example, almost 40 neonates per female were produced on day
7 in water from Huson; whereas between 30 to 34 were produced, on the average,
at the other eight stations.
13
-------
Table 6
Means(x), Standard Deviations (S.D.) and Confidence Intervals of Ceriodaphnia
Reproduction, Tested in Various Dilutions of Champion International Waste
water Diluted with Clark Fork River Water
Percentage
Number
Mean
95% Confidence
Waste water
of
Number of
Interval
Dilution
Survivors
Neonates
Produced
0.0
8
10.6
6.5-14.7
0.2
9
9.9
7.2-12.6
0.36
9
10.9
5.8-16.0
0.64
9
6.6
4.2- 9.0
1.12
9
12.2
7.2-17.2
1.5
10
10.1
6.6-13.6
2.0
10
9.9
4.9-14.9
4.0
9
3.41
1.0- 5.8
1. Significantly different from controls (0.0) at p 0.05.
14
-------
Table 7
Average number (x) of Neonates Produced Per Female Ceriodaphnia in Seven
Consecutive Daily Samples of Clark Fork River VJater Taken FromNine stations.
Station Description Number Mean 95% Confidence
of Number of
Surviors Neonates
Produced Interval
Data from Total of Five Broods -
10
CFR Below Milltown Dam
10
30.6
26.2-35.0
11
CFR Above Missolua WWTP
10
30.0
23.4-31.6
12
CFR Harper Bridge
9
30.6
27.8-33.4
13
CFR At Huson (below Champion)
10
39.9
35.9-43.9l
14
CFR At Superior
9
32.1
30.3-33.9
15
CFR Above Flathead confl.
9
33.8
28.9-38.7
16
CFR Thompson Falls
9
30.2
27.5-32.9
17
CFR Below Thompson Falls
10
30.6
28.1-33.1
18
CFR Below Noxon Dam
10
31.3
28.7-33.9
- Data from Total of Four Broods -
10 CFR Below Milltown Dam 10 29.6 26.3-32.9
11 CFR Above aissoula WWIP 10 3U.Q 28.4-31.6
15
-------
12
CFR
Harper Bridge
9
29.3
27.3-31.3
13
CFR
At Huson (Below Champion)
10
35.4
33.7-37.ll
14
CFR
At Superior
9
32.1
30.3-33.9
15
CFR
Above Flathead Confl.
9
30.0
28.0-32.0
16
CFR
Above Thompson Falls
9
29.1
27.5-30.7
17
CFR
Below Thompson Falls
10
29.1
27.6-30.6
18
CFR
Below Noxon Dam
10
31.3
28.7-33.9
- Data from
Total
of Three Broods -
10
CFR
Below Milltown Dam
10
21.0
19.4-22.6
11
CFR
Above Missoula WWEP
10
20.0
18.9-21.1
12
CFR
Harper Bridge
9
19.8
18.5-21.1
13
CFR
At Huson (below Champion)
10
23.4
22.5-24.31
14
CFR
At superior
9
21.3
20.3-22.3
15
CFR
Above Flathead confl.
9
19.9
18.9-20.9
16
CFR
Above Thompson Falls
9
19.9
18.9-20.9
17
CFR
Below Thompson Falls
10
19.4
17.9-20.9
18
CFR
Below Noxon Dam
10
21.3
19.3-23.3
1 Significantly different from other stations, i.e. greater number of
neonates produced per female.
16
-------
Analyses of Cheiaical Constituents
Summaries of chemical parameters measure during the testing are shown in
Appendices B through G. Inspection of these data indicate that
characteristics of the final test dilutions were similar among the aquaria
with either well water or river water. Total ammonia and test temperatures
were virtually identical. The pH was higher in well-water dilutions along
with conductivity, calcium, magnesium, and alkalinity. Concentrations of
dissolved sulfide was greater in dilutions of river water than well water as
were concentrations of dissolved organic carbon and total organic carbon.
Concentrations of dissolved oxygen throughout the test aquaria were
essentially indentical and well above acceptable lower limits for trout. The
decision to deliver compressed air to test aquaria was due to slightly lower
dissolved oxygen in dilutions of unoxygenated well water and not the river
water.
Analysis of 100 percent Champion waste water, Champion's well water, and
the Clark Fork River above Champion1s outfall on two different sampling dates
did not reveal concentrations of known toxic materials (priority pollutants)
(Appendices H and I). Of note were concentrations of natural acids, ketones
and alcohols in Champion1s wastewater with most of these substances higher in
the sample collected on 5/17/85 that the sample collected on 5/31/85.
Analyses of metals by ICAP (Appendix J) on two sampling dates did not
show any metals at concentrations believed to be toxic. Of interest was the
concentration of aluminum in Champion's waste water of 4860 ug/1 in the
5/17/35 sample and 3440 ug/1 in the 5/31/85 sample. Freeman and Everhart
(1971), found that aluminum salts were slightly soluble at pH of about 7.0 and
had little effect in rainbow trout. As the pH was raised, greater amounts of
aluminum became dissolved and therefore, more toxic. Likewise, studies of
acid precipitation suggest that at lower pH, e.g. 5-6, aluminum is also
mobilized and more toxic. Important to consider in the tests at champion was
that the maximum concentrations of aluminum in the test solutions were only
two percent of those concentrations shown in the analyses because of the
dilution factors.
17
-------
DISCUSSION
We found no evidence that test dilutions of Champion's waste water were
chronically toxic to trout, it was unfortunate that the drain system
evacuating the test water caused the mingling of fish, but it should also be
understood that after the upset, the fish in their respective test aquaria
were continuously exposed to the dilutions of waste water for at least 20 days
with no apparent effects in survival or growth. There were no noticeable
behavioral changes and no incidences of disease nor pathology associated with
the waste water.
The single criterion of effect which appeared to be significant was the
reduced number of neonates (young) produced by Ceriodaphnia in the four (4)
percent waste diluted with Clark Fork River water, a concentration which is 16
times the current allowable dilution. Also, there was no indication that the
Clark Fork River was impaired at Huson (downstream of Champions' discharge)
based on a Ceriodaphnia test, in fact, Ceriodaphnia produced more young
(uaphnid) at this station than at all others.
13
-------
RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommendations for further testing include additional acute and chronic
tests with fish and invertebrates. Acute tests are necessary because they
provide data for a better-defined series of dilutions for subsequent chronic
tests and provide data for calculating acute and chronic ratios. (Using the
data in the present report, there were no LC5Q limits of toxicity and no
toxicological basis for choosing the two percent dilution as the upper
limit.) Recommended dilutions of wastewater in the acute tests could be the
series; 100, 75, 56, 32, 18, 10 percent waste and a Clark Fork River Water
control. Suggested species could include post button-up rainbow trout; the
midge Tanytarsus tentans, and Hyalella azteca both representing benthic forage
species; and Ceriodaphnia as a reference species-comparison for earlier tests.
For the chronic test, we recommend an eight-day-growth study with post
button-up stage rainbow trout tested in two diluter systems be considered.
Because we do not have data from acute tests to aid in setting the range of
test dilutions, two options are available. The first would provide two
identical series of dilutions and about 160 fish per dilution to provide
values of (n) great enough to determine subtle differences. The second option
could provide a concurrent series using both diluters and a range of 50, 37.5,
28, 16, 9, 5, 2, 1.5, 1.12, 0.64, 0.36, 0.2 percent plus two Clark Fork water
controls. These dilutions are feasible without alterations in the diluter
design. By this method, if the acute tests showed that the LC50 was between
35 and 65% dilution for example, then the series should bracket the chronic
range. In contrast, by using the present test methodology of a two percent
upper dilution, a chronic value may never be determined regardless of the
duration of the test, a distinct advantage of an eight-day-growth study with
rainbow trout would be the ability to repeat the study within a three to four
weeks testing period if an upset occurred.
13
-------
LITERATURE CITED
ASTM, 1985, Proposed New Standard Guide for Conducting Fish
Early Life-Stage Toxicity Tests. Draft. American Society for
Testing and Materials. November 1935.
Birge, Wesley J. and Jeffrey A. Black, 1981. In Situ
Acute/Chronic Toxicological Monitoring of Industrial Effluents
for the NPDES Biomonitoring Program Using Fish and Amphibian
Embryo-Larval Stages As Test Organisms. OWEP-82-OOl USEPA
Office of Water Enforcement and Permits, Washington, D.C. 121
pp.
EPA, 1983, Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes.
EPA-600/4-79-020. Revised March 1983. EMSL, Office of
Research and Development. Cincinnati, Ohio.
Freeman, R.A., and W.H. Everhart 1971. Toxicity of Aluminum
Hydroxide complexes in Neutral and Basic Media to Rainbow
Trout. Trans. Am. Fish Soc. 100(4): 644-658.
Hamilton, M.A. 1984. Statistical Analysis of a Seven-Day
Ceriodaphnia reticulata Reproductivity Toxicity Test
(unpublished manuscript available from M.A. Hamilton, 309 South
Sixth, Bozeman, MT 59715).
Horning, W.B. II, and C.I. Weber. 1985. Short-Term Methods for
Estimating the Chronic Toxicity of Effluents and Receiving
Waters to Freshwater Organisms. EPA/600/4-85/014. EMSL,
Office of Research and Development. Cincinnati, Ohio.
Peltier, William H. and Cornelius I. Weber (eds.) 1985. Method
for Measuring the Acute Toxicity of Effluents to Freshwater and
Marine Organisms. 3rd ed. EPA/600/4-85/013. Office of
Research and Development, Environmental Monitoring and Support
Laboratory, U.S. EPA. Cincinnati, Ohio. 216 pp.
Montana Water Quality. 1984. The 1984 Montana 305(b) Report,
October 1984. Water Quality Bureau, Environmental Sciences
Division, Department of Health and Environmental Sciences,
Helena, Montana 59620.
Mount, d.I. and T.J. Norberg. 1984. A Seven-Day Life-Cycle
Cladoceran Toxicity Test. Environmental Toxicology and
Chemistry 3(3): 425-434.
20
-------
Appendix A. Outline for Chronic Fish Bioassay: Champion International Paper
Mill, Frenchtown, Montana.
-------
APPENDIX A
Outline for Chronic Fish Bioassay:
Champion International Paper Mill, Frenchtown, Montana
Introduction
In a letter dated January 9, 1985, the Regional Administrator (Region
VIII) received a request for assistance from the Department of Health and
Environmental Sciences, State of Montana for use of a mobile bioassay facility
to conduct a long term test using eggs of rainbow trout, on treated wastewater
from Champion International paper mill. Assistance was requested to conduct
long-term chronic bioassays using trout eggs through post hatch.
For some time, there has been public concern about water quality in the
lower Clark Fork River, in particular the long-term impacts from the discharge
of treated wastewater from Champion International at Frenchtown. The question
that needs resolution is whether the Champion wastewater has discernable
effects on the early-life stages of trout inhabiting the Clark Fork River.
Results of such a study would aid in the review of a modified discharge permit
issued by the State of Montana in April 1984.
Background of the Study
The Champion International Paper Mill, formerly Hoerner-Waldorf, located
at Frenchtown, Montana began operation in 1957. At startup, mill production
of unbleached kraft pulp totalled 250 tons/day (TPD). Since 1957, mill
expansions have occurred in 1960, 1966, 1970, and 1976; with the current
production, a maximum of 2005 TPD unbleached kraft pulp and liner board. At
present, Champion wastewater receives the equivalent of secondary treatment
(aeration) followed by a minimum of 10 days retention. An intricate and
convoluted series of retention ponds is shown by diagram in Figure I. Three
non-chloro-phenolic biocides are used to treat the paper machine stock systems
and the minimum amount of dilution the wastewater would receive in the Clark
Fork River is 200 parts river water to 1 part wastewater. A more detailed
explanation follows concerning issues in the Clark Fork.
According to the publication, Montana Water Quality 1984, the two largest
dischargers to the lower Clark Fork are the City of Missoula and Champion
International. Both have been asked to expand their self-monitoring programs
to provide data needed by the state to assess water quality impacts. A
modified permit, issued in April 1984, allows Champion to increase its yearly
load of suspended solids to the river and to discharge year-round, but only
when flows in the river exceed 1,900 cubic feet per second (cfs). Nutrients,
heavy metals and suspended solids, especially organic solids also are of
concern. Concern has been expressed about Champion and the City of Missoula
as point sources of nitrogen and phosphorus which may stimulate undesirable
algal growth in downstream reservoirs and in Lake Pend Oreille, Idaho. Heavy
metals which originate upstream in the Butte mining district, may be mobilized
by lowered dissolved oxygen and lower pH of bottom waters downstream thereby
making them more toxic to fish and aquatic life.
-1-
-------
Request for Assistance
TtTe request from the State of Montana involved testing the long term
effects of wastewater using two options:
1. a 30-day test from fertilized trout eggs to hatch, or
2. a 60-day test from the eyed-egg stage of a trout through 30 days of
growth.
According to the letter of request, the first option has the advantage of
testing at what is believed to be the most sensitive stage of embyological
development, the period immediately after fertilization. The second option
allows for measurement of rate of growth and survival, two sensitive
endpoints. Because the American Society of Testing and Materials Procedure
(ASTM) recommends the eggs should be incubated at 12°C and at extremely low
light intensity, the development of eggs using either option is extremely
lengthy.
Test Procedure and Conditions
The Montana Department of Health and Environmental Sciences has requested
that tests be conducted on the most sensitive stages of fish inhabiting the
Clark Fork River. Specifically, tests were requested using the egg stage of
the rainbow trout life cycle. Wastes from the pulp mill lagoon system are to
be mixed with dilution water from the Clark Fork River and pumped through a
"flow-through" dilution system to test chambers containing trout eggs.
However, information received from Dr. C.E. Warren at Oregon State University
(Personal Communication 2-4-85) indicates that the most sensitive stage of a
salmonid exposed to stable unbleached kraft pulp mill waste, is the period
from button-up stage to the juvenile stage in the life cycle.
Therefore, EPA Region VIII personnel propose the following tests.
Rainbow trout, just after the button-up stage (on feed), will be exposed to
dilutions of mill waste for approximately 30 days. Waste dilutions will range
from 1:10 to 1:1000 with median dilution present at 1:200 dilution of
wastewater to dilution water. Major endpoints of the study will be mortality
and growth rates of the larvae. Larvae will be fed four times/day at a
relatively high rate of food consumption (>4% diet dry weight/fish weight/day)
as suggested in the proposed ASTM methods for chronic tests with salmonid
fish. Test temperatures will be held at 12°C + 1.5° throughout the test
period. The test species will be rainbow trout, Salmo gairdneri. Larval fish
will be obtained from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife hatchery located at Creston,
Montana. A seven-day Ceriodaphnia life cycle test will be conducted in
parallel with the rainbow trout study using samples from the dilutions used in
the trout study. In addition a 7-day Ceriodaphnia life cycle test will be
used to test ambient stream conditions in the Clak Fork River at eight sites
above and below Cham pion International. The locations selected are those in
which algal assays are being conducted by EPA/Corvallis as part of the Water
Quality Bureau's Lower Clark Fork River Study.
-2-
-------
Station Number Location
IT CFR above Missoula WWTP
12 CFR at Harper Bridge
(above Champion)
13 CFR at Huson (below Champion)
14 CFR at Superior
15 CFR above Flathead River confluence
16 CFR above Thompson Falls Reservoir
17 CFR below Thompson Falls Dam
18 CFR below Noxon Dam
Note: An additional station (CFR below Milltown Dam) was added
at the time of the study.
-3-
-------
Project Description
Study Location - The Champion Paper Mill is located about 20 miles
northwest of Missoula, Montana near Frenchtown. The mill and waste ponds are
located on the left side of the river (north bank) with some ponds close
enough to the river to seep wastes into the river. The mobile laboratory will
be located on mill property at a power source located upstream of ponds 1A and
2 (Figure 1). Treated wastewater will be hauled (daily) to the mobile
laboratory and tested in two ways. Using one diluter system, wastewater will
be mixed with Clark Fork River water obtained at the site (upstream of the
mi 11).
In a second separate diluter system, wastewater will be diluted with
unchlorinated well water (used for processing at the mill). The well water
will be pumped daily to the mobile laboratory. Using two sources of dilution
water should aid in the interpretation of results from the trout studies and
the wastewater.
Dates of Testing - The test is scheduled from May 4th through June 3rd.
Allowing for set-up and breakdown time, we estimate actual on-site time would
be from May 1st through June 6th.
Reference Methodologies - All test procedures will follow the EPA
"Methods of Measuring the Acute Toxicity of Effluents to Aquatic organisms",
2nd edition and 3rd edition (draft). However, because this is a chronic
study, guidance for the the test will be ASTMs "Proposed New Standard Practice
for Conducting Fish Early Life-Stage Toxicity Tests (draft No. 8). In
addition, methods listed in Birge and Blacks "In Situ Acute/Chronic
Toxicological Monitoring of Industrial Effluents for NPDES Biomonitoring
Program Using Fish and Amphibian Embryo-Larval Stages as Test Organisms" (EPA
Report No. DWEP-82-001), and Short-Term Embryo-Larval Test for Effluent
Biomonitoring (Preliminary Draft; available from T.H. Morgan School of
Biological Sciences, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KT 40506. Methods for
the Ceriodaphnia testing will be those of Mount and Norberg (1984), with
analysis of data following the procedures of Hamilton, M.A. 1984. Statistical
Analysis of the Seven-day Ceriodaphnia reticulata Reproductivity Toxicity
Test. Contract Order No. J3905 NASX-1, U.S. EPA Duluth, MN.
Sampling Dates and Parameters - Sets of "grab" samples will be collected
from each of 14 aquaria according to the schedule in Table 1.
-4-
-------
s?08ooo™ n
V. .
\
\
>\J056
X
\
\
\
\ 1;
\
i ¦¦••• = .-s , ---Jf/i'il \ ¦ -\V"\ J06J
/ ^ : Schilling',. • ^ : .
\ "' ' i 5t':'"^S.v^1 v ~£\. ¦¦ =
;-"G>avel ")y
•\ifer' >" \, '!
.„„-=j„„ = = :-:-< - A.&* r
; i = '-;¦ r"\;:«.j
; ! V . •, •;, v :i
\ i
\f
V
Study Site
*\\
•r.v^ ¦'.v-
i'
\x -'V •¦
NX<%.Va
M V ^ l'1.1,
. )¦' J 1 I. '1
-------
Table 1. Sample Parameters and Frequency Champion International Paper
Mill, Frenchtown, Montana
Analysis
Dissolved Sulfide
0.0.
Temp.
Hardness'
Alkalinity
PH 1
TDS'
Conductivity
NH3-N
Dissolvent Organic Carbon
Total Organic Carbon
BOD
Color
Chlorides
Sulfide
ICAP Metals
Organic Priority Pollutants
Frequency
Weekly
Daily
Continuous
Twice Weekly
Dai ly
Daily
Daily ^
Weekly-v
Weekly
Weekly
Weekly
Weekly
Weekly
Weekly
Weekly
8 Samples
8 Samples
Lab Location
State
Mobile Lab
Mobile Lab
State
Mobile Lab
Mobile Lab
/f Mobile Bioassay
^ State
State
State
State
State
State
State
State
Denver-EPA
Denver-EPA
1 - Frequency may be increased due to unusual hydrologic conditions.
-5-
-------
Sample Collection, Handling, Preservation
All sample collection, handling and preservation will follow the
guidelines established in "a Guide for Field Samples", "Methods for Chemical
Analysis of Water and Wastes, and "Biological Field and Laboratory Methods for
Measuring the Quality of Surface Waters and Effluents"." Information regarding
sample size, container, preservative and special handling for parameters under
consideration is summarized in Table 2.
-6-
-------
Table 2
Sample Requirements for Chemical Samples Sent to the State and EPA Laboratories
Chemical
NH3-N, Total
NO3-N
no2-n
TDS or Conductivity
and Hardness
Priority Pollutant
Organics
ICAP-Metals
Sample Size
1 liter
1 1i ter
1 quart
1 quart
Container
Preservative
Cubitainer 2ml cone H2SO4
Cubitainer
Glass Jar
Cubitainer
Chi 11ed
Chilled
5ml conc. HNO3
-7-
-------
Quality Assurance
Al-J direct reading bioassay laboratory equipment will be checked for
calibration before each series of samples are collected. In addition, each
test concentration is run in duplicate and a control (0% waste) is run at the
same time. Samples of various waste concentrations from select aquaria will
be split with the State lab and the EPA mobile lab. When the mobile
laboratory is set-up on site, each diInter will be checked and recalibrated to
deliver the required amounts of effluent or dilution water to each aquarium.
At the end of the test a representative number of fish from each test conq.
will be weiqhed, measured and checked for .abnormalities
£" s'A."yj(s.S J. , _ ¦ -'-f- j"-.-, i'.'iJr, us. j ¦
Personnel Needs J
Personnel from EPA (Bruce Binkley [NEIC], Jim Lazorchak, Denise Link and
Del Nimmo [WMD]) will conduct the trout and Ceriodaphnia studies. In
addition, Gary Ingman from, the State Department of Health and Environmental
Sciences will assist in the project and be the primary contact with Champion
International.
Record Keeping
Sample tags shall be affixed to each sample container. Tags shall be
legible and filled out using ball-point or other permanent marking pen.
Information to be entered on each tag shall include:
1. Sample identification number
2. Date and time for collection
3. Name of source, type of sample
4. Appropriate field measurements (pH, temperature, etc.)
5. Analyses to be performed
6. Preservative(s) used
7. Size of sample
8. Name of person collecting sample
9. Witness to the collection, if appropriate
Lab request sheets will accompany all samples. A bound field notebook
will be maintained by the survey leader to provide a daily record of events
pertaining to the study. All members of the survey party will provide input
to the survey leaders field notebook. Notes entered into the field notebook
should be kept complete and permanent.
Information regarding calibration of field instrumentation shall be
entered into the field notebook or logbook specifically provided for the
purpose.
Report
A report of the findings will be prepared upon completion of field and
laboratory work. Reports may be prepared as appropriate to call attention to
significant findings. Data will be entered into STORET. Del Nimmo will be
responsible for data reduction, analyses, and preparing the report. An
initial draft report will be prepared within 60 days of completion of all
tests.
-------
Any question regarding this plan can be addressed to C. Runas, Del Nimmo
(293-1579) or L. Parrish (236-5084)
Cost Estimate
Per diem for (for 6 weeks 2 staff persons) $ 3,600
Overtime (40 hrs/person) 1,300
Misc. Supplies 300
Air Freight 150
Rental Car 500
Gas for the rental car 200
Total $ 6,150
Equipment Needs
Table 3 summarizes the equipment and supplies required for the testing.
-9-
-------
Table 3
Equipment List -Bioassay
Mobile Bioassay Lab
Another Support Vehicle
Pumps
Hose
Extension cords
pH meters - 2 plus standards
Dissolved Oxgen meters - 2
Thermometers - 2
Tygon Tubing - 1/4", 3/8", 1/2", 5/8"
Plastic Buret - Dissolved Oxygen
Ring Stand
D.O. powder pillows
Balance
Weighing boats
H2SO4
Disposable pipettes
Ice chests
Cubitainers
HNO3
Specific Conductance Meter
-10-
-------
Appendix B. Means (and Ranges) of Chemical Parameters Measure On-Site:
Champion International Waste Water Diluted with Unchlorinated Well
Water.
-------
APPENDIX B
Means (and Ranges) of Chemical Parameters Measured On-site: Champion International Waste water Diluted
with Unchlorinated Well Water.
Percentage Temperature pH Dissolved Conductivity Alkalinity
Waste water C Oxygen mg/1 umhos/cm mg/1 as CaCC>3
RI R2RIR2R1R2 Rl R2 Rl R2
0
12
12
7.5
7.5
7.6
7.5
284
279
115
124
(10.5-13.5)
(10-13.3)
(7.1-8.2)
(7.2-8.1)
(6.2-10.1)
(6.2-8.3)
(240-345)
(230-350)
(107-127)
(103-168)
0.2
12
11
7.3
7.4
7.5
7.2
278
285
116
124
(10-13.5)
(10-13)
(6.9-8.0)
(6.9-8.0)
(6.5-10)
(6.3-8.1)
(240-340)
(240-340)
(107-126)
(107-170)
3.36
12
11
7.4
7.4
7.7
7.3
285
289
116
123
(10.5-13.2)
(10-13)
(7.0-8.2)
(6.9-8.1)
(6.3-9.8)
(6.2-8.2)
(240-340)
(240-345)
(108-127)
( )
D .64
12
11
7.4
7.4
7.4
7.3
293
293
118
126
(10-13)
(10-13)
(7.0-8.1)
(7.1-8.1)
(6.2-10)
(6.2-8.0)
(250-355)
(250-350)
(111-127)
(106-170)
L .12
12
11
7.4
7.5
7.6
7.6
303
304
119
127
(10-13)
(10-13)
(6.9-8.3)
(7.1-8.2)
(6.2-9.5)
(6.2-8.2)
(206-360)
(260-360)
(110-128)
(111-127)
L.5
12
11
7.4
7.5
7.6
7.5
312
312
119
125
(10.5-13)
(10-13)
(6.9-8.2)
(7.1-8.1)
(6.1-10)
(6.2-8.2)
(270-370)
(270-370)
(111-128)
(109-168)
2.0
12
11
7.4
7.5
7.5
7.2
323
327
122
129
(10-13)
(10-13)
(7.1-8.1)
(7.1-8.2)
(5.9-10)
(5.9-8.2)
(280-390)
(280-370)
(119-130)
(111-168)
U. Replicate 1
12. Replicate 2
-------
Appendix Co Means (and Ranges) of Chemical Parameters Measured in the
Laboratory: Champion International Waste Water Diluted with
Unchlorinated Well Water.
-------
APPENDIX C
Means (and Ranges) of Chemical Parameters Measured in the Laboratory 1/2; champion
International Waste water Diluted with Unchlorinated well Water.
Percentage Calcium Magnesium Chloride Conductivity
Waste water my/1 mg/1 mg/1 umhos/em
0
39.1
10.5
2.9
295
(37.5-40.6)
10.3-10.8)
(2.0-3.4)
(288-308)
0.2
39.8
10.4
3.2
303
(37.7-41.5)
(10.0-10.9)
(2.7-3.6)
(292-321)
0.36
38.8
10.4
2.9
302
(37.2-40.5)
(10.0-10.7)
(2.0-3.6)
(296-312)
0.64
39.0
10.6
3.2
310
(37.6-40.7)
(10.4-10.8)
(2.1-3.9)
(304-322)
1.12
39.2
10.5
3.7
318
(38.4-40.9)
(10.2-10.7)
(2.4-4.6)
(314-327)
1.15
39.4
10.5
4.2
330
(38.6-40.7)
(10.3-10.6)
(3.1-5.0)
(325-337)
2.0
39.3
10.4
4.0
341
(37.9-41.1)
(10.1-10.7)
(3.3-5.0)
(336-346)
1. One Replicate Only
2. State Department of Health and Environmental Sciences
-------
Appendix D. Means (and Ranges) of Chemical Parameters Measure in the
Laboratory: Champion International Waste Water Diluted with
Unchlorinated Well Water.
-------
APPENDIX D
Means (and Ranges) of Chemical Parameters Measured in the Laboratory 1/2: Champion
International Waste water Diluted with Unchlorinated Well Water.
percentage Total Organic Dissolved Dissolved-^ Total
Waste water Carbon Organic Carbon Sulfide Ammonia
mg/1 mg/1 mg/1 mg/1
0
2.5 .
(1.9-3.7)
0.9
(0.8-1.0)
0.05
0.07
(0.05-0.15)
0.2
4.0
(1.5-8.4)
3.6
(1.6-5.6)
0.05
0.17
(0.13-0.17)
0.36
2.2
(1.2-3.0)
1.4
(1.3-1.6)
0.05
0.24
(0.18-0.30)
0.64
2.6
(1.7-3.3)
1.9
(1.9-2.0)
0.05
0.2
(0.11-0.35)
1.12
3.4
(2.4-4.2)
2.2
(2.0-2.5)
0.05
0.15
(0.11-0.22)
1.5
4.4
(2.6-5.7)
2.4
(2.3-2.5)
0.05
0.17
(0.12-0.25)
2.0
4.6
(1.3-8.0)
2.3
(2.2-2.4)
0.05
0.2
(0.016-0.24)
1. One Replicate Only
2. State Department of Health and Environmental Sciences
-------
Appendix E. Means (and Ranges) of Chemical Parameters Measured On-Site:
Champion International Waste Water Diluted with Clark Fork River
Water.
-------
APPENDIX E
Means (and Ranges) of Chemical Parameters Measured On-site: Champion International Waste water Diluted
with Clark Fork River Water.
Percentaye Temperature pH Dissolved Conductivity Alkalinity
Waste water C Oxygen mg/1 umhos/cm mg/1 as CaC03
Rl R2 R1R2 R1R2R1R2R1R2
0
12
12
7.2
7.1
7.9
7.8
135
131
51
56
(10-13.9)
(10.5-14)
(6.7-7.9)
(6.6-7.9)
(7.0-9.1)
(7.2-9.0)
(100-160)
(100-160)
(45-60)
(51-5
0.2
12
11
7.1
7.1
7.5
7.5
134
134
52
56
(10-13.5)
(10-12)
(6.6-7.7)
(6.6-7.8)
(6.8-9.0)
(6.8-3.5)
(100-160)
(100-160)
(46-61)
(51-6
0.36
12
12
7.1
7.1
7.8
7.7
140
140
53
57
(10-14)
(10-13)
(6.5-7.8)
(6.7-7.6)
(6.3-9.1)
(6.3-8.5)
(110-165)
(105-165)
(46-61)
(47-6
0.64
12
12
7.1
7.1
7.4
7.7
147
147
57
58
(10-13.5
(10-13)
(6.6-7.7)
(6.5-7.8)
(6.5-9.0)
(6.5-9.0)
(115-190)
(110-190)
(48-63)
(53-6
1.12
12
12
7.1
7.1
7.5
7.6
159
160
57
61
(10-13.5)
(10.5-14)
(6.5-7.8)
(6.5-7.8)
(6.6-9.0)
(6.6-9.0)
(120-200)
(120-202)
(50-63)
(55-6
1.5
12
12
7.1
7.1
7.7
7.4
170
171
60
63
(10.5-14)
(10.5-13)
(6.5-7.9)
(6.5-7.8)
(6.7-9.1)
(6.5-9.5)
(125-218)
(135-214)
(53-65)
(57-6
2.0
13
12
7.1
7.1
7.7
7.5
185
187
59
65
(11-14.8)
(11-14)
(6.5-8.0)
(6.5-7.9)
(6.6-9.5)
(6.8-7.2)
(140-227)
(130-230)
(49-68)
(61-7
Rl. Replicate 1
R2. Replicate 2
-------
Appendix F„ Means (and Ranges) of Chemcial Parameters Measured in the
Laboratory: Champion International Waste Water Diluted with Clark
Fork River Water.
-------
APPENDIX F
Means (and Ranges) of Chemical Parameters Measured in the Laboratory 1/ 2:
Champion International Wastewater Diluted with Clark Fork River Water
Percentage Calcium Magnesium Chloride Conductivity
Wastewater mg/1 mg/1 mg/1 umhos/em
0
17.7
4.0
1.2
134
(16.4-13.5)
(3.6-4.3)
(0.2-2.0)
(123-140)
0.2
17.7
4.0
1.1
141
(16.1-18.6)
(3.6-4.4)
(0.8-1.6)
(129-150)
0.36
17.2
4.0
1.6
144
(15.7-18.4)
(4.0-4.2)
(0.7-2.2)
(135-153)
0.64
17.9
4.1
1.9
164
(16.7-18.9
(3.7-4.5)
(1.2-2.6)
(--)
1.12
17.9
4.1
2.3
166
(16.6-19.0)
(3.7-4.4)
(1.5-2.9)
(153-180)
1.5
18.0
4.0
2.6
177
(16.7-18.9)
(3.7-4.4)
(1.5-3.3)
(163-199)
2.0
18.1
4.2
2.7
193
(16.4-19.3)
(4.0-4.5)
(1.8-3.4)
(177-210)
1. One Replicate Only
2. State Department of Health and Environmental Sciences
-------
Appendix G. Means (and Ranges) of Chemical Parameters Measured in the
Laboratory: Champion International Waste Water Diluted with Clark
Fork River Water.
-------
APPENDIX G
Means (and Ranges) of Chemical Parameters Measured in the Laboratory 1/ 2:
Champion International Waste water Diluted with Clark Fork River Water.
Percentage
Total Organic
Dissolved
Dissolved3
Total
Waste water
Carbon
Organic Carbon
Sulfide
Ammonia
nig/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
0
4.1
2.7
0.05
0.13
(3.2-5.4)
(2.6-2.8)
(0.05-0.1)
(0.07-0.11)
0.2
4.9
4.14
0.03
0.23
(3.3-7.1)
( )
(0.05-0.08)
(0.14-0.40
0.36
5.1
2.9
0.04
0.18
(4.0-7.8)
(2.0-3.8)
(0.05-0.09)
(0.10-0.32)
0.64
5.0
4.4
0.05
0.19
(3.9-6.2)
(4.3-4.6)
(0.05-0.10)
(0.08-0.32)
1.12
6.0
5.0
0.05
0.25
(4.8-7.1)
(4.8-5.3)
(0.05-0.11)
(0.19-0.36)
1.5
6.5
4.6
0.06
0.17
(5.2-7.8)
(3.7-5.6)
(0.05-0.12)
(0.15-0.19)
2.0
6.3
5.2
0.06
0.13
(4.1-7.6)
(4.3-6.1)
(0.05-0.12)
(0.09-0.16)
1. One Replicate Only
2. State Department of Health and Environmental Sciences
3. Less than values (< Q .05) were used in the calculations
as 1/2 (0.05) or 0.025
4. Single value
-------
Appendix H. Organic Analysis Data Sheet - Champion Waste 5/17/85.
-------
Note: Sample was Champion Waste and was
logged in the laboratory as Silver Bow
due to a concurrent study.
APPENDIX H
fkyi 7371
ORGANIC* ANALYSIS DATA SHEET
C*m Nos
Sample Nunbcr
£--17-45-
MV&Z tfGVl
Laboratory Name:
Lab Sample ID No:
Sample Matruu
Data Release Authorized By: f Q/^7~/ _C
QC Report No: _____
Contract Noj
Date Sample Received:
SEMIYOLATILf COMPOUNDS
CONCENTRATION: (Cowy1 MEDIUM HIGH (circle one)
DATE EXTRACTED/PREPARED: ~ 3 S~
DATE ANALYZED!
PERCENT MOISTURE!
^cfiN^Dn-irnoN factori
2.c>&
pp#
CAS#
(orcle one)
TV #
CAS#
(circle one)
CIA)
18-06-2
2,».6- trichlorophenol
^ to
(328)
17-68-3
hexachiorobutadlen*
<£/£>
(22A)
39-30-7
p-diloro-m-crwol
(33B)
77-«7-»
hezachlorocyclapentadiene
(2«A)
95-37-1
2- chlorophenol
(3*8)
71-59-1
isooharone
(31 A)
120-13-2
2,4-dichlorophenol
(33B)
91-20-3
naphthalene
(3«A)
103-67-9
2.4-dirnethyIohenol
(368)
98-93-3
nitrobenzene
I
(37A)
88-73-3
2- nitrophenol
(C1B)
62-73-9
N-nitrosodimethylamine
1
(38A)
ICO-02-7
*-nitrophenol
(62B)
16-30-6
N-n i tro»od ip hen y Limine
¦ \
(39A)
31-28-5
2,*-dimtrophenol
¦
(63B)
621-6*-7
N-nitrasod3>rapylimine
(60A)
334-32-1
*,6-dinitro-2-methylphenol
(668)
117-11-7
bis (2-ethylheiyl) phthaiate
(6«A)
87-86-3
pentachloroohenol
(67B)
15-68-7
benzyl butvl phthaiate
(63A)
108-93-2
phenol
(618)
l*-7*-2
di-n-butvl phttulate
1
63-13-0
benzoic acid
(69B)
117-10-0
di-n-octyl phthaiate
1
93-41-7
2-methylohenol
(70B)
19-66-2
diethyl phthajate
i
10J-39-*
*-methy Iphenol
(71B)
131-11-3
dimethyl phthaiate
f
9V93-*
2,*.3-trichloraohenol
(72B)
36-53-3
benzo(a)anthracene
!
(IB)
1J-32-9
acenaohthene
(73B)
30-32-1
benzotalcyrene
(3B)
92-17-3
benzidine
(7*B)
205-99-2
benzo(bHluorarthene
(8B)
120-12-1
1,2.*-trichlorobenzene
(73B)
207-01-9
benzo(k Kluoranthene
(98)
1 lS-7%-1
heiachlorobenzene
(76B)
211-01-9
chrysene
(12B)
67-72-1
hetachloroethane
(77B)
208-96-1
acenaohthylene
USB)
111-44-*
bu(2-chloroethyl)ether
(7IB)
120-12-7
-anthracene
(20B)
91-38-7
2-chl or onap h t ha] ene
' (79B)
191-24-2
benzoffhilperylene
(23B)
93-30-1
1,2-dichlorobenzene
(10B)
16-73-7
floor ene
(26B)
3*1-73-1
1,3-dichlorobenzene
(118)
13-01-8
phenanthrene
(27B)
106-46-7
1 ,*-dichlorobenzene
(I2B)
53-70-3
dibenzodeno( 1,2,3-cdJpyrenc
(33B)
121-14-2
2,4-dinitroioluene
<1»B)
129-00-0
pyrene
<36B)
606-20-2
2,6-dinitrololuene
62-33-3
aniline
(37B)
122-66-7
1,2-diphenvlhvdrazme
100-31-6
benzyl alcohol
(398)
206-44-0
fluoranthene
106-47-1
4-chtoroaniline
(#08)
7G03-72- 3
*-chlorophenyl phenyl ether
132-64-9
dibenzofuran
(4 IB)
101-33-3
~-bromoohenyl phenyl ether
91-37-6
2-methylriaohthaiene
(42B)
39631-32-9
bi» (2-chlwoijooropyl) ether
11-74-4
2-nitroanilir>e
(4 )B)
111-91-1
bn (2-chloroethoiy) methane
V
99-09-2
3-mtroa/iiline
100-01-6
4-nitruniline
>
t
*913
-------
/k^S 931!
Q^Samcn MaiagwwwOW—.
122313 7U/M7.24SO
Organic* Analysis Data Sheet
(Page 3)
Sampta Number
OVaV/o/vJ rJ]ftS7~£.
r-n-8s
Pmtidda/PCBa
Concentration: Madium (Orel* On*|
Daw Extraaed/Praparad:
Data Analyxad. 6 ~~~ f?5~
^Coy^Dil Factor: __
CAS
Number
XOC>
uq/J^f ug/Kg
iCircta On*)
319-84.«
Alona-BHC
319-85-7
Beta-BHC
1
319-86-8
Deiu-BHC
58-89-9
G«f*im»-8HC ILindanel
78-*4-8
Heptaehlor
309-00-2
Atdrin
1024-57-3
Heotacnior Eoonde
959-98-8
Endosulfan I
60-57-1
Oieldrm
72-55-9
4 4 -ODE
72-20-8
Endrirt
33213-65-9
EndosuKan II
72-54-8
4. 4 -000
7421-93-4
Endnn Aldenytie
1031-07 8
Endosulfan Sulfate
50-29-3
4 4 -0DT
72-43-5
Meino«vcflor
53494-70-5
Endnn Ketone
57-74-9
Chlordane
8001-:5-2
To»«Dnene
<0
12674-11-2
Aroelor-1016
11104-28-2
Afoclor-1 221
11141-16-5
Arocior-1232
53469 21-9
Aroclor-1242
12672-29-6
Arocior-1248
11097-69-1
Arocior-1254
11096-82-5
Arocior-1260
V
/
V( • Volume of attract mi«ct*d (ul)
V( ¦ Velum* of water enractad iml)
W( * Waigtit of aampl* attracted (el
V, ¦ Votuma of total attract (ul)
Form t 4 84
Form I. (continued).
B-3Q 5/8A
-------
yif onmenljl Protection Agency. CLP Sample Management Ollice,
d Bo* 818. ' Aleiandna. Virginia 22313 703/557-2490
r*A 7/
Organics Analysis Data Sheet
(Page 4)
Sample Number
r-/ 7 -bz
Tentatively Identified Compounds
CAS
Number
Compound Name
Fraction
Scan
Number
Estimated
Concentration
(fflgTPor ug/kg)
1
if\ -? -L-n£rHo*y -I - ntr^yL^rHo^y') ~l-~
A7£/^'
TlX2~
-3-
/~}£THyL ZTHoXy 1
-Z'Som£/Z. 41
it. 7o
+ J?
/V ErMyLf^A T/}& £cAAo ; c
¦^6.0"^
/ee
*9-
/>! A/?orr - /&- - 2- £
16. 78
JJ.Z
*r
/. - £/COS;£si£ c.->a /--7I/J 1S£>
12
/tH-
-=r- 6
ISof/Sl rtAfC- /V7UJ iox
3/. ?o
X./6.
a7
/*/s7/)/?.re. _?o%
3L 77
T//7/'z>?y^ 7~ rfrtA/Ctc. Ad'tk 3OX
!o£o
«».?
hf RYhAoA£/£Tic- Ac.> A /•? U ?o©
?x. f 7
f)
14. A?
it - H Yh/by. y-a j A/tarr- <+ -£~> £-?.n - tit caz
.?.?. ^-2.
iT?£
«• n
CsJ ttAC>'xS)r3 4 z1? uj-3 V-
75"
/ - TCo^AA oL co' O
^9.75-
- / 7 / -
IZ
C/^.<£r&S~T - £ — £;~) —Ctf. £-z-81!u.(2,@ /*?W
V-L
s-r'iGsiArr-Z-Z^ -2-&L HcoO /vw W
'
9-2. 6$
e+i
i_fi
17
in
13
?n
71
77
51
?k
:>«;
7fi
37
?fl
7Q
in
r
Form 1, Pan B
4 84
-------
Noter Sample was Clark Fork River
(River at Champion International) and
logged in as Silver Bow due to a
concurrent study.
StsnpW Nunfatr
Arte
ORGANIC* ANALYSIS DATA SHEET
Laboratory Namei UJi f) & Cue Not _____
Lib Sample 10 Noi S~/Z /£o\sJ QC Report Noi
Sample Matriu /Q (2. C)£ot?£ Contract Nou
r-/7-#r
Data Release Authorized Byr
Date Sample Received: / 7
PPf
(21A)
SCMIVOLATTLC COMPOUNDS
CONCENTRATION!
-------
tnwarmwnm Pi mw-lmn » gmnry. CLP&amotoManaoamMOffKa.
p. 0. So* 116. AJmandna.Vmime 22313 703/S67-2490
fi*s* 93(1
Organic* Analysis Data Sheat
(Page 3)
Sampt* Number
At\)
?-n-85
P*«icide/PCB»
Concentration: Madium (Circla Onal
Oct* Extraetad/Praparad: 7 ~ & ^
Oat* Analyzed.
£zJ_z&£.
^?0i. c,r"r /c?c>£>
CAS
/^UQ/U
rfrug/Ka
Number
(Circle OmI
319-84-6
Alona-BHC
< "2.
319-85-7
Ben-BHC
319-86-8
Oeita-BHC
58-89-9
Gamma-BHC (Lindanel
76-44-8
Hepiaenior
309-00-2
Aidnn
1024-57-3
Heotacnior Eoonde
959-98-8
EndosuKan 1
60-57-1
Oicldrin
72-55-9
4 4 -ODE
72-20-8
Endrin
33213-65-9
Endoiulfan II
72-54-8
4 4 -000
7421-93-4
Endrin Atdenytie
1031-07-8
Endosulfar* Sulfate
50-29-3
A 4 -00T
72-43-5
Metfoivcnior
53494-70-5
Endrin Ketone
57-74-9
Chlordane
>
f
8001-25-2
To»ao"ene
/A
12574-11-2
Aroclor-1016
11104-28-2
Aroclor.1221
11141-16-5
Aroc:ar-1232
53469-21-9
Aroclor-1242
12672-29-6
Arocior-1248
11097-69-1
Aroclor-1254
11096-82-5
Arocior-1260
V( * Volume of ertran injected (ol)
Vt * Ve
-------
Note: Sample was well water at
Champion International and was logged
in at the laboratory as.Silver Bow
due to a concurrent study.
Sample Nmfcar
CHAflS/oA lr1£L
L
Laboratory None:
Lab Single ID Noi X/LM&A. A>W
Sainple Matrix: /4henol
(J7A) SS-73-3 2- nitrophenol
(3SA) 100-02-7 a-nitrooherol
(39A) JI-2S-3 2.»-dirotrophenol
(MA) 33»-32-l »,6-dinitr»-2-rnethylpheral
(64A) S7-S6-J pentachloroohenol
(63A) 10S-93-2 phenol
63-S3-0 benzoic acid
95-*t-7 2-"»ethylnhenol
10*— 39-* »-methylphenol
9J-93-* 2,*,>-trichlorooher>ol
(IB) SJ-32-? acenaohthene
(3B) 92-S7-3 benzidine
(SB) 120-S2-1 l,2,»-trichlorobenzene
(9B) 1IS-7U1 hexachloroben2ene
(12B) 47-72-1 hexachloroethane
(ISB) lll-i»-» bu(2-chloroethylVether
(20B) 91 -38—7 2-<3tlororiaphthaJene
(23B) 93-30-1 l.2-dichlorobenzene
(26B) JM-73-1 1.3-dichlorobenzene
(278) 106-46-7 l.»-dichlorobenzene
(2SB) 91-94-1 ),3'-dichlorobenzidinai
(33B) 121-11-2 2,*-dinitrotoluene
(368) 606-20-2 2,6-dinitrotoluene
(37B) 122-66-7 1,2-diphenvlhydrazu*
(39B) 206-44-0 floor anthene
(»0B) 7003-72-3 *-chlorcphenyl phenyl ether
(4IB) IOI-3J-3 4-bromopheny| phenyl ether
(42B) 5963X-J2-9 bi» (2-chlofotjopropyl) ether
(43BI III-9I-1 bu (2-chloroetho»y) methane
yrene
(7»B) 203-99-2 benzoibMluoranthene
(73B) 207-0S-9 benzo(W)fluoranthene
(76B) 211-01-9 chryiene
(77B) . 20I-96-S acenaohthylene
(7SB) 120-12-7 -anthracene
(79B) 191-24-2 t>enzo
-------
Cmvormntal Fraction Agancy. CLP Sampl* ttanaqmmmru ONca.
f 0. tea Its. Atnandna. Virt«u«23313 703/SS7-2490
fAA ?_?<$>
Organic* Analysii Data Sheet
(Page 3)
Parricide/PCBs
Concentration: (Cay? Medium (Circle One|
Oate Eitracted/Prepared:
Date Analyzed: &
^SoryP/Dit Factor:
CAS
Number
TCire
Sample Number
c.ttAfiAoA iA£iL
z-n-e>5
ug/Kg
tireie Onel
319-84-6
Alohi-BHC
< i
319-85-7
Sen-BHC
319-86-8
Dem-BHC
58-89-9
Gamm»-8HC (Lmdmel
76-44-8
rttpuchlor
309-00-2
Afdnn
1024-57-3
Heotacnior Eooude
959-98-8
Enflosulfm I
60-57-1
Dieldnn
72-55-9
4 4 -ODE
72-20-8
Enflrtn
33213-65-9
EndOSuMjn II
72-54-8
4. 4 -000
74:1-93-4
Endrin Aid«hvde
1031-07-8
EndoiuUan Sulfate
50-29-3
4 4 -00T
72-43-5
Methoivcnior
53494-70-5
Endnn K«ione
57-74-9
Chiordane
V
'
8001-25-2
To*80^ene
A)/S!
1 2674-11 -2
AfOClOr-1016
11104-28-2 1 Arodor-1221
1 1 141-16-5 1 Aroc:or-1232
53469-21-9 | Aroclor-1242
12672 29-6 | Aroelor-1248
11097-69-1 | Aroelor-1254
11096-82-5 I Afoeior-1260
\
/
V( • Volume of extract infected (ul)
V# ¦ Volume of water extracted (ml)
W( « WtigW o< temoie enracied (g)
V, * Volume of tout extract (ul)
Form 1 4 84
Form I. (continued).
B-30
5/84
-------
Appendix I. Organic Analysis Data Sheet - Champion Waste 5/31/85.
-------
Note: Sample was Clark Fork River
water at Champion International and
was logged in at the laboratory as
Silver Bow due to a concurrent study.
APPENDIX I
San^te Ffcanbar
Laboratory Namet
Lab Sample 10 Not
Sample Matrix:
Data Release Authorized Bjrt
ORGANICS ANALYSIS DATA SHUT
& Cm* Not
_r-2/-#r
jSovJ
/I&oZoOC
QC Report Not
Contract Nou
A.
Date Sample Received: £ ~ ? I— 5"
SEMIVOLATU COMPOUNDS
CONCENTRATION: (^Oj) MEDIUM HIGH (circle i
DATE EXTRACTED/PREPAREDi
DATE ANALYZED: _ / - 7 - £?C
PERCENT MOUTUREi
DILUTION FACTORJ
PPI
CAS f
dsP
ori*A«
(circle one)
V9t
CAS#
ds/ip
ortaj/kg
(circle one)
(21 A)
Si-06-2
2,4,6- trichlorophenol
<2.
(J2B)
S7-6S-3
hexachlorobutadlene
< X
(22A)
39-50-7
p-chloro-m-cresol
(33B)
77-47-4
hexachlorocycJaoentadiene
(24A)
93-57-S
2- chloroohenol
(3»8)
7S-39-1
isooherone
(31 A)
I20-SV2
2,4-dichloroghenol
(33B)
91-20-3
naphth*Jene
(3»A)
105-67-9
2,4-dimethytohenol
(36B)
9S-9J-3
nitrobenzene
(37 A)
SS-75-5
2- nitrophenol
(6 IB)
62-75-9
N-nitrosodimethylamine
(ISA)
100-02-7
4-nitrophenol
(62B)
Sfr-30-6
N-nitrosodtphenylamine
(39 A)
5I-2S-5
2,4-dirutrophenol
(63B)
621-6«-7
N-nitrawdmroqylamine
(60A)
53*-32—1
4,6-dinitro-2-methybhenol
1
(66B)
117-41—7
bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
(6»A)
S7-S6-3
pentachlorophenol
(67B)
S3-6S-7
benzyl butyl phthalate
(63A)
10S-9J-2
phenol
((SB)
S4-74-2
di-n-butyl phthalate
63-S3-Q
benzoic acid
(69B)
117-SU-0
di-n-ocryl phthalate
93-4S-7
2-methylphenol
(70B)
Sa-66-2
diethyl phthalate
I0J-39-»
4-methylphenol
(71B)
131-11-3
dimethyl phthalate
93-93-4
2,4,3-trichloroohenol
(72B)
36-33-3
benzofalanthracene
(IB)
S3-32-9
acervachthene
(73B)
30-32-S
benzotaJpyrene
(3B)
92-S7-5
benzidine
(748)
205-99-2
benzo(b M luoranthene
(SB)
120-12-1
1,2,4-tridilorobenzerie
(73B)
207-0S-9
benzofl<)fluoranthene
(9B)
11S—7 *— 1
hexachlorobenzene
(76B)
2IS-01-9
Chrysene
(12B)
67-72-1
hexachloroethane
(77B)
20S-96-S
acenaohthylene
(ISB)
II1-44-4
bu(2-chloroethylVether
(7SB)
120-12-7
anthracene
(20B)
9I-5S-7
2-chloronaphthalene
' (79B)
191-24-2
benzo(*hilperTlene
(23B)
95-30-1
1,2-dichlorobenzcne
(SOB)
S6-73-7
floor ene
(26B)
3*1-73-1
1.3-dichlorobenzene
(SIB)
13-01-1
phenanthrene
(27B)
106-46-7
l,4-4ichlorobenzene
(S2B)
33-70-3
dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
(2SBI
91-94-1
3.3'-dichlorobenzidine
(S3B)
193-39-5
indeno< 1,2,3-cdloyrene
(35B)
121-14-2
2,4-dinitrotoluene
(1»B)
129-00-0
pyrene
<36B)
606-20-2
2.6-dinitrotoluene
62-33-)
aniline
(37B)
122-66-7
1,2-diphenv Ihvdrizine
100-51-6
benzyl alcohol
(39B)
206-44-0
fluoranthene
106-47-8
4-chloroaniline
(40B)
7003-72-3
4-chlorophenvl phenyl ether
132-64-9
dibenzofiran
(4 IB)
101-35-3
4-bromophenyl phenyl ether
91-57-6
2-methylf\aphthalene
(42B)
3963S- 32-9
bis (2-cMorouooroqyl) ether
SS-74-U
2-nitroaniline
(MB)
111-91-1
bit (2-chIoroethoxy) methane
99-09-2
3-mtrivaniline
100-01-6
4-nitroanihne
w
'913
-------
|win*iwnmPiw»clw« AyncY f timn Minafmn Oflet.
p. 0. too (I I. MnanM. Viri«uaU313 701/(67-2490
f2U
Organic* Analysis Data Sheet
(Page 3}
Kempia Number
r-3/- &s
Pesticide/PC B «
Concentration. Medium (Circle One)
Data Extracted/Prepared. _ £-c-f>r
Date Analyzed. £ ~ 7
^or^/Dil Factor: /&OQ
CAS fuq/£br ub/Kq
Number iCirela One I
319-84.6
AId^i-BhC
<2
319-85-7
Seia-BnC
319-86 8
D«n»-8HC
58 89-9
G«mm»-8HC lL'naan«l
76-44.8
Hfotacfttor
309-00-2
Alflnn
1024-57-3
Hepiicmor £po«>0<
959-98 8
EndoiuKan I
60-57 1
OnlB'in
72-55 9
4 4 -ODE
72-20-8
Endnn
33213 65-9
EnaouMan II
72-54-8
4 4'.ODD
7421-93-4
Er.dnn AidenyO*
1031-07 8
EndosutUri Sulfate
50-29-3
4 4 -COT
72-43 5
Mtinoivcnior
53494-70-5
Endnn Ketone
57-74-9
ChlortJan*
V
U
8C<31 :s 2
Toi«D">fie
ri/A
12674.1 1.2
Afocior 1016
11104-28-2
Afoclor 1221
11141.16-5
Aiocior-1 232
53469 21-9
Ar0Cl0'-1242
12672-29 6
Afocior-1 248
11097 69-1
Aiocior-1254
l1096 82 5
Aiocio'- 1260
>
f
V( • Volume o< enraci injected (ul)
V( • Volume oi water enraeied (ml)
W( « We»gm of sample extracted (gl
Vj » Volume of tout extract (ull
V, orW,
Forrn 1
4 84
Form I. (continued).
B-30
5/84
-------
Note: Sample Number should have been
Champion well water and was identified
as Silver Bow due to a concurrent study.
Sairple Nianber
€IL
OKCAN1CS ANALYSIS DATA SHEET
s
Laboratory Name: UffcP/9 AEG/O/i 8 Cm* Not
Lab Sample ID No: C//1/^OU QC Report No:
Sample Matriu /1IrOLLf Contract Noj
Data Releaae Authorized By: _ (Z. SJT
Date Sample Received:
pp#
(21 A)
SEMIVOLATU COMPOUNDS
CONCENTRATlONi/Coy? MEDIUM HICH (circle one)
DATE EXTRACTED/PREPARED! * -r-
DATE ANALYZED: / - )s> - ft C
EJRCENT MOISTUREj ~
/6oNp2rDO.UTTON FACTOR!
/GO <2
CAS «
1S-06-2
2.*.6- trichlorophenol
CjslP
orug/Vg
(circle one)
<"2.
IT#
(32B)
CAS#
17-61-3
hexachlorobutadle
art*A*
(circle one)
3-32-9
acenaphthene
(73B)
30-32-1
benzo(a)pyren«
(3B)
92-17-3
benzidine
(7»B)
203-99-2
benzotbHluoranthene
(SB)
120-12-1
l,2,*-triehlorobenzene
(73B)
207-01-9
benzo(V If luoranlhene
(9B)
11S-7A-I
hexachlorobenzene
(76B)
211-01-9
chrysene
(12B)
67-72-1
hexachloroethane
(77B)
20X-9&-S
acenaohthylene
(I1B)
11 I-**-*
bu(2-chloroethyl)ether
(71B)
120-12-7
-anthracene
(20B)
91-31-7
2-chloronaphthaJene
" (79B)
19l-2»-2
benzotghiVerylene
(23B)
9V30-1
1,2-dichlorobenzene
(I0B)
16-73-7
floor ene
(26B)
3«(-73-l
1.J-diehforobenzene
(118)
13-01-1
phenanthrene
(27B)
l06-#6-7
1 ,*-
fluoranthene
106-47-1
*-chloroaniline
(»0B)
7003-72-3
~-chlorcphenyl phenyl ether
I32-6*-9
dibenzoluran
(
-------
llWMDHWWU)
ro»o»»i8.
Agamy. CLP Sample MenegamweOfla
703/H7-24S0
/k^TStf
Organic* Analysis Oata Sheet
(Page 3)
lampte Number
CL^K /&X.K
U£LL
£--?!-0JT
Pa«ticide/PC3«
Concentration: fG&l) Medium
Data Extracted/Prepared: ~
Oata Analyzed. ^ ~ /O
(Circle Ona)
£^L_
-------
Note: Sample Identification should
have read Champion wastewater and
reference to Silver Bow was due to a
concurrent study.
OBGAN1CS ANALYSIS DATA SHEET
Laboratory Names /^£G-?qA 8> Cam Noi
Lab Sample ID Noi _ 120-83-2 2,»-dichloraphenol
(34A) 103-67-9 2,*-di(nethytphenol
(37A) 88-75-J 2- mtrophenol
(38A) 100-02-7 t-nitroohenol
(39A) 31-28-3 2,»-dinitroohenol
(60A) 33*-32-l »,6-«Jimtro-2-methytpheTOl
(6% A) 17-86-3 pentachlorophenol
(63A) 108-93-2 phenol
63-83-Q benzoic acid
93-*8-7 2-methvlphe«ol
108-19-4 »-methvlphenol
93-93-* 2,»,3-trichlorcphenol
(IB) SJ-32-9 acenaphthene
(3B) 92-87-3 benzidine
(SB) 120-82-1 1.2.*-tric*ilorobenzer>e
(9B) II8-7»-l heiachlorobenzene
(12B) 67-72-1 heiactiloroethane
(18B) 11 !-&»-» bu(2-chloroethyl)ether
(20B) 91-38-7 2-chlorofiaphthalene
(23B) 93-30-1 1.2-dichlorobenzene
(26B) 3* t-73-1 1.3-dichlorobenzene
(27B) 106-46-7 l,»-diehlorobenzen«
(28B) 9l-9*-l J,3'-dichlorobenzidine
(33B) 1Z1-1%-2 2.»-dinitrotoluer>e
(36B) 606-20-2 2,6-dinitrotoluene
(J7B) 122-66-7 l.2-dipheny|hvdrazine
(39BI 206-»ii-0 floor anthene
(#0B) 7003-72-3 »-chlorophenyl phenyl ether
UlB) 101-33-3 a-bromophenyl phenyl ether
U2B) 39631-32-9 bi» (2-chlorouooropyl) ether
PPI
(328)
CAS#
17-68-3
hexachlorobutadlene
03B) 77-47-* hexachloroercieoentadierte
(3*B) 78-59-1 iioohorone
(33B) 91-20-3 naohthalene
(36B) 98-95-J nitrobenzene
(4IB) 62-73-9 N-nitrosodimethylamine
(62B) 86-30-6 N-nitrosodiphenylamine
(63B) 621-64-7 N-nitronsd^jropy limine
(66B) 117-81-7 bii (2-ethylheiyl) phthalate
(67B) 83-68-7 benzyl butyl phthalate
(68B) 8»-7*-2 di-n-butyl phthalate
(69B) H7-8(luorantheT>e
(73B) 207-08-9 benzo(k)fluoranthene
(76B) 218-01-9 chrywne
(77B) 208-96-8 aceniohthylene
(7JB) 120-12-7 -anthracene
(79B) 191-24-2 C>enzo(|(hilperylene
(8CB) 86-73-7 fluorene
(818) 83-01-8 phenanthrene
(82B) 33-70-3 dibenzofa.h)anthricen«
(138) 193- 39-3 indeno
-------
tiwiWWiiWlPiuwUWM "H. Of Slnytt Min»q«iini«Qffca. ?372.
r.0.talll. AJaaman*. Vi>rn«23313 7G3/H7-14M
Organic* Analysis Data Sheet
(Page 3)
Sampta Numbar
fin/Co^
uast£
r-2h
PtrticJde/PCBt
Concentration: /Covwx Madium (Circla 0n*|
Data Extractad/Praparad;
Data Analyxad. ^ — /& &5>
(fCory? Pi) Factor
~X.&o
CAS
Number
(^^Xfug/Kg
fCifCt* Ortal
319-84-6
Alpha-BHC
< 2
319-85-7
8eia-8HC
319-86-8
Oelii-SHC
58-89-9
G«mm»-BMC ILindanel
76-44-8
Haptacnior
309-00-2
Aldnn
1024-57-3
Haptacmor Eoonda
959-98-8
SndoiuKan1
60-57-1
Onldrin
i
72-55-9
4 4 -ODE
72-20-8
Endrin
33213-65-9
EndoiulUn II
72-54-8
4. 4--000
7421-93-4
Endrin Aldanyde
1031-07-8
Endosuffan Sulfate
50-29-3
4 4 -COT
72-43-5
Methoivenlor
53494 70-5
End'in Ketone
57-74.9
Chlordane
>
1/
8001-25-2
To»iO«ene
12674-11-2
Aroclor-1016
11104-28-2
Arodor-1221
11141-16-5
Aroclor-1 232
53469-21-9
Af0Cl0f-1 24 2
12672-29 6
Aroclor-1248
11097-69-1
Aroclor-1254
11096-82-5
Aroetor-1260
V
V( a Volum* e< «nr»a in|*ct*d (ul)
V( ¦ Volum* of vmtr ««iiac.i»d (ml)
Wg » Waigm oi aamol* *itract«d (g)
V, « Velum* of iota)
-------
vjronmentjl Protection Agency. CIP Sample Management Office,
0 Bo* 818.•Alexandria, Virginia 22313 703'557-2490
teA 73 7l
Organics Analysis Data Sheet
(Page 4)
Sample Number
4rr£
Ac>£T—fi -
l£. ?8
4i.C
B
±-£/60S£^£ C^Ho-r, nU 1.80
3o. (>Q
19-.6
7
Z£a/'/si/lA'/a. A /*iu) 3o~\
y>f. n
/ST
n
/'/rt/l/Z'/e. \ /V\J 3oX
5/. £iT
21?
9
rLrt/Z To />//7/4A,'c. /*)c.'/L ^o~2.
? 7
S J o
1 n
ls£Hyh#o/)£/ £T'/ c. /}
-------
Appendix J. ICAP Analyses Data Sheets, Champion Waste Water, Well Water, and
Clark Fork River Water, collected on 5/17/85 and 5/31/85.
-------
I ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
APPENDIX J REGION VIII, DEh ), COLORADO
( ——'laboratory services request
PROJECT NAME C ''' aR, (./j PROJECT CODE SAMPLES COLL. BY J DATE
SAMPLES RECEIVED AT LABORATORY BY ' v DaTE '¦ 's DATA REVIEWED BY
ANALYST INITIALS I
STATION CODE r
1 ix/
<^v-r S~Z 2,
/ —7
i
i i
SAMPLE COLL. TIME '
r
/ /
it/!.1.
• a ¦/
i' '
STATION DESCRIPTION . j u- A A
' )¦ <. A ^ i4\. U1
AND REMARKS
{ W 5'm/g
& ?>t £
fa - If
X-J/Cft'-x
/ '
St* - y
i!J t I'
t'A
''aJr
Alwov*-*-
1
'¦¦¦¦¦¦: r"
' 7 .1 !
11. '1
¦1 1' i
i ¦ '•
; _ , - ' I
(C.l9krl<- PivlO
~1
' -l ; • -
i .'i
CODE
PARAMETER
/
/ . )
0!\J/1,1
'
y'
V
x
, /
h-
X
s
V
/
y
!
z 5"
/.
'>n
¦ r' ¦' ' )
As
6
IT
AS"
l S'
>
V o
/TV
U7
6S
r?t
'-¦> i>
~%p
Z./0
/-/o
Z/o
jl/o
/¦/()
/
/ /( >
CcP
/s"
zr
/— *5"
/_
/ '
Co ¦ (
IS'
z c
• f "
/
. >
Cv
13
"T
*¦
/- .:7?
/ 'T
/ -
• * >
Cv
/-'S
/5'
-T
/ r
--
-*
fe
S-?o
/ / i'
/ (
Aft]
6t?
/'¦ 5~
¦i /
^ 'T""
. i
/ /
'//¦ p
~ t.
Atn
/-/c
'O
z/r>
/-'O
S.'O
-
p:
y^o
/3o
/o
o
A'iO
-. '.n
-i .1 >
•
. \r1
/ 1 r'
Ml raiulU In unlat* oltwrwlt* Indicated, haevy mattls In ug/1, pH In unit*, turbidity In JTU, (pacific conductinca In^tmhoa/cm, u par 8TORET. * OPO: 1979-680 - 570 RoErA-Ol,
(Rot. 11-83)
-------
PROJECT NAME.
REGION VIII, DENVER, COLORADO
LABORATORY SERVICES REQUEST
PROJECT CODE SAMPLES COLL BY P
PATE.
if a
SAMPLES RECEIVED AT LABORATORY BY
DATE.
DATA REVIEWED BY.
STATION CODE
g?3 i/gr
S-K
> ft//-j -¦
SAMPLE COLL. TIME
(/ 9£
Cfl^
luC '<
rjLILL
W-
U'/fcrr. "
o
CD
>-
l/>
cc
O
O
U
o
<
STATION DESCRIPTION
AND REMARKS
j.;' £ ''
', !]} H
/ i-'/i / L ^
:>/) '¦>
f it
"77/ -;
C /it^u
CODE
PARAMETER
7
,:v
r~
z
------- |