Seawater Concentrate Discharge Design for Sydney’s ... · To verify the performance criteria of 30-times dilution and salinity to within 1ppt of seawater background at the edge

Seawater Concentrate Discharge Design for Sydney’s Desalination Plant The Blue Water Joint Venture (BWJV), on behalf of Sydney Water Corporation, designed and constructed the Sydney Desalination Plant at Kurnell. The plant was constructed for a 250 ML/day capacity and allowance has been made for it to be expanded to a 500 ML/day capacity plant, if needed in the future.

The plant has an outfall to return seawater concentrate to the ocean, which required design investigations to mitigate potential impacts on seawater quality and aquatic ecology. Following these investigations, BWJV refined the design and construction of the outfall riser arrangement so that it would be suitable for the 250 ML/day capacity as well as 500 ML/day capacity if it were to be expanded in future.

The design process involved extensive numerical and physical modeling of the 2-riser and outlet design to determine and validate its performance with the range of flows expected from the 250 ML/day plant. The design process also included physical modeling of the 2-riser and outlet design for the larger 500 ML/day plant.

The Water Research Laboratory (WRL) of the University of New South Wales has been involved in assessing the performance of the plant ocean outfall throughout the life of the project. As such, BWJV requested that WRL assist with refining the design of the 2-riser and outlet system to meet the plume performance requirements stipulated in the Minister’s Conditions of Approval (item 2.7). These include:

• Salinity is within 1ppt of background ocean salinity by the edge of the near field;

• Targeted 30 times dilution of seawater concentrate is met by the edge of the near field;

• Visual amenity of the sea surface will be maintained.

WRL’s study, undertaken in June 2009, took into account the fact that the seawater concentrate plume discharged from the outlet is denser than seawater, and would tend to sink toward the seabed unless adequately mixed as it is discharged. The study demonstrated that adequate mixing and dilution of the plume can be achieved by ensuring appropriate design criteria are met for the plume discharge velocity and the angle of the discharge to the seafloor.

The physical modeling study undertaken by WRL for the 500 ML/day plant determined, through a series of iterative tests, the appropriate design of the 2-riser and outlet system to achieve the necessary plume discharge velocity and angle of discharge to meet the performance requirements.

The modeling study used, as its basis, the volume of flows discharged from the 500 ML/day plant under the range of operating conditions expected. The study also used information from actual ocean current measurements taken at the location of the outlet. The June 2009 modeling results validated that dilution of the plume with the final 2-riser and outlet design would meet the performance requirements under quiescent or ‘still’ ocean current conditions.

The ocean current measurements used in WRL’s study show that quiescent conditions would only be expected approximately 0.05 per cent of the time. This means that for the majority of the time there will be an additional mixing effect provided by the ocean currents, improving the level of dilution of the plume.

This same analysis also showed that ocean currents at the outlet site will be 0.07m/s or greater 50 per cent of the time (ie the median ocean current speed is 0.07m/s). Taking into account the mixing effects provided by this level of ocean current, WRL's studies indicate that for the 500ML/day plant under normal plant operating conditions and median ocean currents, dilutions of approximately 42 times could be achieved within 50 metres of the outlet. This meets the performance requirements for the riser and outlet system and is also consistent with the 2005 Environmental Assessment.

The NSW Department of Planning has advised that it is satisfied that the Seawater Concentrate Discharge Design fully complies with the Conditions of Approval for the plant’s seawater intake and discharge system. An electronic copy of these Conditions is available at www.sydneywater.com.au/Water4Life/Desalination/overalldocumentation.cfm.

ii5

Rectangle

ii5

Rectangle

ii5

Rectangle

ii5

Rectangle

Sydney's Desalination Project Design and Construct Contract ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT – SEAWATER CONCENTRATE DISCHARGE DESIGN

Revision: 02 Date: 17 September 2009 Page 1 of 36

ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT –

SEAWATER CONCENTRATE DISCHARGE DESIGN

STAGED SUBMISSION 2: DISCHARGE POINT

21 September 2009 Revision: 02

Rev Date Description Prepared Checked Approved

00 25/04/09 Internal review

Emma Foster Stephen Neal Doug Franklin - DJV (Empirical Model & Durability) Benoit Guerin (Plant Process)

Gina Spyrakis Mustafa Ali

John Barraclough

01 19/05/09 Incorporate comments received by SDP 8/05/09 Gina Spyrakis

Mustafa Ali

John Barraclough

02 26/08/09 Incorporate WRL final reports and consultation with DECC/DPI Gina Spyrakis

Mustafa Ali Stephen Neal Ian Gabriel

Malachy Breslin

03 17/09/09 Incorporate final consultation from DECCW & I and I NSW Gina Spyrakis Malachy Breslin Malachy Breslin

Sydney's Desalination Project Design and Construct Contract ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT – SEAWATER CONCENTRATE DISCHARGE DESIGN


Table of Contents

Executive Summary .................................................................................................4 1.0 Introduction....................................................................................................5 1.1 Purpose of report ........................................................................................................ 5 1.2 Compliance obligations............................................................................................... 5 2.0 Consultation with Department of Environment, Climate Change and

Water (DECCW) and Department of Primary Industries (DPI)....................8 3.0 Strategy to Verify Dilution of Seawater Concentrate................................11 3.1 Modelling................................................................................................................... 11

3.1.1 Background.............................................................................................................................. 11 3.1.2 Near field/mixing zones............................................................................................................ 11 3.1.3 Operational scenarios .............................................................................................................. 14 3.1.4 Physical modelling ................................................................................................................... 14 3.1.5 Impact on oceanographic currents........................................................................................... 16 3.1.6 Impact of slope ........................................................................................................................ 16 3.1.7 Operational ranges .................................................................................................................. 17

3.2 Modelling of Physico - Chemical Water Quality Parameters..................................... 18 3.3 Program of Toxicity Testing ...................................................................................... 20 3.4 Conclusion ................................................................................................................ 20 4.0 Measures to Minimise Acute Toxicity & Bioaccumulation within the Near

Field Mixing Zone 4 .....................................................................................21 4.1 Optimisation of Diffuser Design................................................................................. 21 4.2 Literature Review ...................................................................................................... 21 4.3 Ecotoxity Study Review ............................................................................................ 24 5.0 Refine Location and Design of Discharge Point .......................................26 5.1 Effects on Water Quality and Ecology....................................................................... 27 6.0 Conclusion ...................................................................................................28 7.0 References ...................................................................................................29


Appendices

Appendix 1 Consultation with relevant stakeholder ...............................30 Appendix 2 Physical modelling Reports ..................................................31 Appendix 3 Drawings of Final Outlet Design ...........................................32 Appendix 4 Operating Ranges Methodology ...........................................33 Appendix 5 Toxicity Assessment of Seawater Concentrate Samples ...34 Appendix 6 Literature Review of Discharge Chemicals ..........................35 Appendix 7 Ecotoxicity Dilution Review...................................................36

Executive Summary In accordance with the Project Approval granted for Sydney’s Desalination Project (‘seawater intake and discharge system’, dated November 2006), Blue Water JV is required to design and construct the project so that seawater quality criteria at the edge of the near field mixing zone is consistent with Australia and New Zealand Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Water Quality (ANZECC, 2000) and the objectives in Marine Water Quality Objectives for NSW Ocean Waters (DEC, 2006).

During the design of the project, consultation with DECC and DPI has been ongoing to achieve applicable performance criteria for the seawater concentrate discharge. Correspondence and meetings between the respective parties has occurred with regard to achievement of the outcomes specified under the Minister’s Condition of Approval (MCoA) 2.7.

To verify the performance criteria of 30-times dilution and salinity to within 1ppt of seawater background at the edge of the near field mixing zone for seawater concentrate discharge, Blue Water engaged the Water Research Laboratory to perform physical modelling for the 250ML/day plant and the proposed 500ML/day plant. The physical modelling verified the outlet nozzle design that provided optimal dilution of the seawater concentrate discharged to the marine environment from the outlet. The demonstrated optimal design formation for the 250ML/day plant from the modelling testing consisted of two risers, each with four 370mm nozzles separated equally at 90 degrees around the riser cap. The horizontal angle of each nozzle is at 60 degrees at the horizontal plane. Similarly modelling results for the proposed 500ML/day plant demonstrated an optimal formation of two risers, five 480mm nozzle system for each riser, with nozzles orientated 60 degrees, at a horizontal spacing of 45 degrees and set on the outside half of the two outlet risers. The WRL modelling verified that both the 250ML/day and 500ML/day outlet designs achieve salinity within 1ppt of background with no more than 25 times dilution with a mixing zone area commensurate with that referred to in the Project Approval documents, whilst maintaining the visual amenity.

A program of Ecotoxicity testing of simulated seawater concentrate for operating chemical dosing conditions, determined there was no potential for the seawater concentrate and treatment chemicals to cause acute toxicity at the edge of near-field. Refinement of the plant’s process design reduced the density difference between the seawater concentrate discharge and ambient/intake seawater compared with what was assumed in the Project Approval documents. Furthermore the dose rates for treatment chemicals were reviewed to reflect the expected rates. This resulted in a reduction of the dilution rate required to demonstrate no acute toxicity within the near field mixing zone. The optimal outlet discharge designs and refinement of operating processess minimise the potential for the seawater concentrate discharge to cause acute toxicity within the near field mixing zone.

The final design of the seawater concentrate discharge point developed by Blue Water ensures that seawater quality criteria is achieved at the edge of the near field mixing zone in accordance with the requirements of MCoA 2.7 and the visual amenity is maintained with the plume rise height remaining below the sea surface.



1.0 Introduction

1.1 Purpose of report The Project Approval for the “seawater intake and discharge system” of Sydney’s Desalination Project was issued on the 16th November 2006. Under the Minister’s Condition of Approval (MCoA) 2.7 the Proponent is required to design and construct the project so that seawater concentrate meets seawater quality criteria consistent with Australian and New Zealand Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Water Quality (ANZECC, 2000) and Marine Water Quality Objectives for NSW Ocean Waters (DEC, 2006) for relevant physico-chemical parameters at the edge of the near field mixing zone.

This report specifically addresses the final staged submission of the remaining requirements of MCoA 2.7 (a-c, balance of d), relating to the approval of the discharge point design, which is a reference to the nozzles to be fitted to the discharge riser structure. The staged submission of documentation to satisfy MCoA 2.7 is in accordance with correspondence between the Department of Planning (DoP) and Blue Water JV (BWJV) dated 6th and 8th February 2008, presented in Appendix 1.

This report also considers MCoA 3.1 where relevant to MCoA 2.7 and within the scope of works for BWJV.

This report is submitted to the Director-General of Planning to satisfy MCoA 2.7 for the final discharge point design for the 250ML/day plant and proposed 500ML/day plant.

1.2 Compliance obligations The MCoA and Statement of Commitments (SoC) relevant to the final design of the seawater concentrate discharge point are listed in Table 1-1 Compliance Obligations, with a cross reference to where the condition is addressed in this Report and/or attachments.

Table 1-1: Compliance Obligations Environmental Report Seawater Concentrate Discharge Design

No: Requirement Doc Ref: The Proponent shall design and construct the project so that seawater concentrate meets water quality criteria for relevant physico-chemical parameters (in particular, salinity and treatment chemicals) at the edge of the near field mixing zone, consistent with Australian and New Zealand Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Water Quality (ANZECC, 2000) and consistent with the objectives in Marine Water Quality Objectives for NSW Ocean Waters (DEC 2006). In undertaking the design of the project to achieve these outcomes, the Proponent shall:

a) consult the DEC and DPI during the design of the project with respect to achievement of the outcomes specified under this condition;

Section 2 of this report

b) develop a strategy for the desalination plant design and operation to verify the targeted 30-times dilution of the seawater concentrate at the edge of the near field mixing zone, including where necessary, further water quality sampling of receiving waters and a program of toxicity testing on simulated seawater concentrate in association with pilot testing;


c) develop measures to minimise the potential for seawater concentrate to cause acute toxicity within the near field mixing, including measures such as modification of the design of the outlets to increase the rate of dispersion or modification of the treatment process and chemicals to reduce the toxicity of the discharge;


d) refine the location and design of the discharge point to minimise impacts on water quality and ecology as far as practicable, including as necessary, further surveys of current movements, physical modelling of near field dilution and habitat surveys.

Previously addressed in Environmental Report Seawater Concentrate Discharge Design Staged Submission 1:Riser Location, 14 December 2007. Section 5 of this report addresses physical modelling

MCoA Intake/Outlet

2.7

The Proponent shall submit details of the final design of the seawater concentrate discharge point to the Director-General prior to the commencement of its construction, or within such period as otherwise agreed by the Director-General, demonstrating how the Proponent has complied with the requirements of this condition.

This Report (DoP approved staged compliance in letter dated 08/02/08)

MCoA Intake/Outlet

3.1 Prior to the commencement of commissioning of the project, the Proponent shall prepare and implement a Marine Water Quality and Ecosystem Monitoring Program to monitor the impacts of the project on water quality and marine ecosystems, to validate and calibrate modelling presented in the documents referred to under condition 1.1, and to monitor impacts associated with discharge of seawater concentrate from the project. Implementation of the Program shall start prior to the commencement of commissioning of the project so that the pre- and post-commissioning states of the receiving environment can be compared. The Program shall continue until at least three years after the commencement of operation of the project, after which the Program shall be reviewed to establish on-going monitoring requirements. The Program shall be developed in consultation with the DPI and DECC and shall include, but not necessarily be limited to:



Table 1-1: Compliance Obligations f) based on the modelling undertaken under d), refinement, during design, of

the outlet location and design to ensure effective plume dispersion; Section 3 of this report

g) based in the understanding of oceanographic conditions derived from a) and the modelling undertaken under d), refinement of the location and design of the discharge point to minimise impacts on water quality and ecology as far as practicable;

Sections 3, 4 & 5 of this report and Environmental Report Seawater Concentrate Discharge Design Staged Submission 1:Riser Location, 14 December 2007

h) reconciliation of the discharge performance envelope against the Australian and New Zealand Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Water Quality (ANZECC, 2000) to provide a clear understanding and description of the mixing zone. Results are to be presented using a statistical approach that defines best, typical and worst case scenarios and the relative likely occurrence of each;

Sections 3 & 4

Designs will be developed so that the seawater concentrate meets water quality criteria for relevant chemical and non-chemical parameters (in particular salinity and treatment chemicals) at the edge of the near field mixing zone in line with the approach described in the ANZECC (2000) Australian and New Zealand Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Water Quality and protects DECC Water Quality Objectives where they are currently being achieved. This will include:

Note: The commitments of SoC 12 are picked up by MCoA 2.7.

a) Development of a strategy for the desalination plant design and operation to verify the targeted 30 times dilution of the seawater concentrate at the edge of the near field mixing zone. This may include further receiving water quality sampling and a program of toxicity testing on simulated seawater concentrate in association with pilot testing.

b) Measures to minimise within the near field mixing zone potential for the seawater concentrate to cause acute toxicity. These measures may include:

i. Modifying the design of the outlets to increase the rate of dispersion; and

ii. Modifying the treatment process and the chemicals chosen to reduce the toxicity of the discharge.

c) Measures to refine the location and design of the desalination plant outlet to minimise impacts on water quality and ecology as far as practicable. This may include further surveys of current movements to refine numerical models, physical modelling of the near field dilution, and habitat survey of the selected location.

SoC 12

d) Treatment chemicals that are known to bioaccumulate will not be selected, based on a literature review of proposed chemicals; and


2.0 Consultation with Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water (DECCW) and Department of Primary Industries (DPI)

This section addresses part a) of MCoA 2.7. Consultation with DECCW (formerly DECC) and DPI has occurred throughout the period of design of the discharge point to inform the regulators of the proposed seawater concentrate discharge design in accordance with the requirement of the Minister’s Condition of Approval 2.7 for the seawater intake and discharge system.

Consultations between the relevant stakeholders are summarised and listed below in Table 2-1 and copies of relevant correspondence on consultation are provided in chronological order in Appendix 1.

Table 2-1: Chronological listing of consultation with relevant stakeholders Date Type of

consultation Stakeholders involved

Stakeholder comments BWJV response

DECC indicated that the design should meet, at a minimum, the performance indicated by the empirical and physical models, i.e. an indicative performance dilution of 30:1 within a radius of less than 50m from the discharge outlet. DECC expected that the relevant ANZECC guidelines should be met within the near field mixing zone and compliance should be demonstrated for a range of oceanographic and operational conditions likely to be encountered. A minimum of 1 year was suggested so as to capture seasonal influences

These matters raised by DECC are included in the MCoA for the seawater intake and discharge system Project Approval (MCoA 2.7) and addressed in this report

07/03/07 Meeting DoP, DECC, DPI

DECC also expected that environmental performance related to the discharge structures will be assessed by post-commissioning monitoring with the aim of demonstrating compliance

The environmental performance monitoring included in the Marine and Estuarine Monitoring Program (MEMP) was prepared by Sydney Water and approved by the relevant agencies as per (MCoA 3.1)

12/12/07 Email received by BWJV

DPI DPI requested clarification of results included in the Ecotoxicity Assessment and consideration of the loss of kelp from the mixing zone

BWJV carried out supplementary ecotoxicity testing to the satisfaction of DPI and this report addresses the refinement of design to minimise impacts within the mixing zone

20/12/07 Email received by BWJV

DECC DECC commented on ecotoxicity test methodology, calculations and reporting of results noting the toxicity resultant of biocide and advised for confirmatory testing of the flocculant of choice

BWJV does not intend to have biocide in the discharge water however in the event biocide needs to be used in the future biocide was included in supplementary ecotoxicity testing

16/02/09 & 19/02/09

Letter received by BWJV

DECC DECC requested an opportunity to provide comments on any assessments and modelling required as part of amendments to the outlet riser discharge design

BWJV sent letter in response confirming requirements to comply with the project approvals and commitment to intelligibility

24/02/09 Meeting DECC DECC and BWJV discussed requirements to prove compliance with the two risers

Preliminary discussions for the two riser option and informed DECC that additional requirements for physical modelling at Water Research Laboratory (WRL) was initiated

02, 05, 09, 18, 20/03/09 & 06, 08/04/09

Email request for viewing & discussion at WRL

DECC DECC attended WRL modelling of two riser option on the 2nd and 20th March 2009, with no further comments

BWJV invited DECC to view and discuss the physical modelling on various occasions

DECC responded on 7th April 2009 confirming satisfaction that the ecotoxicity tests had adequately assessed the potential toxicity of diluted discharges from the plant representing waters at the edge of the near field mixing zone

No further actions required 13/03/09 Letter with attached Ecotoxicity report, ESA 2009

DECC

DECC noted the requirement for information regarding the operational processes, such as chemical dosing procedure, and assumptions that chemical concentrations are accurate and process for preparing the simulated discharge streams reflect operational processes in the plant

BWJV confirms in this report, chemical concentrations and that laboratory used for sample preparation is NATA accredited

13/03/09 Letter with attached Ecotoxicity report, ESA 2009

DPI DPI responded on 26th March 2009 that the report adequately satisfied the conditions of consent that required toxicity testing of the treatment chemicals to be used in the desalination plant and the seawater concentrate

No further actions required

14/04/09 Telephone & email

DPI No comments Informing DPI of physical modelling being carried out and if they would like any further information

26/06/09

Letter & attached WRL 2009, 500ML/day physical modelling report For comments

DPI DPI responded on 16th July 2009 with no objections to the 500ML/day outlet discharge design proposal

No further action required

26/06/09

Letter & attached WRL 2009, 500ML/day physical modelling report For comments

DECC DECC responded on 24th July 09 outlining some issues that required further consideration, including: examination of worse case scenarios; definition of ultimate minimum dilution; a request for diagrams; further modelling and validation of the modelling

Response to letter sent 26th August 09- date of submission of this report addressing issues outlined in DECC letter and attaching this report for review

07/08/09 Meeting following DECC letter (24/07/09)

DECCW DECCW requested a consolidated report for the outlet discharge design, detailing performance of the 2 riser configurations for 250ML/day and 500ML/day plant for review

BWJV considers consolidated report is this report and provided report for review to DECCW and DPI (26th August 09 – date of submission of this report)



14/08/09 Meeting DECCW DECCW received Table of Contents and overview of report. DECCW requested (email 19/08/09) the report includes: 1. Comparison of riser performances 2. The Physical modelling report for the

250ML capacity plant undertaken by WRL

3. Monitoring programme to validate the outlet design performance, and consequential management actions

4. An assessment of the design performance against ANZECC criteria

5. The performance of the riser designs must be presented for ambient and operational conditions - including worst case scenarios and failure mode operations (and a justification of why it is worst case)

BWJV advised DECCW (email 20/08/09) that points 1, 2, 4, and 5 would be addressed in this report. Item 3 has been addressed in The Marine and Estuarine Monitoring Program (MEMP) and specifically dye tracer testing will be conducted when the seawater concentrate from the plant operations has commenced.

26/08/09 Letter & attached Revision 2 of this report for review

DECCW DECCW responded on the 17/09/09 concluding that the Department is satisfied with the assessment of the current design for the discharge structures and considers that the change in environmental performance to be marginal


01/09/09 Letter & attached Revision 2 of this report for review

Industry & Investment NSW

I&I NSW responded on the 15/09/09 and stated that the Department has no objections to the report being accepted and the development proceeding


Revision: 02

3.0 Strategy to Verify Dilution of Seawater Concentrate

This section addresses part b) of MCoA 2.7, parts f) g) and h) of MCoA 3.1 and part a) of SOC 12.

3.1 Modelling

3.1.1 Background The Environmental Assessment (EA) (SWC, 2005) process identified possible locations for the outlet structures and assessed the suitability of the location. Preliminary numerical modelling was undertaken to determine the dispersion of seawater concentrate plume. The EA modelling assumed a 500ML/day plant design involving 3 risers with 4 nozzles per riser. Nozzles were directed at an angle of 60 degrees to the horizontal and risers were spaced approximately 25m apart.

The modelling undertaken for the EA (SWC, 2005) showed that, if seawater concentrate were discharged at 65 ppt into seawater (35 ppt), a fast moving, turbulent jet angled at 60 degrees from the horizontal could achieve the recommended dilution of 30:1 which would result in an end of near field concentration less than 1ppt above the background concentration of seawater. This salinity increase would be within natural seawater variations and would provide adequate dilution for any other constituents in the concentrate.

3.1.2 Near field/mixing zones Diverse descriptions have been used in the project approval documents to characterise near field and the extent of mixing zones. This section of the report outlines the consistent expressions used in the project approval documents, the ANZECC guidelines and the physical modelling explanation for near field. BWJV has utilised results from the physical modelling to define the extent of the near field zone and possible dilutions of the plume that may be expected under a range of discharge flow rates and current speeds. Physical modelling determined the point where, 30 times dilution is reached for chemical concentrations, salinity was within 1ppt of background and visual amenity was maintained on the surface. Combined with the results of toxicity testing and analysis of chemical concentrations, the outcomes of the modelling will delineate the extent of the mixing zone; which may be defined as the zone within which ecological effects could occur.

Date: 17 September 2009 Page 11 of 36

The EA (SWC, 2005) referred to the “near field” as the “mixing zone”, and this was estimated to extend 50-75 metres from the point of discharge as shown in Figure 3-1, which is an exert from the EA.

Figure 3-1: Dilution of seawater concentrate (exert from EA)

The Preferred Project Report (PPR) (SWC, 2006) discussed the extent of the near field and defined the edge of the near field as when initial fast mixing is complete, as referenced in Figure 3-2. The distance to the edge of the near field would depend on the ocean currents passing the outlet. In quiescent conditions, the size of the impact zone would be the smallest and would be as low as one third of a hectare. Section 9 of the PPR showed what the near field plume would look like in a still water situation (that is, quiescent conditions) and outlined how the area of the near field was calculated.

Figure 3-2: Near field plume in still waters (exert from PPR)


The extent and quality of the near field mixing zone in the Environmental Assessment Report (NSW DoP, 2006) states that:

The Proponent suggests that overall, the discharge of seawater concentrate is likely to alter the marine assemblages in the near field mixing zone. The Proponent highlights, however, that based on its modelling, the near field mixing zone will be in the order of 0.5 hectares, which represents only 0.05% of the total area of the rocky reef habitat off the Kurnell Peninsula.

The approach taken with respect to water quality around the seawater concentrate discharge, and reflected in the recommended conditions of approval, is the attainment of ANZECC water quality outcomes outside the near field mixing zone, and optimisation of the mixing zone to minimise impacts within this area.

The ANZECC Guidelines (ANZECC, 2000) state that they have not been designed to deal with mixing zones, however they do provide some comment as to the size and management of mixing zones. In summary the ANZECC Guidelines advise that:

If mixing zones are to be applied, then management should ensure that impacts are effectively contained within the mixing zone, and the combined size and zones is small, and most importantly, that the agreed and designated values and uses of the broader ecosystem are not compromised.

The boundary of the mixing zone is usually defined in terms of the concentrations of indicator species in the effluent. Where these are statistically indistinguishable from ambient water concentrations the mixing zone is presumed to have ended.

Aside from references such as this, there is no prescription as to the size of the near field mixing zone in the ANZECC Guideline.

The Water Research Laboratory (WRL), 2009 reports for Physical modelling of the 250ML/day and 500ML/day plant stated that, “in the context of the report the ‘edge of near field’ is defined as the point where the plume jet no longer has the ability to mix by turbulent momentum. By this definition, the location of the edge of the near field would be at the point of ultimate minimum dilution…the point of ultimate minimum dilution has a theoretical location of some 3.5 times further from the diffuser (Roberts 1997) than the distance of the observed point of plume impact on the bed..” A graphical representation of the plume was provided from the WRL, 2009 reports in Figure 3-3 where Sm is the ultimate dilution.

Figure 3-3: Representation of a negatively buoyant plume


3.1.3 Operational scenarios The optimal discharge design configuration demonstrated by the physical modelling undertaken in 2009 was based on normal operating scenarios. All operating scenarios for the 250ML/day desalination plant are summarised in Table 3-1 and details discharge components and frequency of each scenario occurring.

Table 3-1: Estimated normal operating scenarios for the 250ML/day desalination plant* Timing and Frequency

Type of scenario Discharge component

Year 1 – 3

343 – 365 days/yr Normal Operation

Concentrate at 15,936m3/hr --100% of the time

Lamella at 1,100m3/hr - 100% of the time

Neutralisation at 176m3/hr - 1.8% of the time

Approximately 8hr/yr Restart Dependent on duration of shutdown

Year 3 onwards

341 – 362 days/yr Normal Operation

Concentrate at 15,936m3/hr -100% of the time


Neutralisation at 176m3/hr - 1.8% of the time

1 hr/wk Normal Operations plus flushing skids

Concentrate at 15,936m3/hr - -100% of the time


Permeate at 1,975m3/hr - 100% of the time

Approximately 8hr/yr Restart Dependent on duration of shutdown

* This table is expected to be valid for 98% of the time. The other 2% of the time would include failures/abnormal conditions which are expected to be corrected within 1-2 hours of occurrence. The 2% scenarios are not assessed in this report and will be dealt with in the Operational Management Plans.

3.1.4 Physical modelling The EA (SWC, 2005) recommended that additional studies, including physical modelling of the near field dilutions be undertaken for the final diffuser design. WRL performed supplementary physical modelling during February to April 2009 for the proposed 500ML/day plant and April to May 2009 for the 250ML/day plant (refer to Appendix 2 – WRL physical modelling report for 250ML/day and 500ML/day plant). The physical modelling was undertaken to confirm the final design characteristics for the nozzles and to verify that the discharge of seawater concentrate met the requirements of MCoA 2.7.

A range of multi-nozzle physical modelling tests were undertaken by WRL in 2009 to assess optimal outlet riser configurations at a range of discharge rates and sea conditions. The design strategy was to achieve 30 times dilution of the seawater concentrate and a salinity of less than 1ppt above background concentration of seawater within the near field mixing zone, with plume rise occurring below the ocean surface to ensure visual amenity in the area of the discharge is maintained.

The optimal discharge design configurations for 250ML/day and 500ML/day plant sizes were based on the following assumptions:

• Operating plant output at 100% capacity • Operating ranges compensate for downtime therefore 106.5% overproduction


• Operational discharge scenarios are normal operating conditions (approximately 98% of the time)

• Average anticipated sea conditions (35 ± 1ppt, 18°C ± 2 and 1026kg/m3 (density)) • Quiescent and lowest astronomical tide conditions for receiving waters, equivalent to worst case

conditions for plume performance

The optimal outlet discharge point design configuration to achieve the performance criteria required by MCoA 2.7 verified in the WRL Technical Reports for the 250ML/day plant and the proposed 500ML/day plant, are summarised in Table 3-2. The outlet discharge point designs are shown in detailed drawings in Appendix 3. Table 3-2 compares the results from the PPR, 2006, Figure 9.1 and 9.2 where the extent of the mixing zone has been represented.

Table 3-2: Outlet discharge design configurations

Scenarios 500ML/day

(PPR, 2006)

500ML/day

(WRL, 2009)

250ML/day

(WRL, 2009)

Number of risers 3 2 2

Number of nozzles per riser 4 5 4

Nozzle internal diameter 370mm 480mm 370mm

Nozzle angle to horizontal plane 60° 60° 60°

Orientation around riser Equally at 90° around riser cap Outer edge at 45° of riser cap Equally at 90° around riser cap

Seawater concentrate discharge flow rate (m3/h) 37,620 35,460 16,688

Nozzle exit velocity (m/s) 7.0 5.4 5.4

Distance of plume from diffuser 22.6m

1ppt & 30x

75m

worst case

28m

1ppt 48m

30x

26m

1ppt

32m

30x

Potential area of impact 0.3 ha

(Figure 9.2)

1.8 ha

(Figure 9.1) 0.36ha

1ppt

0.89ha

30 x

0.29ha

1ppt

0.39ha

30x


3.1.5 Impact on oceanographic currents The influence of ocean currents on plume performance at the outlet site has been considered by WRL (Miller, 2005). The empirical relationship developed in Miller (2005) can be used to provide an indication of the likely performance of the 4 nozzle riser design for the 250ML/day plant and similarly the 5 nozzle riser design for the 500ML/day plant at full production. Table 3-3 represents the estimated dilution and plume impact point distances which correlate reasonably with the mean point dilutions from Miller, 2005.

Table 3-3: Estimated impact point dilution and distance with ambient currents Ambient current exceedance

probability (%) 99.95 99.5 95.0 90.0 80.0 50.0 20.0* 10.0* 1.0*

Ambient current speed (m/s) 0.000 0.010 0.020 0.025 0.030 0.070 0.110 0.140 0.220

Dilution at impact point 25 28 31 33 34 47 59 69 94 250ML/day

Impact point distance (m) 22 25 28 29 31 42 53 62 84

Dilution at impact point 23 26 29 30 31 42 53 61 82 500ML/day

Impact point distance (m) 27 30 33 35 36 49 61 71 96

*Extrapolated values

WRL 2009 reports have concluded that while the presence of currents is expected to increase the overall dilutions achieved, different currents will also result in the individual jets having different trajectories. However for any given current and the arrangement of the four jets (on each riser) for the 250ML/day plant or five jets for the 500ML/day plant, some jets will be orientated into the currents, some will be orientated across the currents and some will be orientated with the currents. Jets orientated into the currents may (in strong currents) fold back on themselves and result in the impact point being downstream of the nozzle. However, the opposite jets that are oriented with the currents will have their impact points even further downstream. This was evidenced in Miller et al. (2007) with a four nozzle riser operating with a persistent current. While not specifically tested in these investigations, it can be inferred that any currents will have approximately the same net effect and hence the quiescent condition remains conservative.

3.1.6 Impact of slope All model testing of the 250 ML/day and 500ML/day plant was conducted utilising a horizontal sea bed. The actual seabed near the risers slopes offshore at an approximate slope of 1: 15. The Water Research Laboratory (WRL, 2009) concluded that the net effect of the slope on plume performance will be twofold. Firstly, the jets orientated up slope will have less depth into which to fall and hence have somewhat lower impact point dilution. However, jets orientated downslope will have a higher impact point dilution. As the plumes spread from the impact point and dilute further, those orientated up slope will reach some distance after which their own density difference and momentum will no longer drive them up the slope. At this point, the plume will spread in a direction long shore. Those plumes orientated down slope will continue to spread and entrain as they move into deeper water. On this basis, any bed slope will assist with the net dilution from the risers.


3.1.7 Operational ranges Based on the results from the physical modelling, an empirical model was developed to simulate the performance of a single plume under various conditions of seawater temperature, salinity and discharge plume composition (methodology attached in Appendix 4). The results of empirical modelling were used as summarised in Table 3-4 to determine the operating ranges and outlet design configuration required for the 250ML/day plant to be compliant with both seawater concentrate performance criteria and internal plant hydraulics.

The empirical modelling demonstrated that when the plant is operating at turn down capacity and the velocity of the discharge water is reduced; make up water can be added from the intake to the discharge stream at the intake pumping station to ensure compliance with seawater concentrate discharge criteria. The estimated volumes of make-up water required during different operating scenarios were determined from the empirical model and are included in the operating ranges for the 250ML/day plant (refer to Table 3-4).

Table 3-4: Operating Ranges for the 250ML/day desalination plant Flow Number of Open Nozzles

Trains ML/day 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

1 22 Y 900 1600 2300 N N N N

2 44 N Y 1100 1900 N N N N

3 66 N Y 350 1300 3000 N N N

4 88 N N Y 300 2400 3800 N N

5 111 N N Y Y 1750 2900 3950 N

6 133 N N N Y 1000 2200 3350 4400

7 155 N N N N Y 1250 2450 3550

8 177 N N N N N 400 1700 2850

9 200 N N N N N Y 850 2100

10 222 N N N N N N Y 1100

11 244 N N N N N N N 250

12 266 N N N N N N N Y

Y Plant will comply with the requirements of the Internal Plant Hydraulics and Project Approvals when operating in this range N Number of Nozzles will need to be adjusted to comply with the requirements of the Internal Plant Hydraulics and Project Approvals

## Volume of make-up water (m3/hr) required for Plant to comply with the requirements of the Internal Plant Hydraulics and Project Approvals

As part of the potential upgrade to a 500ML/day Plant, the characteristics of the discharge, the expected ambient conditions and the intent of how to operate the plant could differ from assessments made in 2009 therefore an assessment of the operating ranges would be undertaken when the plant is upgraded to 500ML/day.


3.2 Modelling of Physico - Chemical Water Quality Parameters The EA (SWC, 2005) results concluded that the end of near field concentrations for all of the constituents modelled are not significantly higher than the intake concentration and are not listed as having trigger values for marine waters in ANZECC (2000). The end of near field in the EA was assumed to be the point where seawater concentrate was diluted by 30 times and salinity was within 1ppt.

Oceanographic intake water conditions determined from sampling and analysis undertaken by Sydney Water (SWC, 2005-2006) are incorporated into Table 3-5, which provides a comparison of intake water with the normal operation concentrations for the final discharge (pre-dilution) as well as 30 times dilution. Table 3-5 results demonstrate at 30 times dilution the desalination plants discharge for all parameters are not significantly higher than the intake seawater concentration and the higher than the trigger values for marine waters in ANZECC (2000).

Table 3-5:Desalination plant discharge concentrations

Intake seawater Discharge pre dilution

30 x Dilution Parameters Unit

Min Mean Max Min Mean Max Min Mean Max

ANZECC 2000

Salinity ppt 35.3 35.55 35.7 54.8 59.2 62.3 36.0 36.3 36.6 \

Temperature oC 15.3 18.6 22 16.3 19.6 23.0 15.3 18.6 22.0 \

Chloride ppt 18.78 20.46 21.69 31.2 34.1 37.1 19 21 22 \

Boron mg/L 3.99 4.43 4.72 6.30 7.00 7.90 4.07 4.52 4.83 5.1

pH - 8.29 8.48 8.82 7.10 7.20 8.82 8.25 8.44 8.82 8.0 - 8.4

Total Suspended

Solids mg/L 2 2.13 6 1.0 7.2 30.0 2.0 2.3 6.8 0.5 - 10

Iron mg/L 5 6 15 0.02 0.05 0.40 4.83 5.80 14.51 \

Sulphates mg/L 2262 2940 3417 3730 4901 5,856 2,310 3,005 3,498 \

For the normal operation of the desalination plant at a range of oceanographic conditions (minimum, mean and maximum intake) salinity within 1ppt of background is reached prior to 30 times dilution. Based on mathematical calculations, similarly all the parameter in Table 3-5 are within water quality criteria prior to 30 times dilution. Figure 3-4 indicates the dilutions required for each parameter to be within background values or less than the ANZECC trigger values.


Figure 3-4: Dilutions required for discharges to met water quality criteria

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Salinity Sulphate Chloride Boron pH Temp TSS Iron

Parameters

Dilu

tion

Req

uire

d

Max MeanMin


3.3 Program of Toxicity Testing Ecotox Services Australia, a NATA accredited laboratory was commissioned by BWJV to conduct tests to assess the potential toxicity of the seawater concentrate discharge (refer to Appendix 5 – Toxicity Assessment of Various Discharge Streams Comprising Desalination Plant Treatment Products Blue Water Joint Venture, Ecotox Services Australia, January 2009).

The aims of the toxicity testing were to:

• determine the potential effects of chemicals at the edge of the near field. This will be based on the results project approval requirement of 30 times in terms of dilution factors; and

• assist in development of measures to minimise the potential for seawater concentrate to cause acute toxicity within the mixing zone

Each test was performed on 6 different streams of a simulated seawater concentrate bioassays which at the time of testing represented worse case maximum operational chemical dosing conditions as below:

• Stream 1 – filtered seawater (36.5ppt), Normal Operation with lamella thickener supernatant discharge

• Stream 2 – Stream 1 + neutralised detergent clean in place discharge • Stream 3 – Stream 1 + neutralised biocide clean in place discharge • Stream 4 – Stream 1 + neutralised citric acid clean in place discharge • Stream 5 – Stream 1 + neutralised shock chlorination discharge

The report concluded that there was:

• No significant inhibition of fertilisation (Sea Urchin Fertilisation Test) • No significant inhibition of the development of normal pluteus larvae (Sea Urchin Development

Test) • No significant inhibition in the development of normal larvae (Rock Oyster Larval Development

Test) • None of the five stream samples exhibited any significant reduction in germination of fertilised

eggs (Hormosira Germination Success Test) • No imbalanced fish observed (Fish Imbalance Test) • No significant acute toxicity to the juvenile tiger prawn over the 96-h exposure period (Tiger

Prawn Survival). The ecotoxicological assessment on the specified indicator species concluded that for all bioassays there was no statistically distinguishable effect of the 30 times diluted seawater concentrate streams compared to the control (ambient water conditions).

3.4 Conclusion The physical and empirical modelling has defined the extent of the near field zone for various operating conditions. Complementary investigations on the chemicals used in the treatment process of the Plant included toxicity testing and assessments against ANZECC (2000) water quality guidelines. Results from modelling and chemical assessments have delineated the zone within which ecological effects could occur as requirement under MCoA 2.7 (b).


Revision: 02

4.0 Measures to Minimise Acute Toxicity & Bioaccumulation within the Near Field Mixing Zone 4

This section addresses in MCoA 2.7 ( c), MCoA 3.1( g) and (h) and of SOC 12 parts a) b) and d)

4.1 Optimisation of Diffuser Design The physical modelling undertaken by WRL, 2009 demonstrated the optimal diffuser design achieved for the 250ML/day and 500ML/day plant as defined in Table 3-1. Optimisation of the diffuser design provided a measure to ensure the potential to cause acute toxicity within the near field mixing zone was minimised.

4.2 Literature Review Hydrobiology Pty Ltd. was commissioned by SWC to conduct a literature review to assess the toxicity and the potential for bioaccumulation of chemicals that may be used in the Sydney Desalination Plant with respect to marine ecology. The results of the literature review (Appendix 6) are summarised in Table 4-1. It should be noted that there was a lack of knowledge of the toxicity and bioaccumulation of many of the chemicals proposed for use, highlighting the need for ecotoxicity testing to be conducted for the specific chemicals used in the desalination plant processes. The toxicity assessment referred to in Section 3.3 (above) was commissioned by BWJV to ascertain if any of the chemicals to be used during the operation of the desalination plant demonstrated toxicity in the seawater concentrate discharge.

Previous findings of the toxicity and bioaccumulation literature review (Appendix 6) concluded biocide to be the most toxic constituent, with less than 70µg/L causing acute toxic effects. To minimise the potential to cause acute toxicity within the near field mixing zone BWJV revised the neutralisation procedure for the biocide and the ecotoxicological testing showed no significant effect for test streams. Refer to Appendix 5 for toxicity assessment report.


Table 4-1: Summary of Toxicity and Bioaccumulation Literature Review Chemical Use Quantity used Toxicity Bioaccumulation

Ferric Chloride

Coagulant to remove large particles during pre-treatment to prevent them reaching the reverse osmosis membranes.

Quantity discharged as backwash will be very low as majority will be disposed of as solids from the settling tanks.

Due to low quantity that will be discharged it was concluded that any toxic effect would be minimal.

Iron was found to bioaccumulate in marine species, however low concentrations of iron present in the discharge will prevent any detrimental bioaccumulation of iron.

PolyDADMACa Secondary coagulant in water pre-treatment.

Quantity discharged is thought to be almost zero as only 0.2mg/L will be used for treatment, and will be collected in settling tanks

Ecotoxicity data only available for freshwater organisms, however results indicate lethal toxic effects occurring at 0.64mg/L in Rainbow Trout, through to >50mg/L in Unionoid Mussels. These concentrations are much greater than those thought to be present in the discharge.

Data not available

Antiscalent – phosphonate basedb

Anti-Scalent Chemical which prevents materials from precipitating out of solution onto the membranes and other equipment. IRGATREAT AS 2206 is an organophosphonate compound.

Approximately 1.4mg/L in discharge water.

Minimal toxicity data available, MSDS states lethal toxic effects to 50% of rainbow trout (LC50) occurs at concentrations greater than 380mg/L. This is much greater than the quantity proposed for discharge.

MSDS states compound does not bioaccumulate, however no supporting data references were provided.

Citric Acidc Acid component to clean reverse osmosis membranes

pH will be neutralised with sodium hydroxide prior to discharge. Maximum concentration of neutralised citric acid in discharge water of 0.3%

Minimal toxicity data available, however literature has revealed the Green Shore Crab had a lethal toxic response to 50% of the test population at a concentration of 160mg/L.

Citric acid is not expected to bioaccumulate.

Hydrex 4705d

Alkali component to clean reverse osmosis membranes. Consists of potassium hydroxide, EDTA and an alkyl glycoside surfactant.

pH will be neutralised with either citric or hydrochloric acid. Prior to discharge. Maximum concentration of neutralised Hydrex 4705 cleaner of 1.5%

Minimal toxicity data available, however mixing Hydrex 4701 and Hydrex 4705 to 12mL/L is expected ensure any potential toxic effect to be minimal.

It is not expected any constituent will bioaccumulate.

Biocide (DBNPA)e

Micro-Biocide for cleaning of biofouling on memebranes Up to 2000µg/L

Most toxic chemical listed; acute toxic effects documented as occurring to 50% of test organisms at a concentration less than 70µg/L; requires neutralisation via pH elevation

Data not available

a Magnafloc LT425 was used in the study as a generic polydadmac b Irgatreat AS2206 was used as a generic antiscalant (phosphonate based) c Hydrex 4701 was used as a generic citric acid in the study. It was then neutralised Hydrex 4705 d Hydrex 4705 was used as a generic alkali in the study e Hydrex 4202 was used as a generic biocide containing 2,2 Dibromo-3-nitriloproprionamide (DBNPA)

Other chemicals not included in the literature by Hydrobiology Pty Ltd but which will be in the seawater concentrate are included in Table 4-2. Their purpose and expected environmental fate is outlined.


Table 4-2: Summary of other Chemicals used and Environmental Effect Chemical Use Possible Environmental Effect

Sodium Hypochlorite (NaOCl)

Used for shock chlorination at plant inlet to prevent marine growth within the intake tunnel.

Also used for disinfection of permeate water.

Used to neutralise Sodium bisulphite membrane cleaning.

Residual chlorine will be neutralised prior to discharge to the ocean.

Sodium Bisulphite (NaHSO3)

Used to neutralise Chlorine injected as sodium hypochlorite during shock chlorination.

Also used for RO membrane cleaning and is neutralised with sodium hypochlorite.

Latest round of ecotox testing ascertain no toxic effect in effluent discharge.

Sulfuric Acid (H2SO4) Used as a pre-treatment chemical to adjust the pH and improve efficienty of coagulation.

Latest round of ecotox testing ascertain no toxic effect in effluent discharge.

Polyacrylamide based flocculants Dosed for treatment of waste washwater as a coagulant for sludge thickening (lamellas) and sludge dewatering (centrifuges)

Minimal amounts in wastewater supernatants sent to discharge.

Latest round of ecotox testing ascertain no toxic effect (Ecotox 2009)

Sodium Dodecyl Sulphate (NaDDS)

Used for detergent cleaning of RO membranes Latest round of ecotox ascertain no toxic effects in effluent discharges (Ecotox 2009).

Sodium Hydroxide (NaOH)

Dosed in the Second Pass of the RO process to achieve Boron concentration target on permeate water. Also used for alkali cleaning of RO membranes

It is neutralised with hydrochloric acid prior to discharge.

Latest round of ecotox ascertain no toxic effects in effluent discharges (Ecotox 2009).

Hydrochloric acid (HCl) Used for acid cleaning of RO membranes

It is neutralised with caustic soda prior to discharge.

Latest round of ecotox ascertain no toxic effects in effluent discharges (Ecotox 2009).


4.3 Ecotoxity Study Review The Toxicity Assessment of Various Discharge Streams Comprising Desalination Plant Treatment Products BWJV, Ecotox Services Australia, January 2009 (Appendix 5) concluded that at 30 times dilution and salinity within 1ppt of background values there was no statistically significant effect on any test organisms, relative to the control.

The original Ecotoxicity Report was based on assumptions that reflected the level of knowledge that existed at the time. Since the preparation of the original Ecotoxicity Report, the designs of the Plant, and the associated Standard Operating Procedures, have been refined.

A comparison of the original Ecotoxicity Report and the current design for normal operation and was prepared by BWJV (refer to Appendix 7) which identifies the factors which affect the concentration of chemicals and then compares the difference between those factors for the current design and the original Ecotoxicity Report. Figure 4-1 demonstrates that dilutions required for chemicals are now generally lower than that assessed in the original Ecotoxicity Report. It should be noted that the current design is based on normal operation as defined in Table 3-1.

During normal operation, chemicals entering the discharge plume consist of the following:

• Pretreatment Chemicals (Pretreatment Ferric Chloride, Polydadmac)

A portion of these chemicals will be captured by the wastewater stream and then removed with the sludge, in particular the flocculating agent polydadmac and the iron from the ferric chloride. The remaining chemicals will be rejected at the RO membranes and will be discharged as part of the plume. As the portion included in the plume is assumed to be constant, the only difference between the original Ecotoxicity Report and the current design will be in the rate at which the chemicals are dosed into the raw seawater.

• Waste Water Chemicals (Waste Water Ferric Chloride, Waste Water Flocculation Polymer)

A portion of these chemicals will be removed with the sludge, in particular the flocculation polymer and the iron from the ferric chloride. The remaining portion will be discharged in lamella supernatant, as part of the discharge plume. The rate at which the lamella supernatant is discharged will determine the rate at which the chemicals within the lamella supernatant enter the waste stream. Therefore the reduced rate of lamella discharge now anticipated reduced the concentration of these chemicals.

• Cleaning In Place (CIP) Chemicals (CIP Detergent, Neutralised CIP Biocide, Neutralised CIP Citric Acid)

These chemicals are all pumped from the Neutralisation Tank at a controlled rate and become part of the discharge plume. The original ecotoxicity assessment assumed the lowest plant production flow rates. This scenario is unlikely and the plant production rates were revised to the expected flowrates for a 250ML/d Plant. In addition, because none of these chemicals enter the discharge plume through any other mechanism, they are diluted by the concentrate stream that comes from the RO system. As the normal operating volume of this stream is far greater than originally assumed in the Ecotoxicity Report, there is a further reduction in concentration.

Further controls can be investigated and actioned, which include, controlling the rate at which the Neutralisation Tank is pumped out.

• Neutralised Shock Chlorination

Residual free chlorine used to control microorganisms is neutralised with the addition of sodium bisulfite (SBS). The total residual chlorine will be verified by measuring oxidation-reduction potential (ORP) and pH continuously during discharges.

Neutralised Chlorination chemicals will pass through the gravity filters without being partially captured by the waste water stream. Therefore the chemicals concentrations will be constant within the discharge plume, however it should be noted that this dosing will only occur for 1hr/day. The


current design will not alter the concentration of these chemicals than the chemicals assessed in the original Ecotoxicity Report.

Figure 4-1: Re-assessment of Dilutions Tested to achieve no AcuteToxicity For 250ML/day

0

10

20

30CIP Detergent

Neutralised CIP Citric Acid

Neutralised Shock Chlorination

Neutralised CIP Biocide

Polydadmac

Pretreatment Ferric Chloride

Waste Water Ferric Chloride

Waste Water Flocculation Polymer

Chemical Salinity

For proposed 500ML/day

0

10

20

30CIP Detergent




Polydadmac




Chemical Salinity


Revision: 02

5.0 Refine Location and Design of Discharge Point

This section addresses MCoA 2.7(d), MCoA 3.1(g) and SOC 12 part (c).

The design and location of the outlet structures constructed by BWJV was previously submitted to DoP in December, 2007 (Environmental Report Seawater Concentrate Discharge Design - Staged Submission 1: Riser Location, dated 14 December 2007) in accordance with MCoA 2.7(d).

The location of the two outlet risers installed is shown in Table 5-1, and are within the same location described in the Environmental Report Seawater Concentrate Discharge Design Staged Submission 1: Riser Location, (Drawing No. WTW0155 S7-DW-1601) previously submitted and accepted by the DoP.

Table 5-1: Final Location of Outlet Risers

Outlet Riser Easting Northing

OR3 336524.5 6232797.4

OR4 336554.3 6232790.4

The optimal design of the discharge points, that is the nozzles, are configured as shown in Figure 5.1 for the 250ML/day and 500ML/day plants and detailed drawings of the nozzles are attached in Appendix 3.

Figure 5-1: Nozzle configuration for desalination plant 250ML/day 500ML/day


5.1 Effects on Water Quality and Ecology The WRL Technical Reports on the physical modelling (Appendix 2) and the Ecotoxicity (Appendix 5) confirmed that the seawater discharge meets the performance criteria for the seawater concentrate discharge at the edge of the near field mixing zone under quiescent oceanographic conditions. The nozzle configuration ensures that the receiving waters salinity is less than 1ppt above the background concentrations and chemical concentrations are within ANZECC (2000) trigger values at the edge of the near field mixing zone.


Revision: 02

6.0 Conclusion

The strategy for the desalination plant design and operation to verify the targeted dilution of 30 times for the seawater concentrate consisted of physical modelling of the dispersion of seawater concentrate from the proposed discharge point (that is the diffuser/nozzle) and toxicity testing on simulated concentrate. The physical modelling verified that 30-times dilution of the seawater concentrate discharge will return the receiving waters salinity to within 1ppt of natural oceanic variation by the edge of the near field mixing zone. The BWJV final discharge design configuration for the 250ML/day and 500ML/day plant achieves the required discharge performance criteria.

Ecotoxicity testing determined there was no acute toxicity at the edge of the near field mixing zone. It was found for all test streams that there was no statistically significant effect on any test organisms, relative to the controls for chemical constituents within the seawater concentrate discharge at the edge of the near field. . Refinement of the plant’s process design reduced the density difference between the seawater concentrate discharge and ambient/intake seawater compared with what was assumed in the Project Approval documents. Furthermore the dose rates for treatment chemicals were reviewed to reflect the expected rates. This resulted in a reduction of the dilution rate required to demonstrate no acute toxicity within the near field mixing zone.

Blue Water JV considers that the final design has successfully been optimised to meet the requirements of the Project Approvals and minimizing the environmental impacts within the mixing zone.


Revision: 02

7.0 References

ANZECC (2000) Australian and New Zealand Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Water Quality

Blue Water JV (2007) Environmental Report Seawater Concentrate Discharge Design - Staged Submission 1: Riser Location, December 2007

DEC (2006) Marine Water Quality Objectives for NSW Ocean Waters

Ecotox (2009) Toxicity Assessment of Various Discharge Streams Comprising Desalination Plant Treatment Products. Test Report, January 2009

Hydrobiology Pty. Ltd (2007) Toxicity of Sydney Water Desalination Plant Effluent. Literature Review of Discharge Chemicals, October 2007

Miller, B M (2005), “Desalination Planning Study Ocean Modelling Report”, WRLTechnical Report No 2005/26

Miller, B M, Cunningham, I L, and Timms, W A (2007), “Physical Modelling of SeaWater concentrate Diffusers for the Sydney Desalination Study”, WRLTechnical Report No 2007/04

NSW Department of Planning, (2006) Major Project Assessment, Kurnell Desalination Plant and Associated, Infrastructure, September 2006

Roberts, PJW, Ferrier, A and Daviero G, (1997) “Mixing in Inclined Dense Jets” Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, August 1997 pp. 693-699

SWC (2005) Environmental Assessment of the Concept Plan for Sydney’s Desalination Project, November 2005

SWC (2005-2006) Seawater Desalination Planning Study, Ocean Sampling Water Quality, Interim Report_Final

SWC (2006) Habitat Survey Kurnell Intake and Outlet Areas, August 2006

SWC (2006) Sydney’s Desalination Project Preferred Project Report

WRL (2007). Physical Modelling of the Seawater Concentrate Diffusers for the Sydney Desalination Study. Technical Report 2007/04, August 2007


Revision: 02

Appendix 1 Consultation with relevant stakeholder


Date Wed 12/12/2007, 14:08:16 EADTFrom [email protected] SKM, Mr. K. Robinson, Tel. 02/9490−1163Cc – [email protected]

– [email protected] RE; Discharge design

Dear Ken

I understand that you and Scott have already spoken about this, but justfor formal notice − a meeting will not be required but some questionsneed answering.

1; Is the toxicity testing result for Stream 2 considered an anomaly? Itappears from the result that the toxicity test showed an anomalous resultas higher concentrations did not show a similar result. How manyreplicates were done on the test?2; Why would the result for 2 show toxicity when Stream 6, containing thesame material plus the membrane cleaner show lower toxicity? Is thesurfacatant likely to be buffering the impacts? Can a chemist attempt toexplain please.3; Stream 8 showed a more significant toxicity result that was determinedto be caused by the cyanide in the biocide. Discussions with KMH indicatethey are not likely to be using the biocide and it is the department’spreferred position that they do not. If they chose to, then they wouldhave to develop a management strategy to satisfy DPI as well as DECC thatthe impact would be minimised.

The locations of the risers does not cause any great concern. There may bethe loss of some kelp from the footprint of the riser site, but moreinteresting from the department’s perspective would be the loss of kelpfrom the mixing zone − which is hoped will be picked up in the monitoringprogram.

Regards

Mika

_______________________________________________

Mika MalkkiManager, Agriculture, Fisheries & Aboriginal PolicyNSW Department of Primary Industries

Mailing Address:PO Box 21 Cronulla 2230

Phone: 02 8437 4986Fax: 02 9966 0650

Wed 12/12/2007, 14:08:16 EADT Page 1/2

Email: [email protected]

This message is intended for the addressee named and may contain confidential information. If you arenot the intended recipient, please delete it and notify the sender. Views expressed in this message arethose of the individual sender, and are not necessarily the views of their organisation.

_____________________________________________________________________This e−mail has been scanned for viruses by MCI’s Internet ManagedScanning Services − powered by MessageLabs. For further informationvisit http://www.mci.com

Encl.

1. List File Attachment

File(s) msg−5916−2.html

Wed 12/12/2007, 14:08:16 EADT Page 2/2

Blue Water JVFile Attachment

Date Wed 16/01/2008, 15:01:45 EADTFrom KMH, Mr. G. Mance, Tel. 02/8543−9463To KMH, J. Kent, Tel. 02/8543−9338Subject Fw: FW: Sydney Desal Project "BWJV: Environmental Report Seawa-

ter Concentrate Discharge Design"

_________________________Geoff ManceBlue Water JVEnvironmental Approvals Managert: +61 2 8543 9463f: +61 2 9219 7850m: +61 439 034 270e: mailto:[email protected]: PO Box 2891, Taren Point BC, NSW, 2229

−−−−− Original message −−−−−

From: [email protected] ∗

Received: Thu 20/12/2007, 11:51:42 EADT

Hi Geoff,

Below are the preliminary comments on the summary ecotox document yousupplied. They do not represent DECCs final position, which will bebased on a review of the complete document set. They are provided toyou now in this form to keep things rolling and to give you a heads up.

Cheers, Daniel

Daniel Large

Acting Head Metropolitan Water Infrastructure Unit

Wed 16/01/2008, 15:01:45 EADT Page 1/4


p 9995 6813

m 0412 252 130

________________________________

From: Chapman JohnSent: Thursday, 20 December 2007 10:50 AMTo: Large DanielCc: Manning Therese; Julli MorenoSubject: Sydney Desal Project "BWJV: Environmental Report SeawaterConcentrate Discharge Design"

Daniel

I have reviewed the above report with emphasis on the ecotox resultssection and the conclusions resulting from this.

The ecotox test methodology, calculations and reporting of resultsappeared sound and undertaken in accordance with standard methodologyand NATA accreditation where appropriate. Only two samples had EC50values indicating greater toxicity than desired at the near−fieldboundary (1:30 dilution). These were both for sea urchin fertilisationtests: one for Stream 2 and the other for Stream 8 (only one sample ofthree temporal replicates). The toxicity in Stream 8 (1.3% dilution) wasput down to cyanide from the biocide, which is reasonable consideringthe concentrations found. This provides a way forward to minimisetoxicity from this source by substitution or treatment.

The toxicity in Stream 2 (3.1%) was not explained and could not bededuced from the components (eg S2 contained backwash liquid &antiscalant, but these components were in other Streams with lowertoxicity.

I have three general observations:

Wed 16/01/2008, 15:01:45 EADT Page 2/4


∗ Toxicity varied markedly at times between temporal replicates,which supports the need for some further toxicity monitoring down thetrack as the project develops. It would appear that the two sea urchintests are the most sensitive all round for detecting toxicity.∗ On the positive side (ie reducing observed risk) it should benoted that the tests that showed toxicity responses beyond thenear−field dilution are sub−lethal tests, not acute lethal tests (asimplied on p13 and 14 of the BWJV report) and they are not consistentwith replicates. Hence with reduction of free cyanide and furthermonitoring as appropriate, the toxic risks from the effluent with thegiven dilution should be minimal (this is not to diminish the importanceof sub−lethal effects with a continuous effluent output − just that itlessens the overall risk ranking given that the other replicates wereless toxic).∗ From our experience, there is a need to take care with theflocculants. The literature review undertaken by Hydrobiology refers totoxicity data for the polyDADMAC taken from the MSDS for the chemical.We have found that manufacturers often refer to data from flocculantswith analogous chemical structures, rather than actual test data. Insome cases, the actual toxicity, when tested, has been substantiallygreater. It is important not to overdose with flocculants but someconfirmatory testing of the flocculant of choice would be advisable insuch a large scale operation.

The project appears to be on track for determining potential toxicity ofthe effluent waste stream.

Regards

John

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

This email is intended for the addressee(s) named and may contain confidential and/or privilegedinformation.If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender and then delete it immediately.Any views expressed in this email are those of the individual sender except where the sender expresslyand with authority states them to be the views of the Department of Environment and Climate Change(NSW).

_____________________________________________________________________This e−mail has been scanned for viruses by MCI’s Internet ManagedScanning Services − powered by MessageLabs. For further information

Wed 16/01/2008, 15:01:45 EADT Page 3/4


visit http://www.mci.com

Encl.


File(s) msg−24426−2.html

Wed 16/01/2008, 15:01:45 EADT Page 4/4


Date Tue 19/05/2009 14:51 +1000From JHG, Mr. M. Breslin, Tel. 02/85439571To JHG, Ms. G. Spyrakis, Tel. 02/8543� 9222Subject Fw: RE: RE: Meeting at WRL

_________________________Malachy BreslinBlue Water JVDeputy Project Directort: +61 2 8543 9200f: +61 2 9219 7850e: mailto:[email protected]: PO Box 2891, Taren Point BC, NSW, 2229

�� Original message ��

From: [email protected] �

Received: Tue 07/04/2009 15:19 +1000

Malachy,

Just to let you know that Daniel and I will be attending the meetingtomorrow.

See you then,

Jen

Jennifer Sage

Metropolitan Infrastructure

Environment Protection & Regulation Group

Department of Environment and Climate Change

Tel: 02 9995 6856 j Fax: 02 9995 6902

Tue 19/05/2009 14:51 +1000 Page 1/5


Email: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>

<mailto:[email protected]>

________________________________

From: Breslin, Malachy, JHG [mailto:[email protected]]Sent: Tuesday, 7 April 2009 10:01 AMTo: Sage JenniferCc: Reffell Gillian; Large DanielSubject: Re: RE: Meeting at WRL

Message

Jennifer;

Can you confirm your attendance tomorrow, WRL are targetting 14:00Hrs.

Await your reply.

Regards

Malachy



Received: Mon 06/04/2009 10:24 +1000

Hello Malachy,

Gillian is in a meeting this morning. I will get back to you with ouravailability as soon as I’ve spoken with both her and Daniel.

Thanks,

Tue 19/05/2009 14:51 +1000 Page 2/5


Jen

Jennifer Sage

Metropolitan Infrastructure

Environment Protection & Regulation Group

Department of Environment and Climate Change

Tel: 02 9995 6856 j Fax: 02 9995 6902

Email: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]><mailto:[email protected]%3e>

<mailto:[email protected]><mailto:[email protected]%3e>

________________________________

From: Breslin, Malachy, JHG [mailto:[email protected]]<mailto:[email protected]%5d>Sent: Monday, 6 April 2009 10:04 AMTo: Sage Jennifer; Reffell GillianCc: Howard Giselle; Large DanielSubject: Meeting at WRL

Message

Gillian; Jennifer;

We will be running some final modelling this week at WRL in relation tothe 500ML/D plant, would it be possible for you and your colleagues tomeet with BWJV, SDP and WRL on Wednesday afternoon at WRL in Manly toreview our findings so far.

We believe we are close to evidence that the proposed configuration canmeet the required discharge criteria, and would appreciate a meeting atWRL prior to our written submission. We plan to run the riser cap modeltest and could perform a further demontration of the plume discharge we

Tue 19/05/2009 14:51 +1000 Page 3/5


propose.

We could forward some details of testing done to date if required priorto Wednesday.

Await your response.

Regards

Malachy

PS. Gillian left a similiar message on your phone.

Sent via NEXUS V3/DX BWJV (http://www.inCITE.com.au) by thinkprojectv4.0r01pl01 [31�12�08]

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _

This email is intended for the addressee(s) named and may containconfidential and/or privileged information.If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender and thendelete it immediately.Any views expressed in this email are those of the individual senderexcept where the sender expresslyand with authority states them to be the views of the Department ofEnvironment and Climate Change (NSW).

_____________________________________________________________________This e�mail has been scanned for viruses by MCI’s Internet ManagedScanning Services � powered by MessageLabs. For further informationvisit http://www.mci.com

References

Tue 19/05/2009 14:51 +1000 Page 4/5


Sender

Subject

Received

Document type

[email protected] �

RE: Meeting at WRL

yesterday 10:24

File Attachment

Sent via NEXUS V3/DX BWJV (http://www.inCITE.com.au) by thinkprojectv4.0r01pl01 [31�12�08]

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

This email is intended for the addressee(s) named and may contain confidential and/or privilegedinformation.If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender and then delete it immediately.Any views expressed in this email are those of the individual sender except where the sender expresslyand with authority states them to be the views of the Department of Environment and Climate Change(NSW).

_____________________________________________________________________This e�mail has been scanned for viruses by MCI’s Internet ManagedScanning Services � powered by MessageLabs. For further informationvisit http://www.mci.comEncl.


File(s) msg�11622�2.html

Tue 19/05/2009 14:51 +1000 Page 5/5

MESSAGE

Date Tue 14/04/2009 16:54 +1000From JHG, Ms. G. Spyrakis, Tel. 02/8543� 9222To [email protected] Seawater Concentrate Discharge Design

Hi Scott,

As mentioned on your voice mail, in your absence I have contacted Karla Ganassin, DPI ConservationManager in regards to updating DPI on the status of Blue Water finalising the seawater concentratedischarge design. The specific conditions of approval for the seawater concentrate discharge designincludes consultation with DPI with respect to achievements of specific water quality criteria at the edge ofthe near field mixing zone.

Blue Water are currently modelling the outlet plume characteristics for both the potential 500ML/day and250ML/day plant scenarios. We expect to send a final report to DPI for comments at the end of this monthhowever if you require any preliminary information regarding the seawater concentrate plumecharacteristics prior please let me know.

Look forward to speaking to you shortly.

Regards,

Gina

_________________________Gina SpyrakisBlue Water JVEnvironmental Managert: +61 2 8543 9200f: +61 2 9219 7850e: [email protected]: PO Box 2891, Taren Point BC, NSW, 2229

Tue 14/04/2009 16:54 +1000 Page 1/1

Aquatic Habitat Protection ABN 51 734 124 190 NSW Department of Primary Industries www.dpi.nsw.gov.au Locked Bag 1 Tel: 02 4916 3937 NELSON BAY NSW 2315 Fax: 02 4982 2306

Our Ref: 07-0054

Your Ref: BWJV01307

15 July 2009 John Barraclough Bluewater JV PO Box 2891 TAREN POINT NSW 2229 Dear Sir Re: Sydney Desalination Plant – Discharge Design Requirements. Thank you for giving the NSW Department of Primary Industries the opportunity to comment on the above design requirements for the 500Ml per day desalination plant at Kurnell.. In reference to the above, the site has been assessed and predicted environmental impacts considered by officers of NSW Department of Primary Industries. The information provided indicates that the designs for the two risers with 5 discharge nozzles meet the design requirements issued by the Department of Planning approval. Subject the proposal meeting these requirements the NSW Department of Primary Industries has no objection to the above proposal. For further information, please contact me on (02) 4916 3931. Yours faithfully

Scott Carter Senior Conservation Manager

MESSAGE

Date Thu 20/08/2009 17:06 +1000From JHG, Ms. G. Spyrakis, Tel. 02/8543� 9222To [email protected] Re: Desalination plant outlet design

Hi Jen,

As discussed in response to the items listed below:

� Comparisons for plume performance will be undertaken against the project approval documents(EA, PPR & EAR) which have a concept outlet design of 3 risers, in accordance with MCoA 1.1.

� The 250ML/day modelling report, 2009 will be an appendix in the consolidated document.

� The Marine and Estuarine Monitoring Program (MEMP), established in consultation with DECC andDPI details the requirement to validate and calibrate modelling and monitor impacts associated withthe discharge. Dye tracer testing will be conducted as part of the MEMP when the seawaterconcentrate from the plant operations has commenced. As the MEMP has already been developedit is not envisaged to address dye tracer testing or other monitoring requirements and relatedmanagement actions in the pending outlet discharge design report.

� Failure mode operations will be extremely shortlived (approx 1 hour) and will not be included as partof this assessment and would be covered in the Operational Management Systems documentation

� As agreed assessment with the ANZECC criteria will be presented in the consolidated report asviewed in the meeting on the 14/8 and will include normal, minimum and maximum concentrations.

If you have any further questions please don’t hesitate to call, otherwise we will be sending through theconsolidated report as soon as possible.

Cheers,

GinaI have attached some further information relating the dye tracer tests for your reference:

� The specific condition, MCoA’s is 3.1 (i) states that: "post�commissioning, the use of tracers in thedischarge stream, in combination with the instrumentation deployed under a) for a range ofoceanographic and discharge conditions to calibrate and validate the near field numerical modeldescribed in d) so that it is capable of making ongoing and robust diagnostic and prognosticpredictions of plume geometry and dilutions. The tracing experiments should also determine the fateof the plume in the far field. The range of oceanographic conditions should encompass, but notnecessarily be limited to, a matrix of features including receiving water currents flowing north andsouth, flood and ebb tides at Botany Bay, onshore and offshore winds, and calm and elevatedsignificant wave heights;"

� Relevant exerts from the MEMP:

Section 1.4: Summary of Detailed Design (Page 10)After the commissioning of the desalination plant, plume tracer studies will be undertaken to directlymeasure how the seawater concentrate mixes in the surrounding marine waters and samples taken of the

Thu 20/08/2009 17:06 +1000 Page 1/3

concentrate to be tested for both chemical constituents and toxic responses of marine organisms. Thedata from these tests may be compared to the comparable components in the design phase monitoring toensure that the plant is achieving the required performance. Upon completion of the post commissioningmonitoring program, recommendations may be made regarding the need for further, ongoing monitoring.Section 3: Pre / Post Commissioning Impact Verification Phase Monitoring Program Components (Page34)Once the plant is operational, further studies will be undertaken to verify the predictions made with regardto the initial dilution of the seawater concentrate and its effects on the marine environment. These studieswill include the following elements:• Plume tracer experiments;• Validation of the near field model of seawater concentrate dilution and refined simulations of the far fielddispersion of the seawater concentrate plume; and• Chemical characterisation and, potentially, toxicity testing of the seawater concentrate.Section 3.3.1: Tracer StudiesThe objective of this element of the verification studies will be:• To verify the predictions of the physical modelling for the initial dilution of the seawater concentrateplume through field measurements of the operational concentrate plume.Following commissioning of the desalination plant it is proposed that outfall dilution studies be undertakento provide field data to verify the previously predicted behaviour of the concentrate plume. These studieswill involve injecting tracers into the seawater concentrate and tracking their dispersion into the receivingwaters. The tracer experiments will aim to determine not only the rates of dilution of the concentrateplume in the mixing zone, but also the fate of the plume in the far field.The plume tracing experiments will be repeated to cover a range of seasonal and oceanographicconditions, which may include combinations of the following conditions:• Currents flowing to the north and to the south;• Flood and ebb tidal states;• Onshore and offshore winds;• Periods of calm and of increased wave activity, which will be limited by the conditions in which surveyvessels may operate.It is proposed that the experiments be conducted for both summer and winter conditions, which wouldcapture seasonal variations in oceanographic conditions. The data from these studies may then be usedto validate and, if necessary, recalibrate the near field representation of the concentrate plume, which is tobe derived from the results of the physical model (see Section 2.3.3).




Received: Wed 19/08/2009 16:43 +1000

Hi Gina

Sorry for not getting our comments back to you sooner.

Thu 20/08/2009 17:06 +1000 Page 2/3

The report needs to include the following �

� Graphic comparison of the 4 and 2 riser performances (plan and elevation views)� The modelling report for the 250ML capacity plant� An outline of the monitoring programme that will be used to validate the outlet design performance, andconsequential management actions� An assessment of the 2 riser design performance against ANZECC criteria and following the ANZECCassessment method. Explicit statements and diagrams of where the criteria are not met need to be made(including a comparison of the 4 riser design).� The performance of the 4 and 2 riser designs must be presented for a meaningful range of ambient andoperational conditions � including worst case scenarios and failure mode operations (and a justification ofwhy it is worst case). The physical modelling can be used to calibrate numerical models which can beused to explore these scenarios.

I understand that much of this work has been done. The report will need to provide evidence for the aboveitems from this work.

Please call me tomorrow if you need to discuss.

Regards,Jen

Jennifer SageMetropolitan InfrastructureEnvironment Protection & Regulation GroupDepartment of Environment, Climate Change and WaterTel: 02 9995 6856 j Fax: 02 9995 6902Email:[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]><mailto:[email protected]>��This email is intended for the addressee(s) named and may contain confidential and/or privilegedinformation.If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender and then delete it immediately.Any views expressed in this email are those of the individual sender except where the sender expresslyand with authority states them to be the views of the Department of Environment, Climate Change &Water NSW.

_____________________________________________________________________This e�mail has been scanned for viruses by MCI’s Internet ManagedScanning Services � powered by MessageLabs. For further informationvisit http://www.mci.com

Thu 20/08/2009 17:06 +1000 Page 3/3

Date Tue 15/09/2009 16:06 +1000From [email protected] JHG, Ms. G. Spyrakis, Tel. 02/8543� 9222Subject Re: Environmental Report � Outlet Riser Design

Our REF: CONS/06/00001�08

Dear Gina

Thank you for giving the Department the opportunity to comment on theproposal.

Sorry for the delay in responding as I had a bit of difficulty getting myhead around the engineering and hydraulic aspects of the report.

The report appear to support the proposal in respect of the new design iscapable of meeting the required discharge performance criteria for thedilution rates at the edge of the near field mixing zone.The report also indicates that the toxicity testing has determined noacute toxicity on the edge of the near field mixing zone.

As there is no reported variation from the requirements in the approval,the department has no objection to the report being accepted and thedevelopment proceeding.

For further information please don’t hesitate to contact me.

regards

NOTE: Changed email address.

Scott Carter j Senior Conservation Manager � Central Region, AquaticHabitat Protection UnitDivision of Primary Industries ‘�.><((((o

>‘�. .� ‘�. .� ‘�...><((((o

>

Industry & Investment NSW j Locked Bag 1 j NELSON BAY NSW 2315Port Stephens Fisheries Institute, Taylors Beach Road, Taylors BeachTAYLORS BEACH NSW 2316T: 02 4916 3931 j F: 02 4982 1232 j M: 0419 185 508 j [email protected]: www.industry.nsw.gov.au j www.dpi.nsw.gov.au

This message is intended for the addressee named and may containconfidential information. If you are not the intended recipient orreceived it in error, please delete the message and notify sender. Viewsexpressed are those of the individual sender and are not necessarily theviews of their organisation.

"Spyrakis, Gina, JHG" <[email protected]>01/09/2009 04:19 PM

Tue 15/09/2009 16:06 +1000 Page 1/3

To"[email protected]" <[email protected]>cc"Breslin, Malachy, JHG" <[email protected]>, "Brown,Trevor, SWC" <[email protected]>SubjectEnvironmental Report � Outlet Riser Design


MessageHi Scott,Thank you for agreeing to review the BWJV report ?Environmental Report ?Seawater Concentrate Discharge Design, Staged Submission 2: DischargePoint? which documents BWJV?s approach to addressing the complianceobligations contained within MCoA 2.7 as well as the requirements of theapplicable MCoA 3.1 and Statement of Commitment 12.

As discussed, I have excluded the detailed design drawings and the tworeports (Ecotoxicity Assessment and Physical Modelling of the 500ML/dayplant) which you have already reviewed to reduce the size of the document.We would appreciate your comments by the 11th September and please do nothesitate to contact Malachy Breslin (BWJV?s Project Director) or myselfshould you wish to discuss or clarify any issues.Regards,Gina


File Attachment (1)

File(s)Environmental Report � Seawater Concentrate Discharge Design � Rev 02 sentto DPI.pdf

Sent via NEXUS V3/DX BWJV (http://www.inCITE.com.au) by thinkprojectv4.0r01pl01 [08�04�09][attachment "s_pdf.gif" deleted by Scott Carter/DII/NSW] [attachment"logo.gif" deleted by Scott Carter/DII/NSW]

This message is intended for the addressee named and may contain confidential information. If you arenot the intended recipient, please delete it and notify the sender. Views expressed in this message arethose of the individual sender, and are not necessarily the views of their organisation.

_____________________________________________________________________

Tue 15/09/2009 16:06 +1000 Page 2/3

This e�mail has been scanned for viruses by MCI’s Internet ManagedScanning Services � powered by MessageLabs. For further informationvisit http://www.mci.com

Encl.

1. List File Attachment (3 Document(s))File(s)msg�28829�2.htmlmsg�28829�3.gifmsg�28829�4.gif

Tue 15/09/2009 16:06 +1000 Page 3/3

Revision: 02

Appendix 2 Physical modelling reports


THE UNIVERSITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES SCHOOL OF CIVIL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING

WATER RESEARCH LABORATORY

PHYSICAL MODELLING OF SYDNEY DESALINATION OUTFALL AT 500 ML/DAY OPERATION WITH TWO RISERS

WRL Technical Report 2009/07 June 2009

by

B M Miller, G P Smith and L Tarrade

Water Research Laboratory School of Civil and Environmental Engineering Technical Report No 2009/07 University of New South Wales ABN 57 195 873 179 Report Status Final Report King Street Date of Issue 22nd June 2009 Manly Vale NSW 2093 Australia Telephone: +61 (2) 9949 4488 WRL Project No. 09004 Facsimile: +61 (2) 9949 4188 Project Manager G P Smith

Title Physical Modelling of Sydney Desalination Outfall at 500 ML/Day

Operation with Two Risers Author(s) B M Miller, G P Smith and L Tarrade Client Name Blue Water JV Client Address PO Box 2891

TAREN POINT BC NSW 2229 Client Contact Malachy Breslin Client Reference SP651-00465

The work reported herein was carried out at the Water Research Laboratory, School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of New South Wales, acting on behalf of the client. Information published in this report is available for general release only with permission of the Director, Water Research Laboratory, and the client.

WRL TECHNICAL REPORT 2009/07

i

CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1. INTRODUCTION 1

2. CONCEPTS 3 2.1 Mixing of a Negatively Buoyant Plume 3 2.2 Non-Dimensional Analysis 4 2.3 Model Scaling 6 2.4 Dilution 7

3. PHYSICAL MODEL AND INSTRUMENTATION 9 3.1 Scenarios Modelled 9 3.2 Model Configuration 12

3.2.1 Receiving Waters Tank 12 3.2.2 Brine Head Tank 12 3.2.3 Four Port Riser Configuration 13 3.2.4 Five Port Riser Configuration 14

3.3 Electrical Conductivity Measurements 15 3.3.1 Receiving Tank Instrumentation and EC Monitoring Points 15 3.3.2 Receiving Tank EC Probe Calibration 16 3.3.3 Brine Head Tank 17

3.4 Test Procedure 17 3.5 Calculating Test Parameters 18 3.6 Summary of Tests Parameters 19

4. MODEL RESULTS 22

5. DISCUSSION 29

6. CONCLUSIONS 34

7. REFERENCES 36 APPENDIX A APPENDIX B


ii

LIST OF TABLES 1. Parameters Used 2. Findings of Robert et al. (1997) 3. Summary of Operational Flow and Ocean Conditions 4. Scenarios Modelled (Prototype Scale) 5. Rotameter Calibration 6. TPS WP81 EC Sonde Calibration for NaCl Concentration (Cdischarge) Calculation 7. Four Port Riser Configuration Tests Parameters (Model Scale) 8. Five Port Riser Configuration Tests Parameters (Model Scale) 9. Mean Dilutions (Prototype Scale) 10. Mean Dilutions (Prototype Scale) 11. Height of Rise Results (Prototype Scale) 12 Estimated Impact Point Dilution and Impact Point Distance with Ambient Ocean

Currents

LIST OF FIGURES 1. Overview of Physical Model 2. Rotameters 3. Riser Configurations 4. Electrical Conductivity Monitoring Points 5. Filtering and Average of Dilution Times Series 6. Measurement of Plume Height of Rise 7. Mean Dilution versus Distance from Riser Port 8. Mean Dilution versus Distance from Riser Port – Scenario 1 9. Mean Dilution versus Distance from Riser Port – Scenario 2 10. Mean Dilution versus Distance from Riser Port – Scenario 3 11. Mean Dilution versus Distance from Riser Port – Scenario 4 12. Mean Dilution versus Distance from Riser Port – Scenario 5 13 Mean Dilution versus Distance from Riser Port – Scenario 6 14. Dimensionless Dilution versus Dimensionless Distance from Riser Port 15. Visualisation of Plume Pattern for Four Port Riser Configuration (Scenario 2) 16. Visualisation of Plume Pattern for Five Port Riser Configuration (Scenario 3) 17. Visualisation of Plume Pattern for Five Port Riser Configuration (Scenario 5) 18. Distribution of Current Speed at Kurnell 19. Influence of Currents on Plume Distance and Dilution


i

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Blue Water Joint Venture (BWJV) on behalf of Sydney Water Corporation has been constructing the Sydney Desalination Plant (the Plant) at Kurnell on the Cape Banks Peninsula. The desalination plant has an outfall to return seawater concentrate to the ocean, which required design investigations to mitigate potential impacts on seawater quality and aquatic ecology. The original seawater concentrate outfall was designed based on projected seawater concentrate flow volumes and density characteristics available at the time (circa 2007). In the interim period, progress with the Plant construction and more detailed planning of plant operations has established the operational outfall design constraints.Operational planning changes have altered the seawater concentrate characteristics so that under anticipated normal operating conditions, the seawater concentrate is now generally less dense than the concentrate characteristics used for the original design. This report summarises the quantitative and qualitative observations of physical model testing recently undertaken by the Water Research Laboratory (WRL) to test the design changes required for the outfall diffuser to meet the performance requirements for outfall operations for the 500 ML/day capacity plant.

Performance requirements for the outfall design are that seawater concentrate meets water quality criteria for salinity and relevant treatment chemicals by the edge of the near-field and the visual amenity of the sea surface is maintained. Specifically, by the edge of the near-field:

Salinity is within 1ppt of background ocean salinity

Targeted 30 times dilution of seawater concentrate is met

Typical current conditions are considered. A range of physical model tests was undertaken as part of this investigation. These tests used the original design with four (4) nozzles per riser (total 8 nozzles on two risers) as a starting point, and through an iterative series of tests, modified the diffuser design to meet the preformance requirments. The model testing was completed for three operational flow scenarios as defined by the BWJV. These were:


ii

Normal operating conditions

With maximum flow rates

Using sea conditions which result in the least dense (most buoyant) seawater concentrate.


With maximum flowrates

Using average anticipated sea conditions which result in the the most likely seawater concentrate

This is expected to occur 98% of the time.

Flushing of two 2nd Pass Trains.

Maximum flowrates, with the 2nd Pass trains flushing


The discharge from the two 2nd Pass trains will reduce the salinity of the Seawater concentrate

This is expected to occur 0.00078% of the time. Flow scenarios were specified by the BWJV to test both average operating conditions and operating conditions considered to be at the upper bounds of operational conditions in terms of plume performance. Initial tests determined that the original design could not meet the specified dilution performance criteria, primarily due to interaction of plumes from adjacent risers. A series of tests with various diffuser arrangements varying the number of nozzles, the nozzle diameter, the vertical angle and horizontal orientation of nozzles were tested until the performance requirements could be achieved. The final design iteration tested has five (5) nozzles per riser for a total of ten (10) nozzles on the two riser outfall diffuser. The five nozzles on each riser have been orientated around each riser cap so that the potential for interactions between plumes from adjacent risers has been eliminated under the tested quiescent ocean conditions, which are considered a worst case scenario for plume performance. Each nozzle has an internal diameter of 480 mm and a vertical angle to the horizontal plane of 60 degrees.


iii

Model testing of the final design has shown that for normal plant operational flows with average seawater concentrate characteristics, dilution ratios to within 1ppt of background salinity are achieved within 28 m of the diffuser at prototype scale with a dilution ratio of 30 times observed at approximately 48 m (prototype) from the nozzles, both within the defined edge of the near-field. The height of rise of the plumes under normal operating conditions was observed to vary between 3.5 m and 6.1 m below the sea surface at lowest astronomical tide level (LAT), therefore the visual amenity would be maintained. The Plant is expected to operate with the operational flows tested in this scenario 98% of the time. All diffuser dilution tests documented in this report were performed with quiescent conditions in the receiving water tank, which is considered a worst-case scenario for plume dilution performance. WRL has previously considered the influence of ocean currents on plume performance in Miller (2005). The empirical relationships developed for single plume performance in this previous work were used to provide an indication of the likely performance of the five nozzle design under ocean current conditions for normal operating conditions. While the presence of ocean currents with magnitudes of the order of those typically observed at site are expected to move the plume further afield compared to quiescent ocean conditions, the ocean currents are also expected to improve the plume dilution performance within the edge of the near-field.

WRL TECHNICAL REPORT 2009/07 1.

1. INTRODUCTION

The Blue Water Joint Venture (BWJV) on behalf of Sydney Water Corporation has been constructing the Sydney Desalination Plant (the Plant) at Kurnell on the Cape Banks Peninsula. The desalination plant has an outfall to return seawater concentrate to the ocean, which required design investigations to mitigate potential impacts on seawater quality and aquatic ecology. BWJV requested that the Water Research Laboratory (WRL) provide advice to assist the BWJV with refining the design of the outlet system (nozzle size and configuration) to meet the following performance requirements:

Salinity is within 1ppt of background ocean salinity by the edge of the near field

Targeted 30 times dilution of seawater concentrate is met by the edge of the near field

Visual amenity of the sea surface will be maintained

Advise on how typical ocean current conditions affect dilution of the plume within the edge of the near field.

WRL has completed a range of previous investigations for the Plant outfall during the planning and design stages. In 2005, WRL was commissioned by GHD Pty Ltd on behalf of Sydney Water Corporation to investigate the issues with the Plant outfall pertaining to ocean circulation and the dispersion of seawater concentrate (Miller, 2005). This previous report made use of the results from previous physical model testing for the dispersion of dense seawater (Roberts et al. 1997) which demonstrated that a fast moving turbulent jet angled at 60 from the horizontal plane could achieve the required dilutions. This report recommended a minimum target dilution of 30 times, which would result in an end of near field concentration of less than 1 ppt above background (based on a seawater concentrate discharge at 65 ppt into seawater at 35ppt). This salinity increase of less than 1 ppt would be within natural variations, would result in density differences less than 0.75 kg/m3 to avoid significant far field buoyancy effects and would provide adequate dilution for other constituents in the seawater concentrate. In 2007, WRL was again commissioned by Sydney Water Corporation to investigate physical modelling of the near-field dilutions for the final diffuser design of the seawater concentrate outfall for the Plant. This diffuser configuration was designed to achieve high levels of dilution in the near-field to minimise any environmental effects. This study measured dilutions for single port and four port diffusers at a range of port exit velocities


and receiving ocean current speeds. The results confirmed the importance of the port exit velocity in attaining dilutions. Testing showed that a 370 mm nozzle at 60 degrees to the horizontal plane attained the required dilutions with lower head requirements than the 350 mm nozzle described in preliminary designs. The four port diffusers gave higher dilutions at lower current speeds. This was attributed to the interaction of upstream plumes folding back over downstream plumes when currents were higher. However, in all cases the dilutions were above the relationship established in the single port tests. The target dilutions were achieved for all tested current speeds and angles and showed that dilution continued rapidly in the immediate distance from the diffusers. In the interim period, advances in the planning of plant operations have altered the characteristics of the seawater concentrate to be discharged through the outfall diffuser. This report investigates a diffuser design aimed at meeting dilution targets for a two riser diffuser with the most up to date seawater concentrate characteristics. Section 2 of this report presents a background to the concepts used in the analysis, Section 3 presents the scenarios modelled, physical modelling methods and instrumentation used. Section 4 presents the model results, and Section 5 discusses the results for diffuser dilutions and height of rise of the plumes. Section 6 summarises findings of this investigation.


2. CONCEPTS

2.1 Mixing of a Negatively Buoyant Plume

Unlike typical wastewater plumes that are buoyant and rise to the surface, a seawater concentrate plume is denser than seawater and sinks towards the bed. Both buoyant and dense plumes will undergo similar near-field mixing processes of entraining surrounding ocean waters, but the buoyant plume finally resides on the surface where there are greater mixing processes including surface winds, usually larger currents and surface waves. The dense plume, which ends up near the sea bed has lesser intermediate and far-field mixing energy and typically comprises only bed velocities, bed generated turbulence and baroclinic flows. The amount of near-field dilution achieved will depend primarily on the discharge velocity and angle of discharge to the horizontal plane, ambient receiving water currents and in the case of relatively shallow water, increased mixing due to wave activity. In designing a seawater concentrate diffuser it is important to optimise near field dilutions and not rely on far-field dilutions as these may be relatively low. Optimising near field dilutions results in a minimised impact zone while also minimising the secondary effects of stratification and density driven flows. There are three phases of the mixing processes of a negatively buoyant plume discharged with high velocity at the bed upwards at an angle to the horizontal: (i) the mixing jet, (ii) the falling plume, and finally (iii) the baroclinic spreading of the plume as the last of the buoyancy is dispersed. The mixing jet is dominated by momentum, the plume is dominated by the negative buoyancy and the baroclinic spreading is influenced by both density differences and ambient currents. The point where the plume returns to the bed is known as the impact point. The height of rise refers to the maximum plume rise height. These concepts are presented graphically in Figure 6. The plume performance criteria listed in this report refer to meeting target dilutions by the ‘edge of the near field’. In the context of this report, the ‘edge of the near field’ is defined as the point where the plume jet no longer has the ability to mix by turbulent momentum. By this definition, the location of the edge of the near field would be at the point of ultimate minimum dilution (see Section 2.2). While it has not been specifically located as part of the tests documented in this report, the point of ultimate minimum dilution has a theoretical


location (Roberts 1997) of some 3.5 times further from the diffuser as the distance of the observed point of plume impact on the bed.

2.2 Non-Dimensional Analysis

Non-dimensional analysis is the technique of organising parameters into dimensionless forms, which provide the basis for similarity between models and prototypes or indeed, two differently sized prototypes. The work of Roberts et al. (1997) presented a non-dimensional approach to near-field prediction based upon the port densimetric Froude number, a dimensionless number. The parameters used to describe the discharge of the negatively buoyant discharge are described in Table 1.


Table 1 Parameters Used

Parameter Symbol Calculated As Units Dimensions

Discharge flux Q m3/s L3.T-1 Port diameter d m L Port exit velocity u

2..4d

Qu

m/s L.T-1

Density of the seawater concentrate kg/m3 M.L-3 Density of the receiving waters a kg/m3 M.L-3 Modified gravity go’

a

agg'

0m/s2 L.T-2

Port densimetric Froude number F dg

uF

'0

Ambient receiving water current U m/s L.T-1 Momentum flux M 22 .

4udM

m4/s2 L4.T-2

Buoyancy flux B '0.gQB m4/s3 L4.T-3

Momentum characteristic length scale zm U

Mzm

5.0

m L

Buoyancy characteristic length scale zb 3U

Bzb m L

Dimensionless scaling parameter for

dense plumes into ambient currents

ζ

b

m

z

zF 1.

Terminal rise height yt m L Impact point dilution Si Location of impact point xi m L Ultimate dilution Sm Location of ultimate dilution xm m L Thickness of bottom layer yL m L

In the experimental work undertaken by Roberts et al. (1997) for a single negatively buoyant plume, dilutions were established as a constant multiple of the port densimetric Froude number as presented in Table 2.


Table 2 Findings of Roberts et al. (1997)

Terminal Rise Height FdCyt ..1 C1 = 2.2 Impact Point Dilution FCSi .2 C2 = 1.6 Ultimate Minimum Dilution FCSm .3 C3 = 2.6

Location of Impact Point FdCxi ..4 C4 = 2.4 Location of Ultimate Minimum Dilution FdCxm ..5 C5 = 9 Thickness of Bottom Layer FdCy L ..6 C6 = 0.7

Robert’s findings have been used as an indication of plume performance for the plumes assessed for the diffuser designs tested in this report.

2.3 Model Scaling

Modelling of a dense jet requires the relative scaling of the momentum and density effects. This can be presented non-dimensionally as the port densimetric Froude number defined in Section 2.2. Correct scaling of the momentum and density effects can be achieved by ensuring that the port densimetric Froude number in the model is the same as in the prototype. It is also necessary to ensure that flow in the modelled diffuser/jet is fully turbulent. Mixing processes in jets are similar and fully turbulent providing that the Reynolds number (below) has a value greater than 2000 (Fischer et al. 1979).

du

R.

Where, R is the Reynolds Number d is the diameter of the port u is the port exit velocity is the kinematic viscosity of the water It has been reported that the fully turbulent developed state may require Reynolds numbers greater than 4000 so where possible, all the experiments targeted this higher value. Using the dimensionless Port Densimetric Froude number as the scaling parameter, prototype to model scaling laws can be written as:

)(

)('0

'0

modelg

prototypeg ratiogravity Modifiedr


In this investigation, the modified gravity (g0’) in the model was kept the same as the modified gravity in the prototype. As such, the density difference between the seawater concentrate and the receiving waters in the ocean were the same as in the physical modelling experiments (i.e. the term Δr = 1).

2.4 Dilution

The primary aim of the model investigations reported here was to test and refine diffuser designs to achieve a target dilution factor of 30 times within the defined edge of the near-field zone, which was deemed appropriate based on the local conditions and ecology (Miller, 2005). This dilution target would result in a near-field salinity concentration of less than 1 ppt above background, which is within natural salinity variations. The target dilution would result in density differences of less than 0.75 kg/m3 thereby avoiding significant far field buoyancy effects (van Senden and Miller, 2005) (Miller, van Senden and Hawker, 2005) and would provide adequate dilution for any other constituents in the seawater concentrate. In this report, dilution has been defined as the ratio of the volume of ambient waters to the volume of effluent. Using this definition, a dilution factor of zero is an undiluted effluent. An alternative definition, which is also commonly used, is that the dilution is the ratio of the total volume to the volume of effluent, however, this has not been adopted for this study and the difference between the two definitions is small when dilutions are over 20 times. On the basis of the adopted definition, the concentration of the diluted discharge, Cdiluted, and the dilution factor, S, can be calculated as follows.

model

prototyper Length

Length ratio engthLL

r

rr

L ratio TimeT

rrr L ratio VelocityV .

5.25.0 . rrr L ratio geDischarQ


1. arg

S

CCSC edischrecieving

diluted

receivingdiluted

dilutededisch

CC

CCS

arg


3. PHYSICAL MODEL AND INSTRUMENTATION

3.1 Scenarios Modelled

WRL took advice from the BWJV for the operational scenarios to be tested. Flow scenarios focussed on three operational scenarios:



Using extreme sea conditions which result in the least dense (most buoyant) plant seawater concentrate.



Using average anticipated sea conditions which result in the the most likely seawater concentrate.

Flushing of two 2nd Pass Trains



The discharge from the two 2nd Pass trains will reduce the salinity of the Seawater concentrate.

The operational flow and ocean conditions for each case are summarised in Table 3. Flow scenarios were specified by the BWJV to test both average operating conditions and operating conditions considered to be at the upper bounds of operational conditions in terms of plume performance.


Table 3 Summary of Operational Flow and Ocean Conditions

Normal Operating

Conditions – Upper Bound

Ambient Characteristics

Normal Operating

Conditions – Average Ambient

Characteristics

Flushing Two 2nd Pass Trains

Plume Properties Volume 35,400 m3/h 35,400 m3/h 37,819 m3/h Density 1040 kg/m3 1043.8 kg/m3 1039.4 kg/m3 Salinity 54 ppt 59.5 ppt 55.5 ppt

Temperature 17 deg C 19.5 deg C 24 deg C Ambient (Sea) Conditions

Density 1024.0 kg/m3 1025.7 kg/m3 1024.4 kg/m3 Salinity 32.0 ppt 35.3 ppt 35.0 ppt

Temperature 15 deg C 17.5 deg C 22 deg C Sea Level -0.867 m AHD -0.867 m AHD -0.867 m AHD

Sea Currents Nil Nil Nil Sea Waves Nil Nil Nil

Density Difference (Seawater concentrate – Sea Water) 16 kg/m3 18.1 kg/m3 15 kg/m3

The designs tested were adopted following detailed consultation between the BWJV and WRL. Six configuration flow scenario combinations were modelled. The combinations varied:

The number of nozzles per riser

The diameter and the angle of the riser nozzles

The seawater concentrate discharge flow rate

The ocean level

The density difference between the seawater concentrate and the receiving waters.

The six tested scenarios are summarised in Table 4. Each scenario was run three to four times (annotated as: a, b, c and d) to ensure the consistency of the model results. All model tests were conducted without representation of currents (quiescent conditions) in the tank. This was considered representative of worst-case ocean conditions for plume mixing.


Table 4 Scenarios Modelled (Prototype Scale)

Scenario Number of Runs per Scenario

Number of

Risers

Number of Nozzles per Riser

Port Diameter

Port Angle to

Horizontal Plane

Seawater concentrate Discharge Flow Rate

Port Exit

Velocity

Water Level

Above Sea Bed

Density Difference

Densitmetric Froude Number

(mm) (deg C) (m3/h) (m/s) (m) (kg/m3)

1 3 1 4 506 60 16,740 5.78 26.3 16 21.73

2 3 2 4 506 60 33,480 5.78 26.3 16 21.73

3 3 2 5 480 50 35,460 5.44 24.95 16 19.84

4 4 2 5 480 50 37,800 5.79 24.95 15 22.11

5 4 2 5 480 55 35,460 5.44 24.95 16 19.84

6 3 2 5 480 60 35,460 5.44 24.95 18.1 18.86

Scenarios 1 and 2 were completed for normal operating conditions with upper bound plume buoyancy characteristics for a four nozzle riser with the nozzles spaced at 90 degrees intervals around the riser caps and at a vertical angle of 60 degrees from the horizontal. Figure 15 presents the diffuser configuration for Scenarios 1 and 2. Scenario 1 was intended as a benchmarking test undertaken to measure dilutions for a single plume from a single riser. Scenario 2 was configured to measure dilutions under conditions where plumes from two adjacent risers merged Scenario 3 tested dilutions for normal operating conditions with upper bound plume buoyancy characteristics for two risers each with five nozzles with the vertical angle of the nozzles at 50 degrees measured from horizontal. Figure 16 presents the diffuser configuration for Scenarios 3. The five nozzles on each riser in Scenario 3 were located as per the four port risers tested in Scenario 1 and 2 with a fifth port splitting the existing nozzles on the outer side of each riser. Scenario 4 tested the same riser configuration as Scenario 3 with flows that represent plant operations when two 2nd pass trains are flushed. Scenarios 3 and 4 measured both the dilutions of a single plume and merging plumes from adjacent risers. Scenario 5 tested two risers each with five nozzles spaced at 45 degree intervals on the outer side of each riser at a vertical angle of 55 degrees measured from horizontal. The dilution measurements were made on a single plume under normal operating conditions with upper bound plume buoyancy characteristics. Scenario 6 tested two risers each with five nozzles spaced at 45 degree intervals on the outer side of each riser at a vertical angle of 60 degrees measured from horizontal. The dilution measurements were made on a single plume under normal operating conditions


with average plume buoyancy characteristics. Figure 17 demonstrates the horizontal nozzle configuration for Scenarios 5 and 6.

3.2 Model Configuration

The model configuration is presented in Figure 1. Elements of the model set-up are described further in this section of the report.

3.2.1 Receiving Waters Tank

The model was constructed at WRL in a 4.5 m 4.5 m 0.75 m glass tank. The model risers were placed on a 19 mm thick horizontal marine plywood floor to allow the model to be tilted to the prototype bed slope, if required. A 10 cm 10 cm grid placed on the marine plywood floor with string lines aided in observing and undertaking measurements. The receiving waters were filled and drained by an orifice in the tank floor with the tank cleaned and refilled with mains supply water between each test. The density and temperature of the receiving tank water was measured each day prior to testing by weighing a 500 mL sample using scales accurate to 1.0 g. The EC and temperature of the receiving waters were recorded daily prior to each individual test using a calibrated, hand-held TPS WP81 temperature/EC/pH meter. High definition digital video cameras were mounted to visually record each experiment. Cameras were mounted overhead the tank providing a plan view of the plumes and beside the tank so as to provide a profile view of the plumes.

3.2.2 Brine Head Tank

Located approximately 2 m above the receiving waters tank was a 0.7 m 0.7 m 0.65 m primary constant head tank and a 0.9 m 0.45 m 0.25 m secondary tank, both containing the same brine. Brine water was circulated from the secondary tank to the primary constant head tank via a submersible pump. This allowed for homogeneous brine/dye mixing and a constant head within the main head tank during testing. The brine was mixed by adding a known mass of commercially available pool salt with Sydney mains supply water. The density of the brine was measured each day prior to testing by weighing a 500 mL sample from the head tank using scales accurate to 1.0 g. A conductivity-neutral blue and red dye was also added to the brine to aid in experimental observations.


Dual 25 mm diameter PVC pipe lines from the main head tank fed through rotameters, which were calibrated prior to testing to determine the discharge flow through each riser. Results for the calibration of each rotameter are in Table 5. Each riser line was fitted with a rotameter, which discharged the brine through the risers into the tank (Figure 2). The desired flows for the four and five port diffusers were able to be met by a gravity driven system. Valves located upstream and downstream of the rotameters enabled adjustment of the riser flow and calibration of the rotameters

Table 5 Rotameter Calibration

ROTAMETER A ROTAMETER B

Discharge Read

Discharge Measured

Error (Read vs

Measured)

Discharge Read

Discharge Measured

Error (Read vs

Measured) (L/min) (L/min) (%) (L/min) (L/min) (%)

10 10.6 -6.00 10.0 11.0 -10.00 11 11.6 -5.45 11.0 11.4 -3.63 12 12.2 -1.66 12.0 12.5 -4.16 13 13.4 -3.07 13.0 13.5 -3.84 14 14.5 -3.57 14.0 14.7 -5.00

The EC and temperature of the brine was recorded immediately prior to commencement of each test. These measurements were made using a TPS WP81 temperature/EC/pH meter, which was calibrated using known standards daily prior to testing. Temperature changes during experiments were considered negligible.

3.2.3 Four Port Riser Configuration

Two risers each with four nozzles, were manufactured to the scaled prototype diffuser specifications using a geometric scale of 59.53. The scale was based on the bore of the riser nozzles, which was 8.5 mm internal diameter compared to the prototype diameter of 506 mm. Each riser had four nozzles set symmetrically at 90 degrees to the adjacent. Using the analogy of a clock face, the four nozzles on these risers were located at 1:30, 4:30, 7:30 and 10:30. The nozzles were set to the design vertical angle of 60 degrees measured from the riser cap. The riser cap height was also manufactured true to scale so that the nozzle height was set at 58.54 mm above the sea bed which is equivalent to 3485 mm above the bed at prototype scale.


The risers were spaced at 514 mm, being the actual 30.6 m spacing of the already drilled riser shafts at prototype scale. Brine delivery to the risers was via 25 mm PVC pipe lines from the main constant head tank. The delivery line fed into the side of the model riser cap. Riser caps were secured in position in the middle of the receiving waters tank by clamping the PVC pipe lines to the marine plywood floor (Figure 3).

3.2.4 Five Port Riser Configuration

Two different types of five port risers were manufactured to the scaled prototype diffuser specifications at the same geometric scale of 59.53. With a total of ten jets instead of eight jets as in the four port diffuser configuration, the port internal diameter was reduced to 8.1 mm being 480 mm prototype in order to maintain sufficient nozzle exit velocity. The riser cap height remained the same as the 4 nozzle cap with nozzles heights set to be equivalent to 3485 mm above the bed at prototype scale. The first five (5) port riser tested had five nozzles set as follows: four nozzles were set symmetrically at 90 degrees to the adjacent and the fifth nozzle was located at a position on the outer side of each riser, centred between the locations of the two outer nozzles in the previous four nozzles riser configuration. Using the analogy of the clock face, four nozzles on these risers were located at 1:30, 4:30, 7:30 and 10:30 and the additional nozzles were located on at 3:00 on the first riser and 9:00 on the second riser (Figure 3). The nozzles were set at a vertical angle of 50 degrees vertical measured from the riser cap. The second five (5) port riser tested had five nozzles set as follows: three nozzles were set symmetrically at 90 degrees to each other and the fourth and fifth port were located at a position on the outer side of each riser, centred between the locations of the three other nozzles. The five nozzles were all set around the same outer side of the riser. Using the analogy of the clock face, the five nozzles on each riser were spaced at 45 degree horizontal intervals between 12:00 and 6:00 on the outer side of each riser (Figure 3). The nozzles were set at a vertical angle of 55 degrees measured from the riser cap. The riser cap height remained the same as the previous cases with nozzles heights set to be equivalent to 3485 mm above the bed at prototype scale. The third five (5) port riser tested had the same horizontal and vertical arrangement as the second riser arrangement described above, but with the vertical angle of the risers set at 60 degrees to the horizontal plane.


In all three configurations the risers were spaced at 514 mm being 30.6 m prototype. For the five port riser configurations, the risers were fed brine from underneath via 25 mm PVC pipe lines from the main constant head tank. Riser caps were secured in position to scale in the middle of the receiving waters tank by clamping the PVC pipe lines to the receiving tank floor.

3.3 Electrical Conductivity Measurements

3.3.1 Receiving Tank Instrumentation and EC Monitoring Points

Twelve monitoring points consisting of a single microelectrodes mi-900 series conductivity electrode were available for the model tests. The electrodes consisted of two small probes and a cylindrical body of 30 mm length and 4 mm diameter, hence minimising the potential for disruption to flow. The electrodes measured the conductance across the two probes using the bipolar current technique (Fan and Brown, 2006) and have a nominal detection limit of 0.002 volts and WRL in-house testing has confirmed that repeat measurements are within this detection limit. The electrodes were mounted in two array frames of six electrodes. Each array was mounted on a a brass base, which was heavy enough to ensure the arrays did not move during the experiments. Individual electrodes were then mounted on aluminium tabs with the electrode sensors offset from the brass base. The electrodes were set in line and horizontally spaced at 50 mm, which is equivalent to 3 m at prototype scale. Sensors were set to be 8 mm above the model floor, which is equivalent to 0.5 m above the prototype sea bed. The arrays were designed to allow measurement of EC both longitudinally and laterally through the plume at the point of impact (Figure 4). The twelve microelectrodes were connected to twelve individual circuit boards within a circuit box developed at WRL allowing the electrodes to simultaneously record. The circuit box/electrode output was logged using a National Instruments analogue to digital data capture card and appropriate software. The effects of temperature changes, depth of deployment, proximity to other probes and influence of the brass array were all assessed prior to testing. It was demonstrated that the EC microelectrode instrumentation provided suitable accuracy for the range of NaCl concentrations expected during these experiments and it was observed that greater accuracy was achieved at higher concentrations.


Preliminary testing of the micro electrodes showed that the recorded voltage signal exhibited a degree of noise. A Low-Pass Fast Fourier Transform spectral analysis showed that the primary source of the noise in the signal was at approximately 50 Hz indicating interference from the micro electrode transformer AC power supply. A Low-Pass Fast Fourier Transform filter applied to the raw signal time series at 1 Hz using the software TSoft was demonstrated to attenuate the signal noise (see Figure 5). The Low-Pass Fast Fourier Transform filter was therefore applied to all recorded time series signals as part of data post processing.

3.3.2 Receiving Tank EC Probe Calibration

A key objective of each experiment was to measure the dilution of the brine plume concentration. In order to obtain a dilution measurement, it was necessary to convert the voltage values of the EC probes to a NaCl concentration. This was facilitated by calibrating the conductivity probes to known concentrations of NaCl. Five standards of NaCl were used in the calibration process covering the range NaCl concentrations expected in the experiments. These five standard measurements formed a direct relationship between the voltage recorded and corresponding NaCl concentration for each individual probe. The secondary standard NaCl solutions used for calibration were produced in the WRL Chemical Laboratory. Each probe was initially calibrated to a suite of five standards of 100, 823, 1268, 1750 and 2158 mg/L NaCl solutions under conditions similar to the tank experiment. The calibration was performed prior to each test in adjacent to the testing tank to ensure that calibration occurred at a temperature as close to experimental conditions as possible. The calibration relationships proved to be linear in the range of 100 to 2158 mg/L. This information was processed in MS EXCEL to obtain a linear calibration relationship from which EC measurements (as voltages) could be converted to NaCl concentrations by post processing. As there was a previously observed potential for the microelectrodes to respond slightly differently from day to day (which was mainly attributed to a change in temperature), calibration was undertaken for all electrodes before each test. As such, each test and each individual probe had a recorded calibration slope and intercept. While these did not vary to a great degree, a Matlab program was written to apply each correct calibration relationship to each measured voltage time series for each experiment. A typical set of calibration curves for Scenario 6 is presented in Appendix B.



The NaCl concentrations in the brine head tank (Cdischarge) were greater than the levels that the microelectrodes were calibrated to or instrumented to record to. As such, a hand-held TPS WP81 temperature/EC/pH meter (high range EC) was used to record EC measurements and the concentration of NaCl (Cdischarge) determined using slope coefficients previously determined in the WRL Chemical Laboratory (for this same particular sonde, see Table 6). In the range of 20 to 60 mS/cm and 10 to 30 g/L at 25ºC, the relationship can be expressed as shown below:

7035.36655.1 NaClEC (R2 = 0.997)

The temperature was also measured within the brine head tank using the same hand-held TPS WP81 temperature/EC/pH meter and the density was measured volumetrically by weighing a 500 mL sample of brine. The temperature changes during experiments were considered negligible.

Table 6 TPS WP81 EC Sonde Calibration for NaCl Concentration (Cdischarge) Calculation

Calibration Solution

EC Actual NaCl

Concentration Solution

Calculated NaCl Concentration

Percentage Error (Actual vs Calculated)

(mS/cm) (g/L) (g/L) (%)

19.81 10 9.67 3.3 32.5 17.03 17.29 -1.52 44.7 24.08 24.61 -2.2 53.2 30.18 29.72 1.52

3.4 Test Procedure

For each test, the following procedure was applied:

1. Risers were arranged inside the tank according to the model scale.

2. The risers and plumbing from the head tank were purged with mains water.

3. The testing tank was filled with fresh water to the required depth and the density was measured.


4. The brine head tank was set as a constant head tank (i.e. kept full at all times) and the target density difference, Δρ, was achieved by either addition of pool salt or tap water. Dye was added to the brine to enable visual checking of the plume.

5. The electrodes were calibrated before each test.

6. Two electrode arrays (six electrodes per array) were positioned in the required locations to measure plume dilutions. Electrode locations were recorded relative to the diffuser jets using the 100 mm grid reference scale on the marine ply floor by counting pixels in the high resolution overhead video footage.

7. Rotameters were set to the desired flow rate. The tank was left for a minimum of 45 minutes to establish quiescent conditions.

8. TPS WP81 (handheld) low and high EC range sondes were calibrated.

9. The EC and temperature of the brine were recorded with the high EC range TPS WP81 sonde before each test.

10. The EC and temperature of the receiving waters were recorded with the low EC range TPS WP81 sonde before every test run.

11. Valves above each rotameter were opened and adjusted to deliver the correct discharge to each port and logging of EC commenced with the microelectrodes.

12. Observations of the plume were recorded, including height of rise and the impact point. Height of rise was measured by observation of the apparent distance between the water surface and the top of the plume using the digital camera footage and adjusted for the camera angle. The impact point distance was determined approximately by observation of the touch down point of the plume jet with respect to the electrode locations.

13. Data logging continued until the plume spread to the tank wall (i.e. approximately three minutes) at which point logging was halted and brine discharge ceased.

14. The tank was then drained and cleaned in preparation for the next test.

15. The procedure was repeated for the next test.

3.5 Calculating Test Parameters

For each test, time series of voltage for each of the EC probes was recorded. These time series were filtered by a Low-Pass Fast Fourier Transform spectral analysis at 1 Hz using the software TSoft to attenuate signal noise. The voltage time series were then converted to time series of NaCl concentration (Cdiluted) by an in-house Matlab program using the linear calibration relationship for the series of known NaCl concentrations and corresponding EC


voltage. These time series generally showed a large peak of initial dilution when the brine first reached the electrodes before decreasing to reach a plateau and then decaying (see Figure 5). The measurement error and the signal noise became larger on the microelectrodes at low (<300 mg/L) NaCl concentrations. An assessment was made of the sensitivity of using the recorded values as the receiving water concentration when calculating the dilution and it was determined that the receiving water concentration would be adopted as zero for all tests when calculating dilution. The implication of this assumption is to report a lower value of dilution than is actually being recorded but also to remove the error relating to measuring Creceiving from the calculation. As such, adopting Creceiving as zero and calculating Cdischarge from the relationship shown in Section 3.2.3, the equation used to calculate the dilution at any time from the NaCl concentration time series (Cdiluted) recorded by the electrodes within the tank was:

diluted

dilutededisch

C

CCS

arg

The initial peak in dilution ratio when the brine first reached the electrodes was removed from each time series and the mean value of the rest of the time series calculated as the representative dilution statistic for the series (Figure 5). For each test, the location of each microelectrode was calculated with the aid of the grid on the tank floor and pixel counts on the logged overhead high definition video. The height of rise of the plumes was determined with the aid of an incremental scale placed between the two risers and corrected for the camera angle (Figure 6).

3.6 Summary of Tests Parameters

The model parameters for each test are summarized in Tables 7 and 8.


Table 7 Four Port Riser Configuration Tests Parameters (Model Scale)

Test Run Risers

Operating Risers

Spacing

Number of Nozzles per

Riser

Port Diameter

Port Angle to Horizontal

Brine Discharge Flow Rate

Port Exit Velocity

Brine EC

Brine NaCl

Brine Temp

Receiving Tank Temp

Water Level Above Sea

Bed

Density Difference

(mm) (mm) (deg C) (L/min) (m/s) (mS/cm) (g/L) (deg C) (deg C) (mm) (kg/m3)

1a 1 514 4 8.5 60 10.2 0.75 40.3 21.97 20.1 19.2 442 16

1b 1 514 4 8.5 60 10.2 0.75 - - 20.6 20.6 442 16

1c 1 514 4 8.5 60 10.2 0.75 37.9 20.53 18.7 21.5 442 16

2a 2 514 4 8.5 60 20.4 0.75 39.4 21.43 19.1 18.7 442 16

2b 2 514 4 8.5 60 20.4 0.75 40.3 21.97 19.1 19.1 442 16

2c 2 514 4 8.5 60 20.4 0.75 43.5 23.89 19.7 18.4 442 16


Table 8 Five Port Riser Configuration Tests Parameters (Model Scale)

Test Run Risers

Operating Risers

Spacing


Riser

Port Diameter

Port Angle to Horizontal


Port Exit Velocity

Brine EC

Brine NaCl

Brine Temp

Receiving Tank Temp


Bed

Density Difference


3a 2 514 5 8.1 50 21.6 0.7 35.0 18.79 21.8 20.1 419 16.0

3b 2 514 5 8.1 50 21.6 0.7 39.4 21.43 18.8 21.5 419 16.0

3c 2 514 5 8.1 50 21.6 0.7 42.9 23.53 20.8 21.8 419 16.0

4a 2 514 5 8.1 50 23 0.75 33.3 17.77 21 22 419 15.0

4b 2 514 5 8.1 50 23 0.75 36.9 19.93 21.8 21.8 419 15.0

4c 2 514 5 8.1 50 23 0.75 36.3 19.57 19.4 19 419 15.0

4d 2 514 5 8.1 50 23 0.75 36.7 19.81 20.1 21.8 419 15.0

5a 2 514 5 8.1 55 21.6 0.7 42.9 23.53 19.9 19.3 419 16.0

5b 2 514 5 8.1 55 21.6 0.7 41.3 23.53 18.7 21.3 419 16.0

5c 2 514 5 8.1 55 21.6 0.7 41.3 22.57 18.7 21.5 419 16.0

5d 2 514 5 8.1 55 21.6 0.7 43.0 23.59 18.0 20.8 419 16.0

6a 2 514 5 8.1 60 21.6 0.7 43.7 24.01 18.7 16.7 419 18.1

6b 2 514 5 8.1 60 21.6 0.7 42.9 23.53 15.2 17.0 419 18.1

6c 2 514 5 8.1 60 21.6 0.7 45.8 25.27 14.3 17.1 419 18.1


4. MODEL RESULTS

The dilutions measured at each EC monitoring point for each model scenario are shown in Figures 7 to 13 and summarised Tables 9 and 10. As the orientation and the location of the monitoring points changed between the tests, the mean dilutions at each EC probe are presented with the relative distance of the monitoring point from the relevant riser port. The same results are plotted using dimensionless coordinates normalised by the port densimetric Froude number in Figure 14. Electrical conductivity measurement locations for each test are presented graphically in Appendix A. The environmental requirements for the outfall refer to plume dilutions that meet a deviation from background ocean salinity of 1 ppt. For the stated normal operating conditions with upper bound plume buoyancy characteristics and the operational flow conditions for flushing two 2nd pass trains, a dilution ratio of 22 times was required to meet this 1 ppt salinity criterion. For the operational case of normal plant flows with average sea water concentrate characteristics, a dilution ratio of 24 times was required to meet this 1 ppt salinity criterion. A further performance criteria set a target minimum dilution ratio of 30 times within the edge of the near-field mixing zone for all operational flow rates considered. Scenario 1 measured dilutions for normal operating conditions with upper bound plume characteristics for a single riser having four nozzles at 60 degrees from the horizontal (Figure 8). The dilutions for a single plume jet were higher than 30 times for all monitoring points. Dilutions reached 35 - 40 times at the point of plume impact with the bed and increased further with increasing distance from the port. Plume jets for this scenario were, however, observed to impact with the ocean surface which placed this scenario in breach of the environmental requirement referring to visual amenity of the outfall diffuser. Scenario 2 measured dilutions under normal operating conditions with upper bound plume characteristics for two risers having four nozzles at 60 degrees from the horizontal (Figure 9). The dilutions were measured where jets from adjacent risers interacted in the area of the impact point and further downstream from the impact point. Dilutions of 22 times were reached at approximately 30 m from the port for Test 2a, at 26.2 m from the port for Test 2b and at 24.5 m from the port for Test 2c. Dilutions of 30 times were reached at approximately 40 m from the port for Test 2a, at 39 m from the port for Test 2b and approximately 38 m from the port for Test 2c. Summarising all the tests, the dilution ratio of 22 times was reached at the impact point below the merging plumes and the dilution ratio of 30 times was obtained around 39 m from the port. The results showed lower


dilutions ratio for Scenario 2 than for Scenario 1 under the same operating conditions (i.e. merging plumes from adjacent risers produced lower dilutions than plumes without interaction). Plumes also impacted the ocean surface for this scenario. The interaction between plumes from adjacent risers is illustrated in Figure 15 for the 4 port riser configuration. Scenario 3 measured dilutions under normal operating conditions with upper bound plume characteristics for two risers with five nozzles at 50 degrees from horizontal (Figure 10). Dilutions were measured at:

The location where jets from adjacent risers merged at the impact point (Test 3a)

Further downstream from the impact point (Test 3a and 3b)

For a single plume in the area of the impact point (Test 3b and 3c).

For Test 3a for which plumes from adjacent risers merged, dilutions of 22 times were reached between 30 and 35 m from the port and dilutions of 30 times were not reached at the furthest afield measurement point some 52.7 m from the port (measured dilution of 26). For Test 3b with merging plumes, dilutions of 30 times were reached at 54.7 m from the port. For the same test on the single plume, dilutions of 22 times were reached at 31.5 m from the port and dilutions of 30 times were not reached at the furthest measurement point some 46.4 m from the port (measured dilution of 28). For Test 3c, for a single plume, dilutions of 22 times were obtained at 22.9 m from the port and dilutions of 30 times were observed between 47 and 49 m from the port. The relative directions and interactions between plumes for the scenario are illustrated in Figure 16. Plumes were observed to remain below the surface for this Scenario. Scenario 4 measured dilutions under plant operations of flushing two 2nd pass trains for two risers, each riser having five nozzles at 50 degrees from horizontal (Figure 11). The dilutions were measured at:

The location where jets from adjacent risers merged at the impact point (Test 4a)

Further downstream from the impact point (Test 4a, 4b, 4c and 4d)

For a single plume in the area of the impact point (Test 4b, 4c and 4d).

For merging plumes, dilutions of 22 times were reached at 35.3 m from the port and dilutions of 30 times were reached at 54.1 m (Test 4b) and 56.9 m (Test 4d) from the port. For a single jet plume, dilutions of 30 times were reached at 37.3 m (Test 4b), 31.8 m (Test 4c) and 38.2 m (Test 4d) from the port. The tests showed that dilutions of 30 times were


measured at approximately 37 m from the port for jets not merging whereas the same dilution was measured much further afield for jets interacting, at approximately 55 m from the port. The results clearly showed that the interaction of jets from adjacent risers reduced the dilution ratio compared to single jets. Plumes were observed to remain below the surface for this Scenario. Scenario 5 measured dilutions under normal operating conditions with upper bound plume characteristics for two risers having five nozzles at 55 degrees from horizontal (Figure 12). Horizontal nozzles were located so that plume interaction was eliminated. The relative direction of the plume jets is illustrated in Figure 17. The dilutions were measured for a single jet in the vicinity of the impact point. Dilutions of 22 times were reached at 26.4 m from the port for Test 5a, at approximately 22 - 23 m from the port for Test 5b and Test 5d and at 23.2 m from the port for Test 5c. Dilutions of 30 times were reached at 44.1 m from the port for Test 5a, at 47.1 m from the port for Test 5b and at 41.2 m from the port for Test 5c. Tests results clearly showed that the dilution ratios were higher for Scenario 5 with no jets merging than for Scenario 3 where the jets merged. Plumes for Scenario 5 with upper bound plume characteristics were observed to remain more than 3.5 m below the sea surface. On this basis a nozzle angle of 60 degrees from the horizontal plane was adopted for further testing in order to maximise the plume rise height within the visual amenity constraints and hence maximise the plume dilution performance for normal operating conditions. The final scenario tested (Scenario 6) was undertaken to determine plume dilution performance for the 500 ML/day plant under normal operation with average sea water concentrate. The riser configuration for Scenario 6 was as per Scenario 5 with the riser nozzles set to be 60 degrees from the horizontal plane. This change in nozzle angle was made in an attempt to further improve on the satisfactory performance of the 55 degree nozzles tested in Scenario 5. The model results for Scenario 6 are presented in Table 10 and graphically in Figure 13. The dilutions were measured for a single jet in the vicinity of the impact point. Model testing of the final design in Scenario 6 showed dilution ratios to within 1ppt of background salinity were achieved within 28m of the diffuser at prototype scale with a dilution ratio of 30 times observed at approximately 48 m (prototype) from the diffuser, both within the defined edge of the near-field.


Table 9 Mean Dilution Results – 4 Port Diffuser (Prototype Scale)

Mean Dilution Test Run

Electrode 1 Electrode 2 Electrode 3 Electrode 4 Electrode 5 Electrode 6 Electrode 7 Electrode 8 Electrode 9 Electrode 10 Electrode 11 Electrode 12

1a Distance from Outer Port (m) Distance from Inner Port (m)

Mean Dilution

Visual observations only for this test

1b Distance from Outer Port (m) Distance from Inner Port (m)

Mean Dilution

N/A 19.6 34

N/A 22.6 36

N/A 25.7 35

N/A 28.7 31

N/A 31.8 32

/ N/A 34.7 33

N/A N/A N/A

N/A N/A N/A

N/A N/A N/A

N/A N/A N/A

N/A N/A N/A

N/A N/A N/A

1c Distance from Outer Port (m) Distance from Inner Port (m)

Mean Dilution

N/A 20.1 34

N/A 23.1 37

N/A 26.2 40

N/A 29.2 42

N/A 32.3 39

N/A 35.3 36

76 N/A 41

78.9 N/A 43

81.7 N/A 45

84.5 N/A 41

87.5 N/A 48

90.2 N/A 51


Mean Dilution N/A 21.2 21

N/A 22.6 20

N/A 23.8 20

N/A 25.4 19

N/A 27.3 20

N/A 29.6 21

N/A 34.7 26

N/A 37.5 28

N/A 40.3 32

N/A 43.1 32

N/A 46.1 31

N/A 48.9 31


Mean Dilution

N/A 19.9 20

N/A 21.2 20

N/A 22.6 19

N/A 24.3 21

N/A 26.2 22

N/A 28.6 21

N/A 33.6 25

N/A 36.3 27

N/A 39 30

N/A 42 26

N/A 44.8 32

N/A 47.6 32


Mean Dilution

N/A 20.1 23

N/A 21.4 21

N/A 22.8 21

N/A 24.5 22

N/A 26.4 19

N/A 28.8 20

N/A 34.1 23

N/A 36.6 29

N/A 39.4 33

N/A 42.4 31

N/A 45.1 35

N/A 48 37



N/A 20.1 18

N/A 21.5 17

N/A 23.3 17

N/A 25.4 17

N/A 27.8 18

N/A 38.2 23

N/A 41.1 25

N/A 43.9 26

N/A 46.8 25

N/A 49.7 27

N/A 52.7 26


Mean Dilution

N/A 46 27

N/A 48.9 29

N/A 51.7 28

N/A 54.7 30

N/A 57.4 31

N/A 60.3 30

31.5 N/A 23

34.5 N/A 25

37.5 N/A 27

40.6 N/A 29

43.4 N/A 28

46.4 N/A 28


Mean Dilution

37.8 N/A 26

34.6 N/A 26

31.7 N/A 25

28.7 N/A 23

25.8 N/A 22

22.9 N/A 22

55.6 N/A 31

52.6 N/A 29

49.7 N/A 31

46.7 N/A 27

43.7 N/A 29

40.9 N/A 26

Note these results are presented graphically in Appendix A.


Table 10 Mean Dilution Results – 5 Port Diffusers (Prototype Scale)




Mean Dilution

N/A 18.7 20

N/A 20.2 20

N/A 21.5 19

N/A 23.3 17

N/A 25.4 18

N/A 27.7 19

N/A 32.5 20

N/A 35.3 22

N/A 38.2 34

N/A 40.9 25

N/A 43.8 25

N/A 46.6 19


Mean Dilution

N/A 45.5 28

N/A 48.3 29

N/A 51.1 28

N/A 54.1 30

N/A 56.9 31

N/A 59.9 33

46.5 N/A 33

43.3 N/A 31

40.2 N/A 30

37.3 N/A 30

34.4 N/A 27

31.4 N/A 26


Mean Dilution

N/A 45.5 26

N/A 48.3 26

N/A 51.1 28

N/A 54.1 27

N/A 57 26

N/A 59.8 27

31.8 N/A 31

34.8 N/A 32

37.8 N/A 31

40.8 N/A 29

43.7 N/A 30

46.7 N/A 31

4d Distance from Outer Port (m) Distance from Inner Port (m)


N/A 48.2 28

N/A 51 28

N/A 53.9 29

N/A 56.9 31

N/A 59.7 31

32.2 N/A 26

35.4 N/A 29

38.2 N/A 30

41.3 N/A 30

44.1 N/A 31

47.2 N/A 30


Mean Dilution 38.3 N/A 28

35.2 N/A 27

32.3 N/A 24

29.3 N/A 24

26.4 N/A 22

23.3 N/A 21

56.1 N/A 30

53 N/A 30

50.1 N/A 32

47.1 N/A 30

44.1 N/A 30

41.3 N/A 26


Mean Dilution

41.2 N/A 28

44.2 N/A 29

47.1 N/A 30

50.1 N/A 30

53 N/A 29

56.1 N/A 34

23.1 N/A 23

26.2 N/A 24

29.2 N/A 25

32.2 N/A 26

35.2 N/A 27

38.3 N/A 27


Mean Dilution

41.2 N/A 30

44.3 N/A 29

47.2 N/A 30

50.2 N/A 30

53.1 N/A 31

56 N/A 31

23.2 N/A 22

26.3 N/A 24

29.3 N/A 27

32.4 N/A 26

35.3 N/A 27

38.2 N/A 27

5d Distance from Outer Port (m) Distance from Inner Port (m)

Mean Dilution

41.2 N/A 25

44.2 N/A 25

47.1 N/A 26

50.2 N/A 26

53.1 N/A 29

56 N/A 32

23.2 N/A 23

26.4 N/A 24

29.3 N/A 26

32.3 N/A 25

35.2 N/A 26

38.4 N/A 27


Mean Dilution

19.61 N/A 26

22.69 N/A 26

25.57 N/A 27

28.65 N/A 26

31.42 N/A 26

34.29 N/A 27

37.27 N/A 27

40.25 N/A 29

43.02 N/A 29

45.90 N/A 26

48.77 N/A 28

51.65 N/A 34


Mean Dilution

23.42 N/A 21

26.19 N/A 21

29.27 N/A 23

32.24 N/A N/A

35.22 N/A N/A

38.20 N/A 25

40.66 N/A 25

43.64 N/A 24

46.62 N/A N/A

49.49 N/A 28

52.27 N/A 28

55.45 N/A 31


Mean Dilution

22.18 N/A 21

25.26 N/A 22

28.44 N/A 24

31.21 N/A 22

33.99 N/A 29

36.96 N/A 30

40.15 N/A 21

43.02 N/A 22

46.00 N/A 24

48.87 N/A 28

51.54 N/A 28

54.53 N/A 26



The minimum and maximum height of rise of the plume below the sea surface has been determined for Scenarios 3 to 5 where the plumes were observed to remain below the water surface. Rise heights for each test are summarised in Table 11. All tests were conducted with the water depth set to be Lowest Astronomical Tide (LAT), a level of -0.867 m to Australian Height Datum (AHD). This level is the lowest possible tide level achievable for the site (i.e. without other secondary meteorological or oceanographic effects). Sea surface elvels would typically be higher than this level. The plume height of rise is reported as a distance below the sea surface as this was the distance measured in the tests and can be related directly to the visual amenity criteria.

Table 11 Summary of Impact Point Distance and Height of Rise Results (Prototype Scale)

Run

Impact Point

Distance (m)

Sea Surface Level (m AHD)

Maximum Height of Rise Below the Sea Surface (m)

Minimum Height of Rise Below the Sea Surface (m)

3a N/A N/A N/A N/A 3b N/A -0.867 m AHD 4.5 6.1 3c N/A -0.867 m AHD 4.0 6.7 4a 18.7 -0.867 m AHD 2.9 4.5 4b N/A -0.867 m AHD 2.9 5.1 4c N/A -0.867 m AHD 2.9 5.1 4d N/A -0.867 m AHD 2.4 4.5 5a 26.4 -0.867 m AHD 3.5 5.6 5b 23.1 -0.867 m AHD 3.5 5.6 5c 23.2 -0.867 m AHD 4.0 6.1 5d 23.2 -0.867 m AHD 4.0 6.1 6a 22.7 -0.867 m AHD 2.9 5.1 6b 23.4 -0.867 m AHD 2.9 4.0 6c 22.2 -0.867 m AHD 2.9 4.5

For Scenarios 1 and 2, the height of rise of a single plume and/or merging plumes from adjacent risers has not been measured but the tests clearly showed that the plumes rose to the sea surface, even when the jets were well established. The height of rise of the interacting plumes under normal operating conditions with upper bound plume characteristics for two risers having five nozzles at 50 degrees from horizontal (Scenario 3) varied between 4 and 6.7 m below the sea surface. The height of rise of the interacting plumes under plant operations of flushing two 2nd pass trains for two risers


having five nozzles at 50 degrees from horizontal (Scenario 4) varied between 2.4 and 5.1 m below the sea surface. The height of rise of plumes for Scenario 4 was closer to the sea surface than for Scenario 3 due to the higher flow rates and lighter plume density difference. The height of rise of the plumes under normal operating conditions with upper bound plume characteristics for two risers having five nozzles at 55 degrees from horizontal (Scenario 5) varied between 3.5 and 6.1 m below the sea surface. Under the same operating conditions, the height of rise of plumes for Scenario 5 was higher and closer to the sea surface than for Scenario 3 due to the higher port angles (55 degrees compared to 50 degrees). Scenario 6 investigated conditions for the 500 ML/day plant under normal operation with average sea water concentrate. This scenario tested the 5 port risers with nozzles orientated at 60 degrees to the horizontal plane and found that the plumes rose to a height of between 2.9 m and 5.1 m from the ocean surface. The model results show that all scenarios tested for the five port risers had acceptable plume rise heights with respect to the environmental requirements.


5. DISCUSSION

The results in Section 4 present the dilutions achieved and observed height of rise of the plumes for the three tested riser configurations and two plant operating conditions considered for the outfall diffuser. Scenarios 1 and 2 modelled the normal operating conditions with upper bound plume buoyancy characteristics for one and two risers with four 506 mm nozzles at 60 degrees from the horizontal. For this riser cap design, it was observed that the plumes of adjacent risers would collide at the top of their trajectory and then fall almost vertically to the sea floor. The results showed dilution ratios met 30 times dilution at the impact point for a single plume but the dilution ratio at the impact point for merging jets was much lower and only met the 1 ppt salinity criterion (22 times dilution). Colliding plumes produced much lower dilutions than jets without interactions. In both cases, the single and merging plumes were observed to rise to meet the sea surface and remained at the surface when the jets were well established. This riser configuration generated insufficient dilution at the impact point for merging plumes and exceeded the height of rise criteria because of the combination of vertical port angle and the high exit velocity. Scenario 3 attempted to solve these issues by adding a fifth port to the riser, reducing the diameter of the nozzles to 480 mm and lowering the vertical angle of the nozzles to 55 degrees. The same normal operating with upper bound plume buoyancy characteristics conditions were modelled. The jets were observed to hit the sea surface in an initial developing phase but then established an operating height varying between 4.0 and 6.7 m below the sea surface when the jets were well established. For merging plumes the dilution ratio of 22 times and 30 times were reached further from the port nozzles than for Scenario 2. The addition of a fifth port on each riser reduced the dilution at the impact point and increased the distance needed to reach 30 times dilution and lowered the rise height of the plume when fully established. The same riser configuration was tested also under the operational condition of flushing two 2nd pass trains. As previously mentioned the jets hit the sea surface during an establishment phase but then varied between 2.4 and 5.1 m below the sea surface when the jets were established. The larger operating flow generated higher jets that rose closer to the sea surface. The dilution ratio was very similar for the merging plumes for Scenarios 3 and 4 and slightly higher for a single plume for Scenario 4 than for Scenario 3. Interacting plumes from adjacent risers were again observed to have reduced dilution ratios than for a single plume. From the presented data it can be concluded that this operational condition


does not significantly influence the achieved dilution ratios nor increase the height of rise of jets to unacceptable levels. The interaction of plumes was avoided in Scenarios 5 and 6 with a riser configuration designed to avoid merging of jets from adjacent risers. Scenario 5 modelled the normal operating conditions with upper bound plume buoyancy characteristics for two risers with five 480 mm diameter nozzles per riser. The angle of the nozzles was also increased to 55 degrees from horizontal as previous results showed the plumes were still at an acceptable distance below the sea surface when the nozzles were set at a 50 degree angle. The jets for this design were observed to hit the sea surface during an initial development phase but then dropped to a plume rise height, which varied between 3.5 m and 6.1 m below the sea surface once the jets were well established. The model results confirmed that the plumes were closer to the sea surface than for Scenario 3 (under the same normal operating conditions), but the distance between the sea surface and the top of the plume was still acceptable with respect to environmental criteria. In this final of the risers, the jets from the five nozzles of the two adjacent risers did not merge because of the adjusted horizontal port alignment. Since the jets no longer interacted (Scenario 5), the dilution ratio increased at the impact point for the inner nozzles compared to merging plumes (Scenario 3). Dilution ratios of 22 and 30 times were reached closer to the risers for Scenario 5 than for Scenario 3, i.e. the 1 ppt salinity criterion and 30 times dilution were reached closer to the risers. A final model test, Scenario 6, was undertaken to test the riser design for normal operating conditions with average sea water concentrate characteristics. The sea water concentrate for this test was slightly heavier than that tested in Scenario 5 which considered upper bound (lighter) sea water concentrate characteristics. A higher port angle of 60 degrees to the horizontal was chosen for this scenario on the basis of the acceptable plume rise heights observed for the Scenario 5 tests. A dilution ratio of 24 times was required for this scenario in order to meet the 1 ppt salinity criterion. Model results show that 24 times dilution was achieved at approximately 28 m from the riser with 30 times dilution observed at approximately 48 m from the riser. All dilution tests documented in this report were performed with quiescent conditions in the receiving water tank, which is considered a worst case scenario for plume dilution performance. An analysis of ocean current measurements at the outfall diffuser site as presented in Figure 18 shows that quiescent conditions can be expected at the site for approximately 0.05% of the time. At other times, a measureable ocean current will be present. Figure 18 also shows that ocean currents at the site will be 0.07 m/s or greater 50% of the time.


WRL has previously considered the influence of ocean currents on plume performance Miller (2005). This investigation developed empirical relationships for predicting plume dilution and plume drift for a single plume under the influence of currents. The investigation also measured dilution for a diffuser with four nozzles. The results from this multi-port analysis were indicative only and not sufficiently detailed to produced similar empirical relationships for a multi-port diffuser. The empirical relationships developed in Miller (2005) can be used to provide an indication of the likely performance of the five port diffuser described in Scenario 5 above. The empirical relationships developed in Miller (2005) are presented in Figure 19 and Table 12 for the 500 ML/day plant for normal operating conditions as described in Table 3. Table 12 presents estimated impact point dilutions and plume impact point distances for the range of ambient ocean currents observed at the site. The values presented in Table 12 show that for quiescent conditions, the impact point dilution of 23 times and impact point distance of 27.1 m from Miller (2005) correlate reasonably well with the mean impact point dilution of 24 times and impact point distance of 28 m as measured for Scenario 6. Note that dilution and distance estimates for current speeds greater than 0.07 m/s are extrapolated beyond the range of current speeds tested in Miller (2005).

Table 12 Estimated Impact Point Dilution and Impact Point Distance with

Ambient Ocean Currents1

Ambient Current Exceedance

Probability (%)

Ambient

Current Speed (m/s)

Impact Point Dilution

Impact Point Distance

(m)

99.95 0.000 23 27.1

99.5 0.010 26 30.2

95.0 0.020 29 33.3

90.0 0.025 30 34.9

80.0 0.030 31 36.4

50.0 0.070 42 48.9

20.0* 0.110 53 61.3

10.0* 0.140 61 70.7

1.0* 0.220 82 95.6 *Note: extrapolated values

1 Note: While there is a reasonable correlation between current speed and dilution for quienscent conditions, further model testing of the 5 nozzle diffusers head design performance for a range of current speeds would be required in order to provide a definitive assessment of the final diffuser design in ambient current conditions.


On the basis of the reasonable correlation for quiescent conditions, it follows that the dilutions and impact point distance for jets in the 5 nozzle diffuser heads tested in Scenario 6 will approximately follow the relationships determined in Miller (2005). Figure 19 reproduced from the information presented in Miller (2005) demonstrates that both the dilution achieved and the plume impact point distance will increase with increasing current speed. To interpret the changes in distance and dilution that may be achieved from the two five port risers, the test findings in Table 10 have been multiplied by the ratio of predictions made in Figure 19 at different current speeds. At 0.07 m/s (the median current speed) Figure 19 shows that the distance to the impact point is 49/27 = 1.8 times the impact point distance measured for the quiescent case. Similarly at 0.07 m/s, Figure 19 shows that the dilution is is 42/23 = 1.8 times as great as the quiescent case. The relationships presented in Table 11 and Figure 19 also indicate that for normal operating conditions the targeted 30 times dilution performance criteria is achieved at the plume impact point when the ambient ocean current is 0.025 m/s. This improvement in dilution at the impact point is combined with a plume impact distance of some 35 m from the diffuser, a result which is indicative of an improvement in plume dilution performance within the edge of the near-field mixing zone when ocean currents are present compared to quiescent conditions. While the presence of currents is expected to increase the overall dilutions achieved, different currents will also result in the individual jets having different trajectories. However for any given current and the arrangement of the five jets (on each riser), some jets will be orientated into the currents, some will be orientated across the currents and some will be orientated with the currents. Jets orientated into the currents may (in strong currents) fold back on themselves and result in the impact point being downstream of the port. However the opposite jets that are oriented with the currents will have their impact points even further downstream. This was evidenced in Miller et al (2007) with a four port riser operating with a persistant current. While not specifically tested for in this investigation, it can be inferred that any currents will have approximately the same net effect on the location of each jets impact point and hence the quiescent condition remains conservative. All model testing of the 500 ML/day plant was conducted with a horizontal sea bed. The actual sea bed in the vicinity of the risers slopes offshore at an approximate slope of 1 : 15. The net effect of the slope on plume performance will be twofold. Firstly, the jets


orientated up slope will have less depth into which to fall and hence have somewhat lower impact point dilution. However jets orientated downslope will have a higher impact point dilution. As the plumes spread from the impact point and dilute further, those orientated up slope will reach some distance after which their own density difference and momentum will no longer drive them up the slope. At this point the plume will spread in a direction long shore. Those plumes orientated down slope will continue to spread and entrain as they move into deeper water. On this basis, any bed slope will assist with the net dilution from the risers.


6. CONCLUSIONS

The Water Research Laboratory has undertaken physical modelling of a seawater concentrate outfall for the proposed Sydney Desalination plant operating at the ultimate design capacity of 500 ML/day for the adopted normal plant operating conditions. This investigation has tested three configurations of the risers with four and five nozzles under three different 500 ML/day plant operating conditions which were:



Using extreme sea conditions which result in the least dense (most buoyant) plant seawater concentrate.




This is expected to occur 98% of the time.

Flushing of two 2nd Pass Trains.



The discharge from the two 2nd Pass trains will reduce the salinity of the Seawater concentrate

This is expected to occur 0.00078% of the time. The various nozzle configurations were determined iteratively, starting with the previously proposed riser design configuration.

Performance requirements for the outfall design are that seawater concentrate meets water quality criteria for salinity and relevant treatment chemcicals at the edge of the near-field and the visual amenity of the sea surface will be maintainced. Specifically, by the edge of the near-field:




Typical current conditions are considered. The interaction of jets from adjacent risers was shown to have a significant influence on the achievable plume dilution ratios. In order to increase the dilution at the impact point, merging jets were eliminated from the diffuser design by adjusting the location of the diffuser nozzles around the perimeter of each diffuser riser cap. The final configuration of five port risers without plume interactions and nozzles at 60 degrees from horizontal was tested under the stated normal operational conditions for the 500 ML/day plant and proved to effectively meet the 1 ppt salinity criterion and 30 times dilution within the edge of the near-field mixing zone. All diffuser dilution tests documented in this report were performed with quiescent conditions in the receiving water tank, which is considered a worst case scenario for plume dilution performance. WRL has previously considered the influence of ocean currents on plume performance in Miller (2005). The empirical relationships developed for single plume performance in this previous work were used to provide an indication of the likely performance of the five port diffuser under ocean current conditions for normal operating conditions. While the presence of ocean currents with magnitudes of the order of those typically observed at site are expected to move the diffuser plume further afield compared to quiescent ocean conditions, the ocean currents are also expected to improve the plume dilution performance within the edge of the plume near-field. However, further model testing of the five port, two riser diffuser design would be required to provide a definitive assessment of the multi-port diffuser performance in the presence of ocean currents.


7. REFERENCES

Fan, X and Brown, G L, (2006), Probe for measurements of density/conductivity in flows of

conducting fluid, Review of Scientific Instruments 77. Fischer, H, List, J, Koh, K, Imberger, J and Brooks, N (1979), Mixing in Inland and

Coastal Waters. Academic Press, London. Miller, B M (2005), “Desalination Planning Study Ocean Modelling Report”, WRL

Technical Report No 2005/26. Miller, B M, Van Senden, D and Hawker, K (2005), “Water Corporation Desalination Plant Review of Cockburn Sound 2005 Data Collection”, WRL Technical Report No 2005/39. Miller, B M, Cunningham, I L, and Timms, W A (2007), “Physical Modelling of the SeaWater Concentrate Diffusers for the Sydney Desalination Study”, WRL Technical

Report No 2007/04. Roberts, J W, Ferrier, A and Daviero, G (1997), Mixing in Inclined Dense Jets. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering. Vol. 123, No. 8 August.

WRL

Report No. 2009/07

Figure

1 OVERVIEW OF PHYSICAL MODEL AT WRL

WRL

Report No. 2009/07

Figure

ROTAMETERS 2

WRL

Report No. 2009/07

Figure

Four Ports Riser Configuration

Five Ports Riser Configuration

RISER CONFIGURATIONS 3

WRL

Report No. 2009/07

Figure

8 ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY MONITORING POINTS 4

WRL Report No. 2009/07

Figure

5 FILTERING AND AVERAGE OF DILUTION TIME SERIES

040

8012

016

0Ti

me

sinc

e st

art (

s)

020406080100

Dilution-0.8

-0.40

0.4

0.8

1.2

Voltage (V)

Tim

e se

ries

ave

rage

d f

or c

alcu

lati

on o

f d

ilu

tion

WRL

Report No.

Figure

2009/07 MEAN DILUTION VERSUS DISTANCE FROM RISER PORT

7

WRL

Report No. 2009/07

Figure

MEAN DILUTION VERSUS DISTANCE FROM RISER PORT – SCENARIO 1 8

WRL

Report No. 2009/07

Figure

MEAN DILUTION VERSUS DISTANCE FROM RISER PORT –

SCENARIO 2 9

WRL

Report No. 2009/07

Figure

MEAN DILUTION VERSUS DISTANCE FROM RISER PORT –

SCENARIO 3 10

WRL

Report No. 2009/07

Figure


WRL

Report No. 2009/07

Figure


WRL

Report No.

Figure

2009/07 MEAN DILUTION VERSUS DISTANCE FROM RISER PORT –

SCENARIO 613

WRL

Report No.

Figure

2009/07 DIMENSIONLESS DILUTION VERSUS DIMENSIONLESS

DISTANCE FROM RISER PORT14

WRL

Report No.

Figure

2009/07 DISTRIBUTION OF CURRENT SPEED AT KURNELL

(24/07/09 – 14/12/06)18

0.0050.01

0.050.10.2

0.5

1

2

5

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

95

98

99

99.5

99.899.9

99.95

99.9999.995

Pro

babi

lity

of N

on-E

xcee

denc

e (%

)

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6 0.05

0.15

0.25

0.35

0.45

0.55

Current Speed at Kurnell for All Directions (m/s)E

leva

tion

-10.

2 m

Ele

vatio

n -2

0.2

m99.99599.99

99.9599.999.8

99.5

99

98

95

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

5

2

1

0.5

0.20.10.05

0.010.005

Pro

babi

lity

of E

xcee

denc

e (%

)

WRL

Report No.

Figure

2009/07

INFLUENCE OF CURRENTS ON PLUME DISTANCE AND DILUTION 19

Dilution Ratio

Impact Point Distance (m)

Cur

rent

Spe

ed (m

/s)


APPENDIX A

WRL

Report No. 2009/07

Figure

A1 MEAN DILUTIONS AT EC MONITORING POINTS

SCENARIO 1b

WRL

Report No. 2009/07

Figure


SCENARIO 1c

WRL

Report No. 2009/07

Figure


SCENARIO 2a

WRL

Report No. 2009/07

Figure

MEAN DILUTIONS AT EC MONITORING POINTS

SCENARIO 2b A4

WRL

Report No. 2009/07

Figure

A5

MEAN DILUTIONS AT EC MONITORING POINTS SCENARIO 2c

MEAN DILUTIONS AT EC MONITORING POINTS SCENARIO 2c A5

WRL

Report No. 2009/07

Figure

MEAN DILUTIONS AT EC MONITORING POINTS SCENARIO 3b

MEAN DILUTIONS AT EC MONITORING POINTS SCENARIO 3a A7 A8 A9 A6

WRL

Report No. 2009/07

Figure

MEAN DILUTIONS AT EC MONITORING POINTS SCENARIO 3b A7

WRL

Report No. 2009/07

Figure


SCENARIO 3c A8

WRL

Report No. 2009/07

Figure


SCENARIO 4a A9

WRL

Report No. 2009/07

Figure


WRL

Report No. 2009/07

Figure


WRL

Report No. 2009/07

Figure


SCENARIO 4d A12

WRL

Report No. 2009/07

Figure

MEAN DILUTIONS AT EC MONITORING POINTS SCENARIO 5a A13

WRL

Report No. 2009/07

Figure


WRL

Report No. 2009/07

Figure


WRL

Report No. 2009/07

Figure

MEAN DILUTIONS AT EC MONITORING POINTS SCENARIO 5d A16

WRL

Report No. 2009/07

Figure


SCENARIO 6a A17

Location of electrodes Location of ports

WRL

Report No. 2009/07

Figure


SCENARIO 6b A18


WRL

Report No. 2009/07

Figure




APPENDIX B

WR

L R

eport No. 2009/07

Figure

B1 TY

PIC

AL M

ICR

O E

LEC

TRO

DE

CA

LIBR

ATIO

N C

UR

VE

S

THE UNIVERSITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES SCHOOL OF CIVIL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING

WATER RESEARCH LABORATORY

PHYSICAL MODELLING OF SYDNEY DESALINATION OUTFALL AT 250 ML/DAY OPERATION WITH TWO RISERS

WRL Technical Report 2009/15 July 2009

by

B M Miller, G P Smith and L Tarrade

Water Research Laboratory School of Civil and Environmental Engineering Technical Report No 2009/15 University of New South Wales ABN 57 195 873 179 Report Status Final King Street Date of Issue July 2009 Manly Vale NSW 2093 Australia Telephone: +61 (2) 9949 4488 WRL Project No. 09004 Facsimile: +61 (2) 9949 4188 Project Manager G P Smith

Title Physical Modelling of Sydney Desalination Outfall at 250 ML/Day

Operation with Two Risers Author(s) B M Miller, G P Smith and L Tarrade Client Name Blue Water JV Client Address PO Box 2891

TAREN POINT BC NSW 2229 Client Contact Malachy Breslin Client Reference SP651-00465

The work reported herein was carried out at the Water Research Laboratory, School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of New South Wales, acting on behalf of the client. Information published in this report is available for general release only with permission of the Director, Water Research Laboratory, and the client.


i

CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1. INTRODUCTION 1

2. CONCEPTS 3 2.1 Mixing of a Negatively Buoyant Plume 3 2.2 Non-Dimensional Analysis 4 2.3 Model Scaling 6 2.4 Dilution 7

3. PHYSICAL MODEL AND INSTRUMENTATION 9 3.1 Scenarios Modelled 9 3.2 Model Configuration 10

3.2.1 Receiving Waters Tank 10 3.2.2 Brine Head Tank 10 3.2.3 Four Nozzle Riser Configuration 11 3.2.4 Three Nozzle Riser Configuration 12

3.3 Electrical Conductivity Measurements 12 3.3.1 Receiving Tank Instrumentation and EC Monitoring Points 12 3.3.2 Receiving Tank EC Probe Calibration 13 3.3.3 Brine Head Tank 14

3.4 Test Procedure 14 3.5 Calculating Test Parameters 15 3.6 Summary of Tests Parameters 16

4. MODEL RESULTS 18

5. DISCUSSION 23

6. CONCLUSIONS 26

7. REFERENCES 28 APPENDIX A APPENDIX B


ii

LIST OF TABLES 1. Parameters Used 2. Findings of Robert et al. (1997) 3. Summary of Tested Operational Flow and Ocean Conditions 4. Rotameter Calibration 5. TPS WP81 EC Sonde Calibration for NaCl Concentration (Cdischarge) Calculation 6. 250 ML/day Plant Test Parameters (Model Scale) 7. Mean Dilution Results – 250 ML/day Plant (Prototype Scale) 8. Summary of Impact Point Distance and Height of Rise Results (Prototype Scale)

9. Estimated Impact Point Dilution and Impact Point Distance with Ambient Ocean Currents

LIST OF FIGURES 1. Overview of Physical Model 2. Rotameters 3. Riser Configurations 4. Electrical Conductivity Monitoring Points 5. Filtering and Average of Dilution Times Series 6. Measurement of Plume Height of Rise 7. Mean Dilution vs Distance From Riser Nozzle, Scenario 1 8. Mean Dilution vs Distance From Riser Nozzle, Scenario 2 9. Mean Dilution vs Distance From Riser Nozzle, Scenario 3 10. Mean Dilution vs Distance From Riser Nozzle, Scenario 4 11. Dimensionless Dilution Vs Dimensionless Distance From Riser Nozzle 12. Plume Pattern – 4 Nozzle Riser 13 Plume Pattern – 3 Nozzle Riser 14. Distribution of Current Speed at Kurnell 15. Influence of Currents on Plume Distance and Dilution


i

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Blue Water Joint Venture (BWJV) on behalf of Sydney Water Corporation has been constructing the Sydney Desalination Plant (the Plant) at Kurnell on the Cape Banks Peninsula. The desalination plant has an outfall to return seawater concentrate to the ocean, which required design investigations to mitigate potential impacts on seawater quality and aquatic ecology. The original seawater concentrate outfall was designed based on projected seawater concentrate flow volumes and density characteristics available at the time (circa 2007). In the interim period, progress with the Plant construction and more detailed planning of plant operations has established the operational outfall design constraints. Operational planning changes have altered the seawater concentrate characteristics so that under anticipated normal operating conditions, the seawater concentrate is now generally less dense than the concentrate characteristics used for the original design. This report summarises the quantitative and qualitative observations of physical model testing recently undertaken by the Water Research Laboratory (WRL) to test the design changes required for the outfall diffuser to meet the performance requirements for outfall operations for the 250 ML/day capacity plant.

Performance requirements for the outfall design are that seawater concentrate meets water quality criteria for salinity and relevant treatment chemicals by the edge of the near-field and the visual amenity of the sea surface is maintained. Specifically, by the edge of the near-field:



Typical current conditions are considered Model testing for the 250 ML/day plant was undertaken for the proposed two riser diffuser. Each riser has four (4) 370 mm diameter nozzles separated equally at 90 degrees around the riser cap. The horizontal angle of each nozzle is at 60 degrees to the horizontal plane. A range of physical model tests was undertaken as part of this investigation for various combinations of plant flow rate and seawater concentrate characteristics. The model testing was completed for four operational flow scenarios as defined by the BWJV. These were:


ii

Scenario One: 100% output through 6 × 390 mm nozzles – Plant operating at 250(266) ML/day production. Scenario Two: 100% output through 8 × 370 mm nozzles – Plant operating at 250(266) ML/day production. Scenario Three: 75% output through 6 × 370 mm nozzles – Plant operating at 188(200) ML/day production. Scenario Four: 67% output through 8 × 370 mm nozzles – Plant operating at 167(177) ML/day production. The four scenarios tested cover a range of plant production rates for the 250 ML/day plant. Each of these plant production rates has an associated outfall discharge rate with characteristic seawater concentrate density properties. The scenarios as modelled demonstrate that the targeted performance criteria for dilution and plume height of rise can be met within the edge of the near-field for a plant operating at full (250 ML/day) production using a two riser diffuser with the adopted riser design of four 370 mm diameter nozzles per riser. The Plant may be required to operate at production rates less than the full capacity in the future. Additional scenarios model tested by WRL for the BWJV investigated combinations of reduced plant production rate with various configurations of the number of operational nozzles across both riser caps. The model results indicate that the plant has the flexibility to operate at reduced capacity maintaining the targeted plume performance criteria within the edge of the near-field. However, plume dilution performance at lower plant production rates will only be achievable by an associated reduction of the total number of active nozzles on the outfall risers in order to maintain acceptable nozzle exit velocities. Planning of operational protocols will be required to ensure that plume performance criteria are maintained by matching the required number of operational diffuser nozzles with nominated plant production rates. All diffuser dilution tests documented in this report were performed with quiescent conditions in the receiving water tank, which is considered a worst-case scenario for plume dilution performance. WRL has previously considered the influence of ocean currents on plume performance in Miller (2005). The empirical relationships developed for single plume performance in this previous work were used to provide an indication of the likely performance of the four nozzle design under ocean current conditions for normal operating


iii

conditions. While the presence of ocean currents with magnitudes of the order of those typically observed at site are expected to move the plume further afield compared to quiescent ocean conditions, the ocean currents are also expected to improve the plume dilution performance within the edge of the near-field.


1. INTRODUCTION

The Blue Water Joint Venture (BWJV) on behalf of Sydney Water Corporation has been constructing the Sydney Desalination Plant (the Plant) at Kurnell on the Cape Banks Peninsula. The desalination plant has an outfall to return seawater concentrate to the ocean, which required design investigations to mitigate potential impacts on seawater quality and aquatic ecology. BWJV requested that the Water Research Laboratory (WRL) provide advice to assist the BWJV with refining the design of the outlet system (nozzle size and configuration) to meet the following performance requirements:

Salinity is within 1ppt of background ocean salinity by the edge of the near-field

Targeted 30 times dilution of seawater concentrate is met by the edge of the near-field

Visual amenity of the sea surface will be maintained

Advise on how typical ocean current conditions affect dilution of the plume within the edge of the near-field.

WRL has completed a range of previous investigations for the Plant outfall during the planning and design stages. In 2005, WRL was commissioned by GHD Pty Ltd on behalf of Sydney Water Corporation to investigate the issues with the Plant outfall pertaining to ocean circulation and the dispersion of seawater concentrate (Miller, 2005). This previous report made use of the results from previous physical model testing for the dispersion of dense seawater (Roberts et al. 1997) which demonstrated that a fast moving turbulent jet angled at 60 from the horizontal plane could achieve the required dilutions. This report recommended a minimum target dilution of 30 times, which would result in an end of near-field concentration of less than 1 ppt above background (based on a seawater concentrate discharge at 65 ppt into seawater at 35ppt). This salinity increase of less than 1 ppt would be within natural variations, would result in density differences less than 0.75 kg/m3 to avoid significant far field buoyancy effects and would provide adequate dilution for other constituents in the seawater concentrate. In 2007, WRL was again commissioned by Sydney Water Corporation to investigate physical modelling of the near-field dilutions for the final diffuser design of the seawater concentrate outfall for the Plant. This diffuser configuration was designed to achieve high levels of dilution in the near-field to minimise any environmental effects. This study measured dilutions for single nozzle and four nozzle risers at a range of nozzle exit


velocities and receiving ocean current speeds. The results confirmed the importance of the nozzle exit velocity in attaining dilutions. Testing showed that a 370 mm nozzle at 60 degrees to the horizontal plane attained the required dilutions with lower head requirements than the 350 mm nozzle described in preliminary designs. The four nozzle risers gave higher dilutions at lower current speeds. This was attributed to the interaction of upstream plumes folding back over downstream plumes when currents were higher. However, in all cases the dilutions were above the relationship established in the single nozzle tests. The target dilutions were achieved for all tested current speeds and angles and showed that dilution continued rapidly in the immediate distance from the risers. In the interim period, advances in the planning of plant operations have altered the characteristics of the seawater concentrate to be discharged through the outfall diffuser. This report investigates a diffuser design aimed at meeting dilution targets for a two riser diffuser with the most up to date seawater concentrate characteristics. This report documents testing of the proposed outfall design for plant operation at a maximum production rate of 250 ML/day. Model testing of the ultimate 500 ML/day production plant has been previously reported as Miller (2009). Section 2 of this report presents a background to the concepts used in the analysis, Section 3 presents the scenarios modelled, physical modelling methods and instrumentation used. Section 4 presents the model results, and Section 5 discusses the results for diffuser dilutions and height of rise of the plumes. Section 6 summarises findings of this investigation.


2. CONCEPTS

2.1 Mixing of a Negatively Buoyant Plume

Unlike typical wastewater plumes that are buoyant and rise to the surface, a seawater concentrate plume is denser than seawater and sinks towards the bed. Both buoyant and dense plumes will undergo similar near-field mixing processes of entraining surrounding ocean waters, but the buoyant plume finally resides on the surface where there are greater mixing processes including surface winds, usually larger currents and surface waves. The dense plume, which ends up near the sea bed has lesser intermediate and far-field mixing energy and typically comprises only bed velocities, bed generated turbulence and baroclinic flows. The amount of near-field dilution achieved will depend primarily on the discharge velocity and angle of discharge to the horizontal plane, ambient receiving water currents and in the case of relatively shallow water, increased mixing due to wave activity. In designing a seawater concentrate diffuser it is important to optimise near-field dilutions and not rely on far-field dilutions, as these may be relatively low. Optimising near-field dilutions results in a minimised impact zone while also minimising the secondary effects of stratification and density driven flows. There are three phases of the mixing processes of a negatively buoyant plume discharged with high velocity at the bed upwards at an angle to the horizontal: (i) the mixing jet, (ii) the falling plume, and finally (iii) the baroclinic spreading of the plume as the last of the buoyancy is dispersed. The mixing jet is dominated by momentum, the plume is dominated by the negative buoyancy and the baroclinic spreading is influenced by both density differences and ambient currents. The point where the plume returns to the bed is known as the impact point. The height of rise refers to the maximum plume rise height. These concepts are presented graphically in Figure 6. The plume performance criteria listed in this report refer to meeting target dilutions by the ‘edge of the near-field’. In the context of this report, the ‘edge of the near-field’ is defined as the point where the plume jet no longer has the ability to mix by turbulent momentum. By this definition, the location of the edge of the near-field would be at the point of ultimate minimum dilution (see Section 2.2). While it has not been specifically located as part of the tests documented in this report, the point of ultimate minimum dilution has a


theoretical location of some 3.5 times further from the diffuser (Roberts 1997) than the distance of the observed point of plume impact on the bed.

2.2 Non-Dimensional Analysis

Non-dimensional analysis is the technique of organising parameters into dimensionless forms, which provide the basis for similarity between models and prototypes or indeed, two differently sized prototypes. The work of Roberts et al. (1997) presented a non-dimensional approach to near-field prediction based upon the port densimetric Froude number, a dimensionless number. The parameters used to describe the discharge of the negatively buoyant discharge are described in Table 1.


Table 1 Parameters Used

Parameter Symbol Calculated As Units Dimensions

Discharge flux Q m3/s L3.T-1 Nozzle diameter d m L Nozzle exit velocity u

2..4d

Qu

m/s L.T-1

Density of the seawater concentrate kg/m3 M.L-3 Density of the receiving waters a kg/m3 M.L-3 Modified gravity go’

a

agg'

0m/s2 L.T-2

Port densimetric Froude number F dg

uF

'0

Ambient receiving water current U m/s L.T-1 Momentum flux M 22 .

4udM

m4/s2 L4.T-2

Buoyancy flux B '0.gQB m4/s3 L4.T-3

Momentum characteristic length scale zm U

Mzm

5.0

m L

Buoyancy characteristic length scale zb 3U

Bzb m L

Dimensionless scaling parameter for

dense plumes into ambient currents

ζ

b

m

z

zF 1.

Terminal rise height yt m L Impact point dilution Si Location of impact point xi m L Ultimate dilution Sm Location of ultimate dilution xm m L Thickness of bottom layer yL m L

In the experimental work undertaken by Roberts et al. (1997) for a single negatively buoyant plume, dilutions were established as a constant multiple of the port densimetric Froude number as presented in Table 2.


Table 2 Findings of Roberts et al. (1997)

Terminal Rise Height FdCyt ..1 C1 = 2.2 Impact Point Dilution FCSi .2 C2 = 1.6 Ultimate Minimum Dilution FCSm .3 C3 = 2.6

Location of Impact Point FdCxi ..4 C4 = 2.4 Location of Ultimate Minimum Dilution FdCxm ..5 C5 = 9 Thickness of Bottom Layer FdCy L ..6 C6 = 0.7

Robert’s findings have been used as an indication of plume performance for the plumes assessed for the diffuser designs tested in this report.

2.3 Model Scaling

Modelling of a dense jet requires the relative scaling of the momentum and density effects. This can be presented non-dimensionally as the port densimetric Froude number defined in Section 2.2. Correct scaling of the momentum and density effects can be achieved by ensuring that the port densimetric Froude number in the model is the same as in the prototype. It is also necessary to ensure that flow in the modelled diffuser/jet is fully turbulent. Mixing processes in jets are similar and fully turbulent providing that the Reynolds number (below) has a value greater than 2000 (Fischer et al. 1979).

du

R.

Where, R is the Reynolds Number d is the diameter of the nozzle u is the nozzle exit velocity is the kinematic viscosity of the water It has been reported that the fully turbulent developed state may require Reynolds numbers greater than 4000 so where possible, all the experiments targeted this higher value. Using the dimensionless Port Densimetric Froude number as the scaling parameter, prototype to model scaling laws can be written as:

)(

)('0

'0

modelg

prototypeg ratiogravity Modifiedr


In this investigation, the modified gravity (g0’) in the model was kept the same as the modified gravity in the prototype. As such, the density difference between the seawater concentrate and the receiving waters in the ocean were the same as in the physical modelling experiments (i.e. the term Δr = 1).

2.4 Dilution

The primary aim of the model investigations reported here was to test diffuser designs to achieve a target dilution factor of 30 times within the defined edge of the near-field zone, which was deemed appropriate based on the local conditions and ecology (Miller, 2005). This dilution target would result in a near-field salinity concentration of less than 1 ppt above background, which is within natural salinity variations. The target dilution would result in density differences of less than 0.75 kg/m3 thereby avoiding significant far field buoyancy effects (van Senden and Miller, 2005) (Miller, van Senden and Hawker, 2005) and would provide adequate dilution for any other constituents in the seawater concentrate. In this report, dilution has been defined as the ratio of the volume of ambient waters to the volume of effluent. Using this definition, a dilution factor of zero is an undiluted effluent. An alternative definition, which is also commonly used, is that the dilution is the ratio of the total volume to the volume of effluent, however, this has not been adopted for this study and the difference between the two definitions is small when dilutions are over 20 times. Based on the adopted definition, the concentration of the diluted discharge, Cdiluted, and the dilution factor, S, can be calculated as follows.

1. arg

S

CCSC edischrecieving

diluted

model

prototyper Length

Length ratio engthLL

r

rr

L ratio TimeT

rrr L ratio VelocityV .

5.25.0 . rrr L ratio geDischarQ


receivingdiluted

dilutededisch

CC

CCS

arg


3. PHYSICAL MODEL AND INSTRUMENTATION

3.1 Scenarios Modelled

WRL took advice from the BWJV for the operational scenarios to be tested. The flow scenarios tested focussed on four scenarios covering a range of anticipated production rates for normal operating conditions.

Table 3 Summary of Tested Operational Flow and Ocean Conditions

Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Scenario 4 Diffuser Specifications Number of risers tested 2 2 2 2 Number of nozzles per riser

3 4 3 4

Nozzle diameter 390mm 370mm 370mm 370mm Nozzle angle 60 deg. 60 deg. 60 deg. 60 deg Plume Properties Volume 17,463 m3/h 16,688 m3/h 12,722 m3/h 10,624 m3/h Density 1043.5 kg/m3 1046.4 kg/m3 1046.4 kg/m3 1047.7 kg/m3 Salinity 59.3 ppt 62.3 ppt 61.8 ppt 63.6 ppt Temperature 20.0 deg. C 17.9 deg. C 17.0 deg. C 17.0 deg. C Nozzle exit velocity 6.8 m/s 5.4 m/s 5.5 m/s 3.4 m/s Ambient (sea) Conditions

Density 1025.3 kg/m3 1026.2 kg/m3 1026.6 kg/m3 1026.5 kg/m3 Salinity 35.0 ppt 35.6 ppt 35.6 ppt 35.6 ppt Temperature 18.0 deg. C 15.9 deg. C 15.0 deg. C 15.0 deg. C Sea Level -0.867 m

AHD -0.867 m

AHD -0.867 m

AHD -0.867 m

AHD Sea currents Nil Nil Nil Nil Sea Waves Nil Nil Nil Nil Density Difference (brine – sea water)

18.2 kg/m3 20.2 kg/m3 19.8 kg/m3 21.2kg/m3

Dilution Ratio required to meet 1ppt of background salinity

26 25 26 28

Nozzle Densimetric Froude Number

29.7 20.2 20.7 12.5

Each flow scenario was run up to three times (annotated as a, b, and c) to ensure the consistency of the model results. All model tests were conducted without representation of currents (quiescent conditions) in the tank. This was considered representative of worst-case ocean conditions for plume mixing.


3.2 Model Configuration

The model configuration is presented in Figure 1. Elements of the model set-up are described further in this section of the report.

3.2.1 Receiving Waters Tank

The model was constructed at WRL in a 4.5 m 4.5 m 0.75 m glass tank. The model risers were placed on a 19 mm thick horizontal marine plywood floor to allow the model to be tilted to the prototype bed slope, if required. A 10 cm 10 cm grid placed on the marine plywood floor with string lines aided in observing and undertaking measurements. The receiving waters were filled and drained by an orifice in the tank floor with the tank cleaned and refilled with mains supply water between each test. The density and temperature of the receiving tank water was measured each day prior to testing by weighing a 500 mL sample using scales accurate to 1.0 g. The EC and temperature of the receiving waters were recorded daily prior to each individual test using a calibrated, hand-held TPS WP81 temperature/EC/pH meter. High definition digital video cameras were mounted to visually record each experiment. Cameras were mounted overhead the tank providing a plan view of the plumes and beside the tank to provide a profile view of the plumes.


Located approximately 2 m above the receiving waters tank was a 0.7 m 0.7 m 0.65 m primary constant head tank and a 0.9 m 0.45 m 0.25 m secondary tank, both containing the same brine. Brine water was circulated from the secondary tank to the primary constant head tank via a submersible pump. This allowed for homogeneous brine/dye mixing and a constant head within the main head tank during testing. The brine was mixed by adding a known mass of commercially available pool salt with Sydney mains supply water. The density of the brine was measured each day prior to testing by weighing a 500 mL sample from the head tank using scales accurate to 1.0 g. A conductivity-neutral blue and red dye was also added to the brine to aid in experimental observations. Dual 25 mm diameter PVC pipe lines from the main head tank fed through rotameters, which were calibrated prior to testing to determine the discharge flow through each riser.


Results for the calibration of each rotameter are in Table 4. Each riser line was fitted with a rotameter, which discharged the brine through the risers into the tank (Figure 2). The desired flows for the four nozzle risers were able to be met by a gravity driven system. Valves located upstream and downstream of the rotameters enabled adjustment of the riser flow and calibration of the rotameters

Table 4 Rotameter Calibration

ROTAMETER A ROTAMETER B

Discharge Read

Discharge Measured

Error (Read vs

Measured)

Discharge Read

Discharge Measured

Error (Read vs

Measured) (L/min) (L/min) (%) (L/min) (L/min) (%)

10 10.6 -6.00 10.0 11.0 -10.00 11 11.6 -5.45 11.0 11.4 -3.63 12 12.2 -1.66 12.0 12.5 -4.16 13 13.4 -3.07 13.0 13.5 -3.84 14 14.5 -3.57 14.0 14.7 -5.00

The EC and temperature of the brine was recorded immediately prior to commencement of each test. These measurements were made using a TPS WP81 temperature/EC/pH meter, which was calibrated using known standards daily prior to testing. Temperature changes during experiments were considered negligible.

3.2.3 Four Nozzle Riser Configuration

Two risers each with four nozzles were manufactured to the scaled prototype diffuser specifications using a geometric scale of 59.53. The scale was based on the bore of the riser nozzles, which was 6.2 mm internal diameter compared to the prototype diameter of 370 mm. Each riser had four nozzles set symmetrically at 90 degrees to the adjacent. Using the analogy of a clock face, the four nozzles on these risers were located at 1:30, 4:30, 7:30 and 10:30 (see Figure 3a). The nozzles were set to the design vertical angle of 60 degrees measured from the riser cap. The riser cap height was also manufactured true to scale so that the nozzle height was set at 58.54 mm above the sea bed, which is equivalent to 3485 mm above the bed at prototype scale. The risers were spaced at 514 mm, being the actual 30.6 m spacing of the already drilled riser shafts at prototype scale. Brine delivery to the risers was via 25 mm PVC pipe lines


from the main constant head tank. Riser caps were secured in position in the middle of the receiving waters tank by screwing down the riser to marine plywood floor (Figure 4).

3.2.4 Three Nozzle Riser Configuration

Two, 3-nozzle riser cap configurations were tested. Scenario 1 tested risers with 390 mm diameter nozzles (prototype scale) while Scenario 3 tested risers with 370 mm diameter (prototype) nozzles. The three nozzle configurations tested used the four nozzle riser cap with one of the nozzles on each riser de-activated by taping over the nozzle with PVC tape on the inside of the riser cap. The diagonally opposite inner nozzles on each riser cap were de-activated in this case so that interaction of the plumes between risers was eliminated. The three nozzle riser cap configuration is presented in Figure 3b.

3.3 Electrical Conductivity Measurements

3.3.1 Receiving Tank Instrumentation and EC Monitoring Points

Twelve monitoring points consisting of a single microelectrodes mi-900 series conductivity electrode were available for the model tests. The electrodes consisted of two small probes and a cylindrical body of 30 mm length and 4 mm diameter, hence minimising the potential for disruption to flow. The electrodes measured the conductance across the two probes using the bipolar current technique (Fan and Brown, 2006) and have a nominal detection limit of 0.002 volts and WRL in-house testing has confirmed that repeat measurements are within this detection limit. The electrodes were mounted in two array frames of six electrodes. Each array was mounted on a brass base, which was heavy enough to ensure the arrays did not move during the experiments. Individual electrodes were then mounted on aluminium tabs with the electrode sensors offset from the brass base. The electrodes were set in line and horizontally spaced at 50 mm, which is equivalent to 3 m at prototype scale. Sensors were set to be 8 mm above the model floor, which is equivalent to 0.5 m above the prototype sea bed. The arrays were designed to allow measurement of EC both longitudinally and laterally through the plume at the point of impact (Figure 4). The twelve microelectrodes were connected to twelve individual circuit boards within a circuit box developed at WRL allowing the electrodes to simultaneously record. The circuit box/electrode output was logged using a National Instruments analogue to digital data capture card and appropriate software.


The effects of temperature changes, depth of deployment, proximity to other probes and influence of the brass array were all assessed prior to testing. It was demonstrated that the EC microelectrode instrumentation provided suitable accuracy for the range of NaCl concentrations expected during these experiments and it was observed that greater accuracy was achieved at higher concentrations. Preliminary testing of the micro electrodes showed that the recorded voltage signal exhibited a degree of noise. A Low-Pass Fast Fourier Transform spectral analysis showed that the primary source of the noise in the signal was at approximately 50 Hz indicating interference from the micro electrode transformer AC power supply. A Low-Pass Fast Fourier Transform filter applied to the raw signal time series at 1 Hz using the software TSoft (http://seismologie.oma.be/TSOFT/tsoft.html) was demonstrated to attenuate the signal noise (see Figure 5). The Low-Pass Fast Fourier Transform filter was therefore applied to all recorded time series signals as part of data post processing.

3.3.2 Receiving Tank EC Probe Calibration

A key objective of each experiment was to measure the dilution of the brine plume concentration. In order to obtain a dilution measurement, it was necessary to convert the voltage values of the EC probes to a NaCl concentration. This was facilitated by calibrating the conductivity probes to known concentrations of NaCl. Five standards of NaCl were used in the calibration process covering the range NaCl concentrations expected in the experiments. These five standard measurements formed a direct relationship between the voltage recorded and corresponding NaCl concentration for each individual probe. The secondary standard NaCl solutions used for calibration were produced in the WRL Chemical Laboratory. Each probe was initially calibrated to a suite of five standards of 100, 823, 1268, 1750 and 2158 mg/L NaCl solutions under conditions similar to the tank experiment. The calibration was performed prior to each test in adjacent to the testing tank to ensure that calibration occurred at a temperature as close to experimental conditions as possible. The calibration relationships proved to be linear in the range of 100 to 2158 mg/L. This information was processed in MS EXCEL to obtain a linear calibration relationship from which EC measurements (as voltages) could be converted to NaCl concentrations by post processing. As there was a previously observed potential for the microelectrodes to respond slightly differently from day to day (which was mainly attributed to a change in temperature), calibration was undertaken for all electrodes before each test. As such, each


test and each individual probe had a recorded calibration slope and intercept. While these did not vary to a great degree, a Matlab program was written to apply each correct calibration relationship to each measured voltage time series for each experiment. A typical set of calibration curves for Scenario 6 is presented in Appendix B.


The NaCl concentrations in the brine head tank (Cdischarge) were greater than the levels that the microelectrodes were calibrated to or instrumented to record to. As such, a hand-held TPS WP81 temperature/EC/pH meter (high range EC) was used to record EC measurements and the concentration of NaCl (Cdischarge) determined using slope coefficients previously determined in the WRL Chemical Laboratory (for this same particular sonde, see Table 5). In the range of 20 to 60 mS/cm and 10 to 30 g/L at 25ºC, the relationship can be expressed as shown below:

7035.36655.1 NaClEC (R2 = 0.997)

The temperature was also measured within the brine head tank using the same hand-held TPS WP81 temperature/EC/pH meter and the density was measured volumetrically by weighing a 500 mL sample of brine. The temperature changes during experiments were considered negligible.

Table 5 TPS WP81 EC Sonde Calibration for NaCl Concentration (Cdischarge) Calculation

Calibration Solution

EC Actual NaCl

Concentration Solution

Calculated NaCl Concentration

Percentage Error (Actual vs Calculated)

(mS/cm) (g/L) (g/L) (%)

19.81 10 9.67 3.3 32.5 17.03 17.29 -1.52 44.7 24.08 24.61 -2.2 53.2 30.18 29.72 1.52

3.4 Test Procedure

For each test, the following procedure was applied:

1. Risers were arranged inside the tank according to the model scale.

2. The risers and plumbing from the head tank were purged with mains water.


3. The testing tank was filled with fresh water to the required depth and the density was measured.

4. The brine head tank was set as a constant head tank (i.e. kept full at all times) and the target density difference, Δρ, was achieved by either addition of pool salt or tap water. Dye was added to the brine to enable visual checking of the plume.

5. The electrodes were calibrated before each test.

6. Two electrode arrays (six electrodes per array) were positioned in the required locations to measure plume dilutions. Electrode locations were recorded relative to the diffuser jets using the 100 mm grid reference scale on the marine ply floor by counting pixels in the high resolution overhead video footage.

7. Rotameters were set to the desired flow rate. The tank was left for a minimum of 45 minutes to establish quiescent conditions.

8. TPS WP81 (handheld) low and high EC range sondes were calibrated.

9. The EC and temperature of the brine were recorded with the high EC range TPS WP81 sonde before each test.

10. The EC and temperature of the receiving waters were recorded with the low EC range TPS WP81 sonde before every test run.

11. Valves above each rotameter were opened and adjusted to deliver the correct discharge to each riser and logging of EC commenced with the microelectrodes.

12. Observations of the plume were recorded, including height of rise and the impact point. Height of rise was measured by observation of the apparent distance between the water surface and the top of the plume using the digital camera footage and adjusted for the camera angle. The impact point distance was determined approximately by observing touch down point of the plume with respect to the electrode locations.

13. Data logging continued until the plume spread to the tank wall (i.e. approximately three minutes) at which point logging was halted and brine discharge ceased.

14. The tank was then drained and cleaned in preparation for the next test.

15. The procedure was repeated for the next test.

3.5 Calculating Test Parameters

For each test, time series of voltage for each of the EC probes was recorded. These time series were filtered by a Low-Pass Fast Fourier Transform spectral analysis at 1 Hz using the software TSoft to attenuate signal noise. The voltage time series were then converted to


time series of NaCl concentration (Cdiluted) by an in-house Matlab program using the linear calibration relationship for the series of known NaCl concentrations and corresponding EC voltage. These time series generally showed a large peak of initial dilution when the brine first reached the electrodes before decreasing to reach a plateau and then decaying (see Figure 5). The measurement error and the signal noise became larger on the microelectrodes at low (<300 mg/L) NaCl concentrations. An assessment was made of the sensitivity of using the recorded values as the receiving water concentration when calculating the dilution and it was determined that the receiving water concentration would be adopted as zero for all tests when calculating dilution. The implication of this assumption is to report a lower value of dilution than is actually being recorded but also to remove the error relating to measuring Creceiving from the calculation. As such, adopting Creceiving as zero and calculating Cdischarge from the relationship shown in Section 3.2.3, the equation used to calculate the dilution at any time from the NaCl concentration time series (Cdiluted) recorded by the electrodes within the tank was:

diluted

dilutededisch

C

CCS

arg

The initial peak in dilution ratio when the brine first reached the electrodes was removed from each time series and the mean value of the rest of the time series calculated as the representative dilution statistic for the series (Figure 5). For each test, the location of each microelectrode was calculated with the aid of the grid on the tank floor and pixel counts on the logged overhead high definition video. The height of rise of the plumes was determined with the aid of an incremental scale placed between the two risers and corrected for the camera angle (Figure 6).

3.6 Summary of Tests Parameters

The model parameters for each test are summarized in Table 6.


Table 6 250 ML/day Plant Test Parameters (Model Scale)

Test Run Risers

Operating Risers

Spacing


Riser

Nozzle Diameter

Nozzle Angle to Horizontal


Nozzle Exit Velocity

Brine EC

Brine NaCl

Brine Temp

Receiving Tank Temp


Bed

Density Difference


1a 2 514 3 6.5 60 10.6 0.89 45.3 24.97 19.3 16.4 419 18.2

2a 2 514 4 6.2 60 10.2 0.70 48.6 26.95 19.2 16.0 419 20.2

2b 2 514 4 6.2 60 10.2 0.70 49.0 27.19 19.7 16.7 419 20.2

2c 2 514 4 6.2 60 10.2 0.70 51.6 28.76 18.5 16.3 419 20.2

3a 2 514 3 6.2 60 7.8 0.71 53.1 29.66 17.0 14.2 419 19.8

3b 2 514 3 6.2 60 7.8 0.71 52.6 29.36 17.1 16.7 419 19.8

3c 2 514 3 6.2 60 7.8 0.71 52.4 29.24 17.2 14.6 419 19.8

4a 2 514 4 6.2 60 6.4 0.45 55.4 31.04 17.7 15.6 419 21.2

4b 2 514 4 6.2 60 6.4 0.45 56.6 31.76 17.9 15.6 419 21.2

4c 2 514 4 6.2 60 6.4 0.45 56.6 31.76 17.3 15.2 419 21.2


4. MODEL RESULTS

The dilutions measured at each EC monitoring point for each model scenario are shown in Figures 7 to 10 and summarised in Table 7. As the orientation and the location of the monitoring points changed between the tests, the mean dilutions at each EC probe are presented with the relative distance of the monitoring point from the relevant riser nozzle. The same results are plotted using dimensionless coordinates normalised by the port densimetric Froude number in Figure 11. Figure 12 demonstrates the plume pattern observed for the four nozzle risers, while Figure 13 indicates the plume pattern for the three nozzle risers as tested. Electrical conductivity measurement locations and the mean dilution measured at each location for each test are presented graphically in Appendix A. The plume impact point with the bed for each test was determined by visual inspection of the plume in comparison with the location of the micro electrode arrays. Prototype distances for the impact point were calculated by counting and scaling pixels with respect to the grid on the marine ply floor. Impact point distances are summarised for each test in Table 8. The minimum and maximum height of rise of the plume below the sea surface has been determined for each tested Scenario. Rise heights for each test are also summarised in Table 8. All tests were conducted with the water depth set to be Lowest Astronomical Tide (LAT), a level of -0.867 m to Australian Height Datum (AHD). This level is the lowest possible tide level achievable for the site (i.e. without other secondary meteorological or oceanographic effects). Sea surface levels would typically be higher than this level. The plume height of rise is reported as a distance below the sea surface as this was the distance measured in the tests and can be related directly to the visual amenity criteria. SCENARIO ONE: 100% output through 6 × 390 mm Nozzles – Plant operating at 250(266) ML/day production. Scenario 1 was a riser performance test undertaken to determine plume mixing for the plant operating at the highest anticipated output (250 ML/day plant production, 266 ML/day outflow) for average ambient ocean conditions. The scenario also tested whether there was any advantage to running full plant capacity of 250 ML/day through a 3 nozzle per riser diffuser with nozzles set at 390 mm diameter (rather than the 4-nozzle design with 370 mm diameter nozzles), thereby eliminating interaction of the plumes from adjacent risers. Test results for this scenario showed that the environmental performance target of 30 times dilution was met prior to the plume impact point for this scenario. However, the visual


amenity criterion was exceeded for this scenario as the plume jet was observed to consistently reach the sea surface. Because of the obvious exceedance of the visual amenity criteria, this scenario was only tested one time. SCENARIO TWO: 100% output through 8 × 370 mm nozzles – Plant operating at 250(266) ML/day production. Scenario 2 tested full plant capacity outflows through the 4-nozzle riser design with 370 mm diameter nozzles into worst case ocean conditions for dilution (low ocean temperature, high ocean salinity). The model results show that the 1 ppt of background salinity dilution criteria (25 times dilution) for this scenario was met at the plume impact point for outer nozzle jets approximately 16 m from the diffuser. The inner jets (between risers) showed some interaction of plumes between the adjacent risers, with the 1 ppt criteria met some 26 m from the diffuser. 30 times dilution was achieved at 18 m from the diffuser for outer riser jets and 32 m from the diffuser for the interacting jets. All plumes for this scenario were observed to rise to between 4.0m and 6.7m below the sea surface for this scenario. SCENARIO THREE: 75% output through 6 × 370 mm nozzles – Plant operating at 188(200) ML/day production. Scenario 3 tested an operational scenario where the plant was run at 75% of full plant capacity discharging into worst case ocean conditions for dilution. This operational flow scenario was run through the diffuser operating with two 3-nozzle risers. This scenario also required a dilution of 26 times to meet the 1 ppt of background salinity criteria. The model results show that this criterion was comfortably met for all observations, with the plume dilution measure at more than 30 times dilution at the plume impact point. Plumes for this test were observed to rise to between 1.3 m and 4.5 m below the sea surface, but generally remained more than 2.0 m below the sea surface. SCENARIO FOUR: 67% output through 8 × 370 mm nozzles – Plant operating at 167(177) ML/day production. Scenario 4 tested an operational scenario where the plant was run at 67% of full plant capacity discharging into worst case ambient ocean conditions for dilution. This operational scenario tested flow through two, 4-nozzle risers discharging into worst case ocean conditions for dilution. This scenario required a 28 times dilution ratio to meet the 1ppt background salinity criteria. Model results show that 28 – 30 times dilution was not


achieved for this low flow scenario until approximately 60 m from the risers. Plume rise heights for this scenario were observed to be relatively low at 12.5 m below the sea surface.


Table 7 Mean Dilution Results – 250 ML/day Plant (Prototype Scale)



Distance from Outer Nozzle 22.07 25.05 27.93 30.90 33.78 36.65 39.53 42.40 45.38 48.26 51.13 54.21 1a Dilution 47 41 40 39 40 43 43 45 51 50 53 53

Distance from Outer Nozzle 13.04 16.12 19.10 21.97 24.95 27.93 / / / / / / Distance from Inner Nozzle / / / / / / 16.77 18.08 19.69 21.47 23.66 26.02 2a

Dilution 24 27 30 33 37 40 24 24 23 23 25 26 Distance from Outer Nozzle 14.89 17.97 20.95 24.13 27.01 30.09 / / / / / / Distance from Inner Nozzle / / / / / / 20.67 23.03 25.54 28.15 30.84 33.60 2b

Dilution 26 33 37 42 43 42 23 25 25 27 28 32 Distance from Outer Nozzle 14.48 17.46 20.33 23.41 26.28 29.16 / / / / / / Distance from Inner Nozzle / / / / / / 20.25 22.59 25.09 27.70 30.26 32.88 2c

Dilution 24 30 34 33 37 39 23 25 28 28 29 33

Distance from Outer Nozzle / / / / / / 18.18 21.16 24.34 27.31 30.09 33.27 Distance from Inner Nozzle 20.60 23.75 26.53 29.69 32.87 35.74 / / / / / / 3a

Dilution 32 31 40 38 39 41 35 33 40 39 44 44

Distance from Outer Nozzle / / / / / / 35.84 32.87 29.70 26.72 23.77 20.58 Distance from Inner Nozzle 18.18 21.58 24.13 27.42 30.40 33.37 / / / / / / 3b

Dilution 35 35 40 45 60 59 44 50 51 36 37 33

Distance from Outer Nozzle / / / / / / 18.18 21.05 24.34 27.22 30.29 33.28 Distance from Inner Nozzle 20.69 23.56 26.73 29.91 32.88 35.84 / / / / / / 3c

Dilution 34 40 44 49 56 37 38 43 43 41 44

Distance from Inner Nozzle 30.85 28.26 25.92 23.83 21.75 19.87 46.57 43.87 40.81 38.18 35.54 32.89 4a Dilution 24 26 27 27 27 25 26 24 27 24 24 24

Distance from Inner Nozzle 44.16 47.14 49.96 52.85 55.66 58.58 61.47 64.52 67.19 70.29 73.12 75.81 4b Dilution 23 25 29 28 27 26 30 32 32 32 34 37

Distance from Inner Nozzle 58.23 55.28 52.34 49.71 46.94 44.31 75.30 72.33 69.52 66.67 63.94 61.07 4c Dilution 27 26 26 25 24 24 38 35 33 31 33 29



Table 8 Summary of Impact Point Distance and Height of Rise Results (Prototype Scale)

Run

Impact Point

Distance (m)

Sea Surface Level (m

AHD)

Maximum Height of Rise Below the Sea Surface (m)

Minimum Height of Rise Below the Sea Surface (m)

1a 27.9 -0.867 0.0 0.0 2a 16.1 -0.867 4.0 6.1 2b 15.0 -0.867 4.5 6.7 2c 15.5 -0.867 4.5 6.7 3a 20.6 -0.867 1.3 5.3 3b 21.6 -0.867 1.3 4.7 3c 20.7 -0.867 1.3 4.7 4a 9.5* -0.867 10.9 12.5 4b 9.5* -0.867 11.5 12.5 4c 9.5* -0.867 10.9 12.5

*Note: approximate distance estimated using grid on tank floor


5. DISCUSSION

The results in Section 4 present the dilutions achieved and observed height of rise of the plumes for the four tested plant operational scenarios. The four scenarios tested cover a range of plant production rates for the 250 ML/day plant. Each of these plant production rates has an associated outfall discharge rate with characteristic density properties. The scenarios as modelled demonstrate that the targeted performance criteria for dilution and plume height of rise can be met within the edge of the near-field for a plant operating at full (250 ML/day) production using a two riser diffuser with the adopted riser design of four 370 mm diameter nozzles per riser. Scenario 2 which modelled full plant production rate was tested discharging in to quiescent ocean conditions approaching the worst case conditions for plume dilution i.e. low ocean temperature, high ocean salinity resulting in higher ocean density, and is indicative that better plume performance is likely to be achieved for other ocean conditions. The Plant may be required to operate at production rates less than the full capacity in the future. Additional scenarios model tested by WRL for the BWJV investigated combinations of reduced plant production rate with various configurations of the number of operational nozzles across both riser caps. The model results indicate that the plant has the flexibility to operate at reduced capacity maintaining the targeted plume performance criteria within the edge of the near-field. However, plume dilution performance at lower plant production rates will only be achievable by an associated reduction of the total number of active nozzles on the outfall risers in order to maintain acceptable nozzle exit velocities. Planning of operational protocols will be required to ensure that plume performance criteria are maintained by matching the required number of operational diffuser nozzles with nominated plant production rates. WRL has previously considered the influence of ocean currents, as summarised for the site in Figure 14, on plume performance Miller (2005). This investigation developed empirical relationships for predicting plume dilution and plume drift for a single plume under the influence of currents. The investigation also measured dilution for a riser with four nozzles. The results from this multi-nozzle analysis were indicative only and not sufficiently detailed to produced similar empirical relationships for a multi-nozzle riser. The empirical relationships developed in Miller (2005) can be used to provide an indication of the likely performance of the four nozzle riser design. The empirical relationships developed in Miller (2005) are presented in Figure 15 and Table 9 for the 250 ML/day plant at full production capacity (Scenario 2 in Table 3). Table 9 presents estimated impact point


dilutions and plume impact point distances for the 250 ML/day plant at full production for the range of ambient ocean currents observed at the site. The values presented in Table 9 show that for quiescent conditions, the impact point dilution of 25 times and impact point distance of 22 m from Miller (2005) correlate reasonably with the mean impact point dilution of 25 times and impact point distance of 16 m as measured for Scenario 2.

Table 9 Estimated Impact Point Dilution and Impact Point Distance with

Ambient Ocean Currents

Ambient Current Exceedance

Probability (%)

Ambient

Current Speed (m/s)

Impact Point Dilution

Impact Point Distance

(m)

99.95 0.000 25 22

99.5 0.010 28 25

95.0 0.020 31 28

90.0 0.025 33 29

80.0 0.030 34 31

50.0 0.070 47 42

20.0* 0.110 59 53

10.0* 0.140 69 62

1.0* 0.220 94 84 *Note: extrapolated values

Note that dilution and distance estimates for current speeds greater than 0.07 m/s are extrapolated beyond the range of current speeds tested in Miller (2005). Based on the reasonable correlation for quiescent conditions, it follows that the dilutions and impact point distance for jets in the four nozzle risers tested in Scenario 2 will approximately follow the relationships determined in Miller (2005). Figure 15 reproduced from the information presented in Miller (2005) demonstrates that both the dilution achieved and the plume impact point distance will increase with increasing current speed. The relationships presented in Table 9 and Figure 15 also indicate that for normal operating conditions the targeted 30 times dilution performance criteria is achieved at the plume impact point when the ambient ocean current is 0.02 m/s. This improvement in dilution at the impact point is combined with a plume impact distance of some 28 m from the diffuser, a result, which is indicative of an improvement in plume dilution performance within the edge of the near-field mixing zone when ocean currents are present, compared to quiescent conditions.


While the presence of currents is expected to increase the overall dilutions achieved, different currents will also result in the individual jets having different trajectories. However for any given current and the arrangement of the four jets (on each riser), some jets will be orientated into the currents, some will be orientated across the currents and some will be orientated with the currents. Jets orientated into the currents may (in strong currents) fold back on themselves and result in the impact point being downstream of the nozzle. However, the opposite jets that are oriented with the currents will have their impact points even further downstream. This was evidenced in Miller et al. (2007) with a four nozzle riser operating with a persistent current. While not specifically tested for in this investigation, it can be inferred that any currents will have approximately the same net effect on the location of each jets impact point and hence the quiescent condition remains conservative. All model testing of the 250 ML/day plant was conducted with a horizontal sea bed. The actual sea bed near the risers slopes offshore at an approximate slope of 1 : 15. The net effect of the slope on plume performance will be twofold. Firstly, the jets orientated up slope will have less depth into which to fall and hence have somewhat lower impact point dilution. However, jets orientated downslope will have a higher impact point dilution. As the plumes spread from the impact point and dilute further, those orientated up slope will reach some distance after which their own density difference and momentum will no longer drive them up the slope. At this point, the plume will spread in a direction long shore. Those plumes orientated down slope will continue to spread and entrain as they move into deeper water. On this basis, any bed slope will assist with the net dilution from the risers.


6. CONCLUSIONS

The Water Research Laboratory has undertaken physical modelling of a seawater concentrate outfall for the proposed Sydney Desalination plant operating at the design capacity of 250 ML/day for the adopted normal plant operating conditions. This investigation has tested three configurations of the risers with three and four nozzles under three different 250 ML/day plant operating conditions. Scenarios as tested were: Scenario One: 100% output through 6 × 390 mm nozzles – Plant operating at 250(266) ML/day production. Scenario Two: 100% output through 8 × 370 mm nozzles – Plant operating at 250(266) ML/day production. Scenario Three: 75% output through 6 × 370 mm nozzles – Plant operating at 188(200) ML/day production. Scenario Four: 67% output through 8 × 370 mm nozzles – Plant operating at 167(177) ML/day production.

Performance requirements for the outfall design are that seawater concentrate meets water quality criteria for salinity and relevant treatment chemicals at the edge of the near-field and the visual amenity of the sea surface will be maintained. Specifically, by the edge of the near-field:



Typical current conditions are considered. The four scenarios tested cover a range of plant production rates for the 250 ML/day plant. Each of these plant production rates has an associated outfall discharge rate with characteristic density properties. The scenarios as modelled demonstrate that the targeted performance criteria for dilution and plume height of rise can be met within the edge of the near-field for a plant operating at full (250 ML/day) production using a two riser diffuser with the adopted riser design of four 370 mm diameter nozzles per riser. Scenario 2 which modelled this production rate scenario was tested discharging in to quiescent ocean conditions approaching the worst case conditions for plume dilution i.e. low temperature,


high salinity resulting in higher ocean density, and is indicative that better plume performance is likely to be achieved for other ocean conditions. The Plant may be required to operate at production rates less than the full capacity in the future. Additional scenarios model tested by WRL for the BWJV investigated combinations of reduced plant production rate with various configurations of the number of operational nozzles across both riser caps. The model results indicate that the plant has the flexibility to operate at reduced capacity maintaining the targeted plume performance criteria within the edge of the near-field. However, plume dilution performance at lower plant production rates will t only be achievable by an associated reduction of the total number of active nozzles on the outfall risers in order to maintain acceptable nozzle exit velocities. Planning of operational protocols will be required to ensure that plume performance criteria are maintained by matching the required number of operational diffuser nozzles with nominated plant production rates. All diffuser dilution tests documented in this report were performed with quiescent conditions in the receiving water tank, which is considered a worst case scenario for plume dilution performance. WRL has previously considered the influence of ocean currents on plume performance in Miller (2005). The empirical relationships developed for single plume performance in this previous work were used to provide an indication of the likely performance of the four nozzle diffuser under ocean current conditions for normal operating conditions. While the presence of ocean currents with magnitudes of the order of those typically observed at site are expected to move the diffuser plume further afield compared to quiescent ocean conditions, the ocean currents are also expected to improve the plume dilution performance within the edge of the plume near-field. However, further model testing of the four nozzle, two riser diffuser design would be required to provide a definitive assessment of the multi-nozzle diffuser performance in the presence of ocean currents.


7. REFERENCES

Fan, X and Brown, G L, (2006), Probe for measurements of density/conductivity in flows of

conducting fluid, Review of Scientific Instruments 77. Fischer, H, List, J, Koh, K, Imberger, J and Brooks, N (1979), Mixing in Inland and

Coastal Waters. Academic Press, London. Miller, B M (2005), “Desalination Planning Study Ocean Modelling Report”, WRL

Technical Report No 2005/26. Miller, B M, Van Senden, D and Hawker, K (2005), “Water Corporation Desalination Plant Review of Cockburn Sound 2005 Data Collection”, WRL Technical Report No 2005/39. Miller, B M, Cunningham, I L, and Timms, W A (2007), “Physical Modelling of the SeaWater Concentrate Diffusers for the Sydney Desalination Study”, WRL Technical

Report No 2007/04. Miller, B M, Smith, G P, and Tarrade, L (2009), “Physical Modelling Of Sydney Desalination Outfall At 500 Ml/Day Operation With Two Risers”, WRL Technical Report No 2009/07. Roberts, J W, Ferrier, A and Daviero, G (1997), Mixing in Inclined Dense Jets. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering. Vol. 123, No. 8 August.

WRL

Report No. 2009/15

Figure

1 OVERVIEW OF PHYSICAL MODEL AT WRL

WRL

Report No. 2009/15

Figure

ROTAMETERS 2

WRL

Report No. 2009/15

Figure

8 ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY MONITORING POINTS 4

WRL Report No. 2009/15

Figure

5 FILTERING AND AVERAGE OF DILUTION TIME SERIES

040

8012

016

0Ti

me

sinc

e st

art (

s)

020406080100

Dilution-0.8

-0.40

0.4

0.8

1.2

Voltage (V)

Tim

e se

ries

ave

rage

d f

or c

alcu

lati

on o

f d

ilu

tion

15

WRL

Report No.

Figure

2009/15

MEAN DILUTION VS DISTANCE FROM RISER NOZZLE SCENARIO 1 7

WRL

Report No.

Figure

2009/15


WRL

Report No.

Figure

2009/15


WRL

Report No.

Figure

2009/15


WRL

Report No.

Figure

2009/15

DIMENSIONLESS DILUTION VS DIMENSIONLESS DISTANCE FROM RISER NOZZLE 11

WRL

Report No.

Figure

2009/15 DISTRIBUTION OF CURRENT SPEED AT KURNELL

(24/07/09 – 14/12/06)14

0.0050.01

0.050.10.2

0.5

1

2

5

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

95

98

99

99.5

99.899.9

99.95

99.9999.995

Pro

babi

lity

of N

on-E

xcee

denc

e (%

)

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6 0.05

0.15

0.25

0.35

0.45

0.55

Current Speed at Kurnell for All Directions (m/s)E

leva

tion

-10.

2 m

Ele

vatio

n -2

0.2

m99.99599.99

99.9599.999.8

99.5

99

98

95

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

5

2

1

0.5

0.20.10.05

0.010.005

Pro

babi

lity

of E

xcee

denc

e (%

)

WRL

Report No.

Figure

2009/15

INFLUENCE OF CURRENTS ON PLUME DISTANCE AND DILUTION 15

Dilution Ratio

Impact Point Distance (m)

Cur

rent

Spe

ed (m

/s)


APPENDIX A

WR

L R

eport No. 2009/15

Figure

A1 M

EA

N D

ILUTIO

NS

AT E

C M

ON

ITOR

ING

PO

INTS

TES

T 1A

Location of nozzles Location of electrodes

WR

L R

eport No. 2009/15

Figure

A2 M

EA

N D

ILUTIO

NS

AT E

C M

ON

ITOR

ING

PO

INTS

TES

T 2A


WR

L R

eport No. 2009/15

Figure

A3 M

EA

N D

ILUTIO

NS

AT E

C M

ON

ITOR

ING

PO

INTS

TES

T 2B


WR

L R

eport No. 2009/15

Figure

A4 M

EA

N D

ILUTIO

NS

AT E

C M

ON

ITOR

ING

PO

INTS

TES

T 2C


WR

L R

eport No. 2009/15

Figure

A5 M

EA

N D

ILUTIO

NS

AT E

C M

ON

ITOR

ING

PO

INTS

TES

T 3A


WR

L R

eport No. 2009/15

Figure

A6 M

EA

N D

ILUTIO

NS

AT E

C M

ON

ITOR

ING

PO

INTS

TES

T 3B


WR

L R

eport No. 2009/15

Figure

A7 M

EA

N D

ILUTIO

NS

AT E

C M

ON

ITOR

ING

PO

INTS

TES

T 3C


WR

L R

eport No. 2009/15

Figure

A8 M

EA

N D

ILUTIO

NS

AT E

C M

ON

ITOR

ING

PO

INTS

TES

T 4A


WR

L R

eport No. 2009/15

Figure

A9 M

EA

N D

ILUTIO

NS

AT E

C M

ON

ITOR

ING

PO

INTS

TES

T 4B


WR

L R

eport No. 2009/15

Figure

A10 M

EA

N D

ILUTIO

NS

AT E

C M

ON

ITOR

ING

PO

INTS

TES

T 4C



APPENDIX B

WR

L R

eport No. 2009/15

Figure

B1 TY

PIC

AL M

ICR

O E

LEC

TRO

DE

CA

LIBR

ATIO

N C

UR

VE

S

Revision: 02

Appendix 3 Drawings of final outlet design

Table A3: Drawing Register 250ML/day Plant WTW0155-S-7-DW-1601-12 OUTLET RISER GENERAL ARRANGEMENT PLAN AND ELEVATION

WTW0155-S-7-DW-1602-10 OUTLET RISER VELOCITY CAP SECTIONS AND DETAILS

WTW0155-S-7-DW-1616-5 OUTLET RISER VELOCITY CAP PRECAST UNIT 2 - LAYOUT

WTW0155-S-7-DW-1627-6 OUTLET RISERS RISER 3 ELEVATION

WTW0155-S-7-DW-1628-6 OUTLET RISERS RISER 4 ELEVATION

WTW0155-S-7-DW-1661-8- OUTLET RISER VELOCITY CAP NOZZLE DETAILS

500ML/day Plant WTW0155-S-7-SK-001-1 OUTLET RISER GENERAL ARRANGEMENT PLAN AND ELEVATION

WTW0155-S-7-SK-002-1 OUTLET RISER VELOCITY CAP PRECAST UNIT 2 – LAYOUT (Outlet Riser 3)

WTW0155-S-7-SK-003-1 OUTLET RISER VELOCITY CAP PRECAST UNIT 2 – LAYOUT (Outlet Riser 4)

WTW0155-S-7-SK-004-1 OUTLET RISER VELOCITY CAP NOZZLE DETAILS


Revision: 02

Appendix 4 Operating ranges methodology


250ML/d Plant – Operating Bands

Development of Operating Bands

Methodology The operating bands for the 250ML/d Plant have been determined by using an empirical model developed by SKM hydraulic engineers employed by the Design Joint Venture on behalf of Bluewater Joint Venture. The empirical model has been verified as an accurate representation of the behaviour of single discharge plumes by the Water Research Laboratory (an annex of the University of New South Wales).

Operating bands were determined by running various output rates through the empirical model with different numbers of open nozzles. The output rates were selected to correspond to a certain number of RO trains operating. Each combination of flows and nozzles was checked against three criteria:

• 30-fold dilution at the edge of the near field

• Clearance below the surface of the ocean to ensure no impact on visual amenity.

• Water level in the outfall chamber lower than the nominated weir height of RL 4.500.

These criteria were checked at the most unfavourable ambient conditions for that criterion (for example: low salinity and high water temperature are the worst criteria for water level). Salinity and temperature values were selected as the most extreme values considered likely to occur (as advised by WRL).

Physical and Empirical Modelling The physical modelling for the 500ML/d Plant carried out by WRL established that intersecting plumes can affect the rate of dilution. Therefore, when carrying out the physical modelling for the 250ML/d Plant, different flow rates and nozzle configurations were modelled to establish the configurations for which the empirical model can be used to predict plume performance.

The physical modelling established that at full Plant capacity, with 8 x 370mm nozzles open, the average rate of dilution is reduced by approximately 30%. Therefore in calculating the operating bands the following conservative approach was used to ensure that the abovementioned criteria are satisfied.

No of Risers

No of Nozzles per Riser

Model used to Predict Plume Performance

Comment

2 Up to 2 Empirical Model No interacting plumes.

2 3 Empirical Model – assuming 30% reduction in rate of dilution

All plumes should behave as a lone plume and hence the empirical model should apply, but a conservative approach was adopted.

2 4 Empirical Model – assuming 30% reduction in rate of dilution

Reflects the results of the physical modelling

Page 1 of 1

Revision: 02

Appendix 5 Toxicity assessment of seawater concentrate samples


Toxicity Assessment of Various Disharge Streams Comprising Desalination Plant Treatment Products Bluewater Joint Venture

Test Report

January 2009

Toxicity Assessment of Various Discharge Streams Comprising Desalination Plant Treatment Products Bluewater Joint Venture

Test Report

January 2009

Ecotox Services Australasia BWJV- Desalination Plant Ecotox Assessment PR0413 1

Contents 1. Executive Summary ........................................................................................................ 3

1.1 Executive Summary ............................................................................................... 3 1.2 Glossary of Terms .................................................................................................. 6

2. Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 8 3. Preparation of Test Streams ......................................................................................... 10

3.1 Summary of Test Methodology ............................................................................ 10 4. Sea Urchin Fertilisation Success Test .......................................................................... 13

4.1 Summary of Test Methodology ............................................................................ 13 4.2 Results ................................................................................................................. 14 4.3 Summary of Results ............................................................................................. 15 4.4 Quality Assurance ................................................................................................ 15

5. 72- h Sea Urchin Larval Development Test .................................................................. 17 5.1 Summary of Test Methodology ............................................................................ 17 5.2 Results ................................................................................................................. 18 5.3 Summary of Results ............................................................................................. 19 5.4 Quality Assurance ................................................................................................ 20

6. 72-h Oyster Larval Development Test .......................................................................... 21 6.1 Summary of Test Methodology ............................................................................ 21 6.2 Results ................................................................................................................. 22 6.3 Summary of Results ............................................................................................. 23 6.4 Quality Assurance ................................................................................................ 24

7. 72-h Hormosira banksii Macroalgal Germination Test .................................................. 25 7.1 Summary of Test Methodology ............................................................................ 25 7.2 Results ................................................................................................................. 26 7.3 Summary of Results ............................................................................................. 27 7.4 Quality Assurance ................................................................................................ 28

8. 96-h Larval Fish Toxicity Test ....................................................................................... 29 8.1 Summary of Test Methodology ............................................................................ 29 8.2 Results ................................................................................................................. 30 8.3 Summary of Results ............................................................................................. 31 8.4 Quality Assurance ................................................................................................ 32

9. 96-h Tiger Prawn Acute Toxicity Test ........................................................................... 33 9.1 Summary of Test Methodology ............................................................................ 33 9.2 Results ................................................................................................................. 34 9.3 Summary of Results ............................................................................................. 35 9.4 Quality Assurance ................................................................................................ 36

10. References .................................................................................................................... 37 Appendix A: Summary Test Reports ............................................................................................ 39 Appendix B: Test Reports and Statistical Print-outs for the Sea Urchin Fertilisation Success Test ....................................................................................................................................................... 40 Appendix C: Test Reports and Statistical Print-outs for the Sea Urchin Larval Development Test ....................................................................................................................................................... 41 Appendix D: Test Reports and Statistical Print-outs for the Rock ................................................ 42 Oyster Larval Development Test ................................................................................................... 42


Appendix E: Test Reports and Statistical Print-outs for the .......................................................... 43 Hormosira Germination Success Test ........................................................................................... 43 Appendix F: Test Reports and Statistical Print-outs for the .......................................................... 44 Fish Imbalance Test ...................................................................................................................... 44 Appendix G: Test Reports and Statistical Print-outs for the .......................................................... 45 Juvenile Tiger Prawn Acute Test ................................................................................................... 45


1.1 Executive Summary

The ecotoxicity test data presented in this report was undertaken to determine the potential ecotoxicity of the Kurnell Desalination Plant’s operational marine discharges. The study was initiated by Blue Water Joint Venture (BWJV) to assess the likely effects of simulated discharges using 6 different bioassays for worse case maximum chemical dosing conditions.

The following simulated dicharge streams were prepared in the laboratory using filtered seawater of 36.5‰ (the expected salinity at the edge of the near-field mixing zone), and are the subject of this report:

Stream 1, Filtered Seawater (36.5‰), ‘Normal Operation’ with lamella thickener supernatant discharge.

Stream 2, Stream 1 + neutralised detergent clean-in-place discharge.

Stream 3, Stream 1 + neutralised biocide clean-in-place discharge

Stream 4, Stream 1 + neutralised citric acid clean-in-place discharge.

Stream 5, Stream 1 + neutralised shock chlorination discharge.

The samples were tested for toxicity using the following bioassays:

Sea urchin fertilisation success using Heliocidaris tuberculata

72-h sea urchin larval development test using Heliocidaris tuberculata

48-h (extended to 72-h) larval development using the rock oyster Saccostrea commercialis (also known as Saccostrea glomerata)

72-h macro-algal germination assay using Hormosira banksii

96-h acute toxicity test using 15-day post larvae of the tiger prawn Penaeus monodon

96-h larval fish imbalance test using the barramundi Lates calcarifer

The bioassays were performed at the ESA laboratory in Lane Cove. This report describes the results of each of the toxicity tests performed and the results are summarised in Table 1.1. Test Reports and statistical printouts for each test are given in Appendices A to G.

Test results indicated the following:

Sea Urchin Fertilisation Test: No significant inhibition in fertilisation success was observed with any of the test Streams. Therefore the 1-h EC50 for each Stream was >100%, and the NOEC and LOEC estimates were 100 and >100%, respectively.

Sea Urchin Larval Development Test: No significant inhibition in the development of normal pluteus larvae was observed at 72-h with any of the test Streams. Therefore the 72-h EC50 for each Stream

1. Executive Summary


was >100%, and the NOEC and LOEC estimates were 100 and >100%, respectively.

Rock Oyster Larval Development Test: No significant inhibition in the development of normal D-veliger (prodissoconch I) larvae was observed at 48-h with any of the test Streams. Therefore the 48-h EC50 for each Stream was >100%, and the NOEC and LOEC estimates were 100 and >100%, respectively.

Hormosira Germination Success Test: None of the five Stream samples exhibited any significant reduction in germination of fertilised Hormosira eggs. The 72-h EC50 estimate was >100% for each sample, and the corresponding NOEC and LOEC estimates were 100 and >100%, respectively.

Fish Imbalance Test: There were no imbalanced fish observed in any of the sample Streams tested. Therefore the 96-h EC50 for each Stream was >100%, and the NOEC and LOEC estimates were 100 and >100%, respectively.

Tiger Prawn Survival: There was no significant acute toxicity to the juvenile tiger prawn over the 96-h exposure period. Therefore the 96-h EC50 for each Stream was >100%, and the NOEC and LOEC estimates were 100 and >100%, respectively.


Table 1.1. Summary of toxicity test data for the six effluent streams to each of the tests performed.

Test Stream Estimate Stream Estimate

Sea Urchin Fertilisation 1 EC50 = >100% NOEC = 100% LOEC = >100%

4 EC50 = >100% NOEC = 100% LOEC = >100%

2 EC50 = >100% NOEC = 100% LOEC = >100%

5 EC50 = >100% NOEC = 100% LOEC = >100%

3 EC50 = >100% NOEC = 100% LOEC = >100%

72-h Sea Urchin Larval Development

1 EC50 = >100% NOEC = 100% LOEC = >100%

4 EC50 = >100% NOEC = 100% LOEC = >100%

2 EC50 = >100% NOEC = 100% LOEC = >100%

5 EC50 = >100% NOEC = 100% LOEC = >100%

3 EC50 = >100% NOEC = 100% LOEC = >100%

72-h Rock Oyster Larval Development

1 EC50 = >100% NOEC = 100% LOEC = >100%

4 EC50 = >100% NOEC = 100% LOEC = >100%

2 EC50 = >100% NOEC = 100% LOEC = >100%

5 EC50 = >100% NOEC = 100% LOEC = >100%

3 EC50 = >100% NOEC = 100% LOEC = >100%

72-h Hormosira germination 1 EC50 = >100% NOEC = 100% LOEC = >100%

4 EC50 = >100% NOEC = 100% LOEC = >100%

2 EC50 = >100% NOEC = 100% LOEC = >100%

5 EC50 = >100% NOEC = 100% LOEC = >100%

3 EC50 = >100% NOEC = 100% LOEC = >100%

96-h Fish Imbalance 1 EC50 = >100% NOEC = 100% LOEC = >100%

4 EC50 = >100% NOEC = 100% LOEC = >100%

2 EC50 = >100% NOEC = 100% LOEC = >100%

5 EC50 = >100% NOEC = 100% LOEC = >100%

3 EC50 = >100% NOEC = 100% LOEC = >100%

96-h Tiger Prawn Survival 1 LC50 = >100% NOEC = 100% LOEC = >100%

4 LC50 = >100% NOEC = 100% LOEC = >100%

2 LC50 = >100% NOEC = 100% LOEC = >100%

5 LC50 = >100% NOEC = 100% LOEC = >100%

3 LC50 = >100% NOEC = 100% LOEC = >100%


1.2 Glossary of Terms

The following glossary is based on that provided by Environment Canada (1999)

Acute toxicity is an adverse effect (lethal or sub-lethal) induced in the test organisms within a short period of exposure to a test material, usually a few days.

Bioassay is a test (=assay) in which the strength or potency of a substance is measured by the response of living organisms or living system. Toxicity test is a more specific and preferred term for environmental work.

Chronic toxicity implies long-term effects that are related to changes in metabolism, growth, reproduction, or ability to survive

Control is a treatment in an investigation that duplicates all the factors that might effect results, except the specific condition being studied. In toxicity tests, the control must duplicate all the conditions in the exposure treatment(s) but must contain no test material. The control is used as a check for toxicity due to basic conditions such as quality of dilution water or health and handling of the test organisms. Control is synonymous with negative control. See also positive control.

EC50 is the median effective concentration. That is the concentration of material in water (eg., mg/L) that is estimated to cause some defined toxic effect to 50% of the test organisms. In most instances the EC50 and its 95% confidence limits are statistically derived by analysing the percentages of organisms affected at various test concentrations, after a fixed period of exposure. The duration of exposure must be specified (eg. 48h).

Endpoint means the measurement(s) or value(s) that characterise the results of a test (LC50, EC50, IC50). It also means the reaction of the organism to show the effect which is intended to mark completion of the test (eg., death, number of shell abnormalities).

ICp is the inhibiting concentration for a specified percent effect (eg., IC50). It represents a point estimate of a concentration of test material that causes a designated percent inhibition (p) compared to the control, in a quantitative biological measurement such as microalgal cell yield attained at the end of a test.

LC50 is the median lethal effective concentration. That is the concentration of material in water (eg., mg/L) that is estimated to be lethal to 50% of the test organisms. In most instances the EC50 and its 95% confidence limits are statistically derived by analysing the percentage mortality at various test concentrations, after a fixed period of exposure. The duration of exposure must be specified (eg. 96h).

LOEC is the lowest-observed-effect concentration. This represents the lowest concentration of a test material for which a statistically significant effect on the test organisms was observed, relative to the control.

NOEC is the no-observed-effect concentration. This represents the highest test concentration of a test material for which no statistically significant effect on the test organisms was observed, relative to the control.

Positive Control is a toxicity test with a reference toxicant, used to assess the sensitivity of the organisms at the time of the test material is evaluated and the precision of the results obtained by the laboratory for that chemical.


Reference toxicant is a standard chemical used to measure the sensitivity of the test organisms to establish confidence in the toxicity data obtained for a test material. In most instances, a toxicity test with a reference toxicant is performed to assess the sensitivity of the organisms at the time the test material is evaluated and the precision of the results obtained by the laboratory for that chemical.

Replicate is a single test chamber containing a prescribed number of test organisms in either one concentration of test solution or in dilution water as a control. In a toxicity test comprising five test concentrations and a control, and using four replicates, 18 test chambers would be used. For each concentration or control, there would be 4 test chambers or replicates. A replicate must be an independent unit, and therefore, any transfer of test material or organisms from one replicate to another would invalidate a statistical analysis based on replication.

Static describes toxicity tests in which test solutions are not renewed during the test.

Sub-lethal means detrimental to the organism, but below the level that directly causes death within the test period.

Toxic means poisonous. A toxic material can cause adverse effects on living organisms, if present in sufficient amount at the right location.

Toxicant is a toxic material.


The ecotoxicity test data presented in this report, sponsored by the Blue Water Joint Venture (BWJV), provides additional input into the Seawater Concentrate Chemical and Toxicity Characterisation, part of the Marine and Estuarine Monitoring Program for the Sydney's Desalination Project undertaken by Sydney Water Corporation (SWC). The data also supplements ecotoxicity studies undertaken in May-June 2007 (ESA, 2007) which assessed the effect of different process streams from the operational Sydney Desalination pilot plant using 6 different bioassays. Although no inhibitory effects were observed with the vast majority of tests undertaken over May and June 2007 (ESA, 2007) the study found that tests using the sea urchin fertilisation test endpoint with Stream 2 (Concentrated Seawater with Backwash Liquid and Antiscalent) and Stream 8 (Concentrated Seawater with Antiscalent, Backwash Liquid and Membrane Cleaning with biocide) displayed possible sub-lethal toxicity at the edge of the near field dilution zone (30x dilution).

The study presented in this report was initiated by BWJV to address further questions regarding the potential for toxicity in the receiving environment that may be caused by the biocide neutralisation procedure. The biocide neutralisation procedure was reviewed by BWJV and a revised neutralisation procedure was adopted. Further testing was also initiated to include other chemicals that may be used under typical discharge scenarios.

The following test treatments (referred to as "streams") were tested, and are subject of this report:

Stream 1, Filtered Seawater (36.5‰), ‘Normal Operation’ with lamella thickener supernatant discharge.

Stream 2, Stream 1 + neutralised detergent clean-in-place discharge.

Stream 3, Stream 1 + neutralised biocide clean-in-place discharge

Stream 4, Stream 1 + neutralised citric acid clean-in-place discharge.

Stream 5, Stream 1 + neutralised shock chlorination discharge.

Toxicity testing with each of these Streams was undertaken with Filtered Seawater (FSW) of 36.5‰ salinity, which represented the expected salinity at the edge of the 1:30 near-field mixing zone. Each of the chemicals used for the preparation of the Streams was provided by BWJV personnel on 8 October 2008, and are listed in Table 2.1 below. The ingredient identities are reported here in generic terms.

2. Introduction


Table 2.1 Summary of samples provided by BWJV, which were used to prepare the test Streams.

Sample Type Concentration ESA Lab ID Number

Sodium hydroxide (Caustic Soda) solution 46% w/w 2957

Flocculant, anionic polyacrylamide Formulated product 2959

Polydadmac, aqueous solution of low molecular weight cationic resin

Formulated product, 40% w/w

2953

Citric acid, anhydrous Solid reagent, min. 99% pure

2961

Ferric chloride solution 43% w/w 2952

Antiscalant Formulated product 2954

Biocide (containing 10-30% 2,2 Dibromo-3-nitrilopropionamide, or DBNPA)

Formulated product 2955

Hydrochloric acid solution 33% w/w 2958

Sodium dodecyl sulphate (sodium lauryl sulphate) Solid reagent 2960

Sodium hypochlorite solution 12% w/v 2996

Sodium metabisulphite Solid reagent, min 98% pure

2962

Sulphuric acid solution 50% w/w 2956

The samples were tested for toxicity using the following bioassays:

Sea urchin fertilisation success using Heliocidaris tuberculata

72-h sea urchin larval development test using Heliocidaris tuberculata

48-h (extended to 72-h) larval development using the rock oyster Saccostrea commercialis (also known as Saccostrea glomerata)

72-h macro-algal germination assay using Hormosira banksii

96-h acute toxicity test using 15-day post larvae of the tiger prawn Penaeus monodon

96-h larval fish imbalance test using the barramundi Lates calcarifer *

* The original intention of BWJV was to use a fish representative of fish present in the receiving envirionment, however the only marine larval fish species available for testing over October, November and December 2008 was the barramundi.

The bioassays were performed at the ESA laboratory in Lane Cove. The sea urchins used for the test program were collected by a snorkeller from the shallow sub-tidal zone at South Maroubra. The rock oysters were sourced from oyster farms in Wallis Lake NSW. The Hormosira were collected by hand on the falling tide from a rock platform at Bilgola, NSW. The 15-day post-larval tiger prawns were sourced from a commercial hatchery in Townsville QLD, and were the offspring of wild caught brood-stock. The larval Barramundi were sourced from a commercial fish hatchery in South Australia.

This report describes the results of each of the toxicity tests performed. Test Reports and statistical printouts for each test are given in Appendices A to G. All toxicity tests


were initiated on the first opportunity when test organisms became available from hatcheries, mariculture facilities or when conditions suited field collection.

3.1 Summary of Test Methodology

The procedure used for the preparation of each of the test Streams was provided by the BWJV as representative of the plants operational discharge under worse case maximum dosage conditions. The procedure is provided in Table 3.1 below. The procedures provided include methods for the preparation of stock solutions. Given the complexity of the Stream preparation procedure, the Streams were prepared on the day prior to initiating the toxicity tests. Where the test procedures called for ‘gentle mixing’, this was achieved by mixing using a magnetic stirrer with a Teflon-coated magnetic stirrer-bar on the lowest speed setting. All stock solutions and Streams were prepared in either volumetric flasks, beakers or reagent (schott) bottles of borosilicate glass, as appropriate.

Table 3.1 Detail of the Stream preparation procedures provided by BWJV*.

Type Procedure

Salinity Adjusted Seawater Stock

1. Adjust the sample seawater to a salinity of 36.5 g/L under gentle mixing by the addition of sea salt or deionised water.

pH Adjusted Seawater Stock

1. Adjust the sample seawater to a salinity of 36.5 g/L under gentle mixing by the addition of sea salt or deionised water.

2. Titrate sulphuric acid into the salinity adjusted seawater to achieve a pH of 6.9 under gentle mixing.

Seawater Concentrate with Antiscalant Stock

1. Adjust the sample seawater to a salinity of 36.5 g/L under gently mixing by the addition of sea salt or deionised water.

2. Titrate sulphuric acid into the salinity adjusted seawater to achieve a pH of 6.9 under gentle mixing.

3. Add sea salt to the pH adjusted seawater to achieve a salinity of 66.5 g/L under gentle mixing.

4. Add 2.6 µl of antiscalant to 1 Litre of the solution created in step 3.

3. Preparation of Test Streams


Type Procedure

Flocculation Polymer Stock

1. To prepare a 0.1 % w/v flocculation polymer solution – add 0.1 grams of supplied flocculation polymer to 5 mL of acetone in a 250mL beaker.

2. Swirl the polymer in the acetone to ensure it is ‘wetted out’, and then add 95mL of deionised water.

3. Place on a magnetic stirrer on high for at least 15 minutes ensuring all the powder is in solution.

4. After 15-minutes stirring, the solution will thicken, and manual mixing by pouring from beaker to beaker is required every 10 minutes for 1.5 hours

Sodium Bisulphite Stock

1. To prepare a 35% (w/v) sodium bisulphite solution – add 326.23 grams of the supplied sodium metabisulphite powder to 1 Litre of deionised water.

Stream 1 1. Take 1 Litre of pH adjusted seawater. 2. Add 283.9 µl of ferric chloride and 8.8 µl of polydadmac. Gently

mix for 1 minute. 3. Add 32.1 µl of ferric chloride. 4. Add 1 ml of the flocculation polymer stock to the solution produced

in step 3 and mix for 1 minute. 5. Allow to settle for 10 minutes before decanting liquid off the top

ensuring no suspended floc is removed. 6. Add 1 part of the decanted solution from step 5 to 11.7 parts of the

seawater concentrate with antiscalant solution. 7. Mix for 1 minute. 8. Add 1 part of the solution created in step 7 to 30 parts of the

salinity adjusted seawater and mix gently. Stream 2 1. Repeat steps 1 – 6 of the Stream 1 Procedure.

2. In a separate beaker add 98.53 mg of sodium dodecyl sulphate to 1 Litre of deionised water. Mix for 10 minutes.

3. Titrate hydrochloric acid to the solution produced in step 2 under gentle mixing until a pH of 8 is achieved.

4. Add 1 part of the solution produced in step 3, 4.6 parts of the solution produced in step 1 and 5.4 parts of the salinity adjusted seawater.

5. Mix gently for 1 minute. 6. Add 1 part of the solution created in step 5 to 30 parts of salinity

adjusted seawater and mix gently.


Type Procedure

Stream 3 1. Add 78.8 µl of biocide to 1 Litre of deionised water. 2. Mix thoroughly for 1 hour. 3. Under gentle mixing, add sodium hydroxide until a pH of 10 is

achieved. 4. Hold the pH at 10 for 2 hours under gentle mixing. 5. Add hydrochloric acid until a pH of 8.0 is achieved under gentle

mixing. 6. In a separate beaker, repeat steps 1 – 6 of the Stream 1

procedure. 7. Add 1 part of the solution produced in step 5, 4.6 parts of the

solution produced in step 6 and 5.4 parts of salinity adjusted seawater.

8. Mix gently for 275 minutes. 9. Add 1 part of the solution created in step 8 to 30 parts of salinity

adjusted seawater. Stream 4 1. Add 7.92 grams of citric acid to 1 Litre of deionised water.

2. Titrate sodium hydroxide into the beaker until a pH of 8.0 is achieved.

3. In a separate beaker, repeat steps 1 – 6 of the Stream 1 procedure.

4. Add 1 part of the solution produced in step 2, to 4.6 parts of the solution produced in step 3, and 5.4 parts of salinity adjusted seawater.

5. Mix gently for 1 minute. 6. Add 1 part of the solution created in step 5 to 30 parts of salinity

adjusted seawater. Stream 5 1. Measure the oxidation reduction potential (ORP) of the salinity

adjusted seawater. 2. Add 70.6 µl of sodium hypochlorite to 1 Litre of salinity adjusted

seawater. Mix gently. 3. Add sodium bisulphite stock to the solution until the ORP returns to

the value recorded in step 1. Note this is expected to be around 94 µl sodium bisulphite.

4. Repeat steps 2 – 6 of the Stream 1 procedure. 5. Mix gently for 1.5 hrs. 6. Add 1 part of the solution created in step 5 to 30 parts of salinity

adjusted seawater. * Source: Ecotoxicity Sample Stream Recipes, BWJV Document Number BWJV-2-201-01, modified for the dissolution of flocculant by M. Nicholson by email to ESA on 21 October 2008.



The sea urchin fertilisation success test using the gametes of Heliocidaris tuberculata was undertaken in accordance with ESA Standard Operating Procedure 104, which is based on methods described by USEPA (1994) and adapted for use with H. tuberculata by Simon and Laginestra (1997) for the National Pulp Mills Research Program. Tests were performed in a constant temperature chamber of 20±1oC. Clean seawater was collected from Lurline Bay, Sydney and filtered to 0.45µm on return to the laboratory, and used for the maintenance and spawning procedures. Sea urchins used for the tests were obtained by field collection in Lurline Bay, NSW and spawned within 6 h of collection.

The tests were undertaken in 9mL borosilicate glass tissue culture vials. Four concentrations of the Stream samples were prepared and tested using 4 replicate vials. The test concentrations were 100, 10, 3.3 and 1.7%. Filtered Seawater (to 0.45 µm) adjusted to a salinity of 36.5‰ by the addition of GP-2 dry salts was used for the preparation of test solutions, and was also tested undiluted as a control treatment. In addition, a 0.45 µm filtered seawater (FSW) control, consisting of seawater collected from the Sydney Region (of 35.4‰), representing the diluent routinely used by the laboratory, was also tested as a control treatment. Also, a Filtered Seawater treatment which was raised to a salinity of 37.2‰ by the addition of GP-2 salts was tested concurrently with the dilution series, and represented the highest salinity observed in any of the undiluted test Streams (acting as a salinity control).

The temperature, pH, salinity and dissolved oxygen concentration of a representative sample from each concentration/treatment was measured. Salinity and conductivity were measured using a WTW LF330 salinity/conductivity meter with a WTW Tetracon 325 probe. The pH and temperature were measured using a WTW pH330 meter, with a WTW SenTix 41 electrode. Dissolved oxygen was measured using a WTW Oxi 330 Oximeter, with a WTW CellOx 325 probe. The pH and Dissolved oxygen meters were calibrated each day prior to use, and the salinity/conductivity meter was calibrated on first use each week, with results recorded following each calibration.

Gametes were obtained by injecting the sea urchins with a potassium chloride (KCl) solution, stimulating the urchins to spawn almost immediately. Viable gametes were selected on the basis of fertilisation success trials and visual examination of gamete maturity. Spermatozoa were exposed to each of the test treatments for 1 hour, following which 2000 eggs were introduced to each test vessel. Eggs were then left in the test vessels for a period of 20 minutes before the addition of buffered formalin.

One mL of test solution was drawn directly from the bottom of each test vessel and placed in a Sedgwick-Rafter counting chamber. The first 100 eggs were examined and the number of fertilised and un-fertilised eggs was recorded. The concentration of each sample resulting in the inhibition of fertilisation to 50% of the test population (1-h EC50) was determined by the trimmed Spearman-Karber Method using TOXCALC V5.0 software. The concentration of effluent causing no significant toxicity (No Observed Effect Concentration - NOEC) and the lowest concentration causing significant toxicity (Lowest Observed Effect Concentration - LOEC) were determined by performing a Dunnetts or a non-parametric test, depending on the data being normally distributed and homoscedastic.

4. Sea Urchin Fertilisation Success Test


Table 4.1. Summary of test conditions for the sea urchin fertilisation success test

Test species Sea urchin Heliocidaris tuberculata

Test type Static, non-renewal

Test duration 1- hour spermatozoa exposure plus 20 minutes fertilisation time

Test end-point Fertilisation success

Test temperature 20±1oC

Test chamber size / volume 5mL in 9 mL tissue culture tube

Source of test organisms Field collection, Sydney coastal region

Test concentrations 100, 10, 3.3 and 1.7%, plus Filtered Seawater (FSW) Controls of 35.4, 36.5 and 37.2‰

Test acceptability criteria >70% fertilisation in FSW controls, reference toxicant results within prescribed range

To test the relative sensitivity of the test organisms and the proficiency of the Laboratory Technician, a separate positive (toxic) control test was conducted using copper chloride. The test was performed in the same manner as for the Stream samples. The results of this test were compared with the results from previous testing using a control chart.

4.2 Results

The results for the sea urchin fertilisation success tests are summarised in Tables 4.2 and 4.3 below. The Test Reports and statistical print-outs are given in Appendix A and Appendix B, respectively.


Table 4.2. Summary of toxicity data for the Streams 1, 2 and 3 using the 1-h sea urchin fertilisation success test. Sample Concentration (%)

Percentage of Eggs Fertilised (Mean ± SD)

Stream 1 Stream 2 Stream 3

FSW Control (35.4‰) 94.8 ± 3.4 - -

FSW Control (36.5‰) 94.5 ± 3.1 - -

FSW Control (37.2‰) 92.3 ± 2.8 - -

1.7 95.5 ± 3.1 93.3 ± 1.9 89.3 ± 5.0

3.3 93.5 ± 1.9 89.3 ± 3.1 86.5 ± 3.4

10 94.0 ± 3.9 94.3 ± 3.0 94.5 ± 3.4

100 94.0 ± 1.2 98.0 ± 0.8 93.5 ± 2.9

EC50 = >100% NOEC = 100% LOEC = >100%

EC50 = >100% NOEC = 100% LOEC = >100%

EC50 = >100% NOEC = 100% LOEC = >100%

Table 4.3. Summary of toxicity data for the Streams 4 and 5 using the 1-h sea urchin fertilisation success test. Sample Concentration (%)

Percentage of Eggs Fertilised (Mean ± SD)

Stream 4 Stream 5

FSW Control (35.4‰) 94.8 ± 3.4 -

FSW Control (36.5‰) 94.5 ± 3.1 -

FSW Control (37.2‰) 92.3 ± 2.8 -

1.7 83.5 ± 4.5 95.8 ± 2.2

3.3 85.8 ± 2.2 94.8 ± 2.2

10 95.3 ± 1.3 91.3 ± 2.2

100 88.0 ± 2.7 95.0 ± 1.6

EC50 = >100% NOEC = 100% LOEC = >100%

EC50 = >100% NOEC = 100% LOEC = >100%

4.3 Summary of Results

No significant inhibition in fertilisation success was observed with any of the test Streams. Therefore the 1-h EC50 for each Stream was >100%, and the NOEC and LOEC estimates were 100 and >100%, respectively.

4.4 Quality Assurance

The sea urchin fertilisation success tests met all quality assurance criteria. The mean percentage of fertilised eggs in the laboratory filtered seawater controls exceeded the


minimum control criteria of 70%. Water quality parameters were also within test acceptability ranges.

The 1-h EC50 estimate for the copper chloride reference toxicant tests run concurrently with the Stream samples tests fell within the reference toxicant cusum chart control limits (Table 4.4). This indicated that the toxicity tests were within the expected range with respect to performance and sensitivity.

Table 4.4. Quality Assurance limits for the sea urchin fertilisation success tests.

QA Measure QA Limit Observed value Within Limits?

Control % fertilised ≥70% 94.8% Yes

Test temperature Limits 20±1oC 20.5 oC Yes

Reference toxicant within Cusum limits

22.2-77.8 µg Cu2+/L 29.8 µg Cu2+/L Yes



The 72-h sea urchin larval development test using Heliocidaris tuberculata was undertaken in accordance with ESA Standard Operating Procedure 105 which is based on methods described by USEPA (1994), ASTM (1995) and adapted for use with H. tuberculata by Doyle et al. (2003). Tests were performed in a constant temperature chamber of 20±1oC. Clean seawater was collected from Lurline Bay, Sydney and filtered to 0.45µm on return to the laboratory, and used for the maintenance and spawning procedures. Sea urchins used for the tests were obtained by field collection in Lurline Bay, NSW and spawned within 6 h of collection.



Gametes were obtained by injecting the sea urchins with a KCl solution, stimulating the urchins to spawn almost immediately. Viable gametes were selected on the basis of fertilisation success trials and visual examination of gamete maturity. Eggs were fertilised where the egg: sperm ratio was approximately 1:100, and fertilised eggs were introduced into the test vessels at a rate of 35/mL. After a 72-hour exposure period, buffered formalin was added to each test vessel.

One mL of test solution was drawn directly from the bottom of each test vessel and placed in a Sedgwick-Rafter counting chamber. The first 100 larvae were examined and the number of normal and abnormal larvae was recorded. The concentration of each Stream sample resulting in abnormalities to 50% of the test population (72-h EC50) was determined by the trimmed Spearman-Karber Method using TOXCALC V5.0 software. The concentration of Stream sample causing no significant toxicity (No Observed Effect Concentration - NOEC) and the lowest concentration causing significant toxicity (Lowest Observed Effect Concentration - LOEC) was determined by performing a Dunnetts or a non-parametric test, depending on the data being normally distributed and homoscedastic.

5. 72- h Sea Urchin Larval Development Test


Table 5.1. Summary of test conditions for the sea urchin larval development test

Test species Sea urchin Heliocidaris tuberculata


Test duration 72-hour

Test end-point Normal pluteus larvae



Source of test organisms Field collection, Sydney coastal region


Test acceptability criteria ≥70% normal larvae in FSW controls, reference toxicant results within prescribed range

To test the relative sensitivity of the test organisms and the proficiency of the Laboratory Technician, a separate positive (toxic) control test was conducted using copper chloride. The test was performed in the same manner as the Stream sample tests. The results of this test were compared with the results from previous testing using a control chart.

5.2 Results

The results for the sea urchin larval development tests are summarised in Tables 5.2 and 5.3 below. The Test Reports and statistical print-outs are given in Appendix A and Appendix C, respectively.


Table 5.2. Summary of toxicity data for the Streams 1, 2 and 3 using the 72-h sea urchin larval development test. Sample Concentration (%)

Percentage Normally Developed Larvae (Mean ± SD)


FSW Control (35.4‰) 94.3 ± 2.5 - -

FSW Control (36.5‰) 93.0 ± 2.2 - -

FSW Control (37.2‰) 94.5 ± 2.7 - -

1.7 93.0 ± 2.2 94.5 ± 3.1 94.3 ± 3.0

3.3 95.3 ± 3.1 93.8 ± 2.8 93.5 ± 2.7

10 93.5 ± 2.7 93.8 ± 3.3 92.5 ± 2.7

100 93.3 ± 2.5 94.8 ± 2.8 95.0 ± 2.6

72 hr EC50 = >100% NOEC = 100% LOEC = >100%

72 hr EC50 = >100% NOEC = 100% LOEC = >100%

72 hr EC50 = >100% NOEC = 100% LOEC = >100%

Table 5.3. Summary of toxicity data for the Streams 4 and 5 using the 72-h sea urchin larval development test. Sample Concentration (%)

Percentage Normally Developed Larvae (Mean ± SD)

Stream 4 Stream 5

FSW Control (35.4‰) 94.3 ± 2.5 -

FSW Control (36.5‰) 93.0 ± 2.2 -

FSW Control (37.2‰) 94.5 ± 2.7 -

1.7 93.8 ± 3.9 94.0 ± 3.2

3.3 93.5 ± 3.1 94.0 ± 3.2

10 94.0 ± 2.9 92.3 ± 2.2

100 94.0 ± 2.9 94.0 ± 2.2

72 hr EC50 = >100%

NOEC = 100% LOEC = >100%

72 hr EC50 = >100%

NOEC = 100% LOEC = >100%


No significant inhibition in the development of normal pluteus larvae was observed at 72-h with any of the test Streams. Therefore the 72-h EC50 for each Stream was >100%, and the NOEC and LOEC estimates were 100 and >100%, respectively.



The sea urchin larval development tests undertaken with the Stream samples met all quality assurance criteria. The mean percentage of normal pluteus larvae in the laboratory control exceeded the minimum control criteria of 70%. Water quality parameters were also within test acceptability ranges.

The 72-h EC50 estimate for the copper chloride reference toxicant tests run concurrently with the Stream samples fell within the reference toxicant cusum chart control limits (Table 5.4). This indicated that the toxicity tests were within the expected range with respect to performance and sensitivity.

Table 5.4. Quality Assurance limits for the sea urchin 72-h larval development test.


Control % Normal Larvae ≥70% 94.3% Yes

Test temperature Limits 20±1oC 20.0oC Yes


6.6-13.3 µg Cu2+/L 9.6 µg Cu2+/L Yes



The 48-h larval development toxicity test using the larvae of the rock oyster Saccostrea commercialis was undertaken in accordance with ESA Standard Operating Procedure 106, which is based on methods described by USEPA (1995,1996) and APHA (1998), and adapted for use with S. commercialis by Krassoi (1995). Tests were performed in a constant temperature chamber of 20±1oC with a 16:8h light: dark photoperiod for the entire 72-h exposure. The exposure period for this assay is usually 48-h at 25±1oC, however test conditions were altered to suit winter field conditions, by extension of the test to a 72-h exposure period. Clean seawater was collected from Lurline Bay, Sydney and filtered to 0.45µm on return to the laboratory, and used for the maintenance and spawning procedures. Oysters used for the tests were obtained from oysters farms in estuaries in NSW and spawned within 6 h of arrival at the laboratory.



Oysters were spawned by gonad stripping, and viable gametes selected on the basis of fertilisation success trials and visual examination of gamete maturity. The eggs were fertilised by adding spermatozoa to the egg suspension such that the final egg: sperm ratio was 1:100. The density of the egg suspension was determined using a Sedgwick-Rafter counting chamber to determine the volume required to achieve a final density of 100 eggs/mL in the test vessels.

The test vessels were inoculated with 500±50 eggs within 2 h of fertilisation. After 72 hours exposure, a formalin solution was added to each vessel. One mL of test solution was drawn directly from the bottom of each test vessel and placed in a Sedgwick-Rafter counting chamber. The first 100 oyster larvae were examined and the number of normal and abnormal D-veliger larvae was recorded. These data were used to calculate the percent survival (ie those larvae that have developed beyond fertilised eggs, including abnormal larvae, used as a QA measure), percentage normally developed larvae (ie the proportion of larvae counted that were normally developed to the D-veliger stage, used as a QA measure), and the percentage of normally developed surviving larvae (used for the assessment of overall toxicity). The concentration of each sample affecting 50% of

6. 72-h Oyster Larval Development Test


the test population (EC50) was determined by the trimmed Spearman-Karber Method using TOXCALC V5.0 software. The concentration causing no significant toxicity (No Observed Effect Concentration - NOEC) and the lowest concentration causing significant toxicity (Lowest Observed Effect Concentration - LOEC) was determined by performing an Analysis of Variance followed by Dunnetts or a non-parametric test, depending on the data being normally distributed and homoscedastic.

Table 6.1. Summary of test conditions for the rock oyster larval development test

Test species Rock oyster Saccostrea commercialis


Test duration 72 hours (increased from the usual 48-h given slower developmental rates expected at 20oC)

Test end-point Larval development to D-veliger stage

Test temperature 20±1oC (reduced from the usual 25±1oC to suit winter field conditions of the broodstock)


Source of test organisms Oyster farms / hatchery reared


Test acceptability criteria >70% normally developed larvae in controls, reference toxicant results within prescribed range

To test the relative sensitivity of the test organisms and the proficiency of the Laboratory Technician, a separate positive (toxic) control test was conducted, using copper chloride. The test was performed in the same manner as for the test samples. The results of this test were compared with the results from previous testing using a control chart.

6.2 Results

The results for the rock oyster larval development tests are summarised in Tables 6.2 and 6.3 below. The Test Reports and statistical print-outs are given in Appendix A and Appendix D, respectively.


Table 6.2. Summary of toxicity data for the Streams 1, 2 and 3 using the 48-h rock oyster larval development test. Sample Concentration (%)

Percentage Normally Developed Surviving Larvae (Mean ± SD)


FSW Control (35.4‰) 77.9 ± 4.5 - -

FSW Control (36.5‰) 79.7 ± 7.7 - -

FSW Control (37.2‰) 84.3 ± 4.0 - -

1.7 76.7 ± 6.9 76.2 ± 3.5 79.1 ± 13.3

3.3 77.9 ± 9.4 73.3 ± 5.5 78.5 ± 7.7

10 76.2 ± 5.2 87.8 ± 6.4 86.1 ± 4.3

100 77.9 ± 5.5 89.0 ± 5.8 79.7 ± 4.0

48 hr EC50 = >100% NOEC = 100% LOEC = >100%

48 hr EC50 = >100% NOEC = 100% LOEC = >100%

48 hr EC50 = >100% NOEC = 100% LOEC = >100%

Table 6.3. Summary of toxicity data for the Streams 4 and 5 using the 48-h rock oyster larval development test. Sample Concentration (%)

Percentage Normally Developed Surviving Larvae (Mean ± SD)

Stream 4 Stream 5

FSW Control (35.4‰) 77.9 ± 4.5 -

FSW Control (36.5‰) 79.7 ± 7.7 -

FSW Control (37.2‰) 84.3 ± 4.0 -

1.7 83.7 ± 6.3 85.5 ± 4.0

3.3 79.1 ± 6.6 83.1 ± 9.0

10 72.7 ± 5.2 75.6 ± 8.8

100 76.2 ± 8.4 79.7 ± 2.9

48 hr EC50 = >100%

NOEC = 100% LOEC = >100%

48 hr EC50 = >100%

NOEC = 100% LOEC = >100%


No significant inhibition in the development of normal D-veliger (prodissoconch I) larvae was observed at 48-h with any of the test Streams. Therefore the 48-h EC50 for each Stream was >100%, and the NOEC and LOEC estimates were 100 and >100%, respectively.



The rock oyster larval development toxicity test met all quality assurance criteria. The mean percentage of normally developed D-veliger larvae in the filtered seawater control exceeded the minimum control criteria of 70%. Water quality parameters for control samples were also within test acceptability ranges.

The 72-h EC50 estimates for the copper chloride reference toxicant tests run concurrently with the samples fell within the reference toxicant cusum chart control limits (Table 6.4). This indicated that the toxicity tests were within the expected range with respect to performance and sensitivity.

Table 6.4. Quality Assurance limits for the rock oyster 72-h larval development test.


Control % Surviving Larvae ≥70% 87.2% Yes

Control % Normal Larvae ≥70% 89.4% Yes

Test temperature Limits 25±1oC 25.0oC Yes


17.8-28.0 µg Cu2+/L 22.7 µg Cu2+/L Yes



The macro-algal germination test using the gametes of Homosira banksii was undertaken in accordance with ESA Standard Operating Procedure 116, which is based on methods described by USEPA (1985) for Champia sp. and adapted for use with H. banksii by Kevekordes and Clayton (1996). The 72-h germination test endpoint is generally perfomed in preference to the fertilisation assay described by Gunthorpe et al (1997) for the National Pulp Mills Research Program given the germination assay is generally more sensitive to pollutants and is less susceptible to seasonal variation. H. banksii broodstock were collected from the lower intertidal zone in Bilgola, Sydney, NSW and held at 4oC prior to spawning. Clean seawater was collected from Lurline Bay, Sydney and filtered to 0.45µm on return to the laboratory, and used for the maintenance and spawning procedures.

The macroalga were induced to spawn by washing individual alga in filtered seawater that had been warmed to 30-40 oC for 30 seconds and then drying the washed alga at room temperature. Gamete extrusion usually occurred within 10 minutes of washing. Viable gametes were selected based on visual examination of gamete maturity and fertilisation success trials. The eggs were fertilised by adding spermatozoa to the egg suspension such that the final egg to sperm ratio was 1:200. The density of the egg suspension was determined using a Sedgwick-Rafter counting chamber and adjusted to a density of 2 000 fertilised eggs/mL prior to initiating the tests.

Toxicity tests were undertaken in small glass Petri dishes containing 5 mL of test solution. A coverslip was placed on the bottom surface of each Petri dish to provide a site of attachment and to permit easy recovery of the developing embryos. Four concentrations of the Stream samples were prepared and tested using 4 replicate vials. The test concentrations were 100, 10, 3.3 and 1.7%. Filtered Seawater (to 0.45 µm) adjusted to a salinity of 36.5‰ by the addition of GP-2 dry salts was used for the preparation of test solutions, and was also tested undiluted as a control treatment. In addition, a 0.45 µm filtered seawater (FSW) control, consisting of seawater collected from the Sydney Region (of 35.4‰), representing the diluent routinely used by the laboratory, was also tested as a control treatment. Also, a Filtered Seawater treatment which was raised to a salinity of 37.2‰ by the addition of GP-2 salts was tested concurrently with the dilution series, and represented the highest salinity observed in any of the undiluted test Streams (acting as a salinity control).


The test vessels were inoculated with 250 µL of the fertilised egg suspension, thereby adding 500 eggs per test vessel. The test vessels were then incubated in a constant temperature chamber of 18±1°C with a 16:8 hr light: dark photoperiod for the entire 72-h exposure. After 72-h exposure, the coverslip from each Petri dish was removed and placed on a microscope slide. The embryos were examined live under the microscope and the number of germinated and un-germinated embryos was recorded.

7. 72-h Hormosira banksii Macroalgal Germination Test


The concentrations of the effluent samples inhibiting germination in 50% of the test population (the 72-h EC50) were determined by the trimmed Spearman-Karber Method using TOXCALC v5.0 (Tidepool Scientific Software). The concentrations of sample causing no significant toxicity (No Observed Effect Concentration, NOEC) and the lowest concentration of sample causing significant toxicity (Lowest Observed Effect Concentration, LOEC) were determined by performing Dunnetts or a non-parametric test, depending on the data being normally distributed and homoscedastic.

Table 7.1. Summary of test conditions for the Hormosira banksii macroalgal germination test

Test species Hormosira banksii


Test duration 72 hours

Test end-point Germination

Test temperature 18 ± 1oC

Test chamber size / volume 5mL in Petri dishes

Test Concentrations 100, 10, 3.3 and 1.7%, plus Filtered Seawater (FSW) Controls of 35.4, 36.5 and 37.2‰

Source of test organisms Field collection, Bilgola, NSW

Test acceptability criteria ≥70% germination in FSW controls, reference toxicant results within prescribed range

To test the relative sensitivity of the test organisms and the proficiency of the Laboratory Technicians, a separate positive (toxic) control test was conducted using copper chloride. The test was performed in the same manner as the Stream tests. The results of this test were compared with results from previous testing from the same laboratory using a control chart.

7.2 Results

The results for the H. banksii macroalgal growth inhibition tests are summarised in Tables 7.2 and 7.3 below. The Test Reports and statistical print-outs are given in Appendix A and Appendix E, respectively.


Table 7.2. Summary of toxicity data for the Streams 1, 2 and 3 using the 72-h Hormosira banksii germination test. Sample Concentration (%)

Percent Germinated (Mean ± SD)


FSW Control (35.4‰) 93.5 ± 0.6 - -

FSW Control (36.5‰) 94.8 ± 2.5 - -

FSW Control (37.2‰) 94.0 ± 2.5 - -

1.7 91.3 ± 2.5 91.0 ± 3.2 92.8 ± 2.1

3.3 93.5 ± 1.3 92.8 ± 3.9 95.0 ± 2.2

10 92.3 ± 2.2 91.5 ± 1.3 94.0 ± 2.6

100 93.5 ± 1.7 96.3 ± 1.7 94.3 ± 1.7

72 hr EC50 = >100% NOEC = 100% LOEC = >100%

72 hr EC50 = >100% NOEC = 100% LOEC = >100%

72 hr EC50 = >100% NOEC = 100% LOEC = >100%

Table 7.3. Summary of toxicity data for the Streams 4 and 5 using the 72-h Hormosira banksii germination test. Sample Concentration (%)

Percent Germinated (Mean ± SD)

Stream 4 Stream 5

FSW Control (35.4‰) 93.5 ± 0.6 -

FSW Control (36.5‰) 94.8 ± 2.5 -

FSW Control (37.2‰) 94.0 ± 2.5 -

1.7 93.5 ± 2.4 91.9 ± 4.7

3.3 92.8 ± 3.6 92.8 ± 3.6

10 89.0 ± 7.6 89.0 ± 7.6

100 91.0 ± 2.9 91.0 ± 2.9

72 hr EC50 = >100%

NOEC = 100% LOEC = >100%

72 hr EC50 = >100%

NOEC = 100% LOEC = >100%


None of the five Stream samples exhibited any significant reduction in germination of fertilised Hormosira eggs. The 72-h EC50 estimate was >100% for each sample, and the corresponding NOEC and LOEC estimates were 100 and >100%, respectively.



The H. banksii germination tests with the Stream samples met all quality assurance criteria for the test. The mean percent germination in the filtered seawater control treatment exceeded the minimum control germination of 70%. Water quality parameters for control samples were also within test acceptability ranges.

The 72-h EC50 estimate for the copper chloride reference toxicant run concurrently with the tests fell within the reference toxicant cusum chart control limits (Table 7.4). This indicated that all toxicity tests were within the expected range with respect to performance and sensitivity.

Table 7.4. Quality Assurance limits for the 72-h Hormosira germination tests.


Control % Germination ≥70% 93.5% Yes

Test temperature Limits 18±1oC 18.0 oC Yes


25.3-529.2 µg Cu2+/L

82.3 µg Cu2+/L Yes



The 96-hr toxicity test using fish larvae were undertaken with the barramundi, Lates calcarifer, as larvae of temperate east-coast fish species were not available at the time of testing. Tests were undertaken in accordance with ESA Standard Operating Procedure 117, which is based on methods described by USEPA (1994), ISO 7346-1, and OECD Method 203. Research with vertebrates in the state of New South Wales is subject to the Animal Research Act, and the toxicity test with larval fish was performed by ESA under the Animal Research Authority issued to ESA by the Director-General of NSW Department of Primary Industries (valid from 27 May 2009 to 27 May 2010) and Certificate of Approval from the Animal Care and Ethics Committee of the Director-General of the NSW Department of Primary Industries (valid from 16 May 2009 to 16 may 2011).

Five day post-hatch larval fish of approximately 3-5 mm in length used for the tests were obtained from a commercial hatchery in South Australia. The larval fish were shipped same-day express in a foam box containing an ice brick and fish were contained within an air inflated bag containing approximately 4 litres of seawater. The fish arrived at ESA within 4 hours of dispatch. The fish were transferred to an environmental chamber of 25oC on arrival, and provided gentle aeration using a Schego air pump. Clean seawater for holding the larval fish was collected from Lurline Bay, Sydney and filtered to 0.45µm on return to the laboratory, and used for holding fish. The seawater was acclimated to the appropriate temperature prior to use. The fish were used for the toxicity test within 48 hours of arrival at the ESA laboratory.

Toxicity tests were undertaken in 250 mL glass beakers containing 200 mL of test solution. Four concentrations of the Stream samples were prepared and tested using 4 replicate vials. The test concentrations were 100, 10, 3.3 and 1.7%. Filtered Seawater (to 0.45 µm) adjusted to a salinity of 36.5‰ by the addition of GP-2 dry salts was used for the preparation of test solutions, and was also tested undiluted as a control treatment. In addition, a 0.45 µm filtered seawater (FSW) control, consisting of seawater collected from the Sydney Region (of 35.4‰), representing the diluent routinely used by the laboratory, was also tested as a control treatment. Also, a Filtered Seawater treatment which was raised to a salinity of 37.2‰ by the addition of GP-2 salts was tested concurrently with the dilution series, and represented the highest salinity observed in any of the undiluted test Streams (acting as a salinity control).


Five larval fish were randomly selected and introduced into each of the test beakers. The beakers were covered with cling-wrap film to minimise evaporation and placed in a constant temperature chamber of 25oC. The test vessels were monitored three times per day to examine fish for signs of distress or imbalance. Larval fish demonstrating such signs were to be removed and euthanased in accordance with ESA SOP 117. Test vessels were also checked daily for dissolved oxygen concentration, with aeration

8. 96-h Larval Fish Toxicity Test


to be provided should the dissolved oxygen concentration fall below 60 percent saturatation, however this was not required. The beakers were examined every 24 hours and the number of surviving and apparently healthy larval fish recorded. The test was terminated after 96 hours, and the temperature, pH, salinity and dissolved oxygen concentration of a representative sample from each concentration/treatment was measured, as detailed above. At the termination of the test, the larval fish were euthanased by the addition of Aqui-S fish anaesthetic and immediately placed in a freezer.

The concentration of the Stream samples affecting 50% of the larval fish (the 96-h EC50) were determined by the trimmed Spearman-Karber Method using TOXCALC v5.0 (Tidepool Scientific Software). The concentrations of the samples causing no significant toxicity (No Observed Effect Concentration, NOEC) and the lowest concentration of test materials causing significant toxicity (Lowest Observed Effect Concentration, LOEC) were determined by performing Dunnetts or a non-parametric test, depending on the data being normally distributed and homoscedastic.

Table 8.1 Summary of test conditions for the 96-h larval fish fish-Imbalance test using various species

Test species Stripped Trumpeter Latris lineata, Barramundi Lates calcarifer and the Australian Bass Macquaria novemaculeata



Test end-point Imbalance, including survival


Test chamber size / volume 200 mL in 250mL borosilicate glass beakers


Source of test organisms Hatchery reared, NSW

Test acceptability criteria ≥80% survival in FSW controls

8.2 Results

The results for the number of healthy larva and the EC50, NOEC and LOEC are summarised in Tables 8.2 and 8.3. The Test Reports and statistical print-outs are given in Appendix A and Appendix F, respectively.


Table 8.2. Summary of toxicity data for the Streams 1, 2 and 3 using the 96-h Fish Imbalance Test with the Barramundi Lates calcarifer. Sample Concentration (%)

Percent un-effected larvae (Mean ± SD)


FSW Control (35.4‰) 100 ± 0.0 - -

FSW Control (36.5‰) 100 ± 0.0 - -

FSW Control (37.2‰) 100 ± 0.0 - -

1.7 100 ± 0.0 100 ± 0.0 100 ± 0.0

3.3 100 ± 0.0 100 ± 0.0 100 ± 0.0

10 100 ± 0.0 100 ± 0.0 100 ± 0.0

100 100 ± 0.0 100 ± 0.0 100 ± 0.0

96 hr EC50 = >100% NOEC = 100% LOEC = >100%

96 hr EC50 = >100% NOEC = 100% LOEC = >100%

96 hr EC50 = >100% NOEC = 100% LOEC = >100%

Table 8.3. Summary of toxicity data for the Streams 4 and 5 using the 96-h Fish Imbalance Test with the Barramundi Lates calcarifer. Sample Concentration (%)

Percent un-effected larvae (Mean ± SD)

Stream 4 Stream 5

FSW Control (35.4‰) 100 ± 0.0 -

FSW Control (36.5‰) 100 ± 0.0 -

FSW Control (37.2‰) 100 ± 0.0 -

1.7 100 ± 0.0 100 ± 0.0

3.3 100 ± 0.0 100 ± 0.0

10 100 ± 0.0 100 ± 0.0

100 100 ± 0.0 100 ± 0.0

96 hr EC50 = >100%

NOEC = 100% LOEC = >100%

96 hr EC50 = >100%

NOEC = 100% LOEC = >100%


There were no imbalanced fish observed in any of the sample Streams tested. Therefore the 96-h EC50 for each Stream was >100%, and the NOEC and LOEC estimates were 100 and >100%, respectively.



The larval fish imbalance test undertaken with the effluent samples met all quality assurance criteria. The percentage survival in the laboratory controls exceeded the minimum control survival criteria of ≥80%. Water quality parameters for control samples were also within test acceptability ranges.

The 96-h EC50 estimate for the copper chloride reference toxicant run concurrently with the tests fell within the reference toxicant cusum chart control limits (Table 8.4).

Table 8.4. Quality Assurance limits for the 96-h Fish Imbalance tests with the Barramundi Lates calcarifer.


Control % Un-affected ≥80% 100% Yes

Test temperature Limits 25.0±1oC 24.5-26.0 oC Yes


1.0-1.2mg Cu2+/L 1.2mg Cu2+/L Yes



The 96-h acute toxicity test using the juvenile tiger prawn Penaeus monodon was undertaken in accordance with ESA Standard Operating Procedure 107, which is based on methods described by the USEPA (1994, 1996b). Tests were performed in a constant temperature chamber of 25±1oC with a 16:8h light: dark photoperiod for the entire 96-h exposure. Clean seawater was collected from Lurline Bay, Sydney and filtered to 0.45µm on return to the laboratory, and was used for holding prawns and for the preparation of the control treatment. Fifteen day post-larval (PL15) juvenile prawns were sourced from a hatchery in Cairns QLD, and held in aquaria in the laboratory until required for testing.

The tests were undertaken in 250mL borosilicate glass beakers containing 200mL of test solution. Four concentrations of the Stream samples were prepared and tested using 4 replicate vials. The test concentrations were 100, 10, 3.3 and 1.7%. Filtered Seawater (to 0.45 µm) adjusted to a salinity of 36.5‰ by the addition of GP-2 dry salts was used for the preparation of test solutions, and was also tested undiluted as a control treatment. In addition, a 0.45 µm filtered seawater (FSW) control, consisting of seawater collected from the Sydney Region (of 35.4‰), representing the diluent routinely used by the laboratory, was also tested as a control treatment. Also, a Filtered Seawater treatment which was raised to a salinity of 37.2‰ by the addition of GP-2 salts was tested concurrently with the dilution series, and represented the highest salinity observed in any of the undiluted test Streams (acting as a salinity control).


The post larval tiger prawns of approximately 10-14mm in length were isolated at random in individually numbered 50mL polyethylene cups, 5 prawns per cup. The prawns were introduced to the test vessels following a random numbers table to eliminate bias. The beakers were covered with cling-wrap film to minimise evaporation of test solutions. The dissolved oxygen concentration of a replicate of each treatment was monitored daily, and as the percent dissolved oxygen did not fall below 60%, aeration of the test vessels was not considered to be required. The prawns were observed at 24-hour intervals, and the number of surviving, moribund and dead prawns recorded.

After 96 hours exposure, the number of surviving prawns in each test vessel was counted, and physico-chemical parameters recorded. The concentration of each sample resulting in 50% mortalities in the test population (96-h LC50) was determined by the trimmed Spearman-Karber Method using TOXCALC V5.0 software. The concentration causing no significant toxicity (No Observed Effect Concentration - NOEC) and the lowest concentration causing significant toxicity (Lowest Observed Effect Concentration - LOEC) was determined by performing an Analysis of Variance followed by Dunnetts or a non-parametric test, depending on the data being normally distributed and homoscedastic.

9. 96-h Tiger Prawn Acute Toxicity Test


Table 9.1. Summary of test conditions for the acute juvenile prawn toxicity test

Test species PL15 tiger prawn Penaeus monodon



Test end-point Survival


Test chamber size / volume 200mL in 250mL borosilicate glass beakers

Source of test organisms Hatchery, Cairns, Queensland


Test acceptability criteria >90% survival in FSW controls, reference toxicant results within prescribed range

To test the relative sensitivity of the test organisms and the proficiency of the Laboratory Technician, a separate positive (toxic) control test was conducted using sodium dodecyl sulphate (SDS). The tests were performed in the same manner as for the Stream samples. The results of this test were compared with the results from previous testing using a control chart.

9.2 Results

The results for the number of surviving prawns and the LC50, NOEC and LOEC are summarised in Tables 9.2 to 9.3. The Test Reports and statistical print-outs are given in Appendix A and Appendix G, respectively.


Table 9.2. Summary of toxicity data for the Streams 1, 2 and 3 using the 96-h juvenile tiger prawn Penaeus monodon acute toxicity test Sample Concentration (%)

Percent Survival (Mean ± SD)


FSW Control (35.4‰) 90.0 ± 11.6 - -

FSW Control (36.5‰) 90.0 ± 11.6 - -

FSW Control (37.2‰) 85.0 ± 10.0 - -

1.7 85.0 ± 19.2 95.0 ± 10.0 90.0 ± 11.6

3.3 90.0 ± 11.6 85.0 ± 10.0 90.0 ± 11.6

10 90.0 ± 11.6 90.0 ± 11.6 95.0 ± 10.0

100 80.0 ± 23.1 90.0 ± 11.6 85.0 ± 10.0

96 hr LC50 = >100% NOEC = 100% LOEC = >100%

96 hr LC50 = >100% NOEC = 100% LOEC = >100%

96 hr LC50 = >100% NOEC = 100% LOEC = >100%

Table 9.3. Summary of toxicity data for the Streams 4 and 5 using the 96-h juvenile tiger prawn Penaeus monodon acute toxicity test Sample Concentration (%)

Percent Survival (Mean ± SD)

Stream 4 Stream 5

FSW Control (35.4‰) 90.0 ± 11.6 -

FSW Control (36.5‰) 90.0 ± 11.6 -

FSW Control (37.2‰) 85.0 ± 10.0 -

1.7 90.0 ± 11.6 90.0 ± 11.6

3.3 90.0 ± 11.6 95.0 ± 10.0

10 95.0 ± 10.0 90.0 ± 11.6

100 90.0 ± 11.6 90.0 ± 11.6

96 hr LC50 = >100%

NOEC = 100% LOEC = >100%

96 hr LC50 = >100%

NOEC = 100% LOEC = >100%


There was no significant acute toxicity to the juvenile tiger prawn over the 96-h exposure period. Therefore the 96-h EC50 for each Stream was >100%, and the NOEC and LOEC estimates were 100 and >100%, respectively.



The juvenile tiger prawn survival test undertaken with the samples met all quality assurance criteria. The mean percentage survival in the laboratory controls exceeded the minimum control survival criteria of 90%. Water quality parameters for control samples were also within test acceptability ranges.

The 96-h LC50 estimate for the sodium dodecyl sulphate (SDS) reference toxicant run concurrently with the samples fell within the reference toxicant cusum chart control limits (Table 9.4). This indicated that the toxicity tests were within the expected ranges with respect to performance and sensitivity.

Table 9.4. Quality Assurance limits for the juvenile tiger prawn acute toxicity test.


Control % survival >90% 90.0% Yes

Test temperature Limits 25.0±1oC 25.0-25.5 oC Yes


3.7-31.8 mg SDS/L 6.5 mg SDS/L Yes


ASTM (1995) Standard guide for conducting static acute toxicity tests with echinoid embryos. ASTM E-1563, Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Vol. 11.04. American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, Pa.

APHA (1998) Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater. 20th Ed. American Public Health Association, American Water Works Association and the Water Environment Federation, Washington, DC.

Doyle, C.J., Pablo, F., Lim, R.P. and Hyne, R.V. (2003) Assessment of metal toxicity in sediment pore water from Lake Macquarie, Australia. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicology, 44(3): 343-350.

ESA (2007) Toxicity Assessment of Seawater Concentrate Samples from the Desalination Plant at Kurnell. Test Report prepared for Sydney Water Corporation by Ecotox Services Australasia Pty Ltd (ESA), August 2007

Environment Canada (1999) Guidance document on application and interpretation of single-species tests in environmental toxicology. EPS 1/RM/34 Method Development and Application Section, Environmental Technology Centre, Environment Canada, 203pp.

Gunthorpe. L., Nottage, M., Palmer, D. and Wu, R (1997) Testing for sublethal toxicity using gametes of Hormosira banksii: protocol. National Pulp Mills Research Program, Technical Report No. 22, CSIRO, Canberra. 31pp

Kevekordes, K. and Clayton, M.N. (1996). Using developing embryos of Hormosira banksii (Phaeophyta) as a marine bioassay system. International Journal of Plant Science, 157: 582-585

Krassoi, F.R. (1995) Salinity adjustments of effluents for use with marine bioassays: effects on the larvae of the doughboy scallop Chlamys asperrimus and the Sydney rock oyster Saccostrea commercialis. Australasian journal of Ecotoxicology 1:143-148.

Krassoi, F.R., Everett, D., and Anderson, I. (1996) Protocol for using Doughboy scallop Chlamys asperrima (Mollusca:Pectinidae) L. to test the sublethal toxicity of single compounds and effluents. National Pulp Mills Research Program, Technical Report No. 17, CSIRO, Canberra. 56pp

Simon, J. and Laginestra, E. (1997) Bioassay for testing sublethal toxicity in effluents, using gametes of the sea urchin Heliocidaris tuberculata. National Pulp Mills Research Program, Technical Report No. 20, CSIRO, Canberra. 42pp.

Stauber, J.L., Tsai, J., Vaughan, G.T., Peterson, S.M. and Brockbank, C.I. (1994). Algae as indicators of toxicity of the effluent from bleached eucalypt kraft papermills. National Pulp Mills Research Program Technical report No.3, Canberra: CSIRO, 146pp.

USEPA (1985) Methods for measuring the acute toxicity of effluents to freshwater and marine organisms. Environmental Monitoring and Support Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH. EPA/600/4-85/013

10. References


USEPA (1994) Short term methods for estimating the chronic toxicity of effluents and receiving waters to marine and estuarine organisms. Second Edition. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory, Cincinatti, OH. EPA/600/4-91/003.

USEPA (1996a) Bivalve acute toxicity test (embryo larval) OPPTS 850.1055. Ecological Effects Test Guidelines. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances. EPA/712/C-96/137

USEPA (1996b) Penaeid acute toxicity test OPPTS 850.1045. Ecological Effects Test Guidelines. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances. EPA/712/C-96/137


The following Summary Test Reports follow the routine reporting format for toxicity tests undertaken by Ecotox Services Australasia.

Appendix A: Summary Test Reports

Toxicity Test Report: TR0413/1 (page 1 of 3) Client: Blue Water Joint Venture ESA Job #: PR0413 PO Box 2891 Date Sampled: Not applicable Taren Point BC, NSW 2229 Date Received: Not applicable Attention: Mr Michael Nicholson Sampled By: Not applicable Client Ref: None provided Quote#: PL0413_q01 Lab ID No.: Sample Name: Sample Description:3290 Stream 1 Solution prepared from materials supplied by

client* 3291 Stream 2 Solution prepared from materials supplied by

client*3292 Stream 3 Solution prepared from materials supplied by



client** Details of chemical products used for the preparation of each Stream as well as the method of preparation are provided in the Blue Water JV project brief appended to this report. Test Performed: 72-hr Sea urchin larval development test using Heliocidaris tuberculata Test Protocol: ESA SOP 105 (ESA 2008), based on APHA (1998), Simon and

Laginestra (1996) and Doyle et al. (2003) Deviations from Protocol: Nil Comments on Solution Preparation:

Each sample stream was prepared according to specifications supplied by Bluewater (see attached project brief). Seawater used to prepare the sample streams was natural seawater collected from Clovelly, NSW, and filtered to 0.45µm. The filtered seawater (FSW) was adjusted to a salinity of 36.5‰ using modified GP-2 artificial sea salts prior to being used to prepare the sample streams. Four concentrations of each sample stream were prepared by diluting with FSW at a salinity of 36.5‰. An un-adjusted FSW control (salinity 35.4‰) and a salinity-adjusted FSW control (salinity 36.5‰) were tested concurrently with each sample stream. In addition, an additional control of FSW adjusted to a salinity of 37.2‰ was tested. This salinity was similar to the highest salinity measured in all of the sample streams and therefore served as a salinity control.

Source of Test Organisms: Field collected from South Maroubra, NSW, on 22 October 2008 Test Initiated: 22 October 2008 at 1745h

Toxicity Test Report: TR0413/1 (page 2 of 3) Controls Sample 3290: Stream 1 Sample 3291: Stream 2

Treatment % Normal larvae

(Mean ± SD)

Concentration(%)

% Normal larvae

(Mean ± SD)

Concentration (%)

% Normal larvae

(Mean ± SD) FSW 35.4‰ 94.3 ± 2.5 FSW 36.5‰ 93.0 ± 2.2 FSW 36.5‰ 93.0 ± 2.2 FSW 36.5‰ 93.0 ± 2.2 1.67 93.0 ± 2.2 1.67 94.5 ± 3.1 FSW 37.2‰ 94.5 ± 2.7 3.3 95.3 ± 3.1 3.3 93.8 ± 2.8

10 93.5 ± 2.7 10 93.8 ± 3.3 100 93.3 ± 2.5 100 94.8 ± 2.8

72 hr EC50 = >100% NOEC = 100% LOEC = >100%

72 hr EC50 = >100% NOEC = 100% LOEC = >100%

Sample 3292: Stream 3 Sample 3293: Stream 4 Sample 3294: Stream 5 Concentration

(%) % Normal

larvae (Mean ± SD)

Concentration(%)

% Normal larvae

(Mean ± SD)

Concentration (%)

% Normal larvae

(Mean ± SD) FSW 36.5‰ 93.0 ± 2.2 FSW 36.5‰ 93.0 ± 2.2 FSW 36.5‰ 93.0 ± 2.2

1.67 94.3 ± 3.0 1.67 93.8 ± 3.9 1.67 94.0 ± 3.2 3.3 93.5 ± 2.7 3.3 93.5 ± 3.1 3.3 94.0 ± 3.2 10 92.5 ± 2.7 10 94.0 ± 2.9 10 92.3 ± 2.2100 95.0 ± 2.6 100 94.0 ± 2.9 100 94.0 ± 2.2

72 hr EC50 = >100% NOEC = 100% LOEC = >100%

72 hr EC50 = >100% NOEC = 100% LOEC = >100%

72 hr EC50 = >100% NOEC = 100% LOEC = >100%

QA/QC Parameter Criterion This Test Criterion met?Control mean % normal >70 % 94.3% Yes Test Temperature limits 20.0 ± 1ºC 20.0ºC Yes Reference Toxicant within cusum chart limits 6.6-13.3µg Cu2+/L 9.6µg Cu2+/L Yes

Test Report Authorised by: Dr Rick Krassoi, Director on 22 December 2008 Results are based on the samples in the condition as received by ESA

NATA Accredited Laboratory Number: 14709

The tests, calibrations or methods covered by this document have been performed in accordance with NATA requirements which include the requirements of ISO/IEC 17025 and are traceable to Australian national standards of measurement. This document shall not be reproduced except in full.

Toxicity Test Report: TR0413/1 (page 3 of 3) Citations: APHA (1998) Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater. 20th Ed. American Public Health Association, American Water Works Association and the Water Environment Federation, Washington DC, USA. Doyle CJ, Pablo F, Lim RP and Hyne RV (2003) Assessment of metal toxicity in sediment pore water from Lake Macquarie, Australia. Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, 44: 343-350. ESA (2008) SOP 105 – Sea Urchin Larval Development Test. Issue No. 7. Ecotox Services Australasia, Sydney, New South Wales. Simon J and Laginestra E (1997) Bioassay for testing sublethal toxicity in effluents using gametes of the sea urchin Heliocidaris tuberculata. National Pulp Mills Research Program Technical Report No. 20, CSIRO, Canberra, ACT.






client** Details of chemical products used for the preparation of each Stream as well as the method of preparation are provided in the Blue Water JV project brief appended to this report. Test Performed: 48-hour Bivalve larval development test using the rock oyster

Saccostrea commercialisTest Protocol: ESA SOP 106 (ESA 2008), based on APHA (1998) and Krassoi (1995) Deviations from Protocol: Nil Comments on Solution Preparation:


Source of Test Organisms: Farm-reared, Wallis Lakes, NSW Test Initiated: 22 October 2008 at 1745h

Toxicity Test Report: TR0413/2 (page 2 of 3)

Sample 3292: Stream 3 Sample 3293: Stream 4 Sample 3294: Stream 5

Concentration

(%)

% Alive/Normal

larvae (Mean ± SD)

Concentration (%)

% Alive/Normal

larvae (Mean ± SD)

Concentration (%)

% Alive/Normal

larvae (Mean ± SD)

FSW 36.5‰ control

79.7 ± 7.7 FSW 36.5‰ control

79.7 ± 7.7 FSW 36.5‰ control

79.7 ± 7.7

1.67 79.1 ± 13.3 1.67 83.7 ± 6.3 1.67 85.5 ± 4.0 3.3 78.5 ± 7.7 3.3 79.1 ± 6.6 3.3 83.1 ± 9.0 10 86.1 ± 4.3 10 72.7 ± 5.2 10 75.6 ± 8.8 100 79.7 ± 4.0 100 76.2 ± 8.4 100 79.7 ± 2.9

48 hr EC50 = >100% NOEC = 100% LOEC = >100%

48 hr EC50 = >100% NOEC = 100% LOEC = >100%

48 hr EC50 = >100% NOEC = 100% LOEC = >100%




Controls Sample 3290: Stream 1 Sample 3921: Stream 2

Treatment %

Alive/Normal larvae

(Mean ± SD)

Concentration (%)

% Alive/Normal

larvae (Mean ± SD)

Concentration (%)

% Alive/Normal

larvae (Mean ± SD)

FSW 35.4‰ 77.9 ± 4.5 FSW 36.5‰ 79.7 ± 7.7 FSW 36.5‰ 79.7 ± 7.7 FSW 36.5‰ 79.7 ± 7.7 1.67 76.7 ± 6.9 1.67 76.2 ± 3.5 FSW 37.2‰ 84.3 ± 4.0 3.3 77.9 ± 9.4 3.3 73.3 ± 5.5

10 76.2 ± 5.2 10 87.8 ± 6.4 100 77.9 ± 5.5 100 89.0 ± 5.8

48 hr EC50 = >100% NOEC = 100% LOEC = >100%

48 hr EC50 = >100% NOEC = 100% LOEC = >100%

QA/QC Parameter Criterion This Test Criterion met?Control mean % survival >70% 87.2% Yes Control mean % normal >70% 89.4% Yes Test Temperature limits 25.0 ± 1ºC 25.0ºC Yes Reference Toxicant within cusum chart limits 17.8-28.0µg Cu2+/L 22.7µg Cu2+/L Yes

Toxicity Test Report: TR0413/2 (page 3 of 3) Citations: APHA (1998) Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater. 20th Ed. American Public Health Association, American Water Works Association and the Water Environment Federation, Washington DC, USA. ESA (2008) SOP 106 – Bivalve Larval Development Test. Issue No. 5. Ecotox Services Australasia, Sydney, New South Wales. Krassoi R (1995) Salinity adjustment of effluents for use with marine bioassays: effects on the larvae of the doughboy scallop Chlamys asperrimus and the Sydney rock oyster Saccostrea commercialis. Australasian Journal of Ecotoxicology 1: 143-148.






client** Details of chemical products used for the preparation of each Stream as well as the method of preparation are provided in the Blue Water JV project brief appended to this report. Test Performed: 72-hr Macroalgal germination test using Hormosira banksii Test Protocol: ESA SOP 116 (ESA 2008), based on Gunthorpe et al. (1997) and

Kevekordes and Clayton (1996) Deviations from Protocol: Nil Comments on Solution Preparation:


Source of Test Organisms: Field collected from Bilgola Beach, NSW, on 23 October 2008 Test Initiated: 24 October 2008 at 1300h

Toxicity Test Report: TR0413/3 (page 2 of 2) Controls Sample 3290: Stream 1 Sample 3291: Stream 2 Concentration

(%) % Germinated (Mean ± SD)

Concentration(%)

% Germinated(Mean ± SD)

Concentration (%)

% Germinated(Mean ± SD)


10 92.3 ± 2.2 10 91.5 ± 1.3 100 93.5 ± 1.7 100 96.3 ± 1.7

72 hr EC50 = >100% NOEC = 100% LOEC = >100%

72 hr EC50 = >100% NOEC = 100% LOEC = >100%


(%) % Germinated (Mean ± SD)

Concentration(%)

% Germinated (Mean ± SD)

Concentration (%)

% Germinated (Mean ± SD)

FSW 36.5‰ 94.8 ± 2.5 FSW 36.5‰ 94.8 ± 2.5 FSW 36.5‰ 94.8 ± 2.5 1.67 92.8 ± 2.1 1.67 93.5 ± 2.4 1.67 91.9 ± 4.7 3.3 95.0 ± 2.2 3.3 92.8 ± 3.6 3.3 92.8 ± 3.610 94.0 ± 2.6 10 89.0 ± 7.6 10 89.0 ± 7.6 100 94.3 ± 1.7 100 91.0 ± 2.9 100 91.0 ± 2.9

72 hr LC50 = >100% NOEC = 100% LOEC = >100%

72 hr LC50 = >100% NOEC = 100% LOEC = >100%

72 hr LC50 = >100% NOEC = 100% LOEC = >100%

QA/QC Parameter Criterion This Test Criterion met?Control mean % germination >70 % 93.5% Yes Test Temperature limits 18.0 ± 1ºC 18.0ºC Yes Reference Toxicant within cusum chart limits 25.3-529.2µg Cu2+/L 82.3µg Cu2+/L Yes



The tests, calibrations or methods covered by this document have been performed in accordance with NATA requirements which include the requirements of ISO/IEC 17025 and are traceable to Australian national standards of measurement. This document shall not be reproduced except in full. Citations: ESA (2008) SOP 116 – Macroalgal Germination Success Test. Issue No. 5. Ecotox Services Australasia, Sydney, NSW.

Gunthorpe, L., Nottage, M., Palmer, D. and Wu, R. (1997) Testing for sublethal toxicity using gametes of Hormosira banksii: protocol. National Pulp Mills Research Program Technical Report No. 22. CSIRO, Canberra, 36 pp.

Kevekordes, K. and Clayton, M.N. (1996) Using developing embryos of Hormosira banksii (Phaeophyta) as a marine bioassay system. International Journal of Plant Science, 157: 582-585.






client** Details of chemical products used for the preparation of each Stream as well as the method of preparation are provided in the Blue Water JV project brief appended to this report. Test Performed: 96-hr fish imbalance toxicity test using the barramundi Lates calcarifer Test Protocol: ESA SOP 117 (ESA 2008), based on USEPA (2002) Deviations from Protocol: Nil Comments on Solution Preparation:


Source of Test Organisms: Hatchery-reared, SA Test Initiated: 17 December 2008 at 1800h


Treatment % Un-Affected (Mean ± SD)

Concentration(%)

% Un-Affected (Mean ± SD)

Concentration (%)


FSW 35.4‰ 100 ± 0.0 FSW 36.5‰ 100 ± 0.0 FSW 36.5‰ 100 ± 0.0 FSW 36.5‰ 100 ± 0.0 1.67 100 ± 0.0 1.67 100 ± 0.0 FSW 37.2‰ 100 ± 0.0 3.3 100 ± 0.0 3.3 100 ± 0.0

10 100 ± 0.0 10 100 ± 0.0 100 100 ± 0.0 100 100 ± 0.0

96 hr EC50 = >100% NOEC = 100% LOEC = >100%

96 hr EC50 = >100% NOEC = 100% LOEC = >100%


(%) % un-Affected (Mean ± SD)

Concentration(%)


Concentration (%)


FSW 36.5‰ 100 ± 0.0 FSW 36.5‰ 100 ± 0.0 FSW 36.5‰ 100 ± 0.0 1.67 100 ± 0.0 1.67 100 ± 0.0 1.67 100 ± 0.0 3.3 100 ± 0.0 3.3 100 ± 0.0 3.3 100 ± 0.0 10 100 ± 0.0 10 100 ± 0.0 10 100 ± 0.0100 100 ± 0.0 100 100 ± 0.0 100 100 ± 0.0

96 hr EC50 = >100% NOEC = 100% LOEC = >100%

96 hr EC50 = >100% NOEC = 100% LOEC = >100%

96 hr EC50 = >100% NOEC = 100% LOEC = >100%

QA/QC Parameter Criterion This Test Criterion met?Control mean % un-affected >90 % 100% Yes Test Temperature limits 25.0 ± 1ºC 24.5-26.0ºC Yes Reference Toxicant within cusum chart limits 1.0-1.2mg Cu2+/L 1.2mg Cu2+/L Yes



The tests, calibrations or methods covered by this document have been performed in accordance with NATA requirements which include the requirements of ISO/IEC 17025 and are traceable to Australian national standards of measurement. This document shall not be reproduced except in full. Citations: ESA (2008) SOP 117 – Freshwater and Marine Fish Imbalance Test. Issue No. 5. Ecotox Services Australasia, Sydney, NSW. USEPA (2002) Methods for measuring the acute toxicity of effluents and receiving waters to freshwater and marine organisms. Fifth Edition. EPA-821-R-02-012. United States Environment Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Wahington DC, USA.






client** Details of chemical products used for the preparation of each Stream as well as the method of preparation are provided in the Blue Water JV project brief appended to this report. Test Performed: 1-hr Sea urchin fertilisation success test using Heliocidaris tuberculata Test Protocol: ESA SOP 104 (ESA 2008), based on APHA (1998) and Simon and

Laginestra (1996) Deviations from Protocol: Nil Comments on Solution Preparation:


Source of Test Organisms: Field collected from South Maroubra, NSW, on 6 November 2008 Test Initiated: 6 November 2008 at 1600h


Treatment % Fertilised Eggs

(Mean ± SD)

Concentration(%)

% Fertilised Eggs

(Mean ± SD)

Concentration (%)

% Fertilised Eggs

(Mean ± SD) FSW 35.9‰ 94.8 ± 3.4 FSW 36.5‰ 94.5 ± 3.1 FSW 36.5‰ 94.5 ± 3.1 FSW 36.5‰ 94.5 ± 3.1 1.67 95.5 ± 3.1 1.67 93.3 ± 1.9 FSW 37.2‰ 92.3 ± 2.8 3.3 93.5 ± 1.9 3.3 89.3 ± 3.1

10 94.0 ± 3.9 10 94.3 ± 3.0 100 94.0 ± 1.2 100 98.0 ± 0.8

EC50 = >100% NOEC = 100% LOEC = >100%

EC50 = >100% NOEC = 100% LOEC = >100%


(%) % Fertilised

Eggs (Mean ± SD)

Concentration(%)

% Fertilised Eggs

(Mean ± SD)

Concentration (%)

% Fertilised Eggs

(Mean ± SD) FSW 36.5‰ 94.5 ± 3.1 FSW 36.5‰ 94.5 ± 3.1 FSW 36.5‰ 94.5 ± 3.1

1.67 89.3 ± 5.0 1.67 83.5 ± 4.5 1.67 95.8 ± 2.2 3.3 86.5 ± 3.4 3.3 85.8 ± 2.2 3.3 94.8 ± 2.2 10 94.5 ± 3.4 10 95.3 ± 1.3 10 91.3 ± 2.2100 93.5 ± 2.9 100 88.0 ± 2.7 100 95.0 ± 1.6

EC50 = >100% NOEC = 100% LOEC = >100%

EC50 = >100% NOEC = 100% LOEC = >100%

EC50 = >100% NOEC = 100% LOEC = >100%

QA/QC Parameter Criterion This Test Criterion met?Control mean % fertilised eggs >70 % 94.8% Yes Test Temperature limits 20.0 ± 1ºC 20.5ºC Yes Reference Toxicant within cusum chart limits 22.2-77.8µg Cu2+/L 29.8µg Cu2+/L Yes




Toxicity Test Report: TR0413/5 (page 3 of 3) Citations: APHA (1998) Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater. 20th Ed. American Public Health Association, American Water Works Association and the Water Environment Federation, Washington DC, USA. ESA (2008) SOP 104 – Sea Urchin Fertilisation Success Test. Issue No. 8. Ecotox Services Australasia, Sydney, NSW. Simon J and Laginestra E (1997) Bioassay for testing sublethal toxicity in effluents using gametes of the sea urchin Heliocidaris tuberculata. National Pulp Mills Research Program Technical Report No. 20, CSIRO, Canberra, ACT.






client** Details of chemical products used for the preparation of each Stream as well as the method of preparation are provided in the Blue Water JV project brief appended to this report. Test Performed: 96-hr acute (survival) toxicity test using the tiger prawn Penaeus

monodon Test Protocol: ESA SOP 107 (ESA 2008), based on USEPA (1996) and Department

of Transport and Communications (1990) Deviations from Protocol: Nil Comments on Solution Preparation:


Source of Test Organisms: Hatchery-reared, Cairns, QLD Test Initiated: 23 October 2008 at 1600h


Treatment % Survival (Mean ± SD)

Concentration(%)

% Survival (Mean ± SD)

Concentration (%)

% Survival (Mean ± SD)


10 90.0 ± 11.6 10 90.0 ± 11.6 100 80.0 ± 23.1 100 90.0 ± 11.6

96 hr LC50 = >100% NOEC = 100% LOEC = >100%

96 hr LC50 = >100% NOEC = 100% LOEC = >100%


(%) % Survival

(Mean ± SD) Concentration

(%) % Survival

(Mean ± SD) Concentration

(%) % Survival

(Mean ± SD) FSW 36.5‰

control 90.0 ± 11.6 FSW 36.5‰ 90.0 ± 11.6 FSW 36.5‰ 90.0 ± 11.6

1.67 90.0 ± 11.6 1.67 90.0 ± 11.6 1.67 90.0 ± 11.6 3.3 90.0 ± 11.6 3.3 90.0 ± 11.6 3.3 95.0 ± 10.010 95.0 ± 10.0 10 95.0 ± 10.0 10 90.0 ± 11.6 100 85.0 ± 10.0 100 90.0 ± 11.6 100 90.0 ± 11.6

96 hr LC50 = >100% NOEC = 100% LOEC = >100%

96 hr LC50 = >100% NOEC = 100% LOEC = >100%

96 hr LC50 = >100% NOEC = 100% LOEC = >100%

QA/QC Parameter Criterion This Test Criterion met?Control mean % survival >90 % 90.0% Yes Test Temperature limits 25.0 ± 1ºC 25.0-25.5ºC Yes Reference Toxicant within cusum chart limits 3.7-31.8mg SDS/L 6.5mg SDS/L Yes

Test Report Authorised by: Dr Rick Krassoi, Director on 22 December 2008 Results are based on the samples in the condition as received by ESA This document shall not be reproduced except in full Citations: Department of Transport and Communications (1990) Guidelines for Acceptance of Oil Spill Dispersants in Australian Waters. Pollution Prevention Section, Department of Transport and Communications, Canberra ACT. ESA (2008) SOP 107 – Juvenile Tiger Prawn Acute Toxicity Test. Issue No. 3. Ecotox Services Australasia, Sydney, New South Wales. USEPA (1996) Ecological Effects Test Guidelines, OPPTS 850.1045, Penaeid Acute Toxicity Test. Public Draft. United States Environment Protection Agency, Washington DC, USA.


Appendix B: Test Reports and Statistical Print-outs for the Sea Urchin Fertilisation Success Test

Sperm Cell Fertilization Test-Proportion FertilizedStart Date: 06/11/08 16:00 Test ID: PR0413/5 Sample ID: Stream 4End Date: 06/11/08 17:20 Lab ID: 3293 Sample Type: Stream 4Sample Date: Protocol: ESA 104 Test Species: HT-Heliocidaris tuberculataComments:

Conc-% 1 2 3 4FSW 36.5 0.9300 0.9600 0.9100 0.9800

1.67 0.9000 0.8000 0.8100 0.83003.3 0.8500 0.8800 0.8300 0.870010 0.9700 0.9500 0.9400 0.9500

100 0.8700 0.8700 0.8600 0.9200

Transform: Arcsin Square Root 1-Tailed IsotoConc-% Mean N-Mean Mean Min Max CV% N t-Stat Critical MSD Mean

FSW 36.5 0.9450 1.0000 1.3419 1.2661 1.4289 5.371 4 0.9450*1.67 0.8350 0.8836 1.1554 1.1071 1.2490 5.577 4 5.121 2.360 0.0859 0.8817

*3.3 0.8575 0.9074 1.1845 1.1458 1.2171 2.666 4 4.323 2.360 0.0859 0.881710 0.9525 1.0079 1.3527 1.3233 1.3967 2.302 4 -0.296 2.360 0.0859 0.8817

*100 0.8800 0.9312 1.2188 1.1873 1.2840 3.613 4 3.380 2.360 0.0859 0.8800

Auxiliary Tests Statistic Critical SkewShapiro-Wilk's Test indicates normal distribution (p > 0.05) 0.934923 0.905 0.687118Bartlett's Test indicates equal variances (p = 0.54) 3.107647 13.2767Hypothesis Test (1-tail, 0.05) NOEC LOEC ChV TU MSDu MSDp MSB MSE F-ProbDunnett's Test 10 100 31.62278 10 0.044396 0.046806 0.033183 0.002651 1.1E-04Treatments vs FSW 36.5

Log-Logit Interpolation (200 Resamples)Point % SD 95% CL(Exp) SkewIC05* 1.2015IC10 >100IC15 >100IC20 >100IC25 >100IC40 >100IC50 >100* indicates IC estimate less than the lowest concentration

-0.1

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

1 10 100

Dose %

Res

pons

e

Page 1 ToxCalc v5.0.23 Reviewed by:_____


Dose-Response Plot

1-tail, 0.05 levelof significance

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1FS

W 3

6.5

*1.6

7

*3.3 10

*100

Prop

ortio

n Fe

rtili

zed



Auxiliary Data SummaryConc-% Parameter Mean Min Max SD CV% N

FSW 36.5 % Fert 94.50 91.00 98.00 3.11 1.87 41.67 83.50 80.00 90.00 4.51 2.54 4

3.3 85.75 83.00 88.00 2.22 1.74 410 95.25 94.00 97.00 1.26 1.18 4

100 88.00 86.00 92.00 2.71 1.87 4FSW 36.5 Temp C 20.50 20.50 20.50 0.00 0.00 1

1.67 20.50 20.50 20.50 0.00 0.00 13.3 20.50 20.50 20.50 0.00 0.00 110 20.50 20.50 20.50 0.00 0.00 1

100 20.50 20.50 20.50 0.00 0.00 1FSW 36.5 pH 8.10 8.10 8.10 0.00 0.00 1

1.67 8.00 8.00 8.00 0.00 0.00 13.3 8.20 8.20 8.20 0.00 0.00 110 8.20 8.20 8.20 0.00 0.00 1

100 8.00 8.00 8.00 0.00 0.00 1FSW 36.5 Salinity ppt 36.50 36.50 36.50 0.00 0.00 1

1.67 36.80 36.80 36.80 0.00 0.00 13.3 36.80 36.80 36.80 0.00 0.00 110 36.80 36.80 36.80 0.00 0.00 1

100 36.70 36.70 36.70 0.00 0.00 1FSW 36.5 DO %sat 98.80 98.80 98.80 0.00 0.00 1

1.67 97.20 97.20 97.20 0.00 0.00 13.3 97.10 97.10 97.10 0.00 0.00 110 96.10 96.10 96.10 0.00 0.00 1

100 112.00 112.00 112.00 0.00 0.00 1



Conc-% 1 2 3 4FSW 36.5 0.9300 0.9600 0.9100 0.9800

1.67 0.8800 0.8900 0.9600 0.84003.3 0.8200 0.8600 0.9000 0.880010 0.9400 0.9600 0.9000 0.9800

100 0.9600 0.9100 0.9600 0.9100


FSW 36.5 0.9450 1.0000 1.3419 1.2661 1.4289 5.371 4 0.94501.67 0.8925 0.9444 1.2446 1.1593 1.3694 7.151 4 1.949 2.360 0.1177 0.9094*3.3 0.8650 0.9153 1.1965 1.1326 1.2490 4.136 4 2.914 2.360 0.1177 0.9094

10 0.9450 1.0000 1.3427 1.2490 1.4289 5.654 4 -0.016 2.360 0.1177 0.9094100 0.9350 0.9894 1.3178 1.2661 1.3694 4.527 4 0.483 2.360 0.1177 0.9094

Auxiliary Tests Statistic Critical SkewShapiro-Wilk's Test indicates normal distribution (p > 0.05) 0.962698 0.905 0.287523Bartlett's Test indicates equal variances (p = 0.90) 1.034548 13.2767Hypothesis Test (1-tail, 0.05) NOEC LOEC ChV TU MSDu MSDp MSB MSE F-ProbDunnett's Test 100 >100 1 0.063938 0.067409 0.017027 0.004977 0.035411Treatments vs FSW 36.5

Log-Logit Interpolation (200 Resamples)Point % SD 95% CL(Exp) SkewIC05 >100IC10 >100IC15 >100IC20 >100IC25 >100IC40 >100IC50 >100

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

1 10 100

Dose %

Res

pons

e



Dose-Response Plot


0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1FS

W 3

6.5

1.67

*3.3 10 100

Prop

ortio

n Fe

rtili

zed




FSW 36.5 % Fert 94.50 91.00 98.00 3.11 1.87 41.67 89.25 84.00 96.00 4.99 2.50 4

3.3 86.50 82.00 90.00 3.42 2.14 410 94.50 90.00 98.00 3.42 1.96 4

100 93.50 91.00 96.00 2.89 1.82 4FSW 36.5 Temp C 20.50 20.50 20.50 0.00 0.00 1

1.67 20.50 20.50 20.50 0.00 0.00 13.3 20.50 20.50 20.50 0.00 0.00 110 20.50 20.50 20.50 0.00 0.00 1

100 20.50 20.50 20.50 0.00 0.00 1FSW 36.5 pH 8.10 8.10 8.10 0.00 0.00 1

1.67 8.00 8.00 8.00 0.00 0.00 13.3 8.10 8.10 8.10 0.00 0.00 110 8.10 8.10 8.10 0.00 0.00 1

100 8.10 8.10 8.10 0.00 0.00 1FSW 36.5 Salinity ppt 36.50 36.50 36.50 0.00 0.00 1

1.67 36.60 36.60 36.60 0.00 0.00 13.3 36.90 36.90 36.90 0.00 0.00 110 36.80 36.80 36.80 0.00 0.00 1

100 36.70 36.70 36.70 0.00 0.00 1FSW 36.5 DO %sat 98.80 98.80 98.80 0.00 0.00 1

1.67 95.50 95.50 95.50 0.00 0.00 13.3 95.30 95.30 95.30 0.00 0.00 110 95.00 95.00 95.00 0.00 0.00 1

100 106.30 106.30 106.30 0.00 0.00 1



Conc-% 1 2 3 4FSW 36.5 0.9300 0.9600 0.9100 0.9800

1.67 0.9600 0.9200 0.9300 0.92003.3 0.8500 0.8900 0.9200 0.910010 0.9500 0.9100 0.9800 0.9300

100 0.9800 0.9800 0.9700 0.9900


FSW 36.5 0.9450 1.0000 1.3419 1.2661 1.4289 5.371 4 0.94501.67 0.9325 0.9868 1.3101 1.2840 1.3694 3.094 4 0.818 2.360 0.0915 0.9369*3.3 0.8925 0.9444 1.2390 1.1731 1.2840 3.939 4 2.653 2.360 0.0915 0.9369

10 0.9425 0.9974 1.3358 1.2661 1.4289 5.238 4 0.156 2.360 0.0915 0.9369100 0.9800 1.0370 1.4313 1.3967 1.4706 2.117 4 -2.306 2.360 0.0915 0.9369



-0.1

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

1 10 100

Dose %

Res

pons

e



Dose-Response Plot


0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1FS

W 3

6.5

1.67

*3.3 10 100

Prop

ortio

n Fe

rtili

zed




FSW 36.5 % Fert 94.50 91.00 98.00 3.11 1.87 41.67 93.25 92.00 96.00 1.89 1.48 4

3.3 89.25 85.00 92.00 3.10 1.97 410 94.25 91.00 98.00 2.99 1.83 4

100 98.00 97.00 99.00 0.82 0.92 4FSW 36.5 Temp C 20.50 20.50 20.50 0.00 0.00 1

1.67 20.50 20.50 20.50 0.00 0.00 13.3 20.50 20.50 20.50 0.00 0.00 110 20.50 20.50 20.50 0.00 0.00 1

100 20.50 20.50 20.50 0.00 0.00 1FSW 36.5 pH 8.10 8.10 8.10 0.00 0.00 1

1.67 8.10 8.10 8.10 0.00 0.00 13.3 8.10 8.10 8.10 0.00 0.00 110 8.10 8.10 8.10 0.00 0.00 1

100 7.90 7.90 7.90 0.00 0.00 1FSW 36.5 Salinity ppt 36.50 36.50 36.50 0.00 0.00 1

1.67 36.50 36.50 36.50 0.00 0.00 13.3 36.60 36.60 36.60 0.00 0.00 110 36.60 36.60 36.60 0.00 0.00 1

100 36.80 36.80 36.80 0.00 0.00 1FSW 36.5 DO %sat 98.80 98.80 98.80 0.00 0.00 1

1.67 98.30 98.30 98.30 0.00 0.00 13.3 98.80 98.80 98.80 0.00 0.00 110 98.30 98.30 98.30 0.00 0.00 1

100 119.70 119.70 119.70 0.00 0.00 1



Conc-% 1 2 3 4FSW 36.5 0.9300 0.9600 0.9100 0.9800

1.67 0.9400 0.9700 0.9900 0.92003.3 0.9100 0.9500 0.9500 0.930010 0.8900 0.9300 0.9600 0.9800

100 0.9300 0.9300 0.9500 0.9500


FSW 36.5 0.9450 1.0000 1.3419 1.2661 1.4289 5.371 4 0.95001.67 0.9550 1.0106 1.3687 1.2840 1.4706 6.025 4 -0.582 2.360 0.1087 0.9500

3.3 0.9350 0.9894 1.3149 1.2661 1.3453 2.902 4 0.585 2.360 0.1087 0.938310 0.9400 0.9947 1.3335 1.2327 1.4289 6.345 4 0.181 2.360 0.1087 0.9383

100 0.9400 0.9947 1.3242 1.3030 1.3453 1.842 4 0.385 2.360 0.1087 0.9383



-0.1

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

1 10 100

Dose %

Res

pons

e



Dose-Response Plot


0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1FS

W 3

6.5

1.67 3.3 10 100

Prop

ortio

n Fe

rtili

zed




FSW 36.5 % Fert 94.50 91.00 98.00 3.11 1.87 41.67 95.50 92.00 99.00 3.11 1.85 4

3.3 93.50 91.00 95.00 1.91 1.48 410 94.00 89.00 98.00 3.92 2.11 4

100 94.00 93.00 95.00 1.15 1.14 4FSW 36.5 Temp C 20.50 20.50 20.50 0.00 0.00 1

1.67 20.50 20.50 20.50 0.00 0.00 13.3 20.50 20.50 20.50 0.00 0.00 110 20.50 20.50 20.50 0.00 0.00 1

100 20.50 20.50 20.50 0.00 0.00 1FSW 36.5 pH 8.10 8.10 8.10 0.00 0.00 1

1.67 8.10 8.10 8.10 0.00 0.00 13.3 8.10 8.10 8.10 0.00 0.00 110 8.10 8.10 8.10 0.00 0.00 1

100 8.00 8.00 8.00 0.00 0.00 1FSW 36.5 Salinity ppt 36.50 36.50 36.50 0.00 0.00 1

1.67 36.80 36.80 36.80 0.00 0.00 13.3 36.80 36.80 36.80 0.00 0.00 110 36.80 36.80 36.80 0.00 0.00 1

100 37.20 37.20 37.20 0.00 0.00 1FSW 36.5 DO %sat 98.80 98.80 98.80 0.00 0.00 1

1.67 87.60 87.60 87.60 0.00 0.00 13.3 88.70 88.70 88.70 0.00 0.00 110 89.20 89.20 89.20 0.00 0.00 1

100 100.10 100.10 100.10 0.00 0.00 1


Sperm Cell Fertilization Test-Proportion FertilizedStart Date: 06/11/08 16:00 Test ID: PR0413/1 Sample ID: ControlsEnd Date: 06/11/08 17:20 Lab ID: Sample Type: ControlsSample Date: Protocol: ESA 104 Test Species: HT-Heliocidaris tuberculataComments:

Conc-% 1 2 3 4FSW Control 0.9600 0.9000 0.9800 0.9500

FSW 36.5 0.9300 0.9600 0.9100 0.9800FSW 37.2 0.9500 0.8900 0.9100 0.9400

Transform: Arcsin Square Root 1-TailedConc-% Mean N-Mean Mean Min Max CV% N t-Stat Critical MSD

FSW Control 0.9475 1.0000 1.3482 1.2490 1.4289 5.551 4FSW 36.5 0.9450 0.9974 1.3419 1.2661 1.4289 5.371 4 0.133 2.180 0.1033FSW 37.2 0.9225 0.9736 1.2919 1.2327 1.3453 3.998 4 1.189 2.180 0.1033

Auxiliary Tests Statistic Critical SkewShapiro-Wilk's Test indicates normal distribution (p > 0.05) 0.962488 0.859 -0.14298Bartlett's Test indicates equal variances (p = 0.82) 0.39779 9.21034Hypothesis Test (1-tail, 0.05) MSDu MSDp MSB MSE F-ProbDunnett's Test indicates no significant differences 0.053751 0.056505 0.003807 0.004488 0.459708Treatments vs FSW Control

Dose-Response Plot


0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

FSW

Con

trol

FSW

36.

5

FSW

37.

2

Prop

ortio

n Fe

rtili

zed


Sperm Cell Fertilization Test-Proportion FertilizedStart Date: 06/11/08 16:00 Test ID: PR0413/1 Sample ID: ControlsEnd Date: 06/11/08 17:20 Lab ID: Sample Type: ControlsSample Date: Protocol: ESA 104 Test Species: HT-Heliocidaris tuberculataComments:


FSW Control % Fert 94.75 90.00 98.00 3.40 1.95 4FSW 36.5 94.50 91.00 98.00 3.11 1.87 4FSW 37.2 92.25 89.00 95.00 2.75 1.80 4

FSW Control Temp C 20.50 20.50 20.50 0.00 0.00 1FSW 36.5 20.50 20.50 20.50 0.00 0.00 1FSW 37.2 20.50 20.50 20.50 0.00 0.00 1

FSW Control pH 8.20 8.20 8.20 0.00 0.00 1FSW 36.5 8.10 8.10 8.10 0.00 0.00 1FSW 37.2 8.10 8.10 8.10 0.00 0.00 1

FSW Control Salinity ppt 35.90 35.90 35.90 0.00 0.00 1FSW 36.5 36.50 36.50 36.50 0.00 0.00 1FSW 37.2 37.20 37.20 37.20 0.00 0.00 1

FSW Control DO %sat 90.80 90.80 90.80 0.00 0.00 1FSW 36.5 98.80 98.80 98.80 0.00 0.00 1FSW 37.2 98.20 98.20 98.20 0.00 0.00 1



Conc-% 1 2 3 4FSW 36.5 0.9300 0.9600 0.9100 0.9800

1.67 0.9700 0.9300 0.9500 0.98003.3 0.9400 0.9600 0.9700 0.920010 0.9400 0.9200 0.9000 0.8900

100 0.9700 0.9300 0.9500 0.9500


FSW 36.5 0.9450 1.0000 1.3419 1.2661 1.4289 5.371 4 0.95131.67 0.9575 1.0132 1.3685 1.3030 1.4289 4.062 4 -0.715 2.360 0.0878 0.9513

3.3 0.9475 1.0026 1.3434 1.2840 1.3967 3.709 4 -0.041 2.360 0.0878 0.947510 0.9125 0.9656 1.2723 1.2327 1.3233 3.160 4 1.870 2.360 0.0878 0.9313

100 0.9500 1.0053 1.3476 1.3030 1.3967 2.845 4 -0.153 2.360 0.0878 0.9313



-0.1

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

1 10 100

Dose %

Res

pons

e



Dose-Response Plot


0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1FS

W 3

6.5

1.67 3.3 10 100

Prop

ortio

n Fe

rtili

zed




FSW 36.5 % Fert 94.50 91.00 98.00 3.11 1.87 41.67 95.75 93.00 98.00 2.22 1.56 4

3.3 94.75 92.00 97.00 2.22 1.57 410 91.25 89.00 94.00 2.22 1.63 4

100 95.00 93.00 97.00 1.63 1.35 4FSW 36.5 Temp C 20.50 20.50 20.50 0.00 0.00 1

1.67 20.50 20.50 20.50 0.00 0.00 13.3 20.50 20.50 20.50 0.00 0.00 110 20.50 20.50 20.50 0.00 0.00 1

100 20.50 20.50 20.50 0.00 0.00 1FSW 36.5 pH 8.10 8.10 8.10 0.00 0.00 1

1.67 8.20 8.20 8.20 0.00 0.00 13.3 8.20 8.20 8.20 0.00 0.00 110 8.10 8.10 8.10 0.00 0.00 1

100 8.00 8.00 8.00 0.00 0.00 1FSW 36.5 Salinity ppt 36.50 36.50 36.50 0.00 0.00 1

1.67 36.70 36.70 36.70 0.00 0.00 13.3 36.90 36.90 36.90 0.00 0.00 110 36.60 36.60 36.60 0.00 0.00 1

100 37.40 37.40 37.40 0.00 0.00 1FSW 36.5 DO %sat 98.80 98.80 98.80 0.00 0.00 1

1.67 95.10 95.10 95.10 0.00 0.00 13.3 94.90 94.90 94.90 0.00 0.00 110 95.50 95.50 95.50 0.00 0.00 1

100 105.60 105.60 105.60 0.00 0.00 1



Appendix C: Test Reports and Statistical Print-outs for the Sea Urchin Larval Development Test

Sea Urchin Larval Development Test-Proportion NormalStart Date: 22/10/2008 17:45 Test ID: PR0413/03 Sample ID: BLUEWATER S3End Date: 25/10/2008 17:45 Lab ID: 3292 Sample Type: DESAL EFFLUENTSample Date: Protocol: ESA 105 Test Species: HT-Heliocidaris tuberculataComments:

Conc-% 1 2 3 4FSW 0.9700 0.9500 0.9100 0.9400

FSW 36.5 0.9300 0.9100 0.9600 0.92001.7 0.9500 0.9800 0.9100 0.93003.3 0.9200 0.9700 0.9400 0.910010 0.9600 0.9300 0.9000 0.9100

100 0.9800 0.9400 0.9600 0.9200


FSW 0.9425 1.0134 1.3329 1.2661 1.3967 4.059 4FSW 36.5 0.9300 1.0000 1.3057 1.2661 1.3694 3.456 4

1.7 0.9425 1.0134 1.3358 1.2661 1.4289 5.238 4 -0.731 2.360 0.09743.3 0.9350 1.0054 1.3175 1.2661 1.3967 4.397 4 -0.288 2.360 0.097410 0.9250 0.9946 1.2969 1.2490 1.3694 4.113 4 0.212 2.360 0.0974

100 0.9500 1.0215 1.3514 1.2840 1.4289 4.613 4 -1.110 2.360 0.0974

Auxiliary Tests Statistic Critical SkewShapiro-Wilk's Test indicates normal distribution (p > 0.01) 0.906912 0.868 0.557671Bartlett's Test indicates equal variances (p = 0.97) 0.559576 13.2767The control means are not significantly different (p = 0.47) 0.772386 2.446912Hypothesis Test (1-tail, 0.05) NOEC LOEC ChV TU MSDu MSDp MSB MSE F-ProbDunnett's Test 100 >100 1 0.057085 0.061294 0.001973 0.003404 0.682064

Dose-Response Plot


0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

FSW

FSW

36.

5

1.7

3.3 10 100

Prop

ortio

n N

orm

al


Sea Urchin Larval Development Test-Proportion NormalStart Date: 22/10/2008 17:45 Test ID: PR0413/03 Sample ID: BLUEWATER S3End Date: 25/10/2008 17:45 Lab ID: 3292 Sample Type: DESAL EFFLUENTSample Date: Protocol: ESA 105 Test Species: HT-Heliocidaris tuberculataComments:


FSW % Normal 94.25 91.00 97.00 2.50 1.68 4FSW 36.5 93.00 91.00 96.00 2.16 1.58 4

1.7 94.25 91.00 98.00 2.99 1.83 43.3 93.50 91.00 97.00 2.65 1.74 410 92.50 90.00 96.00 2.65 1.76 4

100 95.00 92.00 98.00 2.58 1.69 4FSW Temp C 20.00 20.00 20.00 0.00 0.00 1

FSW 36.5 20.00 20.00 20.00 0.00 0.00 11.7 20.00 20.00 20.00 0.00 0.00 13.3 20.00 20.00 20.00 0.00 0.00 110 20.00 20.00 20.00 0.00 0.00 1

100 20.00 20.00 20.00 0.00 0.00 1FSW pH 8.20 8.20 8.20 0.00 0.00 1

FSW 36.5 8.20 8.20 8.20 0.00 0.00 11.7 8.10 8.10 8.10 0.00 0.00 13.3 8.20 8.20 8.20 0.00 0.00 110 8.20 8.20 8.20 0.00 0.00 1

100 8.20 8.20 8.20 0.00 0.00 1FSW Salinity ppt 35.40 35.40 35.40 0.00 0.00 1

FSW 36.5 36.40 36.40 36.40 0.00 0.00 11.7 36.50 36.50 36.50 0.00 0.00 13.3 36.50 36.50 36.50 0.00 0.00 110 36.50 36.50 36.50 0.00 0.00 1

100 36.80 36.80 36.80 0.00 0.00 1FSW DO % sat 98.80 98.80 98.80 0.00 0.00 1

FSW 36.5 98.10 98.10 98.10 0.00 0.00 11.7 105.00 105.00 105.00 0.00 0.00 13.3 105.00 105.00 105.00 0.00 0.00 110 105.30 105.30 105.30 0.00 0.00 1

100 104.90 104.90 104.90 0.00 0.00 1


Sea Urchin Larval Development Test-Proportion NormalStart Date: 22/10/2008 17:45 Test ID: PR0413/02 Sample ID: Bluwater S2End Date: 25/10/2008 17:45 Lab ID: 3291 Sample Type: Desal EffluentSample Date: Protocol: ESA 105 Test Species: HT-Heliocidaris tuberculataComments:

Conc-% 1 2 3 4FSW 0.9700 0.9500 0.9100 0.9400

FSW 36.5 0.9300 0.9100 0.9600 0.92001.7 0.9800 0.9100 0.9300 0.96003.3 0.9200 0.9500 0.9700 0.910010 0.9800 0.9300 0.9000 0.9400

100 0.9800 0.9600 0.9300 0.9200


FSW 0.9425 1.0134 1.3329 1.2661 1.3967 4.059 4FSW 36.5 0.9300 1.0000 1.3057 1.2661 1.3694 3.456 4

1.7 0.9450 1.0161 1.3419 1.2661 1.4289 5.371 4 -0.793 2.360 0.10773.3 0.9375 1.0081 1.3230 1.2661 1.3967 4.511 4 -0.381 2.360 0.107710 0.9375 1.0081 1.3261 1.2490 1.4289 5.684 4 -0.447 2.360 0.1077

100 0.9475 1.0188 1.3464 1.2840 1.4289 4.909 4 -0.891 2.360 0.1077


Dose-Response Plot


0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

FSW

FSW

36.

5

1.7

3.3 10 100

Prop

ortio

n N

orm

al


Sea Urchin Larval Development Test-Proportion NormalStart Date: 22/10/2008 17:45 Test ID: PR0413/02 Sample ID: Bluwater S2End Date: 25/10/2008 17:45 Lab ID: 3291 Sample Type: Desal EffluentSample Date: Protocol: ESA 105 Test Species: HT-Heliocidaris tuberculataComments:


FSW % Normal 94.25 91.00 97.00 2.50 1.68 4FSW 36.5 93.00 91.00 96.00 2.16 1.58 4

1.7 94.50 91.00 98.00 3.11 1.87 43.3 93.75 91.00 97.00 2.75 1.77 410 93.75 90.00 98.00 3.30 1.94 4

100 94.75 92.00 98.00 2.75 1.75 4FSW Temp C 20.00 20.00 20.00 0.00 0.00 1

FSW 36.5 20.00 20.00 20.00 0.00 0.00 11.7 20.00 20.00 20.00 0.00 0.00 13.3 20.00 20.00 20.00 0.00 0.00 110 20.00 20.00 20.00 0.00 0.00 1

100 20.00 20.00 20.00 0.00 0.00 1FSW pH 8.20 8.20 8.20 0.00 0.00 1

FSW 36.5 8.20 8.20 8.20 0.00 0.00 11.7 8.10 8.10 8.10 0.00 0.00 13.3 8.10 8.10 8.10 0.00 0.00 110 8.10 8.10 8.10 0.00 0.00 1

100 8.10 8.10 8.10 0.00 0.00 1FSW Salinity ppt 35.40 35.40 35.40 0.00 0.00 1

FSW 36.5 36.50 36.50 36.50 0.00 0.00 11.7 36.90 36.90 36.90 0.00 0.00 13.3 36.90 36.90 36.90 0.00 0.00 110 36.90 36.90 36.90 0.00 0.00 1

100 37.10 37.10 37.10 0.00 0.00 1FSW DO % sat 98.80 98.80 98.80 0.00 0.00 1

FSW 36.5 98.10 98.10 98.10 0.00 0.00 11.7 100.10 100.10 100.10 0.00 0.00 13.3 99.90 99.90 99.90 0.00 0.00 110 99.10 99.10 99.10 0.00 0.00 1

100 100.30 100.30 100.30 0.00 0.00 1


Sea Urchin Larval Development Test-Proportion NormalStart Date: 22/10/2008 17:45 Test ID: PR0413/01 Sample ID: BLUEWATER S1End Date: 25/10/2008 17:45 Lab ID: 3290 Sample Type: DESAL EFFLLUENTSample Date: Protocol: ESA 105 Test Species: HT-Heliocidaris tuberculataComments:

Conc-% 1 2 3 4FSW 0.9700 0.9500 0.9100 0.9400

FSW 36.5 0.9300 0.9100 0.9600 0.92001.7 0.9100 0.9600 0.9300 0.92003.3 0.9700 0.9500 0.9100 0.980010 0.9200 0.9700 0.9400 0.9100

100 0.9600 0.9300 0.9000 0.9400


FSW 0.9425 1.0134 1.3329 1.2661 1.3967 4.059 4FSW 36.5 0.9300 1.0000 1.3057 1.2661 1.3694 3.456 4

1.7 0.9300 1.0000 1.3057 1.2661 1.3694 3.456 4 0.000 2.360 0.09133.3 0.9525 1.0242 1.3592 1.2661 1.4289 5.224 4 -1.386 2.360 0.091310 0.9350 1.0054 1.3175 1.2661 1.3967 4.397 4 -0.307 2.360 0.0913

100 0.9325 1.0027 1.3112 1.2490 1.3694 3.805 4 -0.144 2.360 0.0913


Dose-Response Plot


0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

FSW

FSW

36.

5

1.7

3.3 10 100

Prop

ortio

n N

orm

al


Sea Urchin Larval Development Test-Proportion NormalStart Date: 22/10/2008 17:45 Test ID: PR0413/01 Sample ID: BLUEWATER S1End Date: 25/10/2008 17:45 Lab ID: 3290 Sample Type: DESAL EFFLLUENTSample Date: Protocol: ESA 105 Test Species: HT-Heliocidaris tuberculataComments:


FSW % Normal 94.25 91.00 97.00 2.50 1.68 4FSW 36.5 93.00 91.00 96.00 2.16 1.58 4

1.7 93.00 91.00 96.00 2.16 1.58 43.3 95.25 91.00 98.00 3.10 1.85 410 93.50 91.00 97.00 2.65 1.74 4

100 93.25 90.00 96.00 2.50 1.70 4FSW Temp C 20.00 20.00 20.00 0.00 0.00 1

FSW 36.5 20.00 20.00 20.00 0.00 0.00 11.7 20.00 20.00 20.00 0.00 0.00 13.3 20.00 20.00 20.00 0.00 0.00 110 20.00 20.00 20.00 0.00 0.00 1

100 20.00 20.00 20.00 0.00 0.00 1FSW pH 8.20 8.20 8.20 0.00 0.00 1

FSW 36.5 8.20 8.20 8.20 0.00 0.00 11.7 8.10 8.10 8.10 0.00 0.00 13.3 8.10 8.10 8.10 0.00 0.00 110 8.10 8.10 8.10 0.00 0.00 1

100 8.10 8.10 8.10 0.00 0.00 1FSW Salinity ppt 35.40 35.40 35.40 0.00 0.00 1

FSW 36.5 36.40 36.40 36.40 0.00 0.00 11.7 36.90 36.90 36.90 0.00 0.00 13.3 36.90 36.90 36.90 0.00 0.00 110 36.90 36.90 36.90 0.00 0.00 1

100 37.90 37.90 37.90 0.00 0.00 1FSW DO % sat 98.80 98.80 98.80 0.00 0.00 1

FSW 36.5 98.10 98.10 98.10 0.00 0.00 11.7 99.70 99.70 99.70 0.00 0.00 13.3 98.90 98.90 98.90 0.00 0.00 110 99.50 99.50 99.50 0.00 0.00 1

100 99.60 99.60 99.60 0.00 0.00 1


Sea Urchin Larval Development Test-Proportion NormalStart Date: 22/10/2008 17:45 Test ID: PR0413/00 Sample ID: FSW CONTROLSEnd Date: 25/10/2008 17:45 Lab ID: Sample Type: FSWSample Date: Protocol: ESA 105 Test Species: HT-Heliocidaris tuberculataComments: Salinity adjusted Controls

Conc-% 1 2 3 4FSW Control 0.9700 0.9500 0.9100 0.9400

FSW 36.5 0.9300 0.9100 0.9600 0.9200FSW 37.2 0.9300 0.9800 0.9200 0.9500


FSW Control 0.9425 1.0000 1.3329 1.2661 1.3967 4.059 4FSW 36.5 0.9300 0.9867 1.3057 1.2661 1.3694 3.456 4 0.698 2.180 0.0849FSW 37.2 0.9450 1.0027 1.3403 1.2840 1.4289 4.802 4 -0.191 2.180 0.0849

Auxiliary Tests Statistic Critical SkewShapiro-Wilk's Test indicates normal distribution (p > 0.01) 0.934755 0.805 0.543773Bartlett's Test indicates equal variances (p = 0.85) 0.325692 9.21034Hypothesis Test (1-tail, 0.05) MSDu MSDp MSB MSE F-ProbDunnett's Test indicates no significant differences 0.045112 0.047766 0.001331 0.003035 0.657983

Dose-Response Plot


0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

FSW

Con

trol

FSW

36.

5

FSW

37.

2

Prop

ortio

n N

orm

al


Sea Urchin Larval Development Test-Proportion NormalStart Date: 22/10/2008 17:45 Test ID: PR0413/00 Sample ID: FSW CONTROLSEnd Date: 25/10/2008 17:45 Lab ID: Sample Type: FSWSample Date: Protocol: ESA 105 Test Species: HT-Heliocidaris tuberculataComments: Salinity adjusted Controls


FSW Control % Normal/Alive 94.25 91.00 97.00 2.50 1.68 4FSW 36.5 93.00 91.00 96.00 2.16 1.58 4FSW 37.2 94.50 92.00 98.00 2.65 1.72 4




FSW Control DO % sat 98.80 98.80 98.80 0.00 0.00 1FSW 36.5 98.10 98.10 98.10 0.00 0.00 1FSW 37.2 98.90 98.90 98.90 0.00 0.00 1


Sea Urchin Larval Development Test-Proportion NormalStart Date: 22/10/2008 17:45 Test ID: PR0413/06 Sample ID: Bluewater S5End Date: 25/10/2008 17:45 Lab ID: 3294 Sample Type: Desal EffluentSample Date: Protocol: ESA 105 Test Species: HT-Heliocidaris tuberculataComments:

Conc-% 1 2 3 4FSW 0.9700 0.9500 0.9100 0.9400

FSW 36.5 0.9300 0.9100 0.9600 0.92001.7 0.9500 0.9800 0.9200 0.91003.3 0.9300 0.9000 0.9600 0.970010 0.9100 0.9500 0.9300 0.9000

100 0.9200 0.9700 0.9300 0.9400


FSW 0.9425 1.0134 1.3329 1.2661 1.3967 4.059 4FSW 36.5 0.9300 1.0000 1.3057 1.2661 1.3694 3.456 4

1.7 0.9400 1.0108 1.3311 1.2661 1.4289 5.522 4 -0.633 2.360 0.09483.3 0.9400 1.0108 1.3296 1.2490 1.3967 5.005 4 -0.595 2.360 0.094810 0.9225 0.9919 1.2909 1.2490 1.3453 3.308 4 0.368 2.360 0.0948

100 0.9400 1.0108 1.3268 1.2840 1.3967 3.716 4 -0.526 2.360 0.0948


Dose-Response Plot


0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

FSW

FSW

36.

5

1.7

3.3 10 100

Prop

ortio

n N

orm

al


Sea Urchin Larval Development Test-Proportion NormalStart Date: 22/10/2008 17:45 Test ID: PR0413/06 Sample ID: Bluewater S5End Date: 25/10/2008 17:45 Lab ID: 3294 Sample Type: Desal EffluentSample Date: Protocol: ESA 105 Test Species: HT-Heliocidaris tuberculataComments:


FSW % Normal 94.25 91.00 97.00 2.50 1.68 4FSW 36.5 93.00 91.00 96.00 2.16 1.58 4

1.7 94.00 91.00 98.00 3.16 1.89 43.3 94.00 90.00 97.00 3.16 1.89 410 92.25 90.00 95.00 2.22 1.61 4

100 94.00 92.00 97.00 2.16 1.56 4FSW Temp C 20.00 20.00 20.00 0.00 0.00 1

FSW 36.5 20.00 20.00 20.00 0.00 0.00 11.7 20.00 20.00 20.00 0.00 0.00 13.3 20.00 20.00 20.00 0.00 0.00 110 20.00 20.00 20.00 0.00 0.00 1

100 20.00 20.00 20.00 0.00 0.00 1FSW pH 8.20 8.20 8.20 0.00 0.00 1

FSW 36.5 8.20 8.20 8.20 0.00 0.00 11.7 8.10 8.10 8.10 0.00 0.00 13.3 8.10 8.10 8.10 0.00 0.00 110 8.20 8.20 8.20 0.00 0.00 1

100 8.20 8.20 8.20 0.00 0.00 1FSW Salinity ppt 35.40 35.40 35.40 0.00 0.00 1

FSW 36.5 36.40 36.40 36.40 0.00 0.00 11.7 36.70 36.70 36.70 0.00 0.00 13.3 36.50 36.50 36.50 0.00 0.00 110 36.80 36.80 36.80 0.00 0.00 1

100 37.50 37.50 37.50 0.00 0.00 1FSW DO % sat 98.80 98.80 98.80 0.00 0.00 1

FSW 36.5 98.10 98.10 98.10 0.00 0.00 11.7 102.50 102.50 102.50 0.00 0.00 13.3 102.70 102.70 102.70 0.00 0.00 110 102.10 102.10 102.10 0.00 0.00 1

100 102.80 102.80 102.80 0.00 0.00 1



Appendix D: Test Reports and Statistical Print-outs for the Rock

Oyster Larval Development Test

Bivalve Larval Survival and Development Test-Proportion Alive/NormalStart Date: 22/10/2008 17:45 Test ID: PR0413/11 Sample ID: BLUEWATER S4End Date: 24/10/2008 17:45 Lab ID: 3293 Sample Type: Desal EffluentSample Date: Protocol: ESA 106 Test Species: SR-Saccostrea commercialisComments:

Conc-% 1 2 3 4FSW 0.7209 0.8140 0.7674 0.8140

FSW 36.5 0.8837 0.8140 0.6977 0.79071.7 0.7907 0.9302 0.8140 0.81403.3 0.8372 0.8372 0.7907 0.697710 0.7442 0.6744 0.6977 0.7907

100 0.6977 0.7209 0.7442 0.8837


FSW 0.7791 0.9781 1.0829 1.0142 1.1248 4.906 4FSW 36.5 0.7965 1.0000 1.1080 0.9886 1.2228 8.699 4

1.7 0.8372 1.0511 1.1622 1.0956 1.3035 8.191 4 -0.865 2.360 0.14793.3 0.7907 0.9927 1.0988 0.9886 1.1555 7.161 4 0.146 2.360 0.147910 0.7267 0.9124 1.0221 0.9636 1.0956 5.730 4 1.371 2.360 0.1479

100 0.7616 0.9562 1.0665 0.9886 1.2228 9.968 4 0.661 2.360 0.1479


Dose-Response Plot


0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

FSW

FSW

36.

5

1.7

3.3 10 100

Prop

ortio

n A

live/

Nor

mal




FSW % Alive/Normal 77.91 72.09 81.40 4.45 2.71 4FSW 36.5 79.65 69.77 88.37 7.68 3.48 4

1.7 83.72 79.07 93.02 6.30 3.00 43.3 79.07 69.77 83.72 6.58 3.24 410 72.67 67.44 79.07 5.16 3.12 4

100 76.16 69.77 88.37 8.36 3.80 4FSW Temp C 25.00 25.00 25.00 0.00 0.00 1

FSW 36.5 25.00 25.00 25.00 0.00 0.00 11.7 25.00 25.00 25.00 0.00 0.00 13.3 25.00 25.00 25.00 0.00 0.00 110 25.00 25.00 25.00 0.00 0.00 1

100 25.00 25.00 25.00 0.00 0.00 1FSW pH 8.20 8.20 8.20 0.00 0.00 1

FSW 36.5 8.20 8.20 8.20 0.00 0.00 11.7 8.10 8.10 8.10 0.00 0.00 13.3 8.10 8.10 8.10 0.00 0.00 110 8.10 8.10 8.10 0.00 0.00 1

100 8.10 8.10 8.10 0.00 0.00 1FSW Salinity ppt 35.40 35.40 35.40 0.00 0.00 1

FSW 36.5 36.40 36.40 36.40 0.00 0.00 11.7 36.70 36.70 36.70 0.00 0.00 13.3 36.70 36.70 36.70 0.00 0.00 110 36.70 36.70 36.70 0.00 0.00 1

100 37.10 37.10 37.10 0.00 0.00 1FSW DO % sat 98.80 98.80 98.80 0.00 0.00 1

FSW 36.5 98.10 98.10 98.10 0.00 0.00 11.7 101.80 101.80 101.80 0.00 0.00 13.3 100.60 100.60 100.60 0.00 0.00 110 101.00 101.00 101.00 0.00 0.00 1

100 102.60 102.60 102.60 0.00 0.00 1



Conc-% 1 2 3 4FSW 0.7209 0.8140 0.7674 0.8140

FSW 36.5 0.8837 0.8140 0.6977 0.79071.7 0.7907 0.6744 0.7209 0.97673.3 0.8837 0.6977 0.7674 0.790710 0.8837 0.9070 0.8372 0.8140

100 0.8372 0.8140 0.7442 0.7907


FSW 0.7791 0.9781 1.0829 1.0142 1.1248 4.906 4FSW 36.5 0.7965 1.0000 1.1080 0.9886 1.2228 8.699 4

1.7 0.7907 0.9927 1.1228 0.9636 1.4177 18.169 4 -0.181 2.360 0.19263.3 0.7849 0.9854 1.0937 0.9886 1.2228 8.896 4 0.175 2.360 0.192610 0.8605 1.0803 1.1910 1.1248 1.2609 5.206 4 -1.017 2.360 0.1926

100 0.7965 1.0000 1.1041 1.0405 1.1555 4.433 4 0.047 2.360 0.1926


Dose-Response Plot


0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

FSW

FSW

36.

5

1.7

3.3 10 100

Prop

ortio

n A

live/

Nor

mal





1.7 79.07 67.44 97.67 13.29 4.61 43.3 78.49 69.77 88.37 7.68 3.53 410 86.05 81.40 90.70 4.25 2.39 4

100 79.65 74.42 83.72 3.97 2.50 4FSW Temp C 25.00 25.00 25.00 0.00 0.00 1

FSW 36.5 25.00 25.00 25.00 0.00 0.00 11.7 25.00 25.00 25.00 0.00 0.00 13.3 25.00 25.00 25.00 0.00 0.00 110 25.00 25.00 25.00 0.00 0.00 1

100 25.00 25.00 25.00 0.00 0.00 1FSW pH 8.20 8.20 8.20 0.00 0.00 1

FSW 36.5 8.20 8.20 8.20 0.00 0.00 11.7 8.10 8.10 8.10 0.00 0.00 13.3 8.20 8.20 8.20 0.00 0.00 110 8.20 8.20 8.20 0.00 0.00 1

100 8.20 8.20 8.20 0.00 0.00 1FSW Salinity ppt 35.40 35.40 35.40 0.00 0.00 1

FSW 36.5 36.40 36.40 36.40 0.00 0.00 11.7 36.50 36.50 36.50 0.00 0.00 13.3 36.50 36.50 36.50 0.00 0.00 110 36.50 36.50 36.50 0.00 0.00 1

100 36.80 36.80 36.80 0.00 0.00 1FSW DO % sat 98.80 98.80 98.80 0.00 0.00 1

FSW 36.5 98.10 98.10 98.10 0.00 0.00 11.7 105.00 105.00 105.00 0.00 0.00 13.3 105.00 105.00 105.00 0.00 0.00 110 105.30 105.30 105.30 0.00 0.00 1

100 104.90 104.90 104.90 0.00 0.00 1



Conc-% 1 2 3 4FSW 0.7209 0.8140 0.7674 0.8140

FSW 36.5 0.8837 0.8140 0.6977 0.79071.7 0.7907 0.7442 0.7907 0.72093.3 0.6744 0.6977 0.7674 0.790710 0.9070 0.8372 0.9535 0.8140

100 0.8837 0.9070 0.9535 0.8140


FSW 0.7791 0.9781 1.0829 1.0142 1.1248 4.906 4FSW 36.5 0.7965 1.0000 1.1080 0.9886 1.2228 8.699 4

1.7 0.7616 0.9562 1.0615 1.0142 1.0956 3.847 4 0.789 2.360 0.13913.3 0.7326 0.9197 1.0288 0.9636 1.0956 6.106 4 1.343 2.360 0.139110 0.8779 1.1022 1.2236 1.1248 1.3534 8.524 4 -1.963 2.360 0.1391

100 0.8895 1.1168 1.2405 1.1248 1.3534 7.628 4 -2.248 2.360 0.1391


Dose-Response Plot


0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

FSW

FSW

36.

5

1.7

3.3 10 100

Prop

ortio

n A

live/

Nor

mal





1.7 76.16 72.09 79.07 3.49 2.45 43.3 73.26 67.44 79.07 5.54 3.21 410 87.79 81.40 95.35 6.40 2.88 4

100 88.95 81.40 95.35 5.81 2.71 4FSW Temp C 25.00 25.00 25.00 0.00 0.00 1

FSW 36.5 25.00 25.00 25.00 0.00 0.00 11.7 25.00 25.00 25.00 0.00 0.00 13.3 25.00 25.00 25.00 0.00 0.00 110 25.00 25.00 25.00 0.00 0.00 1

100 25.00 25.00 25.00 0.00 0.00 1FSW pH 8.20 8.20 8.20 0.00 0.00 1

FSW 36.5 8.20 8.20 8.20 0.00 0.00 11.7 8.10 8.10 8.10 0.00 0.00 13.3 8.10 8.10 8.10 0.00 0.00 110 8.10 8.10 8.10 0.00 0.00 1

100 8.10 8.10 8.10 0.00 0.00 1FSW Salinity ppt 35.40 35.40 35.40 0.00 0.00 1

FSW 36.5 36.40 36.40 36.40 0.00 0.00 11.7 36.90 36.90 36.90 0.00 0.00 13.3 36.90 36.90 36.90 0.00 0.00 110 36.90 36.90 36.90 0.00 0.00 1

100 37.10 37.10 37.10 0.00 0.00 1FSW DO % sat 98.80 98.80 98.80 0.00 0.00 1

FSW 36.5 98.10 98.10 98.10 0.00 0.00 11.7 100.10 100.10 100.10 0.00 0.00 13.3 99.90 99.90 99.90 0.00 0.00 110 99.10 99.10 99.10 0.00 0.00 1

100 100.30 100.30 100.30 0.00 0.00 1


Pos ID No Group%

Alive/Normal Temp C pH Salinity ppt DO % sat1 1 FSW 72 25 8.2 35.4 98.82 2 FSW 813 3 FSW 774 4 FSW 815 1 FSW 36.5 88 25 8.2 36.4 98.16 2 FSW 36.5 817 3 FSW 36.5 708 4 FSW 36.5 799 1 1.700 84 25 8.1 36.9 99.7

10 2 1.700 7911 3 1.700 7712 4 1.700 6713 1 3.300 72 25 8.1 36.9 98.914 2 3.300 7015 3 3.300 7916 4 3.300 9117 1 10.000 81 25 8.1 36.9 99.518 2 10.000 7419 3 10.000 7920 4 10.000 7021 1 100.000 72 25 8.1 37.9 99.622 2 100.000 8423 3 100.000 7424 4 100.000 81

Page 1

Bivalve Larval Survival and Development Test-Proportion Alive/NormalStart Date: 22/10/2008 17:45 Test ID: PR0413/28 Sample ID: FSW ControlsEnd Date: 24/10/2008 17:45 Lab ID: Sample Type: FSWSample Date: Protocol: ESA 106 Test Species: SR-Saccostrea commercialisComments:

Conc-% 1 2 3 4FSW 0.7209 0.8140 0.7674 0.8140

FSW 36.5 0.8837 0.8140 0.6977 0.7907FSW 37.2 0.8605 0.7907 0.8837 0.8372


FSW 0.7791 1.0000 1.0829 1.0142 1.1248 4.906 4FSW 36.5 0.7965 1.0224 1.1080 0.9886 1.2228 8.699 4 -0.501 2.180 0.1091FSW 37.2 0.8430 1.0821 1.1655 1.0956 1.2228 4.640 4 -1.650 2.180 0.1091

Auxiliary Tests Statistic Critical SkewShapiro-Wilk's Test indicates normal distribution (p > 0.01) 0.973681 0.805 -0.20912Bartlett's Test indicates equal variances (p = 0.52) 1.296327 9.21034Hypothesis Test (1-tail, 0.05) MSDu MSDp MSB MSE F-ProbDunnett's Test indicates no significant differences 0.096315 0.123445 0.007173 0.005012 0.288616

Dose-Response Plot


0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

FSW

FSW

36.

5

FSW

37.

2

Prop

ortio

n A

live/

Nor

mal


Bivalve Larval Survival and Development Test-Proportion Alive/NormalStart Date: 22/10/2008 17:45 Test ID: PR0413/28 Sample ID: FSW ControlsEnd Date: 24/10/2008 17:45 Lab ID: Sample Type: FSWSample Date: Protocol: ESA 106 Test Species: SR-Saccostrea commercialisComments:


FSW % Alive/Normal 77.91 72.09 81.40 4.45 2.71 4FSW 36.5 79.65 69.77 88.37 7.68 3.48 4FSW 37.2 84.30 79.07 88.37 3.97 2.36 4

FSW Temp C 25.00 25.00 25.00 0.00 0.00 1FSW 36.5 25.00 25.00 25.00 0.00 0.00 1FSW 37.2 25.00 25.00 25.00 0.00 0.00 1

FSW pH 8.20 8.20 8.20 0.00 0.00 1FSW 36.5 8.20 8.20 8.20 0.00 0.00 1FSW 37.2 8.10 8.10 8.10 0.00 0.00 1

FSW Salinity ppt 35.40 35.40 35.40 0.00 0.00 1FSW 36.5 36.40 36.40 36.40 0.00 0.00 1FSW 37.2 37.30 37.30 37.30 0.00 0.00 1

FSW DO % sat 98.80 98.80 98.80 0.00 0.00 1FSW 36.5 98.10 98.10 98.10 0.00 0.00 1FSW 37.2 98.90 98.90 98.90 0.00 0.00 1


Sample Concentration Initial Density Final Density No Normal % Survival Mean SD % Normal Mean SD %Surv/Normal Mean SDFSW 43 34 31 79.07 91.18 72.09FSW 43 39 35 90.70 89.74 81.40FSW 43 38 33 88.37 86.84 76.74FSW 43 39 35 90.70 87.21 5.54 89.74 89.38 1.82 81.40 77.91 4.45FSW 36.5 43 41 38 95.35 92.68 88.37FSW 36.5 43 38 35 88.37 92.11 81.40FSW 36.5 43 33 30 76.74 90.91 69.77FSW 36.5 43 36 34 83.72 86.05 7.83 94.44 92.54 1.47 79.07 79.65 7.68FSW 37.2 43 41 37 95.35 90.24 86.05FSW 37.2 43 36 34 83.72 94.44 79.07FSW 37.2 43 42 38 97.67 90.48 88.37FSW 37.2 43 40 36 93.02 92.44 6.12 90.00 91.29 2.11 83.72 84.30 3.97


Conc-% 1 2 3 4FSW 0.7209 0.8140 0.7674 0.8140

FSW 36.5 0.8837 0.8140 0.6977 0.79071.7 0.8140 0.9070 0.8372 0.86053.3 0.9535 0.8372 0.7442 0.790710 0.6977 0.7442 0.8837 0.6977

100 0.7674 0.7907 0.8372 0.7907


FSW 0.7791 0.9781 1.0829 1.0142 1.1248 4.906 4FSW 36.5 0.7965 1.0000 1.1080 0.9886 1.2228 8.699 4

1.7 0.8547 1.0730 1.1823 1.1248 1.2609 4.938 4 -1.107 2.360 0.15843.3 0.8314 1.0438 1.1613 1.0405 1.3534 11.749 4 -0.794 2.360 0.158410 0.7558 0.9489 1.0601 0.9886 1.2228 10.487 4 0.713 2.360 0.1584

100 0.7965 1.0000 1.1036 1.0676 1.1555 3.357 4 0.065 2.360 0.1584


Dose-Response Plot


0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

FSW

FSW

36.

5

1.7

3.3 10 100

Prop

ortio

n A

live/

Nor

mal





1.7 85.47 81.40 90.70 3.97 2.33 43.3 83.14 74.42 95.35 8.98 3.60 410 75.58 69.77 88.37 8.80 3.93 4

100 79.65 76.74 83.72 2.93 2.15 4FSW Temp C 25.00 25.00 25.00 0.00 0.00 1

FSW 36.5 25.00 25.00 25.00 0.00 0.00 11.7 25.00 25.00 25.00 0.00 0.00 13.3 25.00 25.00 25.00 0.00 0.00 110 25.00 25.00 25.00 0.00 0.00 1

100 25.00 25.00 25.00 0.00 0.00 1FSW pH 8.20 8.20 8.20 0.00 0.00 1

FSW 36.5 8.20 8.20 8.20 0.00 0.00 11.7 8.10 8.10 8.10 0.00 0.00 13.3 8.10 8.10 8.10 0.00 0.00 110 8.20 8.20 8.20 0.00 0.00 1

100 8.20 8.20 8.20 0.00 0.00 1FSW Salinity ppt 35.40 35.40 35.40 0.00 0.00 1

FSW 36.5 36.40 36.40 36.40 0.00 0.00 11.7 36.70 36.70 36.70 0.00 0.00 13.3 36.50 36.50 36.50 0.00 0.00 110 36.30 36.30 36.30 0.00 0.00 1

100 37.50 37.50 37.50 0.00 0.00 1FSW DO % sat 98.80 98.80 98.80 0.00 0.00 1

FSW 36.5 98.10 98.10 98.10 0.00 0.00 11.7 102.50 102.50 102.50 0.00 0.00 13.3 102.70 102.70 102.70 0.00 0.00 110 102.10 102.10 102.10 0.00 0.00 1

100 102.80 102.80 102.80 0.00 0.00 1



Appendix E: Test Reports and Statistical Print-outs for the

Hormosira Germination Success Test

Macroalgal Germination Test-GerminationStart Date: 24/10/2008 13:00 Test ID: PR0413/25 Sample ID: Bluewater S4End Date: 27/10/2008 13:00 Lab ID: 3293 Sample Type: Desal EffluentSample Date: Protocol: ESA 116 Test Species: HB-Hormosira banksiiComments:

Conc-% 1 2 3 4FSW 0.9300 0.9300 0.9400 0.9400

FSW 36.5 0.9500 0.9200 0.9800 0.94001.6 0.9300 0.9200 0.9200 0.97003.3 0.9500 0.9200 0.8800 0.960010 0.9300 0.7800 0.9000 0.9500

100 0.9100 0.8800 0.9000 0.9500


FSW 0.9350 0.9868 1.3132 1.3030 1.3233 0.892 4FSW 36.5 0.9475 1.0000 1.3454 1.2840 1.4289 4.546 4

1.6 0.9350 0.9868 1.3170 1.2840 1.3967 4.094 4 0.542 2.360 0.12393.3 0.9275 0.9789 1.3040 1.2171 1.3694 5.228 4 0.789 2.360 0.123910 0.8900 0.9393 1.2450 1.0826 1.3453 9.254 4 1.913 2.360 0.1239

100 0.9100 0.9604 1.2694 1.2171 1.3453 4.297 4 1.448 2.360 0.1239

Auxiliary Tests Statistic Critical SkewShapiro-Wilk's Test indicates normal distribution (p > 0.01) 0.947914 0.868 -0.47532Bartlett's Test indicates equal variances (p = 0.65) 2.469119 13.2767The control means are not significantly different (p = 0.34) 1.03426 2.446912Hypothesis Test (1-tail, 0.05) NOEC LOEC ChV TU MSDu MSDp MSB MSE F-ProbDunnett's Test 100 >100 1 0.067153 0.070684 0.006253 0.005509 0.37747

Dose-Response Plot


0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

FSW

FSW

36.

5

1.6

3.3 10 100

Ger

min

atio

n




FSW % Germinated 93.50 93.00 94.00 0.58 0.81 4FSW 36.5 94.75 92.00 98.00 2.50 1.67 4

1.6 93.50 92.00 97.00 2.38 1.65 43.3 92.75 88.00 96.00 3.59 2.04 410 89.00 78.00 95.00 7.62 3.10 4

100 91.00 88.00 95.00 2.94 1.89 4FSW Temp C 18.00 18.00 18.00 0.00 0.00 1

FSW 36.5 18.00 18.00 18.00 0.00 0.00 11.6 18.00 18.00 18.00 0.00 0.00 13.3 18.00 18.00 18.00 0.00 0.00 110 18.00 18.00 18.00 0.00 0.00 1

100 18.00 18.00 18.00 0.00 0.00 1FSW pH 8.30 8.30 8.30 0.00 0.00 1

FSW 36.5 8.20 8.20 8.20 0.00 0.00 11.6 8.20 8.20 8.20 0.00 0.00 13.3 8.20 8.20 8.20 0.00 0.00 110 8.20 8.20 8.20 0.00 0.00 1

100 8.20 8.20 8.20 0.00 0.00 1FSW Salinity ppt 35.70 35.70 35.70 0.00 0.00 1

FSW 36.5 36.60 36.60 36.60 0.00 0.00 11.6 36.50 36.50 36.50 0.00 0.00 13.3 36.50 36.50 36.50 0.00 0.00 110 36.50 36.50 36.50 0.00 0.00 1

100 36.40 36.40 36.40 0.00 0.00 1FSW DO % sat 98.30 98.30 98.30 0.00 0.00 1

FSW 36.5 95.20 95.20 95.20 0.00 0.00 11.6 98.00 98.00 98.00 0.00 0.00 13.3 95.30 95.30 95.30 0.00 0.00 110 93.70 93.70 93.70 0.00 0.00 1

100 98.80 98.80 98.80 0.00 0.00 1



Conc-% 1 2 3 4FSW 0.9300 0.9300 0.9400 0.9400

FSW 36.5 0.9500 0.9200 0.9800 0.94001.6 0.9100 0.9400 0.9100 0.95003.3 0.9600 0.9500 0.9700 0.920010 0.9700 0.9100 0.9300 0.9500

100 0.9200 0.9500 0.9400 0.9600


FSW 0.9350 0.9868 1.3132 1.3030 1.3233 0.892 4FSW 36.5 0.9475 1.0000 1.3454 1.2840 1.4289 4.546 4

1.6 0.9275 0.9789 1.3002 1.2661 1.3453 3.106 4 1.296 2.360 0.08233.3 0.9500 1.0026 1.3489 1.2840 1.3967 3.563 4 -0.100 2.360 0.082310 0.9400 0.9921 1.3278 1.2661 1.3967 4.232 4 0.505 2.360 0.0823

100 0.9425 0.9947 1.3305 1.2840 1.3694 2.725 4 0.426 2.360 0.0823


Dose-Response Plot


0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

FSW

FSW

36.

5

1.6

3.3 10 100

Ger

min

atio

n





1.6 92.75 91.00 95.00 2.06 1.55 43.3 95.00 92.00 97.00 2.16 1.55 410 94.00 91.00 97.00 2.58 1.71 4

100 94.25 92.00 96.00 1.71 1.39 4FSW Temp C 18.00 18.00 18.00 0.00 0.00 1

FSW 36.5 18.00 18.00 18.00 0.00 0.00 11.6 18.00 18.00 18.00 0.00 0.00 13.3 18.00 18.00 18.00 0.00 0.00 110 18.00 18.00 18.00 0.00 0.00 1

100 18.00 18.00 18.00 0.00 0.00 1FSW pH 8.30 8.30 8.30 0.00 0.00 1

FSW 36.5 8.20 8.20 8.20 0.00 0.00 11.6 8.20 8.20 8.20 0.00 0.00 13.3 8.20 8.20 8.20 0.00 0.00 110 8.20 8.20 8.20 0.00 0.00 1

100 8.20 8.20 8.20 0.00 0.00 1FSW Salinity ppt 35.70 35.70 35.70 0.00 0.00 1

FSW 36.5 36.60 36.60 36.60 0.00 0.00 11.6 36.40 36.40 36.40 0.00 0.00 13.3 36.40 36.40 36.40 0.00 0.00 110 36.40 36.40 36.40 0.00 0.00 1

100 36.70 36.70 36.70 0.00 0.00 1FSW DO % sat 98.30 98.30 98.30 0.00 0.00 1

FSW 36.5 95.20 95.20 95.20 0.00 0.00 11.6 94.60 94.60 94.60 0.00 0.00 13.3 94.80 94.80 94.80 0.00 0.00 110 93.20 93.20 93.20 0.00 0.00 1

100 98.00 98.00 98.00 0.00 0.00 1



Conc-% 1 2 3 4FSW 0.9300 0.9300 0.9400 0.9400

FSW 36.5 0.9500 0.9200 0.9800 0.94001.6 0.9400 0.8700 0.9300 0.90003.3 0.8900 0.9500 0.9000 0.970010 0.9200 0.9300 0.9100 0.9000

100 0.9800 0.9400 0.9600 0.9700


FSW 0.9350 0.9868 1.3132 1.3030 1.3233 0.892 4FSW 36.5 0.9475 1.0000 1.3454 1.2840 1.4289 4.546 4

1.6 0.9100 0.9604 1.2693 1.2019 1.3233 4.316 4 1.937 2.360 0.09263.3 0.9275 0.9789 1.3059 1.2327 1.3967 5.994 4 1.005 2.360 0.092610 0.9150 0.9657 1.2756 1.2490 1.3030 1.821 4 1.779 2.360 0.0926

100 0.9625 1.0158 1.3796 1.3233 1.4289 3.240 4 -0.871 2.360 0.0926


Dose-Response Plot


0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

FSW

FSW

36.

5

1.6

3.3 10 100

Ger

min

atio

n





1.6 91.00 87.00 94.00 3.16 1.95 43.3 92.75 89.00 97.00 3.86 2.12 410 91.50 90.00 93.00 1.29 1.24 4

100 96.25 94.00 98.00 1.71 1.36 4FSW Temp C 18.00 18.00 18.00 0.00 0.00 1

FSW 36.5 18.00 18.00 18.00 0.00 0.00 11.6 18.00 18.00 18.00 0.00 0.00 13.3 18.00 18.00 18.00 0.00 0.00 110 18.00 18.00 18.00 0.00 0.00 1

100 18.00 18.00 18.00 0.00 0.00 1FSW pH 8.30 8.30 8.30 0.00 0.00 1

FSW 36.5 8.20 8.20 8.20 0.00 0.00 11.6 8.10 8.10 8.10 0.00 0.00 13.3 8.20 8.20 8.20 0.00 0.00 110 8.20 8.20 8.20 0.00 0.00 1

100 8.20 8.20 8.20 0.00 0.00 1FSW Salinity ppt 35.70 35.70 35.70 0.00 0.00 1

FSW 36.5 36.60 36.60 36.60 0.00 0.00 11.6 36.50 36.50 36.50 0.00 0.00 13.3 36.50 36.50 36.50 0.00 0.00 110 36.40 36.40 36.40 0.00 0.00 1

100 36.60 36.60 36.60 0.00 0.00 1FSW DO % sat 98.30 98.30 98.30 0.00 0.00 1

FSW 36.5 95.20 95.20 95.20 0.00 0.00 11.6 94.00 94.00 94.00 0.00 0.00 13.3 93.10 93.10 93.10 0.00 0.00 110 92.00 92.00 92.00 0.00 0.00 1

100 97.60 97.60 97.60 0.00 0.00 1



Conc-% 1 2 3 4FSW 0.9300 0.9300 0.9400 0.9400

FSW 36.5 0.9500 0.9200 0.9800 0.94001.6 0.8800 0.9200 0.9100 0.94003.3 0.9500 0.9200 0.9400 0.930010 0.9100 0.9500 0.9300 0.9000

100 0.9400 0.9100 0.9400 0.9500


FSW 0.9350 0.9868 1.3132 1.3030 1.3233 0.892 4FSW 36.5 0.9475 1.0000 1.3454 1.2840 1.4289 4.546 4

*1.6 0.9125 0.9631 1.2726 1.2171 1.3233 3.464 4 2.379 2.360 0.07223.3 0.9350 0.9868 1.3139 1.2840 1.3453 2.006 4 1.029 2.360 0.072210 0.9225 0.9736 1.2909 1.2490 1.3453 3.308 4 1.783 2.360 0.0722

100 0.9350 0.9868 1.3145 1.2661 1.3453 2.578 4 1.010 2.360 0.0722


Dose-Response Plot


0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

FSW

FSW

36.

5

*1.6 3.3 10 100

Ger

min

atio

n





1.6 91.25 88.00 94.00 2.50 1.73 43.3 93.50 92.00 95.00 1.29 1.22 410 92.25 90.00 95.00 2.22 1.61 4

100 93.50 91.00 95.00 1.73 1.41 4FSW Temp C 18.00 18.00 18.00 0.00 0.00 1

FSW 36.5 18.00 18.00 18.00 0.00 0.00 11.6 18.00 18.00 18.00 0.00 0.00 13.3 18.00 18.00 18.00 0.00 0.00 110 18.00 18.00 18.00 0.00 0.00 1

100 18.00 18.00 18.00 0.00 0.00 1FSW pH 8.30 8.30 8.30 0.00 0.00 1

FSW 36.5 8.20 8.20 8.20 0.00 0.00 11.6 8.20 8.20 8.20 0.00 0.00 13.3 8.20 8.20 8.20 0.00 0.00 110 8.20 8.20 8.20 0.00 0.00 1

100 8.10 8.10 8.10 0.00 0.00 1FSW Salinity ppt 35.70 35.70 35.70 0.00 0.00 1

FSW 36.5 36.60 36.60 36.60 0.00 0.00 11.6 36.50 36.50 36.50 0.00 0.00 13.3 36.60 36.60 36.60 0.00 0.00 110 36.50 36.50 36.50 0.00 0.00 1

100 37.20 37.20 37.20 0.00 0.00 1FSW DO % sat 98.30 98.30 98.30 0.00 0.00 1

FSW 36.5 95.20 95.20 95.20 0.00 0.00 11.6 96.00 96.00 96.00 0.00 0.00 13.3 95.10 95.10 95.10 0.00 0.00 110 94.80 94.80 94.80 0.00 0.00 1

100 99.40 99.40 99.40 0.00 0.00 1


Macroalgal Germination Test-GerminationStart Date: 24/10/2008 13:00 Test ID: PR0413/21 Sample ID: FSW ControlsEnd Date: 27/10/2008 13:00 Lab ID: Sample Type: FSWSample Date: Protocol: ESA 116 Test Species: HB-Hormosira banksiiComments:

Conc-% 1 2 3 4FSW 0.9300 0.9300 0.9400 0.9400

FSW 36.5 0.9500 0.9200 0.9800 0.9400FSW 37.2 0.9200 0.9200 0.9700 0.9500


FSW 0.9350 1.0000 1.3132 1.3030 1.3233 0.892 4FSW 36.5 0.9475 1.0134 1.3454 1.2840 1.4289 4.546 4 -0.954 2.180 0.0736FSW 37.2 0.9400 1.0053 1.3275 1.2840 1.3967 4.099 4 -0.425 2.180 0.0736

Auxiliary Tests Statistic Critical SkewShapiro-Wilk's Test indicates normal distribution (p > 0.01) 0.933862 0.805 0.694982Bartlett's Test indicates equal variances (p = 0.07) 5.364182 9.21034Hypothesis Test (1-tail, 0.05) MSDu MSDp MSB MSE F-ProbDunnett's Test indicates no significant differences 0.040844 0.043679 0.001041 0.00228 0.647245

Dose-Response Plot


0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

FSW

FSW

36.

5

FSW

37.

2

Ger

min

atio

n


Macroalgal Germination Test-GerminationStart Date: 24/10/2008 13:00 Test ID: PR0413/21 Sample ID: FSW ControlsEnd Date: 27/10/2008 13:00 Lab ID: Sample Type: FSWSample Date: Protocol: ESA 116 Test Species: HB-Hormosira banksiiComments:


FSW % Germinated 93.50 93.00 94.00 0.58 0.81 4FSW 36.5 94.75 92.00 98.00 2.50 1.67 4FSW 37.2 94.00 92.00 97.00 2.45 1.66 4

FSW Temp C 18.00 18.00 18.00 0.00 0.00 1FSW 36.5 18.00 18.00 18.00 0.00 0.00 1FSW 37.2 18.00 18.00 18.00 0.00 0.00 1

FSW pH 8.30 8.30 8.30 0.00 0.00 1FSW 36.5 8.20 8.20 8.20 0.00 0.00 1FSW 37.2 8.30 8.30 8.30 0.00 0.00 1


FSW DO % sat 98.30 98.30 98.30 0.00 0.00 1FSW 36.5 95.20 95.20 95.20 0.00 0.00 1FSW 37.2 94.90 94.90 94.90 0.00 0.00 1



Conc-% 1 2 3 4FSW 0.9300 0.9300 0.9400 0.9400

FSW 36.5 0.9500 0.9200 0.9800 0.94001.6 0.8600 0.8571 0.9100 0.91003.3 0.9100 0.9700 0.9300 0.920010 0.9100 0.9500 0.9700 0.9400

100 0.9400 0.8700 0.9100 0.9200


FSW 0.9350 0.9868 1.3132 1.3030 1.3233 0.892 4FSW 36.5 0.9475 1.0000 1.3454 1.2840 1.4289 4.546 4

*1.6 0.8843 0.9333 1.2257 1.1832 1.2661 3.811 4 3.113 2.360 0.09083.3 0.9325 0.9842 1.3125 1.2661 1.3967 4.431 4 0.856 2.360 0.090810 0.9425 0.9947 1.3329 1.2661 1.3967 4.059 4 0.326 2.360 0.0908

100 0.9100 0.9604 1.2689 1.2019 1.3233 3.989 4 1.990 2.360 0.0908


Dose-Response Plot


0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

FSW

FSW

36.

5

*1.6 3.3 10 100

Ger

min

atio

n





1.6 91.93 85.71 97.00 4.67 2.35 43.3 92.75 88.00 96.00 3.59 2.04 410 89.00 78.00 95.00 7.62 3.10 4

100 91.00 88.00 95.00 2.94 1.89 4FSW Temp C 18.00 18.00 18.00 0.00 0.00 1

FSW 36.5 18.00 18.00 18.00 0.00 0.00 11.6 18.00 18.00 18.00 0.00 0.00 13.3 18.00 18.00 18.00 0.00 0.00 110 18.00 18.00 18.00 0.00 0.00 1

100 18.00 18.00 18.00 0.00 0.00 1FSW pH 8.30 8.30 8.30 0.00 0.00 1

FSW 36.5 8.20 8.20 8.20 0.00 0.00 11.6 8.20 8.20 8.20 0.00 0.00 13.3 8.20 8.20 8.20 0.00 0.00 110 8.20 8.20 8.20 0.00 0.00 1

100 8.20 8.20 8.20 0.00 0.00 1FSW Salinity ppt 35.70 35.70 35.70 0.00 0.00 1

FSW 36.5 36.60 36.60 36.60 0.00 0.00 11.6 36.40 36.40 36.40 0.00 0.00 13.3 36.50 36.50 36.50 0.00 0.00 110 36.50 36.50 36.50 0.00 0.00 1

100 37.20 37.20 37.20 0.00 0.00 1FSW DO % sat 98.30 98.30 98.30 0.00 0.00 1

FSW 36.5 95.20 95.20 95.20 0.00 0.00 11.6 99.50 99.50 99.50 0.00 0.00 13.3 98.70 98.70 98.70 0.00 0.00 110 97.70 97.70 97.70 0.00 0.00 1

100 98.60 98.60 98.60 0.00 0.00 1



Appendix F: Test Reports and Statistical Print-outs for the

Fish Imbalance Test

Fish Imbalance Test-96 hr BalancedStart Date: 17/12/2008 18:00 Test ID: PR0413/11 Sample ID: Stream 4End Date: 21/12/2008 18:00 Lab ID: 3293 Sample Type: Stream 4Sample Date: Protocol: ESA 117 Test Species: LC-Lates calcariferComments:

Conc-% 1 2 3 4FSW 36.5 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000

1.7 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.00003.3 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.000010 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000

100 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000

Transform: Arcsin Square Root Rank 1-TailedConc-% Mean N-Mean Mean Min Max CV% N Sum Critical

FSW 36.5 1.0000 1.0000 1.5208 1.5208 1.5208 0.000 4 01.7 1.0000 1.0000 1.5208 1.5208 1.5208 0.000 4 18.00 10.00 03.3 1.0000 1.0000 1.5208 1.5208 1.5208 0.000 4 18.00 10.00 010 1.0000 1.0000 1.5208 1.5208 1.5208 0.000 4 18.00 10.00 0

100 1.0000 1.0000 1.5208 1.5208 1.5208 0.000 4 18.00 10.00 0

Auxiliary Tests Statistic Critical SkewShapiro-Wilk's Test indicates normal distribution (p > 0.01) 1 0.868Equality of variance cannot be confirmedHypothesis Test (1-tail, 0.05) NOEC LOEC ChV TUSteel's Many-One Rank Test 100 >100 1

Dose-Response Plot

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

FSW

36.

5

1.7

3.3 10 100

96 h

r Bal

ance

d




FSW 36.5 % Survival 100.00 100.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 41.7 100.00 100.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 43.3 100.00 100.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 410 100.00 100.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 4

100 100.00 100.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 4FSW 36.5 Temp C 24.50 24.50 24.50 0.00 0.00 1

1.7 24.50 24.50 24.50 0.00 0.00 13.3 24.50 24.50 24.50 0.00 0.00 110 24.50 24.50 24.50 0.00 0.00 1

100 24.50 24.50 24.50 0.00 0.00 1FSW 36.5 pH 8.20 8.20 8.20 0.00 0.00 1

1.7 8.20 8.20 8.20 0.00 0.00 13.3 8.20 8.20 8.20 0.00 0.00 110 8.10 8.10 8.10 0.00 0.00 1

100 7.90 7.90 7.90 0.00 0.00 1FSW 36.5 Salinity ppt 36.50 36.50 36.50 0.00 0.00 1

1.7 36.50 36.50 36.50 0.00 0.00 13.3 36.50 36.50 36.50 0.00 0.00 110 36.60 36.60 36.60 0.00 0.00 1

100 36.90 36.90 36.90 0.00 0.00 1FSW 36.5 DO % 99.70 99.70 99.70 0.00 0.00 1

1.7 102.60 102.60 102.60 0.00 0.00 13.3 103.70 103.70 103.70 0.00 0.00 110 104.00 104.00 104.00 0.00 0.00 1

100 112.80 112.80 112.80 0.00 0.00 1



Conc-% 1 2 3 4FSW 36.5 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000

1.7 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.00003.3 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.000010 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000

100 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000


FSW 36.5 1.0000 1.0000 1.5208 1.5208 1.5208 0.000 4 01.7 1.0000 1.0000 1.5208 1.5208 1.5208 0.000 4 18.00 10.00 03.3 1.0000 1.0000 1.5208 1.5208 1.5208 0.000 4 18.00 10.00 010 1.0000 1.0000 1.5208 1.5208 1.5208 0.000 4 18.00 10.00 0

100 1.0000 1.0000 1.5208 1.5208 1.5208 0.000 4 18.00 10.00 0


Dose-Response Plot

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

FSW

36.

5

1.7

3.3 10 100

96 h

r Bal

ance

d




FSW 36.5 % Survival 100.00 100.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 41.7 100.00 100.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 43.3 100.00 100.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 410 100.00 100.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 4

100 100.00 100.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 4FSW 36.5 Temp C 24.50 24.50 24.50 0.00 0.00 1

1.7 24.50 24.50 24.50 0.00 0.00 13.3 24.50 24.50 24.50 0.00 0.00 110 24.50 24.50 24.50 0.00 0.00 1

100 24.50 24.50 24.50 0.00 0.00 1FSW 36.5 pH 8.20 8.20 8.20 0.00 0.00 1

1.7 8.20 8.20 8.20 0.00 0.00 13.3 8.20 8.20 8.20 0.00 0.00 110 8.10 8.10 8.10 0.00 0.00 1

100 7.90 7.90 7.90 0.00 0.00 1FSW 36.5 Salinity ppt 36.50 36.50 36.50 0.00 0.00 1

1.7 36.50 36.50 36.50 0.00 0.00 13.3 36.60 36.60 36.60 0.00 0.00 110 36.60 36.60 36.60 0.00 0.00 1

100 36.90 36.90 36.90 0.00 0.00 1FSW 36.5 DO % 99.70 99.70 99.70 0.00 0.00 1

1.7 104.60 104.60 104.60 0.00 0.00 13.3 103.10 103.10 103.10 0.00 0.00 110 102.50 102.50 102.50 0.00 0.00 1

100 111.60 111.60 111.60 0.00 0.00 1



Conc-% 1 2 3 4FSW 36.5 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000

1.7 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.00003.3 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.000010 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000

100 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000


FSW 36.5 1.0000 1.0000 1.5208 1.5208 1.5208 0.000 4 01.7 1.0000 1.0000 1.5208 1.5208 1.5208 0.000 4 18.00 10.00 03.3 1.0000 1.0000 1.5208 1.5208 1.5208 0.000 4 18.00 10.00 010 1.0000 1.0000 1.5208 1.5208 1.5208 0.000 4 18.00 10.00 0

100 1.0000 1.0000 1.5208 1.5208 1.5208 0.000 4 18.00 10.00 0


Dose-Response Plot

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

FSW

36.

5

1.7

3.3 10 100

96 h

r Bal

ance

d




FSW 36.5 % Survival 100.00 100.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 41.7 100.00 100.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 43.3 100.00 100.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 410 100.00 100.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 4

100 100.00 100.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 4FSW 36.5 Temp C 24.50 24.50 24.50 0.00 0.00 1

1.7 24.50 24.50 24.50 0.00 0.00 13.3 24.50 24.50 24.50 0.00 0.00 110 24.50 24.50 24.50 0.00 0.00 1

100 24.50 24.50 24.50 0.00 0.00 1FSW 36.5 pH 8.20 8.20 8.20 0.00 0.00 1

1.7 8.10 8.10 8.10 0.00 0.00 13.3 8.10 8.10 8.10 0.00 0.00 110 8.10 8.10 8.10 0.00 0.00 1

100 7.90 7.90 7.90 0.00 0.00 1FSW 36.5 Salinity ppt 36.50 36.50 36.50 0.00 0.00 1

1.7 36.60 36.60 36.60 0.00 0.00 13.3 36.60 36.60 36.60 0.00 0.00 110 36.50 36.50 36.50 0.00 0.00 1

100 36.90 36.90 36.90 0.00 0.00 1FSW 36.5 DO % 99.70 99.70 99.70 0.00 0.00 1

1.7 101.80 101.80 101.80 0.00 0.00 13.3 101.90 101.90 101.90 0.00 0.00 110 102.70 102.70 102.70 0.00 0.00 1

100 109.80 109.80 109.80 0.00 0.00 1



Conc-% 1 2 3 4FSW 36.5 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000

1.7 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.00003.3 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.000010 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000

100 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000


FSW 36.5 1.0000 1.0000 1.5208 1.5208 1.5208 0.000 4 01.7 1.0000 1.0000 1.5208 1.5208 1.5208 0.000 4 18.00 10.00 03.3 1.0000 1.0000 1.5208 1.5208 1.5208 0.000 4 18.00 10.00 010 1.0000 1.0000 1.5208 1.5208 1.5208 0.000 4 18.00 10.00 0

100 1.0000 1.0000 1.5208 1.5208 1.5208 0.000 4 18.00 10.00 0


Dose-Response Plot

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

FSW

36.

5

1.7

3.3 10 100

96 h

r Bal

ance

d




FSW 36.5 % Survival 100.00 100.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 41.7 100.00 100.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 43.3 100.00 100.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 410 100.00 100.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 4

100 100.00 100.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 4FSW 36.5 Temp C 24.50 24.50 24.50 0.00 0.00 1

1.7 24.50 24.50 24.50 0.00 0.00 13.3 24.50 24.50 24.50 0.00 0.00 110 24.50 24.50 24.50 0.00 0.00 1

100 24.50 24.50 24.50 0.00 0.00 1FSW 36.5 pH 8.20 8.20 8.20 0.00 0.00 1

1.7 8.13 8.13 8.13 0.00 0.00 13.3 8.13 8.13 8.13 0.00 0.00 110 8.12 8.12 8.12 0.00 0.00 1

100 8.05 8.05 8.05 0.00 0.00 1FSW 36.5 Salinity ppt 36.50 36.50 36.50 0.00 0.00 1

1.7 36.60 36.60 36.60 0.00 0.00 13.3 36.60 36.60 36.60 0.00 0.00 110 36.60 36.60 36.60 0.00 0.00 1

100 37.50 37.50 37.50 0.00 0.00 1FSW 36.5 DO % 99.70 99.70 99.70 0.00 0.00 1

1.7 99.90 99.90 99.90 0.00 0.00 13.3 101.10 101.10 101.10 0.00 0.00 110 102.00 102.00 102.00 0.00 0.00 1

100 111.70 111.70 111.70 0.00 0.00 1


Fish Imbalance Test-96 hr BalancedStart Date: 17/12/2008 18:00 Test ID: PR0413/7 Sample ID: FSW 36.5ppt & 37.2pptEnd Date: 21/12/2008 18:00 Lab ID: 3290-3294 Sample Type: Salinity adjusted FSWSample Date: Protocol: ESA 117 Test Species: LC-Lates calcariferComments:

Conc-% 1 2 3 4FSW 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000

FSW 36.5 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000FSW 37.5 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000


FSW 1.0000 1.0000 1.5208 1.5208 1.5208 0.000 4FSW 36.5 1.0000 1.0000 1.5208 1.5208 1.5208 0.000 4 18.00 11.00FSW 37.5 1.0000 1.0000 1.5208 1.5208 1.5208 0.000 4 18.00 11.00

Auxiliary Tests Statistic Critical SkewShapiro-Wilk's Test indicates normal distribution (p > 0.01) 1 0.805Equality of variance cannot be confirmedHypothesis Test (1-tail, 0.05)Steel's Many-One Rank Test indicates no significant differences

Dose-Response Plot

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

FSW

FSW

36.

5

FSW

37.

5

96 h

r Bal

ance

d


Fish Imbalance Test-96 hr BalancedStart Date: 17/12/2008 18:00 Test ID: PR0413/7 Sample ID: FSW 36.5ppt & 37.2pptEnd Date: 21/12/2008 18:00 Lab ID: 3290-3294 Sample Type: Salinity adjusted FSWSample Date: Protocol: ESA 117 Test Species: LC-Lates calcariferComments:


FSW % Survival 100.00 100.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 4FSW 36.5 100.00 100.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 4FSW 37.5 100.00 100.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 4

FSW Temp C 24.50 24.50 24.50 0.00 0.00 1FSW 36.5 24.50 24.50 24.50 0.00 0.00 1FSW 37.5 24.50 24.50 24.50 0.00 0.00 1

FSW pH 8.20 8.20 8.20 0.00 0.00 1FSW 36.5 8.20 8.20 8.20 0.00 0.00 1FSW 37.5 8.10 8.10 8.10 0.00 0.00 1


FSW DO % 102.00 102.00 102.00 0.00 0.00 1FSW 36.5 99.70 99.70 99.70 0.00 0.00 1FSW 37.5 101.20 101.20 101.20 0.00 0.00 1



Conc-% 1 2 3 4FSW 36.5 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000

1.7 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.00003.3 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.000010 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000

100 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000


FSW 36.5 1.0000 1.0000 1.5208 1.5208 1.5208 0.000 41.7 1.0000 1.0000 1.5208 1.5208 1.5208 0.000 4 18.00 10.003.3 1.0000 1.0000 1.5208 1.5208 1.5208 0.000 4 18.00 10.0010 1.0000 1.0000 1.5208 1.5208 1.5208 0.000 4 18.00 10.00

100 1.0000 1.0000 1.5208 1.5208 1.5208 0.000 4 18.00 10.00


Dose-Response Plot

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

FSW

36.

5

1.7

3.3 10 100

96 h

r Bal

ance

d




FSW 36.5 % Survival 100.00 100.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 41.7 100.00 100.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 43.3 100.00 100.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 410 100.00 100.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 4

100 100.00 100.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 4FSW 36.5 Temp C 24.50 24.50 24.50 0.00 0.00 1

1.7 24.50 24.50 24.50 0.00 0.00 13.3 24.50 24.50 24.50 0.00 0.00 110 24.50 24.50 24.50 0.00 0.00 1

100 24.50 24.50 24.50 0.00 0.00 1FSW 36.5 pH 8.20 8.20 8.20 0.00 0.00 1

1.7 8.20 8.20 8.20 0.00 0.00 13.3 8.10 8.10 8.10 0.00 0.00 110 8.10 8.10 8.10 0.00 0.00 1

100 8.00 8.00 8.00 0.00 0.00 1FSW 36.5 Salinity ppt 36.50 36.50 36.50 0.00 0.00 1

1.7 36.50 36.50 36.50 0.00 0.00 13.3 36.60 36.60 36.60 0.00 0.00 110 36.70 36.70 36.70 0.00 0.00 1

100 37.50 37.50 37.50 0.00 0.00 1FSW 36.5 DO % 99.70 99.70 99.70 0.00 0.00 1

1.7 104.10 104.10 104.10 0.00 0.00 13.3 104.70 104.70 104.70 0.00 0.00 110 103.70 103.70 103.70 0.00 0.00 1

100 114.30 114.30 114.30 0.00 0.00 1



Appendix G: Test Reports and Statistical Print-outs for the

Juvenile Tiger Prawn Acute Test

Tiger Prawn Survival Test-96 hr SurvivalStart Date: 23/10/2008 16:00 Test ID: PR0413/17 Sample ID: BLUEWATER S4End Date: 27/10/2008 16:00 Lab ID: 3293 Sample Type: DESAL EFFLUENTSample Date: Protocol: ESA 107 Test Species: PM-Penaeus monodonComments:

Conc-% 1 2 3 4FSW 1.0000 1.0000 0.8000 0.8000

FSW 36.5 1.0000 0.8000 0.8000 1.00001.7 0.8000 1.0000 1.0000 0.80003.3 1.0000 0.8000 0.8000 1.000010 1.0000 0.8000 1.0000 1.0000

100 0.8000 0.8000 1.0000 1.0000


FSW 0.9000 1.0000 1.3140 1.1071 1.5208 18.175 4FSW 36.5 0.9000 1.0000 1.3140 1.1071 1.5208 18.175 4

1.7 0.9000 1.0000 1.3140 1.1071 1.5208 18.175 4 18.00 10.003.3 0.9000 1.0000 1.3140 1.1071 1.5208 18.175 4 18.00 10.0010 0.9500 1.0556 1.4174 1.1071 1.5208 14.591 4 20.00 10.00

100 0.9000 1.0000 1.3140 1.1071 1.5208 18.175 4 18.00 10.00

Auxiliary Tests Statistic Critical SkewShapiro-Wilk's Test indicates non-normal distribution (p <= 0.01) 0.747175 0.868 -0.17544Bartlett's Test indicates equal variances (p = 1.00) 0.08263 13.2767The control means are not significantly different (p = 1.00) 1.31E-15 2.446912Hypothesis Test (1-tail, 0.05) NOEC LOEC ChV TUSteel's Many-One Rank Test 100 >100 1

Dose-Response Plot

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

FSW

FSW

36.

5

1.7

3.3 10 100

96 h

r Sur

viva

l




FSW % Survival 90.00 80.00 100.00 11.55 3.78 4FSW 36.5 90.00 80.00 100.00 11.55 3.78 4

1.7 90.00 80.00 100.00 11.55 3.78 43.3 90.00 80.00 100.00 11.55 3.78 410 95.00 80.00 100.00 10.00 3.33 4

100 90.00 80.00 100.00 11.55 3.78 4FSW Temp C 25.00 25.00 25.00 0.00 0.00 1

FSW 36.5 25.00 25.00 25.00 0.00 0.00 11.7 25.00 25.00 25.00 0.00 0.00 13.3 25.00 25.00 25.00 0.00 0.00 110 25.00 25.00 25.00 0.00 0.00 1

100 25.00 25.00 25.00 0.00 0.00 1FSW pH 7.69 7.69 7.69 0.00 0.00 1

FSW 36.5 7.72 7.72 7.72 0.00 0.00 11.7 7.84 7.84 7.84 0.00 0.00 13.3 7.85 7.85 7.85 0.00 0.00 110 7.89 7.89 7.89 0.00 0.00 1

100 7.92 7.92 7.92 0.00 0.00 1FSW Salinity ppt 35.30 35.30 35.30 0.00 0.00 1

FSW 36.5 36.50 36.50 36.50 0.00 0.00 11.7 36.50 36.50 36.50 0.00 0.00 13.3 36.50 36.50 36.50 0.00 0.00 110 36.50 36.50 36.50 0.00 0.00 1

100 36.50 36.50 36.50 0.00 0.00 1FSW DO % sat 105.60 105.60 105.60 0.00 0.00 1

FSW 36.5 105.20 105.20 105.20 0.00 0.00 11.7 112.10 112.10 112.10 0.00 0.00 13.3 112.20 112.20 112.20 0.00 0.00 110 114.50 114.50 114.50 0.00 0.00 1

100 114.80 114.80 114.80 0.00 0.00 1


Tiger Prawn Survival Test-96 hr SurvivalStart Date: 23/10/2008 16:00 Test ID: PR0413/16 Sample ID: Bluewater S3End Date: 27/10/2008 16:00 Lab ID: 3292 Sample Type: Desal EffluentSample Date: Protocol: ESA 107 Test Species: PM-Penaeus monodonComments:

Conc-% 1 2 3 4FSW 1.0000 1.0000 0.8000 0.8000

FSW 36.5 1.0000 0.8000 0.8000 1.00001.7 1.0000 1.0000 0.8000 0.80003.3 1.0000 1.0000 0.8000 0.800010 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 0.8000

100 1.0000 0.8000 0.8000 0.8000


FSW 0.9000 1.0000 1.3140 1.1071 1.5208 18.175 4FSW 36.5 0.9000 1.0000 1.3140 1.1071 1.5208 18.175 4

1.7 0.9000 1.0000 1.3140 1.1071 1.5208 18.175 4 18.00 10.003.3 0.9000 1.0000 1.3140 1.1071 1.5208 18.175 4 18.00 10.0010 0.9500 1.0556 1.4174 1.1071 1.5208 14.591 4 20.00 10.00

100 0.8500 0.9444 1.2106 1.1071 1.5208 17.084 4 16.00 10.00

Auxiliary Tests Statistic Critical SkewShapiro-Wilk's Test indicates non-normal distribution (p <= 0.01) 0.856435 0.868 -1E-16Bartlett's Test indicates equal variances (p = 1.00) 0.128545 13.2767The control means are not significantly different (p = 1.00) 1.31E-15 2.446912Hypothesis Test (1-tail, 0.05) NOEC LOEC ChV TUSteel's Many-One Rank Test 100 >100 1

Dose-Response Plot

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

FSW

FSW

36.

5

1.7

3.3 10 100

96 h

r Sur

viva

l




FSW % Survival 90.00 80.00 100.00 11.55 3.78 4FSW 36.5 90.00 80.00 100.00 11.55 3.78 4

1.7 90.00 80.00 100.00 11.55 3.78 43.3 90.00 80.00 100.00 11.55 3.78 410 95.00 80.00 100.00 10.00 3.33 4

100 85.00 80.00 100.00 10.00 3.72 4FSW Temp C 25.00 25.00 25.00 0.00 0.00 1

FSW 36.5 25.00 25.00 25.00 0.00 0.00 11.7 25.00 25.00 25.00 0.00 0.00 13.3 25.00 25.00 25.00 0.00 0.00 110 25.00 25.00 25.00 0.00 0.00 1

100 25.00 25.00 25.00 0.00 0.00 1FSW pH 7.69 7.69 7.69 0.00 0.00 1

FSW 36.5 7.72 7.72 7.72 0.00 0.00 11.7 7.81 7.81 7.81 0.00 0.00 13.3 7.82 7.82 7.82 0.00 0.00 110 7.83 7.83 7.83 0.00 0.00 1

100 7.85 7.85 7.85 0.00 0.00 1FSW Salinity ppt 35.30 35.30 35.30 0.00 0.00 1

FSW 36.5 36.50 36.50 36.50 0.00 0.00 11.7 36.50 36.50 36.50 0.00 0.00 13.3 36.50 36.50 36.50 0.00 0.00 110 36.50 36.50 36.50 0.00 0.00 1

100 36.70 36.70 36.70 0.00 0.00 1FSW DO % sat 105.60 105.60 105.60 0.00 0.00 1

FSW 36.5 105.20 105.20 105.20 0.00 0.00 11.7 113.00 113.00 113.00 0.00 0.00 13.3 112.70 112.70 112.70 0.00 0.00 110 111.50 111.50 111.50 0.00 0.00 1

100 108.80 108.80 108.80 0.00 0.00 1



Conc-% 1 2 3 4FSW 1.0000 1.0000 0.8000 0.8000

FSW 36.5 1.0000 0.8000 0.8000 1.00001.7 1.0000 0.8000 1.0000 1.00003.3 1.0000 0.8000 0.8000 0.800010 0.8000 1.0000 0.8000 1.0000

100 1.0000 0.8000 0.8000 1.0000


FSW 0.9000 1.0000 1.3140 1.1071 1.5208 18.175 4FSW 36.5 0.9000 1.0000 1.3140 1.1071 1.5208 18.175 4

1.7 0.9500 1.0556 1.4174 1.1071 1.5208 14.591 4 20.00 10.003.3 0.8500 0.9444 1.2106 1.1071 1.5208 17.084 4 16.00 10.0010 0.9000 1.0000 1.3140 1.1071 1.5208 18.175 4 18.00 10.00

100 0.9000 1.0000 1.3140 1.1071 1.5208 18.175 4 18.00 10.00

Auxiliary Tests Statistic Critical SkewShapiro-Wilk's Test indicates non-normal distribution (p <= 0.01) 0.856435 0.868 5.19E-17Bartlett's Test indicates equal variances (p = 1.00) 0.128545 13.2767The control means are not significantly different (p = 1.00) 1.31E-15 2.446912Hypothesis Test (1-tail, 0.05) NOEC LOEC ChV TUSteel's Many-One Rank Test 100 >100 1

Dose-Response Plot

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

FSW

FSW

36.

5

1.7

3.3 10 100

96 h

r Sur

viva

l




FSW % Survival 90.00 80.00 100.00 11.55 3.78 4FSW 36.5 90.00 80.00 100.00 11.55 3.78 4

1.7 95.00 80.00 100.00 10.00 3.33 43.3 85.00 80.00 100.00 10.00 3.72 410 90.00 80.00 100.00 11.55 3.78 4

100 90.00 80.00 100.00 11.55 3.78 4FSW Temp C 25.00 25.00 25.00 0.00 0.00 1

FSW 36.5 25.00 25.00 25.00 0.00 0.00 11.7 25.00 25.00 25.00 0.00 0.00 13.3 25.00 25.00 25.00 0.00 0.00 110 25.00 25.00 25.00 0.00 0.00 1

100 25.00 25.00 25.00 0.00 0.00 1FSW pH 7.69 7.69 7.69 0.00 0.00 1

FSW 36.5 7.72 7.72 7.72 0.00 0.00 11.7 8.25 8.25 8.25 0.00 0.00 13.3 8.25 8.25 8.25 0.00 0.00 110 8.28 8.28 8.28 0.00 0.00 1

100 8.09 8.09 8.09 0.00 0.00 1FSW Salinity ppt 35.30 35.30 35.30 0.00 0.00 1

FSW 36.5 36.50 36.50 36.50 0.00 0.00 11.7 36.50 36.50 36.50 0.00 0.00 13.3 36.50 36.50 36.50 0.00 0.00 110 36.50 36.50 36.50 0.00 0.00 1

100 36.50 36.50 36.50 0.00 0.00 1FSW DO % sat 105.60 105.60 105.60 0.00 0.00 1

FSW 36.5 105.20 105.20 105.20 0.00 0.00 11.7 109.10 109.10 109.10 0.00 0.00 13.3 108.80 108.80 108.80 0.00 0.00 110 107.50 107.50 107.50 0.00 0.00 1

100 109.30 109.30 109.30 0.00 0.00 1



Conc-% 1 2 3 4FSW 1.0000 1.0000 0.8000 0.8000

FSW 36.5 1.0000 0.8000 0.8000 1.00001.7 1.0000 0.8000 0.6000 1.00003.3 1.0000 0.8000 1.0000 0.800010 1.0000 0.8000 0.8000 1.0000

100 0.6000 1.0000 1.0000 0.6000


FSW 0.9000 1.0000 1.3140 1.1071 1.5208 18.175 4FSW 36.5 0.9000 1.0000 1.3140 1.1071 1.5208 18.175 4

1.7 0.8500 0.9444 1.2587 0.8861 1.5208 25.089 4 17.00 10.003.3 0.9000 1.0000 1.3140 1.1071 1.5208 18.175 4 18.00 10.0010 0.9000 1.0000 1.3140 1.1071 1.5208 18.175 4 18.00 10.00

100 0.8000 0.8889 1.2034 0.8861 1.5208 30.450 4 16.00 10.00


Dose-Response Plot

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

FSW

FSW

36.

5

1.7

3.3 10 100

96 h

r Sur

viva

l




FSW % Survival 90.00 80.00 100.00 11.55 3.78 4FSW 36.5 90.00 80.00 100.00 11.55 3.78 4

1.7 85.00 60.00 100.00 19.15 5.15 43.3 90.00 80.00 100.00 11.55 3.78 410 90.00 80.00 100.00 11.55 3.78 4

100 80.00 60.00 100.00 23.09 6.01 4FSW Temp C 25.00 25.00 25.00 0.00 0.00 1

FSW 36.5 25.00 25.00 25.00 0.00 0.00 11.7 25.00 25.00 25.00 0.00 0.00 13.3 25.00 25.00 25.00 0.00 0.00 110 25.00 25.00 25.00 0.00 0.00 1

100 25.00 25.00 25.00 0.00 0.00 1FSW pH 7.69 7.69 7.69 0.00 0.00 1

FSW 36.5 7.72 7.72 7.72 0.00 0.00 11.7 7.90 7.90 7.90 0.00 0.00 13.3 7.99 7.99 7.99 0.00 0.00 110 8.04 8.04 8.04 0.00 0.00 1

100 8.24 8.24 8.24 0.00 0.00 1FSW Salinity ppt 35.30 35.30 35.30 0.00 0.00 1

FSW 36.5 36.50 36.50 36.50 0.00 0.00 11.7 36.50 36.50 36.50 0.00 0.00 13.3 36.50 36.50 36.50 0.00 0.00 110 36.50 36.50 36.50 0.00 0.00 1

100 37.20 37.20 37.20 0.00 0.00 1FSW DO % sat 105.60 105.60 105.60 0.00 0.00 1

FSW 36.5 105.20 105.20 105.20 0.00 0.00 11.7 105.60 105.60 105.60 0.00 0.00 13.3 104.90 104.90 104.90 0.00 0.00 110 103.70 103.70 103.70 0.00 0.00 1

100 109.80 109.80 109.80 0.00 0.00 1


Tiger Prawn Survival Test-96 hr SurvivalStart Date: 23/10/2008 16:00 Test ID: PR0413/20 Sample ID: FSW ControlsEnd Date: 27/10/2008 16:00 Lab ID: Sample Type: FSWSample Date: Protocol: ESA 107 Test Species: PM-Penaeus monodonComments: Salinity adjusted Controls

Conc-% 1 2 3 4FSW Control 1.0000 1.0000 0.8000 0.8000

FSW 36.5 1.0000 0.8000 0.8000 1.0000FSW 37.2 0.8000 1.0000 0.8000 0.8000


FSW Control 0.9000 1.0000 1.3140 1.1071 1.5208 18.175 4FSW 36.5 0.9000 1.0000 1.3140 1.1071 1.5208 18.175 4 18.00 11.00FSW 37.2 0.8500 0.9444 1.2106 1.1071 1.5208 17.084 4 16.00 11.00

Auxiliary Tests Statistic Critical SkewShapiro-Wilk's Test indicates non-normal distribution (p <= 0.01) 0.795783 0.805 0.327273Bartlett's Test indicates equal variances (p = 0.97) 0.069628 9.21034Hypothesis Test (1-tail, 0.05)Steel's Many-One Rank Test indicates no significant differences

Dose-Response Plot

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

FSW

Con

trol

FSW

36.

5

FSW

37.

2

96 h

r Sur

viva

l


Tiger Prawn Survival Test-96 hr SurvivalStart Date: 23/10/2008 16:00 Test ID: PR0413/20 Sample ID: FSW ControlsEnd Date: 27/10/2008 16:00 Lab ID: Sample Type: FSWSample Date: Protocol: ESA 107 Test Species: PM-Penaeus monodonComments: Salinity adjusted Controls


FSW Control % Normal 90.00 80.00 100.00 11.55 3.78 4FSW 36.5 90.00 80.00 100.00 11.55 3.78 4FSW 37.2 85.00 80.00 100.00 10.00 3.72 4




FSW Control DO % sat 105.60 105.60 105.60 0.00 0.00 1FSW 36.5 105.20 105.20 105.20 0.00 0.00 1FSW 37.2 105.90 105.90 105.90 0.00 0.00 1



Conc-% 1 2 3 4FSW 1.0000 1.0000 0.8000 0.8000

FSW 36.5 1.0000 0.8000 0.8000 1.00001.7 0.8000 1.0000 0.8000 1.00003.3 1.0000 1.0000 0.8000 1.000010 1.0000 1.0000 0.8000 0.8000

100 0.8000 1.0000 1.0000 0.8000


FSW 0.9000 1.0000 1.3140 1.1071 1.5208 18.175 4FSW 36.5 0.9000 1.0000 1.3140 1.1071 1.5208 18.175 4

1.7 0.9000 1.0000 1.3140 1.1071 1.5208 18.175 4 18.00 10.003.3 0.9500 1.0556 1.4174 1.1071 1.5208 14.591 4 20.00 10.0010 0.9000 1.0000 1.3140 1.1071 1.5208 18.175 4 18.00 10.00

100 0.9000 1.0000 1.3140 1.1071 1.5208 18.175 4 18.00 10.00


Dose-Response Plot

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

FSW

FSW

36.

5

1.7

3.3 10 100

96 h

r Sur

viva

l




FSW % Survival 90.00 80.00 100.00 11.55 3.78 4FSW 36.5 90.00 80.00 100.00 11.55 3.78 4

1.7 90.00 80.00 100.00 11.55 3.78 43.3 95.00 80.00 100.00 10.00 3.33 410 90.00 80.00 100.00 11.55 3.78 4

100 90.00 80.00 100.00 11.55 3.78 4FSW Temp C 25.00 25.00 25.00 0.00 0.00 1

FSW 36.5 25.00 25.00 25.00 0.00 0.00 11.7 25.00 25.00 25.00 0.00 0.00 13.3 25.00 25.00 25.00 0.00 0.00 110 25.00 25.00 25.00 0.00 0.00 1

100 25.00 25.00 25.00 0.00 0.00 1FSW pH 7.69 7.69 7.69 0.00 0.00 1

FSW 36.5 7.72 7.72 7.72 0.00 0.00 11.7 7.74 7.74 7.74 0.00 0.00 13.3 7.75 7.75 7.75 0.00 0.00 110 7.78 7.78 7.78 0.00 0.00 1

100 7.88 7.88 7.88 0.00 0.00 1FSW Salinity ppt 35.30 35.30 35.30 0.00 0.00 1

FSW 36.5 36.50 36.50 36.50 0.00 0.00 11.7 36.50 36.50 36.50 0.00 0.00 13.3 36.50 36.50 36.50 0.00 0.00 110 36.50 36.50 36.50 0.00 0.00 1

100 37.20 37.20 37.20 0.00 0.00 1FSW DO % sat 105.60 105.60 105.60 0.00 0.00 1

FSW 36.5 105.20 105.20 105.20 0.00 0.00 11.7 110.50 110.50 110.50 0.00 0.00 13.3 111.70 111.70 111.70 0.00 0.00 110 110.50 110.50 110.50 0.00 0.00 1

100 113.20 113.20 113.20 0.00 0.00 1


Revision: 02

Appendix 6 Literature review of discharge chemicals



Appendix 7 Ecotoxicity dilution review

Chemical Dosage

Rate

Dosed Flow

Total Chemical Dosage

Discharge Plume

Volume

Chemical Concentration

in plume

Unit mg/l m3/hr g/hr m3/hr mg/l

Ecotoxicity Report 14 30Current Design 8 17

Ecotoxicity Report 0.3 30Current Design 0.2 20

Ecotoxicity Report 20 1304 26080 30Current Design 10 885 8850 10

Ecotoxicity Report 1 1304 1304 30Current Design 1 885 885 20

Ecotoxicity Report 250 450 112500 4940 22.77 30Current Design 250 176 44000 16688 2.64 3



Ecotoxicity Report 10 30Current Design 10 30

NOTES:

3. "Constant" indicates that there is no significant difference between the Ecotoxicity Report and the current design.

Constant

Constant

N/A

N/A

Constant

4

5


Assessment of Ecotoxicity - Current Design vs Ecotoxicity Report

N/A


1

Stream Chemical

1

1

1

2

3

CIP Detergent


N/A Constant


Polydadmac



2. Discharge Plume Volume assumes 12 trains operating at 106% output.

1. Chemical Concentration is provided for comparison purposes only. Because a portion of all chemicals will be removed as sludge, the exact concentration cannot be calculated.

Constant

Dilution at No Acute Toxicity

Constant N/A Constant N/A

N/A Constant N/A

Documents

Seawater Concentrate Discharge Design for Sydney’s ... · To verify the performance criteria of 30-times dilution and salinity to within 1ppt of seawater background at the edge