APPENDIX O10 Ecotoxicology Studies
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
APPENDIX O10 Ecotoxicology studies Olympic Dam Expansion Draft Environmental Impact Statement 2009 Appendix O 163 AAppendix_O_Vol_1.inddppendix_O_Vol_1.indd Sec1:163Sec1:163 117/2/097/2/09 11:08:33:08:33 AMAM AAppendix_O_Vol_1.inddppendix_O_Vol_1.indd Sec1:164Sec1:164 117/2/097/2/09 11:08:34:08:34 AMAM O10 ECOTOXICOLOGY STUDIES O10.1 INTRODUCTION The toxicity of simulated brine was tested using 15 species of marine flora and fauna. The tests were managed by Hydrobiology and Geotechnical Services and undertaken in laboratories in Sydney, Adelaide and Perth during 2006 and 2007. A suite of species from Upper Spencer Gulf, or surrogates for which recognised tests were available, were tested using both chronic and acute tests by Hydrobiology in 2006. These tests are presented in Appendix O10.2. Toxicity tests were developed for the Australian Giant Cuttlefish Sepia apama by Geotechnical Services in 2006. These tests are presented in Appendix O10.3. Following a review of the 2006 reports, additional tests were undertaken in 2007 to include more local species, chronic rather than acute tests, and a consistent diluent salinity (41 g/L), and to repeat the Giant Cuttlefish tests. The 2007 tests are presented in Appendix O10.4. Several interim species protection trigger values (SPTV) were calculated using the three suites of toxicity tests. The CSIRO subsequently reviewed all the tests and calculated an overall SPTV using the most appropriate species and tests. The CSIRO’s assessment is presented in Appendix O10.5. Dr Michael Warne of the CSIRO has also provided a peer review letter of testimony for the ecotoxicological studies undertaken for the Draft EIS (see overleaf). A number of terms are used throughout the reports, and are explained in Table O10.1. Table O10.1 Glossary EC50 Concentration that causes an effect on 50% of the population For example: Growth: Concentration that results in 50% less growth when compared to controls Reproduction: Concentration that results in 50% less fecundity when compared to controls Germination: Concentration that results in 50% germination of zoospores Larval development: Concentration that results in 50% of larva deformed Calculated statistically IC50 Concentration that causes an inhibition of growth of 50% when compared with controls (Unicellular alga bioassay) Calculated statistically EC/IC10 Concentration that causes an effect of 10% when compared with controls Calculated statistically LOEC Lowest observed effect concentration Function of concentration tested NOEC No observed effect concentration Function of concentration tested g/L Grams per litre (effectively the same as parts per thousand or practical salinity units) BurrliOZ Software designed to estimate the protecting concentrations of chemicals such that a given percentage of species will survive, by fitting a certain distribution, called the Burr III distribution, to the input data (other distributions fitted to the data are the normal and the log-logistic distributions, however, these latter distributions are provided only as a reference guide and are not used to estimate the protecting concentrations). Olympic Dam Expansion Draft Environmental Impact Statement 2009 Appendix O 165 Appendix_O_Vol_1.indd 165 24/2/09 4:20:42 PM Land and Water Centre for Environmental Contaminants Research, Gate 4, Waite Road, Urrbrae SA 5064 PMB 2, Glen Osmond SA 5064, Australia Telephone: (08) 8303 8533 • Facsimile: (08) 8303 8565 • ABN 41 687 119 230 Our Ref: Statement re Point Lowly Desalination Plant EIS Mr David Wiltshire ARUP ENSR GPO Box 11052 Adelaide SA 5001 14 November 2008 Dear David, As part of my work for your organisation I was asked to review the whole effluent toxicity (WET) testing reported in a report by Hydrobiology Pty Ltd “Ecotoxicity of effluent from the proposed Olympic Dam desalination plant”, a report by Geotechnical Services 2006 entitled “The provision of water quality monitoring services for Cockburn Sound (WET testing only). Simulated and RO brine. Report ENV05-214 and ENV05-389” and a report by Geotechnical Services 2007/2008 entitled “The provision of reverse osmosis brine toxicity testing – Report ECX07-1805”. I have done this and I am satisfied that the test procedures used for the whole effluent toxicity testing and the statistical techniques used to estimate the toxicity are appropriate. However, it was noted that the statistical distributions used did not fit the data particularly well for a number of the test species in the Geotechnical Services 2007/08 report. The toxicity of the saline brine to these species was calculated using a different method, which improved the fit to the data. The calculation of a species protection value was correctly executed within the Geotechnical Services and Hydrobiology reports, however, it was necessary to conduct a holistic review of all tests performed to date, and select the most appropriate set of results for calculating the species protection value. This was done in the CSIRO report “Selection of species and other factors that affect dilution factors for saline brine discharge from the proposed plant at Point Lowly, South Australia.” I confirm that the work presented in the reports by Hydrobiology Pty Ltd and Geotechnical Services is acceptable for the intended purpose. In addition, I read the marine chapter of the Draft EIS (as presented to me on 11 July 2008) and I confirm that it appropriately summarises the findings of the three reports I read and my own report Yours faithfully, Michael Warne Principal Research Scientist Centre for Environmental Contaminants Research APPENDIX O10.2 Ecotoxicity of effluent from the proposed Olympic Dam desalination plant (report by Hydrobiology, 2006) See overleaf for report. Olympic Dam Expansion Draft Environmental Impact Statement 2009 Appendix O 167 AAppendix_O_Vol_1.inddppendix_O_Vol_1.indd Sec1:167Sec1:167 117/2/097/2/09 11:08:37:08:37 AMAM 168 Olympic Dam Expansion Draft Environmental Impact Statement 2009 Appendix O AAppendix_O_Vol_1.inddppendix_O_Vol_1.indd Sec1:168Sec1:168 117/2/097/2/09 11:08:37:08:37 AMAM ARUP/HLA Ecotoxicity of Effluent from the Proposed Olympic Dam Desalination Plant Final ABN 26 096 574 659 PO Box 2050 Milton QLD 4064 47 Park Rd Milton QLD 4064 Phone +61 (07) 3368 2133 Fax +61 (07) 3367 3629 October 2006 Ecotoxicity of Effluent from the Proposed Olympic Dam Desalination Plant Hydrobiology Pty Ltd Date Printed 19 August 2008 Title Ecotoxicity of Effluent from the Proposed Olympic Dam Desalination Plant Job Number ARUP-HLA/0601 Status Final Client ARUP-HLA Authors Dustin Hobbs, Jenny Stauber, Anu Kumar, Ross Smith, File Name ARUP-HLA_0601_RO_desal_plant_ecotox_report Authorised ACN 096 574 659 ABN 26 096 574 659 GST The company is registered for GST Principal place of business 47 Park Rd Milton QLD 4064 Registered Office Level 21 141 Queen St Brisbane QLD 4000 Postal Address PO Box 2050 Milton QLD 4064 Phone 61 (07) 3368 2133 Fax 61 (07) 3367 3629 Email contact: [email protected] Ecotoxicity of Effluent from the Proposed Olympic Dam Desalination Plant Hydrobiology Pty Ltd CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................I 1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................1 1.1 Background .....................................................................................................1 1.2 Study objectives ..............................................................................................1 1.3 Literature review..............................................................................................2 2 METHODS ......................................................................................................................4 2.1 Prototype effluent ............................................................................................4 2.2 Direct Toxicity Assessment (DTA) of prototype effluent..................................4 2.3 Assessment of possible desalination effluent impacts....................................5 3 RESULTS .......................................................................................................................6 3.1 Direct Toxicity Assessment QA/QC.................................................................6 3.2 Desalination effluent DTA results....................................................................6 3.3 Derivation of ‘safe’ dilutions.............................................................................7 4 DISCUSSION..................................................................................................................8 5 CONCLUSIONS .............................................................................................................9 6 REFERENCES .............................................................................................................10 FIGURES Figure 3.1 Results from distribution fitting of ecotoxicity testing results ...................................... 7 TABLES Table 0.1 Ranking of species from most to least sensitive with their corresponding NOEC’s ..... i Table 3.1 Direct toxicity assessment results for the prototype RO desalination plant effluent.... 6 Table 3.2 The values from the results of the DTA on the prototype effluent used for the derivation of the SSD ............................................................................................................. 7 APPENDICES Appendix 1 – Prototype desalination