ORDES
PENNSYLVANIA BASELINE
Part 2 - Impact Assessment Data Base
Chapter 1 - Characteristics and Human Utilization
of Natural Ecosystems
Section 6 - Water Quality
PHASE
OHIO RIVER DASIK ENERGY STUDY
-------
June 1979
PENNSYLVANIA BASELINE
Part 2 - Impact Assessment Data Base
Chapter 1 - Characteristics and Human Utilization
of Natural Ecosystems
Section 6 - Water Quality
by
Attila A. Sooky
University of Pittsburgh
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15261
Prepared for
Ohio River Basin Energy Study (ORBES)
Grant Number R805608-01-3
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF FIGURES iii
LIST OF TABLES - v
2.1.6.1 INTRODUCTION 1
2.1.6.2 WATER QUALITY DATA SOURCES 10
2.1.6.3 WATER QUALITY CONTROL AND STANDARDS 24
A. Federal Control 24
B. State Control 25
C. Water Quality Standards 34
2.1.6.4 SURFACE WATER QUALITY 55
A. Monongahela River Basin 56
1. General . 56
2. Surface Water Quality . 60
3. Water Quality Problems 75
4. Compliance Status 83
5. Stream Quality Changes, 1973-1977 88
B. Allegheny River Basin 91
1. General 91
2. Surface Water Quality 92
3. Water Quality Problems . . 95
4. Compliance Status ... Ill
5. Stream Quality Changes, 1973-1977 118
C. Ohio River Main Stem Basin 123
1. General 123
2. Surface Water Quality 127
3. Water Quality Problems 132
4. Compliance Status 132
5. Stream Quality Changes, 1973-1977 143
2.1.6.5 TREATMENT AND DISCHARGE OF WASTEWATERS 147
«
A. Municipal Wastewaters 147
B. Industrial Wastewaters 171
2.1.6.6 ACID MINE DRAINAGE AND CONTROL 194
A. Introduction 194
B. History of Acid Mine Drainage and Control 198
C. Current Status (1970's) 216
REFERENCES 236
- ii -
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure No. Title Page No.
2.1.6.-1 Overlap of ORBES Region with COWAMP Study Areas and
Counties 3
2.1.6.-2 Overlap of ORBES Region with COWAMP Sub-Basins 5
2.1.6.-3 Surface Water Quality Sampling Locations - Monongahela
River Basin 19
2.1.6.-4 Surface Water Quality Sampling Locations - Upper
Allegheny River Basin 20
2.1.6.-5 Surface Water Quality Sampling Locations - Middle
Allegheny River Basin 21
2.1.6.-6 Surface Water Quality Sampling Locations - Lower
Allegheny River Basin 22
2.1.6.-7 Surface Water Quality Sampling Locations - Ohio River
Basin 23
2.1i6.-8 Significant Interstate Waters of the Commonwealth of PA . 26
2.1.6.-9 Pennsylvania Gazetteer of Streams - Index Map 29
2.1.6.-10 Annual Water Quality - Monongahela River 61
2.1.6.-10A Seasonal Variation of Water Quality: Monthly Averages -
Monongahela River, 1970-1977 62
2.T.6.-11 Monongahela River Surface Water Temperature 66
2.1.6.-12 Monongahela River Surface Dissolved Oxygen Concentration . 67
2.1.6.-13 Monongahela Surface pH 68
2.1.6.-14 Monongahela River Conductivity 69
2.1.6.-15 Monongahela River Sulfates 70
2.1.6.-16 Monongahela River Nonfiltrable Solids 71
2.1.6.-17 Monongahela River Transparency 72
2.1.6.-18 Monongahela River N02 + N03 73
2.1.6.-19 Monongahela River Total Iron 74
2.1.6.-20 Youghiogheny River Water Temperature 1975 76
2.1.6.-21 Maximum, Minimum, and Mean Monthly pH of the Youghiogheny
River at Connellsville, PA 77
- m -
-------
Figure No. Tjtle Page No.
2.1.6.-22 Spatial Water Quality Profile - Casselman River,
April 1974 . 78
2.1.6.-23 Spatial Water Quality Profile - Laurel Hill Creek,
April 1974 79
2.1.6.-24 Annual Water Quality - Allegheny River at Oakmont ... 93
2.1.6.-25 Seasonal Variation of Water Quality: Monthly Averages -
Allegheny River at Oakmont, 1970-1977 94
2.1.6.-26 Spatial Water Quality Profile - Little Conemaugh/
Conemaugh River, October 1974 102
2.1.6.-27 Spatial Water Quality Profile - Stony Creek, March 1973 103
2.1.6.-28 Temporal Water Quality Profile - Conemaugh River,
Station 811, 1970-1974 104
2.1.6.-29 Annual Water Quality - Ohio River at South Heghts ... 128
2.1.6.-30 Seasonal Variation of Water Quality: Monthly Averages -
Ohio River'at South Heghts, 1970-1977 129
2.1.6.-31 Annual Water Quality - Beaver River at Beaver Falls . . 130
2.1.6.-32 Seasonal Variation of Water Quality: Monthly Averages -
Beaver River at Beaver Falls, 1970-1977 131
2.1.6.-33- Comparison of Cumulative Coal Production and Fluctu-
ation in Monongahela River Acid Levels: 1917-1940 ... 199
2.1.6.-34 Acidity Levels in the Monongahela River: 1931-1947 . . 200
2.1.6.-35 Comparison of Mine Acid Loads in the Ohio River Basin
in 1940 206
2.1.6.-36 1963 Acidity and Alkalinity in the Monongahela River -
1940 Acidity Comparison 209
2.1.6.-37 1963 Acidity and Alkalinity in the Youghiogheny River -
1940 Acidity Comparison 210
2.1.6.-38 Tributaries of the Allegheny River Affected by Coal
Mine Wastes in the Late 1960's 213
2.1.6.-39 Tributaries in the Monongahela River Affected by Coal
Mine Wastes in the Late 1960's 214
2.1.6.-40 Map of the Monongahela River Basin 215
2.1.6.-41 Variation in pH along the Monongahela River in 1973 . . 221
- iv -
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table No. . Title Page No.
2.1.6.-1 ORBES Counties in COWAMP Study Areas 2
2.1.6.-2 Overlap of ORBES Region with COWAMP Subbasins 6
2.1.6.-3 Surface Water Quality Sampling Locations 14
2.1.6.-4 Major Drainage Areas and Tributaries in the PA ORBES
Region 30
2.1.6.-5 Conservation Area Watersheds in ORBES Counties in PA ... 31
2.1.6.-6 Proposed Pennsylvania Scenic Rivers in the ORBES Region . 35
2.1.6.-7 Proposed Water Quality Standards as of March 1978:
Definitions 42
2.1.6.-8 Proposed Water Quality -Standards as of March 1978:
Protected Water Uses " ... 43
2.1.6.-9 Proposed Water Quality Standards as of March 1978:
Water Quality Criteria Applications 44
2.1.6.-10 Proposed Water Quality Standards as of March 1978:
Specific Water Quality Criteria 46
2.1.6.-11 Proposed Water Quality Standards (as of March 1978)
for Major Streams in the PA ORBES Region . . . 49
2.1.6.-12 Mean Values of Selected Parameters at Sampling Stations
in the Monongahela River Basin 63
2/1.6.-13 Monongahela River Water Quality 64
2.1.6.-13A Monongahela and Youghiogheny River Water Quality, 1975-77 65
2.1.6.-14 Classification and Quality Problems of Major Streams -
Monongahela River Basin 80
2.1.6.-15 Compliance Status 1975 - Monongahela River Basin 84
2.1.6.-16 Streams Showing Water Quality Improvements (1973-1977) -
Monongahela River Basin 89
2.1.6.-17 Streams Showing Water Quality Degradation (1973-1977) -
Monongahela River Basin 90
2.1.6.-18 Mean Values of Selected Parameters at Sampling Stations
in the Upper Allegheny River Basin 96
2.1.6.-19 Mean Values of Selected Parameters at Sampling Stations
in the Middle and Lower Allegheny River Basins 97
2.1.6.-20 Allegheny River Water Quality 98
- v -
-------
Table No. Title Page No.
2.1.6.-21 Allegheny River Water Quality, 1975-1977 100
2.1.6.-22 Kiskiminetas, Conemaugh, and Clarion River Water
Quality, 1975-1977 101
2.1.6.-23 Classification and Quality Problems of Major Streams -
Allegheny River Basin 105
2.1.6.-24 Compliance Status 1975 - Allegheny River Basin 112
2.1.6.-25 Streams Showing Water Quality Improvements (1973-1977) -
Allegheny River Basin . 119
2.1.6.-26 Streams Showing Water Quality Degradation (1973-1977) -
Allegheny River Basin 122
2.1.6.-27 Contributions to the Ohio River by the Allegheny and
Monongahela Rivers . . .124
2.1.6.-28 Changes in Mean Stream Loads in the Pittsburgh, PA Area . 126
2.1.6.-29 Mean Values of Selected Parameters at Sampling Stations
in the Ohio River Main Stem Basin 133
2.1.6.-30 Ohio and Beaver River Water Quality, 1975-1977 134
2.1.6.-31 Ohio and Beaver River Water Quality, 1977 . . . ... . . .135
2.1.6.-32 Classification and Quality Problems of Major Streams -
Ohio River Main Stem Basin 136
2J.6.-33 Compliance Status 1975 - Ohio River Main Stem Basin . . . T39
2.1.6.-34 Streams Showing Water Quality Improvements (1973-1977) -
Ohio River Main Stem Basin 144
2.1.6.-35 Streams Showing Water Quality Degradation (1973-1977) -
Ohio River Main Stem Basin 146
2.1.6.-36 Existing Waste Water Treatment Requirements 148
2.1.6.-37 Proposed Revisions to Waste Water Treatment Requirements
as of March 1978 151
2.1.6.-38 Treatment Levels and their Corresponding Expected.
Effluent Concentrations 153
2.1.6.-39 Municipal Facilities Summary ..... 155
2.1.6.-40 Non-Municipal Facilities Summary 157
2.1.6.-41 Important Municipal Facilities by Flow 160
-------
Table No. Title Page No.
2.1.6.-42 Waste Flow and Stream Flow for Major Urban Areas .... 161
2.1.6.-43 Municipal Waste Discharges to Small Streams 165
2.1.6.-44 Existing Industrial Waste Treatment Requirements .... 172
2.1.6.-45 Proposed Revisions to Industrial Waste Treatment
Requirements as of March 1978 181
2.1.6.-46 Areas with High Concentrations of Industrial Discharges . 182
2.1.6.-47 Industrial Direct Stream Discharge Summary by Major SIC
Groups - COWAMP Area #9 186
2.1.6.-48 Industrial Direct Stream Discharge Summary by Major SIC
Groups - COWAMP Area #8 187
2.1.6.-49 1940 Acid Loads in the Upper Ohio Basin Compared to the
Ohio River Mainstem "... 202
2.1.6.-50 Abandoned Mine Acid Load and Removal (in 1940) Due to
Sealing Programs in the Upper Ohio River Basin 202
2.1.6.-51 1940 Cost of Damage Due to Acid Mine Drainage in the
Upper Ohio River Basin 204
2.1.6.-52 Comparison of pH Values in the Upper Ohio River Basin
between 1940 and 1965 212
2.1.6.-53 Recent Water Quality Violations at Acid Mine Drainage
Treatment Plants in Western Pennsylvania 218
2:1.6.-54 Deep Mine Drainage Treatment Summary in the Pennsylvania
ORBES Region as of 1975 228
2.1.6.-55 Surface Mine Drainage Treatment Summary in the PA ORBES
Region as of 1975 229
2.1.6.-56 Acidity and Iron Loads in the Streams of Western PA ... 231
2.1.6.-57 Number of Operation SCARLIFT Projects in Western PA
Counties 234
2.1.6.-58 Acid Mine Drainage Sludge Production Summary 235
- vii -
-------
2.1.6. WATER QUALITY
2.1.6.1. INTRODUCTION
"The acceptability of a water's quality must be defined
by using the beneficial use's quality requirements as a reference
point, because quality standards differ according to use. What
may be 'good' quality water for industrial purposes may be 'poor'
quality for drinking purposes, and vice versa. Accordingly,
water pollution is the degradation of quality to a degree that
interferes with desired uses.
"Water quality problems in the study area date back to
the 1800's. Continual improvements in many areas, such as forestry
management, industrial waste treatment, and programs to reduce
or eliminate mine, drainage, have upgraded the general environ-
mental quality of the area. However, greater pollution control is
necessary to meet the desired goals set forth by the Pennsylvania
Clean Stream Laws: to prevent further pollution and to restore
polluted streams to clean condition, and to meet the mandates and
goals of P.L. 92-500, Federal Water Pollution Control Act Admend-
ments of 1972.
"Not only surface waters but also ground waters become de-
graded. Ground water quality depends on many factors - climatic
changes, mineral composition of rock and soil, rate of circulation,
and man's activities, especially mining, waste disposal, and
g-round water pumping.
"Pollutant discharges may be either from point sources or
non-point sources. Point source pollution can be traced to a
single, definitive point of discharge. Non-point source pollution
comes from a diffuse area. Point sources include wastewater from
municipal, industrial, and mine drainage treatment facilities, com-
bined sewer overflows, and others. Non-point sources include
agricultural and urban runoff, surface mining runoff, construction
site runoff, salt water intrusion, and on-lot sewage disposal.
"Industries in this area discharge their wastewaters into
municipal systems or into surface waters. Because of their quality
and quantity, as well as their location on multiple-use streams,
industrial discharges are potential threats to surface water quality.
"Heaviest concentrations of industrial discharges are in
Allegheny County where 150 facilities discharge wastes into streams.
An additional 250 facilities discharge to ALCOSAN on the Ohio River.
The most concentrated area is along the Monongahela with most dis-
charges originating from steel plants."
-------
These excerpts are from "COWAMP - Comprehensive Water Quality
Management Plan" (1) which is the State baseline study and plan for the
quality of the water resources of Pennsylvania. The COWAMP Study Areas
#8 and //9 cover most of the ORBES region in Pennsylvania and areas
#5 and #6 include the remainder. A map showing the overlap of COWAMP
Study Areas and the ORBES region is given in Figure 2.1.6.-1.
The "Study Areas" were adopted in the State Water Plan as the basic
organizational structure. There are 10 study areas in the state, each
covering a fairly uniform geographical region but with boundaries conforming
to existing county boundaries. There are 19 counties in the PA ORBES
region which are situated in the four different COWAMP Study Areas as"
shown in Figure 21.6. -1 and listed in Table 2.1.6. -1.
TABLE 2.1.6.-1
ORBES COUNTIES IN COWAMP STUDY AREAS
COWAMP Study Area #5 COWAMP Study Area #6
. Cambria Co. . Clearfield Co.'
. Somerset Co. . Elk Co. (eastern part)
COWAMP Study Area 98 COWAMP Study Area $9
. Clarion Co. . Allegheny Co.
. Elk Co. (western part) . Armstrong Co.
. Forest Co. . Beaver Co.
. Jefferson Co. . Butler Co.
. Lawrence Co. . Fayette Co.
. Mercer Co. . Greene Co.
. Venango Co. . Indiana Co.
-- . Washington Co.
-^ . Westmoreland Co.
The basic planning units of the COWAMP studies, however, are the 20
sub-basins of the State numbered from 1 to 20. Each Sub-basin consists of a
major watershed area, further subdivided into smaller watersheds designated
by capital letters, such as 19A, 19B, 19C, etc. for Sub-basin 19.
- 2 -
-------
NEW YORK
SUSQUEHANNA
WYOMING^ IACKA
SUUIVAN f -/WANNA
' BUTLER /
NORTH-
AMPTON
RTHUMBER
SNYDER \ LAND
PERRY ( DAUPHIN
MONT-
GOMERY
t f RED V
WASHINGION /ERiCK'
MARYLAND
GARRETT / ALLEGHENY
WEST VIRGINIA
LEGEMD
« COWAMP STUDY AREA BOUNDARIES
COUNTY BOUNDARIES
COWAMP STUDY AREAS ' NUMBERED
DELAWARE
ORBES Region
FIGURE 2-1.6.-1
OVERLAP OF ORBES REGION
WITH COWAMP STUDY AREAS
AND COUNTIES
-------
The PA ORBES region overlaps parts of eight sub-basins, as shown in
Figure 2.1.6.-2:
. Western part of Sub-basin 8 - Upper West Branch
Susquehanna Sub-basin
. Western-most tip of Sub-basin 11 - Upper Juniata
Sub-basin
. Western-most tip of Sub-basin 13 - Potomac Sub-basin
. Southern part of Sub-basin 16 - Upper Allegheny Sub-basin
. Sub-basin 17 - Central Allegheny'(except its northern tip)
. Sub-basin 18 - Lower Allegheny Sub-basin
. Sub-basin 19 - Monongahela Sub-basin
. Sub-basin 20 - Ohio Sub-basin (except its northern tip)
Much of the material in this chapter on baseline data for water quality
in Pennsylvania is taken from the COWAMP reports (References 1,2,3',4) as
it applies to the ORBES region. These reports contain a wealth of valuable
information on many aspects of water use and quality in the ORBES Region, parti-
cularly large-size plates which accompany the various chapters. A list of
the most pertinent plates in the COWAMP reports is given in Table 2.1.6.-2 for
reference. The small portions of Sub-basins 8,11,and 13 which are included
in the ORBES Region are actually not part of the Ohio River Basin and only
limited amount of information will be presented for these areas in this report.
- 4 -
-------
FIGURE 2.1.6.-2
OVERLAP OF ORBES REGION WITH COWAMP SUBBASINS
WEST VIRGINIA
COWAMP 'SUB-BASINS ' IN 'OP.BES REGION
8 J Upper West Branch Susquehanna
*>.x
11 ; Upper Juniata Sub-basin
fl3) Potomac Sub-basin
1o) Upper Allegheny Sub-basin
s^/
n T) Central Allegheny Sub-basin
(18) Lower Allegheny Sub-basin
M 9J Monongahela Sub-basin
(20) Ohio Sub-basin
MARYLAND
LEGEND
COWAMP SUB-
BASIN BOUNDARY
COWAMP SUB-
BASIN - NUMBERED
ORBES REGION
BOUNDARY
ORBES REGION
- 5 -
-------
muuu <-. I .0.-^
LIST OF PERTINENT PLATES IN COWAMP REPORTS
COWAMP STUDY AREA //5 (3)
Plate Title
IV-6 Selected Stream Gaging Stations
IV-9 Groundwater Degradation and Critical Recharge Areas
VI-1 Major Streams and Water Quality. Sampling Points
VI-2 Existing Aquatic Environments
VI-3 Public and Industrial Water Use
VI-4 Domestic Ground Water Use
VI-5 Agricultural Water Use
VI-6 Recreational Water Use
VI-7 Water Based Power Generation
VI-8 Wastewater Treatment Facilities and Untreated Discharges
VI-9 Water Use Totals and Available Resources
VI-10 Water Resources Development Projects
VI-11 Documented Acid Mine Drainage Discharge Points
VI-12 Ground Water Quality Problem Areas
.VI-13 Surface Water Quality Problem Areas
VI-14 Ground Water Sampling Points
VI-15 Ground Water Quality by Hydrogeological Group
VI-16 Elevated Chemical Parameters in Ground Water Sampling
Points
VI-17 Stream Use Classifications
VI-18 Water Quality Criteria Classification
VI-19 Effluent Limitation Zones
VII-1 Wastewater Treatment Facilities and Untreated Discharges
VII-2 Coal Mining Areas
VII-3 " Coal Operating Wastewater Treatment Facilities
VII-4 Existing and Presently Planned Sewered Areas
VII-5 Landfills, Unlined Lagoons, and Spray-Irrigation Sites
- 6 -
-------
TABLE 2.1.6.-2 Continued.
COWAMP STUDY AREA //6 (4)
Plate - Title
IV-9 Potential Ground Water Yield
IV-10 Potential Ground Water Recharge Areas
VI-1 General Study Area Map
VI-2 Public Water Systems
VI-3 Non-Public Water Uses
VI-4 Existing Reservoir Development
VI-5 Potential Ground-Water Yields and Pumping Areas
VI-6 Surface Water Quality Monitoring
VI-7 Water Quality Problems
VII-1 Existing and Planned Municipal Wastewater Treatment
Systems
VII-2 Existing Industrial and Non-Municipal Wastewater Treatment
Facilities
VII-3 Active Coal Mine Locations
VII-4 Malfunctioning On-Lot Disposal Areas
VII-5 Existing and Planned Land Disposal Locations
COWAMP STUDY AREA #8 (1)
IV-14 Ground Water Use
IV-15 Ground Water Availability
IV-18 Abandoned Deep Coal Mines
IV-19 Degraded Surface Waters
IV-20 Areas of Known or Potential Ground Water Degradation
VI-1 Hydrologic Basins
VI-2 Water Supply Treatment Facilities, Sources, and Service
Areas
- 7 -
-------
TABLE 2.1.6.-2 Continued
COWAMP STUDY AREA #8 (1)
Plate - Title
VI-3 Ground Water Pumpage
VI-4 Stream Use Designations
VI-5 Water Quality Monitoring Points
VI-6 Surface Water Classification
VI-7 Location of United States Geological Survey - Ground
Water Sampling Points
VII-1 Municipal and Non-municipal Wastewater Treatment Facilities
VII-2 Septic Tank Concentrations
VII-3 Industrial Wastewater Discharges
VII-4 Mine Drainage Treatment Facilities
VII-5 Solid Waste Sites
VII-6 Existing Monitoring Stations
COWAMP STUDY AREA #9 (2)
IV-15 Ground Water Use
IV-16 Ground Water Availability
IV-23 Abandoned Deep Mines
IV-24 Degraded Surface Waters
IV-25 Areas of Known or Potential Ground Water Degradation
VI-1 Hydrologic Basins
VI-2 Water Supply Treatment Facilities, Sources, and Service
Areas
VI-2a High Detail - Water Supply Treatment Facilities and
Sources
VI-3 Ground Water Pumpage
- 8 -
-------
TABLE 2.7.6.-2 Continued
COWAMP STUDY AREA //9 (2)
Plate - Title
VI-4 Stream Use Designations
VI-5 Water Quality Monitoring Points
VI-6 Surface Water Classification
VI-7 Location of USGS Ground Water Sampling Points
VII-1 Municipal Wastewater Treatment Facilities
VII-2 Non-municipal Wastewater Treatment Facilities and
Raw Discharges, and Municipal Raw Discharges
VII-3 Septic. Tank Concentrations
VII-4 Industrial Wastewater Discharges and Spray Irrigation
Facilities
VII-5 Industrial Wastewater Discharges
VII-6 Industrial Wastewater Discharges
VII-7 Deep Mine Drainage Treatment Facilities - Surface
Mine Drainage Treatment Facilities
VII-8 Solid Waste Sites and Treatment Facilities
VII-9 Water Quality Monitoring Points
- 9 -
-------
2.1.6.2. WATER QUALITY DATA SOURCES
Water quality data in the PA ORBES region are collected by several
agencies. These include:
. PA Department of Environmental Resources
. PA Fish Commission
. PA Western Conservancy
. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
. U.S. Geological Survey
. U.S. Department of Agriculture
. U.S. Coast Guard
. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
. ORSANCO
. Pittsburgh Naval Reactors
. County Health Departments
. local water and wastewater treatment agencies
. conservation groups and watershed associations
. industries
Much of the sampling is irregular, conducted for a specific, temporary
reason and provides only limited information for a short time period. There
are a few major monitoring networks which will be described briefly below but
many of the reports and publications from short-term studies will be used in
the discussion.
The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) is concerned with chemical and physical
characteristics of the surface and ground water supplies of the Nation. Most
of its investigations are carried out in cooperation with State, municipal,
and other Federal agencies. USGS has published the records of chemical quality,
temperature, and suspended sediment of surface waters from 1941 to 1970 in an
- 10 -
-------
annual series of water-supply papers entitled "Quality of Surface Waters
of the United States". To meet interim requirements, for water years
1964 through 1974, water quality records have also been released by the USGS
in annual reports for each state. For PA these reports are entitled "Water
Resources Data for Pennsylvania, Part 2. - Water Quality Records". Beginning
with the 1975 water year, data for streamflow, surface water quality, and ground
water are published as an official" USGS Water-Data Report" on a State-boundary
basis entitled "Water Resources Data for Pennsylvania - Water Year X".
USGS, -in cooperation with the PA Bureau of Topographic and Geologic Survey
of DER, has also been sampling and analyzing public, private, and industrial
spring and well waters at various locations since about 1930. The results
have been published by the PA Bureau of Topographic and Geologic Survey in
ground water reports or bulletins of their W series.
The PA Department of Environmental Resources (DER) Bureau of Water Quality
Management has collected and analyzed water quality samples throughout the
state as part of the PA Water Quality Network (WQN) (5) since 1962. Beginning
with the 1976 water year the results are included in the "Water Resources Data
for Pennsylvania" published by USGS. At this time records of samples collected
prior to October 1975 are available only through the DER but will be published
in the future as a separate data report.
The data are-also entered into computerized information retrieval networks:
Pennsylvania's Water Quality Management Information System (WAMIS), and the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's STORET. These data can be accessed by
means of station's Water Quality Network number (PA-DER WQN No.) or the 8-
digit downstream-order station number assigned by USGS (EPA/USGS No.). About
55 parameters are stored in STORET for each WQN station and these can be re-
trieved along with the dates on which the sampling took place or the mean,
- 11
-------
variance, standard deviation, maximum and minimum values of each parameter
can be calculated for any time period and outputted along with the number of
samples involved.
There are approximately 300 WQN stations in the state where samples are
collected regularly, on a monthly or quarterly basis. Twenty-five chemical
indicators are analyzed for each sample but biological monitoring has also
been established at some of the stations. Heavy metal analysis is performed
once a year during low flow conditions. There are also a number of partial
record stations where samples are collected irregularly and only a few analyses
are performed on the samples.
The Bureau of Water Quality Management also samples and analyses the raw
water quality of all ground water sources prior to issuing a permit for public
water supply use. After issuance of the permit, raw water samples are generally
taken only when a problem arises or if treatment is not normally provided.
Other bureaus of DER perform less extensive monitoring, oriented toward
their own need. Thus, the Bureau of Surface Mine Reclamation collects surface
and ground water quality data affected by surface mining activities. The
sampling begins prior to issuing a surface mining permit, continues throughout
the activity and extends into the reclamation period. The Bureau of Community
Environmental Control monitors the water quality of certain semi-public waters
(State parks, restaurants, schools, institutions, public swimming and bathing
places, etc) and the Bureau of Land Protection monitors the ground water at
landfill sites, wastewater lagoons, and similar facilities. None of the data
collected by these bureaus is fed into any computer system at the present time.
- 12 -
-------
The Ohio River Valley Water' Sanitation Commission (ORSANCO), an instrument
of an eight-state compact, maintains a comprehensive water quality monitoring
network on the Ohio River and the lower reaches of its major tributaries. It
has more than 25 robot monitors in operation, six of which are in the PA-ORBES
Region. The robots continuously monitor only four parameters (temperature,
conductivity, dissolved oxygen, and pH) of which the daily averages are computer-
calculated and these data are available on computer printouts (6). Samples at
major stations are. also collected manually on a bi-weekly basis and analyzed for
30 additional parameters, including heavy metals. Recent concern with dis-
charges of toxic chemicals has caused a drastic change in the Commission's monitor-
ing program to include organic substances, such as PCB's and pesticides in fish,
river water, and sediment. A statistical summary of the robot monitor data and
the results of some other water quality analyses are published monthly (7).
Table 2.1.6.-3 lists all surface water quality sampling stations operated
by the above listed monitoring networks within the PA-ORBES Region. Included
are seven ORSANCO stations (one of which has been discontinued), five EPA Primary
Stations, and 86 WQN Stations (16 of which have recently been discontinued).
The locations of these sampling stations are shown in Figures 2.1.6.-3 through
2.1.6.-7.
- 13 -
-------
TABLE 2.1.6..-3 SURFACE WATER QUALITY SAMPLING LOCATIONS
'PA-DER
WQN NO.
(b)(c)
(b)
701 ( a)
702
703 (a)
704
705
706
707
708 (c)
709
710
712
713
'714
715
7l6(c)
717
718
719
720(c;
721
722(c)
723
724
725
STREAM .
Monongahela River
Monongahela River
Monongahela River
Monongahela River
Monongahela River
Turtle Creek
Abers Creek
Youghiogheny River
Youghiogheny River
Youghiogheny River
Youghiogheny River
Casselman River
Redstone Creek
South Fork Ten Mile
Dunkard Creek
Sewickley Creek
South Fork Ten Mile
Ten Mile Creek
Pigeon Creek
Peters Creek
Turtle Creek
Jacobs Creek
Casselman River
Big Sandy Creek
Laurel Hill Creek
Monongahela River
COWAMP
SUB-
BASIN
MONONGAHELA RIVER
19C
19A
19A
19C
19G
19A
19A
19D
19D
19E
19F
19F
19C
Creek 19B
19G
19D
Creek 19B
19B
19C
19C
19A
19D
19F
19G
. 19E
19G
LOCATION EPA/USGS N
3ASIN
Charleroi, Washington Co.
S. Pittsburgh,- Allegheny Co.
Braddock, Allegheny Co.
Charleroi, Washington Co.
Greensboro, Greene Co.
Trafford, Westmoreland Co.
Plum Boro, Allegheny County
Sutersville, Westmoreland, Co.
Coimellsville, Fayette Co.
Ohiopyle, Fayette Co.
Youghiogheny Daa, Somerset Co.
Markleton, Somerset Co.
Franklin Twp., Fayette Co.
Jefferson, Greene Co.
Dunkard Trp. , Greene Co.
Hunker, Westmoreland Co.
Clarksville, Greene Co.
E. Bethlehem Twp., Washington
Co.
Carroll Twp., Washington Co.
Jefferson Borough, Allegheny
Co.
Franklin Twp., Westmoreland Co.
Scottsdale Boro, Westmoreland
Co.
Harnedsville, Somerset Co.
Wharton TTTO., Fayette Co.
Confluence, Somerset Co.
Point Marion, Fayette Co.
850
750
725.50
845
840
835
825-
815
775
790
745
730
720
832.50
735.35
736 .
750.40
750.90
839.75
830.38
792
704
800
630
~m
i
1
1
|
1
|
1
I
|
|
|
1
- 14 -
-------
TABLE 2.1.6.-3(Continued)
PA-DER
WQN NO.
' 804(a.)
805
826
828(c )
829
830
845
848(c)
852
853(C)
802
803
'818
819
820
82L -
822
823
824
825
833
8;5(c)
836(e.)
837(c)
841
842(c)
843
STREAM
UPPER
Allegheny River
Allegheny River
French Creek
Oil Creek
Tionesta Creek
Tionesta Creek
French Creek'
Lake Creek
Oil Creek .
Tioaesta Creek
MIDDLE
Allegheny River
Allegheny River
Crooked Creek
Mahoning Creek
Redbank Creek
Clarion River
Clarion River
Clarion River
W. Branch Clarion River
S. Branch Clarion River
Clarion River
Mahoning Creek
Little Mahoning Creek '.
Crooked Creek
Cowanshannock Creek
Clarion River
COWAMP
. . SUB-
BASIN LOCATION ' EPA/USGS NO.
ALLEGHENY RIVER BASIN
16G
16F
16D
16F
16F
16F
16D
16D
16E
16F
Franklin> Venango Co.
Harmony Twp., Forest Co.
tttica, Venango Co.
Rouseville, Venango Co.
Tionesta Twp., Forest Co.
Howe Twp., Forest Co.
Franklin, Venango Co.
Jackson, Twp., Venango Co.
Oil City, Venango Co.
Tionesta Twp. Forest Co.
255
160
240
205
200.50
175
254.90
242.30
210.50
200.05
ALLEGHENY RIVER BASIN
17E
17C
17E
17D
17C
17B
17B
17A
17A
17A
17A
17D
17D
17E
17E
17D
17B
Kittanning Twp., Armstrong Co.
Hovey Twp., Armstrong Co.
Bethel Twp., Armstrong Co.
Redbank Twp., Armstrong Co.
Porter Twp., Clarion Co.
Piney Twp., Clarion Co.
Farmington Twp. Clarion Co.
Johnsonburg, Elk Co.
Jones Twp., Elk Co.
Jones Twp., Elk. Co.
Ridgway, Elk Co.
Punxsutawney, Jefferson Co.
Me Connie, Indiana Co.
South Bend Twp., Armstrong Co.
Valley Twp., Armstrong Co.
Pine Twp., Armstrong Co.
Richaland Twp., Clarion Co.
365
315
390.10
360
325
305.15
295.
285
280
275.45
290
340
345
380
364
361
310
- 15 -
-------
TABLE 2.1.6.-3 (Continued)
PA-DER
WQN NO.
344
359
Cb)
(b)
(b)
801( a)
308
809
310
811
812
813
314
815
816
817
838
839
840(c)
STREAM
MIDDLE
Elk Creek
Little Toby Creek
LOWER
Allegheny River
Allegheny River
Kiskiminetas River
Allegheny River
Buffalo Creek
KisMminetas River
Conemaugh River
Conemaugh River
Loyalianna Creek
Loyalhanna Creek
Black Lick Creek
Two- Lick Creek
Little Conemaugh River
Stony Creek
Pine Creek
Deer Creek
Buffalo Creek
COWAMP
SUB
BASIN
LOCATION EPA/USGS NO.
I
ALLEGHENY RIVER BASIN (continued)
17A-
17A
Ridgway, Elk Co.
Portland Mills, Elk Co.
289
291.70
ALLEGHENY RIVER BASIN ' .
18A
Iff
18B
18A
.18F
18B
18C
18D
18C
180
18D
18D
18E
18E
18A
ISA
18F
Oakaont, Allegheny Co.
Lock &Dam No. 5, Armstrong Co.
Vandergrift, Westmoreland Co.
New Kensington, '.Vestmorelsnd Co.
S. Buffalo Twp., Armstrong Co.
Vandergrift, Westmoreland Co.
Conemaugh Trip., Indiana Co.
Seward, Westmoreland Co.
Loyalhanna Two. , Westmoreland
Co.
Unity Twp., Westmoreland Co.
Burrell Twp., Indiana Co.
Center Twp., Indiana Co.
Franklin, Cambria 'Co.
Ferndale , Cambria Co .
Hampton Twp., Allegheny Co.
West Deer Twp., Allegheny Co.
Clearfield Twp., Butler Co.
496.25
4.89
485
440
415
470
449.97
420
425.05
410.25
400
497.50
496.45
488.50
- 16 -
-------
TABLE 2.1.6.-3.(Continued)
PA-DER
WQN NO.
STREAM
COWAMP
SUB
BASIN
LOCATION
EPA/USGS NO.
OHIO RIVER BASIN
(b) Ohio River
(b) Beaver River
901 Ohio River
902 Ohio River
903 Raccoon Creek
904 Beaver River
905( a) Beaver River
906 Beaver River
907 Connoquenessin? Creek
908 . Slippery Rode Creek
909 Shenango River
910 Shenango River
912(.c) Pymatuning Creek
913 L. Shenango River
914 Chartiers Creek
915 Mahoning River
916 . Chartiers Creek
917 Connoquenessing Creek
918 Two Mile Run
919(c) Brush Creek
920 Glade Run
921 Slippery Rock Creek
922 Slippery Rock Creek
923 N. Fork L. Beaver Creek
924(c) Big Run
926 Slippery Rock Creek
200 S. Heights, Beaver Co.
20B Beaver Falls, Beaver Co.
20D East Liverpool, Ohio
20G Sewickley, Allegheny Co.
20D Center Twp., Beaver Co.
20B Rochester, Beaver Co.
20B Eastvalle, Beaver Co.-
20B Wampum, Lawrence Co.
20C Franklin TOT., Beaver Co.
20C Perry Twp., Lawrence Co.
20A New Castle, Lawrence Co.
20A Sharpsyille, Mercer Co.
20A So. Pymatuning Twp», Mercer
Co.
20A Hempfield Twp., Mercer Co.
20F Carnegie, Allegheny Co.
20B Mahoning Twp., Lawrence Co.
20F Peters Twp., Washington Co.
20C Penn Twp., Butler Co.
20B Borough Twp., Beaver Co.
20C Marion Twp., Beaver Co.
20C Forward Twp., Butler Co.
20C Worth Twp., Butler Co.
20C Perry Twp., Lawrence Co.
20B L. Beaver Twp., Lawrence Co.
20A New Castle, Lawrence Co.
' 20C Marion Twp., Butler Co.
1096.50
360
1080
1076.15
1075
1055
1060
1065
1045
1C35
1025
355
996
352.60
1058.10-
1076.20
1060.18
1058.50
1061.53
1065
1093.90
1052.43
1060.30
- 17 -
-------
TABLE 2.1.6.-3 (Continued)
PA-DER
WQN NO.
STREAM
COWAMP
SUB-
BASIN
LOCATION
EPA/USGS NC
404
405
406
422
436
438
440
UPPER WEST BRANCH SUSQUEHANNA BASIN (d )
West Branch Susquehanna River 8D
West Branch Susquehanna River 3B
West Branch Susequehanna River SB
Clearfield Greek . 8C
Chest Creek . SB
Alder Run 3C
Anderson Creek SB
Karthaus, Clearfield Co. 5425
Curwensville Reservoir
Dam, Clearfield Co. 5412
Bower, Clearfield Co. 5410
Clearfield, Clearfield Co. 5415.5C
. Mahaffey, Clearfield Co. 540S.23
KylertoTCi, Clearfield Co. 5418
Curirensville, Clearfield
Co. 5412.48
NOTES; (a) EPA Primary Station
(b) ORSANCO Station .
(c) Discontinued
(d) Not in the Ohio River Watershed
- 18 -
-------
IO
I
LEGEND
$ Slote Copilot
<3) County Seal
O Citiei. lownj.villogei
C-t CofpOfale boundary thowA for lowni
. J 0>e( 10.000 population.
I 1 fiuitl up oiro thown lor lo^nt over
1 10.000 population.
_/fn\ Inlerilulc Highwoyl
-\oy-
_J-PTl_ U.S. Miuh-o,«
.
Olhe. puncipol .oodi
USGS/DER Sampling Location and
Water Quality Network Number
OORS ORSANCO Station
FIGURE 2.1.6.-3 SURFACE WATER QUALITY SAMPLING LOCATIONS MONONGAHELA RIVER BASIN
-------
( .- ' '.." -\ /'-.-.
XXX USGS/DER Sampling Location and
Water Quality Network Number
r////// ORBES Region Boundary
FIGURE 2.1.6-4 SURFACE WATER QUALITY SAMPLING LOCATIONS UPPER ALLEGHENY RIVER BASIN
-------
SUBEASIN INDEX MAP
/'-i -:.,^,c.-;,
-o *^"~! T~" " V
LEGEND
County Seat
\^ J * vow«»y avai
iK« I" " 1 Bw.ll Mf» it'^Ci lKo*n to*
I 1 10.000 P-OM!O..O«
u s
XXX USGS/DER Sampling Location and
Water Quality Network Number
///////' ORBES Region Boundary
FIGURE 2.1.6.-5 SURFACE WATER QUALITY SAMPLING LOCATIONS
MIDDLE ALLEGHENY RIVER BASIN '
- 21 -
-------
SUBQASIN INDEX MAP
*
ro
ro
O C«l.r», lownt.'illugn
« IO.OOOpu|»
aflu.ll up 1.1 «o ill
10.000 H--C-K".
U 5 H.9li-or.
Oih«*
XXX USGS/DER Sampling Location and
Water Quality Network Number
O ORS ORSANCO Station
FIGURE 2.1.6.-6 SURFACE WATER QUALITY SAMPLING LOCATIONS LOWER ALLEGHENY RIVER BASIN
-------
:SUB8ASIN INDEX MAP
912
I Y »-»- ^d«=\:
I. f"-~ '""si. "*?*
FX?3"'-+?" I?]
XXX USGS/DER Sampling Location and
Water Quality Network Number
OORS ORSANCO Station
ORBES Region Boundary
Sr «U w Wt'vt
FIGURE 2.1.6.-7
SURFACE WATER QUALITY SAMPLING LOCATIONS
OHIO RIVER BASIN
- 23 -
-------
2.1.6.3. WATER QUALITY CONTROL AND STANDARDS
A. Federal Control
On October 18, 1972, the Congress, over a presidential veto,
enacted Public Law 92-500, the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act Amendments of 1972.Responding to public demand for cleaner
water, the law it enacted culminated two years of intense debate,
... and resulted in the most assertive step in the history of
national water pollution control activities...
The Act, P.L. 92-500, departed in several ways from previous water
pollution control legislation. It expanded the Federal role in
water pollution control, increased the level of Federal funding
for construction of publicly owned waste treatment works, elevated
planning to a new level of significance, opened new avenues for
public participation and created a regulatory mechanism requiring
uniform technology-based effluent standards together with a national
permit system for all point source dischargers as the means of"
enforcement...
The objective of the Act is to "restore and maintain the chemical
physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's waters."...
The goals are:
- To reach, "wherever attainable, a water quality that provides
for the protection and propagation of fish, shellfish and wildlife"
and "for recreation in and on the water" by July 1, 1983.
- To eliminate the discharge of pollutants into navigable waters
by 1985.
The Act provides for achieving its goals and objectives in phases,
with accompanying requirements and deadlines.
Phase I, an extension of the program embodied in many state laws
and Federal regulations, requires industry to install "best
practicable control technology currently available (BPT); and
publically owned treatment works to achieve secondary treatment
-- by July 1, 1977 as well as "any more stringent limitations,
including those to meet [state or Federal] water quality standards
..." [Sec 301(b) (1) (c)]
Phase II requirements are intended to be more vigorous and more
innovative. Industries are to install "best available technology
economically achievable [BAT]... which will result in reasonable
further progress toward the national goal of eliminating the
discharge of all pollutants"; and publicly owned treatment works
are to achieve "best practicable waste treatment technology...
including reclaiming and recycling of water, and confined dis^
posal of pollutants" (BPWTT) by July 1, 1983 as well as any
water quality related effluent limitation. (Sec 302) Ultimately
all point source controls are directed toward achieving the
national goal of the elimination of the discharge of pollutants
by 1985. (8-)
- 24 -
-------
The National Wild and Sceryic Rivers Act of 1968 (PL 90-542) declared
it
" to be the policy of the United States that
certain selected rivers of the Nation...be pre-
served in free-flowing condition, and that they
and their immediate environments shall be protec-
ted...."
The Act designated eight rivers as initial components of the National Wild
and Scenic River System and 27 rivers for study as potential additions.
None, of the eight designated rivers, but the following three of the potential
additions to the National System are in the PA ORBES Region.
-Allegheny River from mouth to East Brady in the middle
and Lower Allegheny Basins
-Clarion River from Ridgeway to its confluence with the
Allegheny River in the Middle Allegheny River Basin
-Youghiogheny River from Youghiogheny River Dam to
Connellsville in the Monongahela River Basin
It can be expected that water pollution abatement efforts will be
accelerated along these rivers in order to qualify them for inclusion. A
recently completed study on the Youghiogheny River by the U.S. Department of
the Interior found the river water quality sufficiently improved to support
significant sport fisheries and recreation and recommended that the 27-mile
segment of the Youghiogheny between Youghiogheny Dam and South Connellsville,
PA., be included in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System (9).
B. State Control
In 1965 Congress authorized the establishment of water quality standards
for interstate water. The Water Quality Act of 1965 provided for the States
to have the first opportunity to establish these standards for their inter-
state waters. Pennsylvania's standards were approved by the Secretary of the
Interior in 1968 (10). Figure 2.1.6.-8 shows a map of the significant interstate
- 25 -
-------
FIGURE 2.1.6.-8 SIGNIFICANT INTERSTATE WATERS OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
Source (10)
INi
CT>
Envi ronmenlal
Protect ion Agency
January 1972
-------
waters to which the standards apply. The ORBES counties include interstate
streams from the Casselman River on the Maryland border - to the Allegheny River
on the New York border.
Control over internal waters has been under the active jurisdiction of
the Pennsylvania State government since 1923. In 1937 "The Clean Streams
Law" of Pennsylvania was passed which provided for the preservation and im-
provement of State streams. A recent issue of the "Pennsylvania Bulletin"(11)
relates some of the new changes in the State Law, and outlines the history
of control over Pennsylvania's water quality:
Water quality standards are an important element of the State's
water quality management program in that they set general and
specific goals for the quality of our streams. Some type of - -
water quality standard has been in use .for more than 50 years
in Pennsylvania. One of the Sanitary Water Board's early action
after its creation in 1923 was to classify streams as to priority
for water quality management actions: In 1947 the Sanitary Water
Board classified all streams in the state as to the degree of
treatment that had to be provided before discharge.
During the period 1966 through 1973, specific water quality
standards were developed by the Department of Environmental Re-
sources for all Pennsylvania surface waters. These water quality
standards had three major parts: (1) a listing of water uses to
- be protected; (2) general water quality criteria and specific
water quality criteria; and (3) a plan of implementation describ-
ing the effluent limits necessary for point source discharges to
meet the water quality criteria.
After a series of public hearings, the water uses and water quality
criteria for. Pennsylvania streams were incorporated into Chapter
93 of the Department's Rules and Regulations. The implementation
plans were not adopted as regulations. The implementation plans
served as the basis for notices and orders to upgrade wastewater
treatment that were issued to manicipalities and industries.
Since 1973, they have also been used as the basis for certifying
effluent limits in federal wastewater discharge permits (NPDES).
Public Law 92-500, which amended the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act, has changed the make up of the old water quality
standards by eliminating the implementation plan as a part of the
standard. Implementation has now been made a part of the areawide
water quality management planning process and the NPDES permit
process in the federal program. The new water quality standards
can, however, affect waste sources since the Department must take
action to insure that the water quality standards (instream) are
met. The standards are to be used as program objectives in the
control of both point and non-point sources of pollution. (11)
- 27 -
-------
Figure 2.1.6..-9 shows a map of the internal waters of Pennsylvania to which the
State standards apply. The major drainage areas and tributaries within the
PA-ORBES Region are listed in Table 2.1.6.-4.
Pennsylvania also has control over the degradation of high quality waters
in the State. The policy was approved by the Environmental Protection Agency
in 1971 and is enforceable under both Pennsylvania and Federal law (10). The
new wording of this policy in the proposed revisions for 1978 wastewater treatment
requirements (Chapter 95) states that:
...waters having a water use designated as "High Quality Waters"...
shall be maintained... at their existing quality, unless... the
proposed... discharge... of pollutants is justified as a result
of necessary economic or social development which is of sign-ificant
public value. (11)
In the existing regulations governing high quality waters they are called
"Conservation Areas" and fall under the heading of "Recreation" (Chapter 93,
(12)). A list of the existing Conservation Area Watersheds in the ORBES counties
is presented in Table 2.1.6.-5. However, the concept has been expanded in the
1978 proposed revisions and high quality waters have become a water use in their
own right, independent of recreational use (Chapter 93, ill)). Most of water-
sheds presently classified as "Conservation Area" streams are proposed to be
renamed "High Quality Waters"or "Exceptional Value Waters" under the general title
"Special Protection".
Pennsylvania's Scenic Rivers Act (Act. No. 283, December 1972) authorized
the establishment of the Pennsylvania Scenic River System. The Act established
four classifications into which streams could be assigned: (27)
Class 1 Wild river areas - those rivers or sections of rivers that
are free of impoundments and generally inaccessible except
by trail, with watersheds or shorelines essentially primitive
and waters unpolluted.
Class 2 Scenic river areas - those rivers or sections of rivers
that are free of impoundments, with shorelines or water-
sheds still largely primitive and undeveloped, but access-
ible in places by roads.
- 28 -
-------
ro
(£>
t
FIGURE 2.1.6.-9 PENNSYLVANIA GAZETTEER OF STREAMS
INDEX MAP
Source (11)
W.
ao
76
-------
TABLE 2.1.6.-4
MAJOR DRAINAGE AREAS AND TRIBUTARIES IN THE PA ORBES REGION
RIVER
Allegheny
Monongahela
Ohio
West Branch
Susquehanna
(Not in the 0
DRAINAGE AREA
(See Fig. 2. 1.6. -9)
Q
R
S
T
u
V
W
I
hio River Watershed)
Susquehanna II N
(Not in the Ohio River Watershed)
Potomac River 11 Z
(Not in the Ohio River Watershed)
TRIBUTARY
Tionesta Creek
Oil Creek
French Creek
Sandy Creek
Clarion River
Bear Creek
Redbank Creek
Mahoning Creek
Cowanshannock Cr.
Crooked Creek
Kiskiminetas River
Buffalo Creek
Deer Creek
Plum Creek
P1ne Creek
Cheat River
Dunkard Creek
Georges Creek
White! ey Creek
Tenmile Creek
Dunlap Creek
Redstone Creek
Peters Creek
Youghiogheny River
Turtle Creek
Chartiers Creek
Beaver River
Raccoon Creek
Chest Creek
Anderson Creek
Clearfield Creek
Moshannon Creek
Bennett Branch -
Sinnemahoning Cr.
Raystown Branch -
Juniata River
Wills Creek
TRIBUTARY
Sugar Creek
Spring Creek
Toby Creek
Sandy Lick Creek
Little Mahoning Creek
Conemaugh River
Stony Creek
Two Lick Creek
Loyal hanna Creek
South Fork Tenmile Creek
Casselman River
Laurel Hill Creek
Indian Creek
Jacobs Creek
Sewickley Creek
Abers Creek
Mahoning River
Shenango River
Connoquenessing Creek
SI ippery Rock Creek
- 30 -
-------
. TABLE 2.1.6.-5
CONSERVATION AREA WATERSHEDS IN ORBES
COUNTIES IN PENNSYLVANIA
After Source (11)
Allegheny County - None
Armstrong County
- Buffalo Creek and tributaries from the source' to and including Little
Buffalo Creek (see also Butler County)
- Pine Creek watershed
Beaver County - None
Butler County
- Buffalo Creek and tributaries from the source to and including Little
Buffalo Creek (see also Armstrong County)
Clarion County
- Turkey Run
- Beaver Creek
- "Upper" Mill Creek (Also Jefferson County)
- Blyson Run
- Maxwell Run
- Gather Run (Also Jefferson County)
Cambria County
'- West Branch of the Susquehanna River Basin1
1. Chest Creek Basin, source to municipal water supply intake in
Patton Borough
- Conemaugh River Basin
1. Saltlick Run Basin
2. South Fork Little Conemaugh River Basin from and including Beaverdam
Run to source
3. Bens Creek Basin
4. Noels Creek Basin
5. Laurel Run Basin
Clearfield County
- West Branch Susquehanna River Tributaries
1. Trout Run Basin
2. Lick Run Basin
3. Moose Creek Basin from Moose Creek Dam to source
4. Montgomery Creek Basin from Montgomery Dam to source
5. Anderson Creek Basin from DuBois Dam to source
6. South Branch Basin of Bennett Branch
Redbank Creek basin
1. Wolf Run Basin
- 31 -
-------
TABLE 2.1.6.-5 (Continued)
- Mahoning Creek basin
1. East Branch Mahoning Creek Basin from source to but not including
Beaver Run
2. Clover Run Basin
Elk County
- Sinnemahoning Creek Basin
1. Mix Run Basin - Bennett Branch
2. Hicks Run Basin - Bennett Branch
3. Medix Run Basin - Bennett Branch
3. Laurel Run Basin _- Bjmnett Branch
- Spring Creek (Also Forest County)
- Crow Run
- Bear Creek
- Big Mill Creek
- Little Mill Creek
- Silver Creek
- Wolf Run
- E. Br. Clarion
- S. Br. Tionesta Creek
- Millstone Creek (Also Jefferson County)
- Wyncoop Run
- Maxwell Run (Also Jefferson County)
Fayette County
- Dunbar Creek and tributaries from its source to and including Elk Rock
Run
. - Morgan Run watershed
- Tributaries of Big Sandy Creek
Forest County
- Tubbs Run
- L. Hickory Run
- E. Hickory Creek
- L. Coon Creek
- Ross Run
- Bear Creek
- Salmon Creek
- Fork Run
- Bobbs Creek
- Blood Run
- Minister Creek
- Fools Creek
- Lower Sheriff Run
- Upper Sheriff Run
- Blue Jay Creek
- Troutman Run
- Coleman Run
- Maple Creek
- Cherry Run
- 32 -
-------
TABLE 2.1.6.-5 (Continued)
Greene County - None
Indiana County
- Little Yellow Creek watershed
- South Branch of Two Lick Creek watershed
- Richards Run watershed
- South Branch of Plum Creek watershed from source to, but not including,
Reddens Run
Jefferson County
- Call en Run
- Clear Creek
- Sugarcamp Run (Also Indiana County)
- Clover Run
- N. Fk. Redbank Creek
- L. Mill Creek
- School house Run
- Falls Creek
Somerset County
- Potomac River Basin
1. The basins of Wills Creek tributaries from source to Pennsylvania-
North Branch Jennings Run and Gooseberry Run Basins
- Youghiogheny River Basin
1. Laurel Hill Creek Basin
- Conemaugh River Basin
1. North Fork Bens Creek Basin
2. South Fork Bens Creek Basin
3. Bobcock Creek Basin
4. Clear Shade Creek Basin
5. Roaring Run Basin
6. Beaverdam Creek Basin (Tributary of Quemahoning Creek)
7. Spruce Run Basin
8. Beaverdam Creek Basin (Tributary of Stony Creek)
Washington County - None
Westmoreland County
- Loyalhanna Creek watershed from source to and including Laugh!intown Run
= Serviceberry Run watershed
- Indian Camp Run watershed
- Coalpit Run watershed
- South Fork of Mill Creek watershed
North Fork of Mill Creek watershed
Shirey Run watershed
Tubmill Run watershed above Tubmill reservoir
Shannon Run watershed
Baldwin Creek watershed
- 33 -
-------
Class 3 Recreational rivers - those rivers or sections of rivers
that are readily accessible, that may have some develop-
ment along their.shorelines and may have undergone some
impoundment or diversion in the past.
Class 4 Modified recreational rivers - those rivers or sections
of rivers in-which the flow may be regulated by control
devices located upstream. Low dams are permitted in the
reach so long as they do not increase the river beyond
bank-full width. These reaches are used for human acti-
vities which do not substantially interfere with public
use of the streams or the enjoyment of their surroundings.
The Department of Environmental Resources published a list of potential cand-
idate streams for inclusion in this protected river system (13). The streams
selected from the ORBES Region are listed in Table 2.1.6.-6. As can be seen in
the Table, the candidate streams were categorized according to their relative
area-wide significance (first, second, and third priorities) and the. First Prior-
ity streams were further subdivided into three priority subgroups (A, B, and C)
based upon the urgency of protective action.
It can be expected that several years will pass before detailed studies on
the candidate streams will be completed and any one of them will be legally
designated a Pennsylvania Scenic River with mandated restrictions on development
in the designated segment. However, in the meantime, the nomination can be
regarded as an environmental constraint where special emphasis will be placed on
the examination of all related activity. Currently, (mid-1978) DER is in the
process of completing detailed studies of French Creek and Dunbar Creek in the
ORBES Region for possible nomination.
C. Hater Quality Standards
Water Quality standards are contained in Chapter 93 of the "Rules and
Regulations "(12) published by the Department of Environmental Resources.
Confusion over the meaning of the words "criteria" and "standards" was genera-
ted by their use in the 1965- amendments to the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act. The Department of Environmental Resources (State) has recently
- 34 -
-------
TABLE 2.1.6.-6 PROPOSED PENNSYLVANIA SCENIC RIVERS IN THE ORBES REGION
Sources (13) & (27)
Drainage
Area (a)
Q
R
Stream Name
Tionesta Creek
Lake Creek
Sugar Creek
French Creek
Allegheny River
Oil Creek
Pi thole Creek
East Sandy Creek
Sandy Creek
Little Scrubgrass
Creek
Clarion River
Bear Creek
Location
(County)
Forest, McKean, Warren(d)
Crawford, Venango(d)
Venango
Crawford, Mercer,
Venango (d)
Warren, Forest, Venango,
Clarion(d)
Crawford, Venango (d)
Forest, Venango
Clarion, Venango
Mercer, Venango
Butler, Venango
Clarion, Elk, Forest,
Jefferson
Elk
Segment
Limits
Headwaters to Tionesta
Reservoir
Headwaters to Sugar
Creek
Junction of Brandies to
French Creek
Headwaters to Allegheny
River
Kinzua Dam to Clarion
River
Titusville to Rouseville
Headwaters to Allegheny
River
Headwaters to Allegheny
River
Sandy Lake to Allegheny
River
Headwaters :to Allegheny
River
Ridgeway to Allegheny River
Headwaters to Clarion River
Class
(b)
S
R
MR
MR
S, R,
MR
S
S
R
R
S
S
S
Priority
Groupie)
1A
1A
1A
1A
1A
IB
2
2
2
2
1A
IB
CO
en
-------
to
en
TABLE 2. 1.6. -6 Continued
Drainage
Area(a)
S
T
U
Stream Name
North Fork, Redbank
Creek
Allegheny River
Allegheny River
Redbank Creek
Mahoning Creek
Cowanshannock Creek
Clear Shade Creek
Shade Creek
Loyalhanna Creek
Stony Creek
Blacklick Creek
Conemaugh River
Squaw Run
Buffalo Creek
Allegheny River
mm M M
Location
(County)
Jefferson
Clarion
Armstrong
Armstrong, Clarion
Armstrong
Armstrong
Somerset
Somerset
Westmoreland
Somerset
Indiana
Indiana, Westmoreland
Allegheny
Armstrong, Butler
Allegheny, Westmoreland
fe §_ 1MK_ ^HM_ .^H
Segment
Limits
Headwaters to Redbank
Creek
Clarion River to East
Brady
East Brady to Kiski-
minetas River
S. Bethlehem to Allegheny
River
Mahoning Creek Lake to
Allegheny River
Junction of Branches to
Allegheny River
Headwaters to Shade Creek
Clear Shade Creek to Stone
Creek
Ligonier to Conemaugh River
Headwaters to Paint Creek
Cambria/Indiana County to
Conemaugh River
Cambria/Westmoreland County
to Kiskiminetas River
Headwaters to Allegheny
River
Worthington to Allegheny
River
Kiskiminetas River to
Pi^^urgJ^^ ^^ ^^
Class
(b)
W, S
S
S, MR
S
R
S
S
S
MR
S
R
R
S
S
MR
__» ^
Priority
Group(c)
1A
1A
1C
2
3
3
2
2
2
3
3
3
1A
IB
10 ,
-------
TABLE 2.1.6.-6 Continued
Drainage
Area [a )_
u
(Cont.)
V
Stream Name
Crouse Run
Laurel Hill Creek
Casselman River
Meadow Run
Cucumber Run
Jonathan Run
Indian Creek
Dunbar Creek
Youghiogheny River
Youghiogheny River
Youghiogheny River
Mill Run
Quebec Run
Tenmile Creek
Jacobs Creek
Location
(County)
Allegheny '
Somerset
Somerset
Fayette
Fayette
Fayette
Fayette
Fayette
Somerset, Fayette
Fayette, Westmoreland
Westmoreland, Allegheny
Fayette
Fayette
Greene, Washington
Fayette, Westmoreland
Segment
Limits
Headwaters to Pine Creek
Headwaters to Casselman
River
Garrett to Youghiogheny
River
Headwaters to Youghiogheny
River
Headwaters to Youghiogheny
River
Headwaters to Youghiogheny
River
Mill Run Reservoir to
Youghiogheny River
Headwaters to Dunbar
Confluence, Pa. to South
Connellsville
South Connellsville to West
Newton
West Newton to Versailles
Headwaters to Quebec Run
Headwaters to W. Va. border
Daniel Run to Monongehela
River
Headwaters to Youghiogheny
River
Class
(b)
S
S
S
R
S
W
R
W
S
S
R
W
W
R
S
Priority
Groupjc)
3
1A
l.A
1A
1A
1A
1A
1A
1A
IB
1C
2
2
2
3
I
CO
-------
TABLE 2.1.6.-6 Continued
Drainage
Area(a)
V
(Cont.)
U
Stream Name
Brush Creek
Monongahela River
Wolf Creek
Slippery Rock Creek
Connoquenessing Creek
Dutch Fork-Buffalo
Creek
Buffalo Creek
Enlow Fork-Wheeling
Creek
Dunkard Fork-
Wheeling Creek
Connoquenessing Creek
N. Fork-Little
Beaver Creek
Aunt Clara Fork-
Kings Creek
Little Sewickley
Creek
Hickory Run
Neshannock Creek
^ 1M *&
Location
(County)
Westmoreland
Greene, Fayette,
Washington, Westmoreland,
Allegheny
Butler, Mercer
Butler, Lawrence
Lawrence
Washington
Washington
Greene
Greene
Beaver, Butler, Lawrence
Beaver, Lawrence
Washington
Allegheny
Lawrence
Lawrence
_ MM i^m m*m~
Segment
Limits
Brush Run to Turtle Creek
Point Marion to Pittsburgh
Headwaters to Slippery Rock
Creek
Headwaters to Connoquenes*-
sing Creek
Slippery Rock Creek
to Beaver River
Headwaters to Buffalo Creek
Acheson to W, Va. Border
Headwaters to W. Va, Border
Ryerson Station to W. Va,
Border
Headwaters to Slippery Rock
Beaver/Lawrence County, Ohio
Border
Headwaters to Kings Creek
Headwaters to Ohio River
Bessemer to Mahoning River
Volant to Shenango River
M^M -^MM ^B^M ^ i
Class
(b)
MR
MR
S
MR, S
R
S
S
S
S
R
R
S
S
S
S
_ «-*^
Priority
Group(c)
3
3
1A
1A
1A
IB
IB
IB
IB
1C
1C
1C
2
2
2
CO
00
-------
TABLE 2.1.6.-6 Continued
Drainage
Area (a)
W
CCont . )
L(e)
Stream Name
Raccoon Creek
Ohio River
Mosquito Creek
West Branch Susque-
hanna River
S. Branch-Bennett
Branch
Chest Creek
West Branch Hicks
Run
East Branch Hicks
Run
Hicks Run
Hockenberry Run
South Witmer Run
North Witmer Run
Little Clearfield
Creek
Stone Run
Lick Run
Trout Run
Location
(County)
Beaver, Washington
Allegheny, Beaver
Elk, Clearfield
Clearfield
Clearfield
Cambria
Cameron, Elk
Cameron, Elk
Elk
Clearfield
Clearfield
Clearfield
Clearfield
Clearfield
Clearfield
Clearfield
Segment
Limits
Burgetts Fork to Ohio
River
Pittsburgh to Ohio/W. Va.
Border
Headwaters to West Branch
Susquehanna River
Entire length
Headwaters to Bennett Branch
Headwaters to Rock Run
Headwaters to Hicks Run
Headwaters to Hicks Run
Junction of Branches to
Sinnemahoning Creek
Entire length
Entire length
Entire length
Olanta to Clearfield Creek
Entire length
Entire length
Entire length
Class
(b)
R
MR
Priority
Group(cl
3
3
1A
1A
IB
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
to
10
-------
TABLE 2.1.6.-6 Continued
Drainage
Area (a)
L
(Cont.)
N(e)
Z(e)
Stream Name
Upper Three Runs
Medix Run
Trout Run
Raystown Branch
Juniata River
Wills Creek
Location
(Countyl
Clearfield
Clearfield, Elk
Elk
Somerset
Somerset
Segment
Limits
Entire length
Headwaters to Bennett
Branch-Si nnemahon ing
Creek
Entire length
Entire length in County
Entire length in County
Class
(b)
Priority
Group(c)
3
3
3
IB
' ' 3
o
I
NOTES;
(a) Refer to Figure 2.1.6.-9 and Table 2.1.6.-4
(b)Class designations:
W = Wild River Areas
S = Scenic River Areas
R = Recreational Rivers
MR= Modified Recreational Rivers
(c) Priority Groups:
1. First priority, statewide or national significance
1A: First priority, most urgent need for protection
IB & 1C: First priority, less.than immediate concern
2. Second priority, regional significance
3. Third priority, local significance
(d) Crawford, Warren and McKean Counties are not in the ORBES Region
(e) Drainage areas L, N and Z are not in the Ohio River Basin
-------
proposed revisions to the "Rules and Regulations" which, among other things,
clarify the terminology and format of the Chapter. The definitions of "criteria"
and "standard" are: (11)
Water Quality Criteria - levels of parameters or stream conditions
that need to be maintained or attained to prevent or eliminate
pollution.
Water Quality Standards - the combination of water uses to be pro-
tected and water quality criteria necessary to protect those uses.
In line with this the proposed revisions are to change the title of Chapter
93 from "Water Quality Criteria" to "Water Quality Standards" and to rescind
the chapter in its entirety and.substitute a more comprehensive one.
These proposed revisions, although not yet adopted, are probably a more
accurate reflection of the standards as they will be applied to the ORBES region
in the near future than the existing standards(12) which were last amended in
September 1976. Selected information for the proposed chapter is reproduced
in the following tables:(11)
Table 2.1.6.-7 defines the words used in describing water quality standards so
that there is no confusion in legal interpretation.
Table 2.1.6.-8 updates the uses of water by adding a section on "Special Protection"
of high quality waters.
Table 8.1.6.-9 describes the manner in which water quality criteria are applied to
the discharge of pollutants, and to the protection of aquatic life. It also
distinguishes between general and specific water quality criteria.
Table 2.1.6.-10 details the specific water quality criteria for the
parameters by imposing numerical limits.
Table 2.1.6.-11 combines the specific criteria with the designated water use
for the major strams in the PA ORBES Region. The list includes the hydro-
logical location and the county of each stream as well as the exceptions
to the specific criteria according to the designated water use. The complete
list for all streams in Pennsylvania can be found in Reference (11).
- 41 -
-------
TABLE 2.1.6.-7
PROPOSED WATER QUALITY STANDARDS AS OF MARCH 1978:
DEFINITIONS
- Source (11)
It is recommended that the existing Chapter 93 be rescinded
in its entirety and the following substituted in its place.
CHAPTER 93. WATER QUALITY STANDARDS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
S«. .
93.1. Definitions.
93.2. Scope.
93.3. Protested water uses.
93.4. Statewide water uses.
93.5. Application of water quality criteria to discharge of poilut.inn.
93.6. General water quality criteria.
9.1.7. Specific water quality criteria.
§ 93.1. Definitions.
The following words and terms, when used in this chapter.
shall have the following meanings, unless the context clearly
indicates otherwise: -
Ambient'stream concentration The natural range in
concentration or level of a water quality parameter which
would be expected to occur in the absence of human ac-
tivities; the value is normally determined from quality meas-
urements of waters that are not affected by waste discharges
. or other human activities. ' ' . ' '
Ambient temperature The temperature of the water body
. upstream of a heated waste discharge or waste discharge
complex. The ambient temperature sampling point should be
unaffected by any sources of waste heat.
Application factor A standard factor to be applied to a
96-hour LCSO value to determine a safe concentration value
for a pollutant. ....
... Balanced community An assemblage of various-aquatic
plant and animal life forms which function as an independent
integrated unit which is diverse, including the presence of
pollutant-sensitive-species and the nondomination of
pollutant-tolerant species,, and which is self-sustaining.
Carcinogenic Producing cancer.
Clean Streams Law The Clean Streams Law (35 P. S.
§§691.1-691.100.1).
Cumulative pollutant A pollutant which is increased in
concentration in an organism by successive-additions at dif-
ferent times or in different ways, that is, bioaccumulation.
Effluent limits Any restriction, established by the De-
partment on quantities, rates, and concentrations of pollut-
ants which are discharged into the waters of this Common-
wealth.
Epilimnion Warm upper layer of uniform temperature in
a stratified body.of water, such as a lake or impoundment.
Federal Water Pollution Control Act 33 U.S.C.A.
§§.1251-1376. . . . . . .
Minimum daily average The arithmetic average of all de-
terminations made .during a 24-hour period.
Monthly average The arithmetic average of all determi-
.nations made during- a calendar month.
Mutagenic- Producing changes in the chromosomes of
genes.. ,\ . , '. . [ ''
96-Hour LCSO value The concentration of a pollutant in
test waters that is lethal to 50% of the test organisms during
continuous exposure for a- period of 96 hours.
Noncumulative pollutant A pollutant which is not in-
creased in concentration in an organism by successive addi-
tions at different times or in different ways.
Nonpersistent pollutant A pollutant with a half-life of
less than four days in water of quality which is comparable to
that of the receiving stream.
Persistent pollutant A pollutant with a half-life of more
than four days in water of quality comparable to the receiving
stream.
Representative important species Those species of
aquatic life whose protection and propagation will assure the
sustained presence of a balanced community of aquatic life
and waterfowl in and on the waters of this Commonwealth.
Such species are representative in the sense that mainte-
nance of water quality criteria will assure both the natural
completion of the species' life cycles and the overall protection
and propagation of the balanced community.
Safe concentration value A value not exceeding the safe
concentration for a pollutant as determined through applica-
tion of a factor to a 96-hour LCSO value resulting from the
standard continuous flow bioassay test.
Teratogenic Producing monstrosities, malformations,
or deviations from the normal structure..
Test water Distilled carbon filtered- deionized water
which.meets certain quality specifications before reconstitut-
ing with specific amounts of various salts so that it approxi-
mates the chemical conditions of the receiving, waters.
Water quality criteria Levels of parameters or stream
conditions that need to be maintained or attained to prevent or
eliminate pollution. . ....
Water quality standards The combination of water uses
to be protected and the water quality criteria necessary to pro-
tect those uses.
§ 93.2. Scope.
The provisions of this chapter set forth water quality stan-
dards for the waters of this Commonwealth: These standards
are based upon vvater.uses which are to be protected and will
be considered by the Department in its regulation of .dis-
charges. -
-------
TABLE 2.1.6.-8
PROPOSED WATER QUALITY STANDARDS AS OF MARCH 1978:
PROTECTED WATER USES
Source (11)
§ 93.3. Protected water uses.
Water uses which shall be protected and upon which the.
development of water quality criteria shall be based are set.
forth, accompanied by then-identifying symbols, in the follow-
ing Table 1: .
Symbol
TABLE 1
Protected Use
Aquatic Life .
CWF Cold Water Fishes Maintenance and/or propaga-
tion offish species including the family Salmonidae
and additional flora and fauna which are indigenous
to a cold water habitat.
WWF Warm Water Fishes Maintenance and propaga-
tion of fish species and additional flora and fauna
which are indigenous to a warm water habitat.
MF . Migratory Fishes Passage, maintenance and
propagation of anadromous and catadromous fishes
and other fishes which ascend to flowing waters
to complete their life cycle. .
TSF Trout Stocking Maintenance of stocked trout
from February 15 to July 31 and maintenance and
propagation of fish species and additional flora
and fauna which are indigenous to a warm water
habitat. . . '
Water Supply
PVVS Potable Water Supply Use by humans after con-
ventional treatment for drinking, culinary, and
other purposes, such as inclusion into foods (either
directly or indirectly).
l\VS Industrial Water Supply Use by industry for
inclusion into non-food products, processing and
cooling.
LWS Livestock Water Supply Use by livestock and
poultry for drinking and cleansing.
AWS Wildlife Water Supply Use for waterfowl habitat
and for drinking and cleansing by wildlife.
IRS Irrigation Used to supplement precipitation for
growing crops.
Recreation ... .
B Boating Use of the water for power boating, sail
boating, canoeing, and rowing for recreational
purposes when surface water flow or impoundment
. conditions allow. , - '. '
F . Fishing Use of the water for the legal taking
of flsh.
VVC Water Contact Sports Use of the water for
swimming and related activities.
E Esthetics: Use of the water as an esthetic setting .
.to recreational pursuits.
Special Protection
HQ . . High Quality Waters A stream or watershed
which has excellent quality waters 'and environ-
mental or other features that require special water
quality protection.
EV ExceptionalValueWatersAstream or watershed
which constitutes an outstanding national, state,
regional or local resource, such as waters of Na-
tional, State or County parks or forests, or waters
which are used or are projected for use as a source
of water supply, or waters of wildlife refuges or State
game lands, or waters which have been character-
ized by the Pennsylvania Fish Commission as
"Wilderness Trout Screams," and other waters of
substantial recreational or ecological significance.
. Other
N Navigation Use of the water for the commercial
transfer and transport of persons, animals and
goods.
TWA Treated Waste Assimilation Use of the water for
assimilation and transport of treated wastewaters.
- 43 -
-------
TABLE 2.1.6.-9
PROPOSED WATER QUALITY STANDARDS AS OF MARCH 1978:
WATER QUALITY CRITERIA APPLICATIONS
Source (11)
§ 93.5. Application of water quality criteria to discharge of
pollutants? ~
(a) The water quality criteria prescribed in this chapter for
the various designated uses of.the waters of this Common-
wealth apply to receiving waters and are not to be necessarily
deemed to constitute the effluent limit for a particular dis-
charge, but, rather, are one of the major factors to be consid-
ered in developing specific limitations on the discharge of
pollutants. '.. . ' .
(b) The accepted design stream flow to which the water
quality criteria as set forth in this chapter shall apply is the
actual or estimated lowest seven-consecutive-day average
flow that occurs once in ten years for a stream with unregu-
lated flow or the estimated minimum flow for a stream with
regulated flows, except where the Department determines
that a more restrictive application is necessary to protect a
particular designated or existing use. Where the lowest
seven-consecutive-day average flow that occurs once in ten
years is 0, the Department will specify the design flow condi-
tions on a case-by-case basis.
(c) Where adopted water quality criteria as set forth in
§ 93.9 of this title (relating to designated water uses and water
quality criteria) are more stringent than natural or ambient
stream concentrations of specific water quality indicators,
such natural or ambient stream concentrations shall be
deemed to be the applicable criteria used to establish specific
effluent limits..
§ 93.6. General water quality criteria.
(a) Water shall not contain substances attributable to point
or non-point source waste discharges in concentration, or
amounts sufficient to be inimical or harmful to the water uses
to be protected or to human, animal, plant, or aquatic life.
(b) Specific substances to be controlled shall include, but
shall not be limited to, floating debris; oil; grease; scum and
other floating materials; toxic substances; pesticides; chlori-
nated hydrocarbons; carcinogenic; mutagenic; and
teratogenic materials; and substances which produce color,
tastes, odors, or turbidity or which settle to form deposits.
§ 93.7. Specific water quality criteria.
(a) Waters of this Commonwealth for which specific
criteria have been established are listed in § 93.9 of this chap
ter (relating to designated water uses and water quality
criteria).
(b) References to specific criteria shall be keyed to use the!
list of specific criteria set forth in subsection (c) of this section)
and to groups of criteria set forth in subsection (d) of this sec-
tion. .
(c) The following Table 3 shall display the specific water
quality criteria:
See TABLE 2.1.6.-10
(d) Unless otherwise specified in *ub«ection '?) °' this!
section and S 93.9 of this title (relating to designated wate
uses and water quality criteria), State-wide specific criteri
set forth in the following Table- -1 shall apply to all surface
waters of this Commonwealth:
TABLE 4
Symbol Specific Water Quality Criteria
Al Aluminum
Alk, Alkalinity,
As Arsenic
Bac, Bacteria,
Cr Chromium
Cu Copper
CN Cyanide
F Fluoride
Fe Iron
Pb Lead
Mn Manganese
N'i Nickel
N Nitrite plus Nitrate
pH, pH,
Phen, Phenol,
TDS, Total Dissolved Solids,
Sul Sulfate
Zn - Zinc '
- 44 -
-------
TABLE 2.1.6.-9 (Continued)
.(e) The following Table 5 contains groups of specific water
quality criteria based upon water uses to be protected. When
the symbols listed below appear in the Water Uses Protected
column in § 93.9 of this title (relating to designated water
uses and water quality criteria), they have the meaning
Listed in the table below. Exceptions to these standardized
groupings will be indicated on a stream-by-stream or seg-
ment-by-segment basis by the words "Add" or "Delete"
followed by the appropriate symbols described in subsection
(c) Table 3 of this section.
TABLE 5
Symbol Water Uses included
WWF State-wide list
CWF State-wide list plus cold
water fish
TSF State-wide list plus trout
stocking
HQ-WWF State-wide list plus high
quality waters minus
treated waste assimila-
tion
HQ-CWF State-wide list plus high
quality water and cold
waterfish; minus treated
waste assimilation
HQ-TSF State-wide list plus high
quality water and trout
stocking; minus treated
. waste assimilation
EV State-wide list plus excep-.
tional value water; mi-
nus treated waste assimi-
lation
Specific Criteria
State-wide list plus
DO, and Temp,
State-wide list plus
DO, and Temp,
State-wide list plus
DO, and Temp,
State-wide list plus
DO, and Temp,
State-wide list plus
DOj and Temp,
State-wide list plus
DO, and Tempj
Existing quality
(f) The list of specific water quality criteria does not'include
ail possible substances that could cause pollution. For sub-
stances not listed, the general criterion that these substances
shall not be inimical orjnjunpus to the designated water uses
applies. The best scientitlc information available will be used
to adjudge the suitability of a given waste discharge where
these substances are involved.
ji 93.8. Development of specific water quality criteria for the
protection of aquatic life.
(a) When a specific water quality criterion has not been es
tablished for a pollutant in § 93.7 (c) Table 3 or (f) of this
title (relating to specific water quality criteria) and a dis-
charge of pollutant into waters of this Commonwealth desig-
nated to be protected for aquatic life in § 93.9(b) of this title
(relating to designated water uses and water quality criteria)
is proposed, a specific water quality.criterion for such pollut
ant may be determined by the Department through estab-
lishment of a safe concentration value.
(b) Establishment of. a safe concentration value shall be
based upon data obtained from standard continuous How
bioassay tests which exist in substantial available literature
or data obtained from specific tests utilizing representative
important species of aquatic life designated by the Depart-
ment and conducted in a water environment which is equal to
or closely approximates that of the natural quality of the re-
ceiving waters. .
(c) Safe concentration values of pollutants shall be deter-
mined by applying an application factor to the 96-hour LC50
value. Except where the Department determines, based upon
substantial available data, that an alternate application factor
exists tor a pollutant, the following application factors shall be
used in the determination of safe concentration values:
. (1) Concentrations of pollutants that are nonpersistent or
noncumulative shall not exceed 0.05 (1/20) of the 96-hour
LC50.
(2) Concentrations of pollutants that are persistent or
cumulative shall not exceed 0.01 (1/100) of the 96-hour LC50.
(d) Persons seeking issuance of a permit pursuant to the
Clean Streams Law or an NPDES certification pursuant to
Section 401 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act 33
U.S.C. § 1341 authorizing the discharge of a pollutant for
which a safe concentration value is to be established using
specific bioassay tests pursuant to subsection (c) of this sec-
tion shall perform such testing under the direction of the De-
partment and shall submit all of the following in writing to the
Department: :-
(1) A plan proposing the bioassay testing to be performed,
(2) Such periodic progress reports of the testing as may be
required by the Department,
(3) A report of the completed results of such testing includ-
ing, but not limited to;
(i) all data obtained during 'the course of testing; and
(ii) all calculations made in the recording, collection, in-
! terpretation, and evaluation of such data.
(e) Bioassay testing shall be conducted in accordance with
the methodologies outlined in EPA Ecological Research Series
Publication, EPA-660/3/75-009, Methods of Acute Toxicity
Tests with-Fish, Macroinvertebrates, and Amphibians (April,
1975); Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and
Wastewater (14th Edition); or Standard Method of Test for
ASTM D1345-59 (Reapproved 1970) and published in the 1975
Annual Book of ASTM Standards Part 31 Water. Use of
any other methodologies shall be subject to prior written ap-
proval by the Department. Test waters shall be reconstituted
according to recommendations and methodologies specified in
the previously cited reference or methodologies approved
in writing by the Department.
- 45 -
-------
.i.b.-iU
PROPOSED WATER QUALITY STANDARDS AS OF MARCH 1978:
SPECIFIC WATER QUALITY CRITERIA
Source (11)
Parameter
Aluminum
Alkalinity
Ammonia Nitrogen
Arsenic
Bacteria
Chloride
i .
Chromium
Color
Copper
Cyanide
Dissolved Oxygen
Fluoride
» _
Hardness
Iron
Lead
Manganese
Methylene
Symbol
Al
Alk,
Alk,
Alk,
Alk4
Am,
Am,
As
Bac,
Bac,
Bac,
Baa,
Ch, '
Ch,
Ch,
Ch<
Cr
Col
Cu
CN
DO,
DO,
DO,
D0«
DO,
DO,
' ' F '
Hd,
Hd,
Fe
Pb
Mn
MB AS,.
Criteria 'I
Not to exceed 0.1 of the 96-hour LC50 for representative important species.
Equal to or greater than 20 mg/1 as CaCo, for fresh water aquatic life, except wherel
natural conditions are less. Where discharges are to waters with 20 mg/1 or lessl
alkalinity, the discharge should not further reduce the alkalinity of the receiving waters.
Not less than 20 mg/1. . . .
Between 20 and 100 mg/1. ' ' ' 1
Between 20 and 120 mg/l. ' " .'- : ' . "
Not more than 0.5 mg/1. v - ''.
Not more than 1.5 mg/1. ' M
Not to exceed 0.05 mg/l total arsenic:
During the swimming season (May 1 through September 30), the fecal coliform leveB
shall not exceed a geometric mean of 200 per.100 miUiliters (ml) based on five consecu-|
tive samples each sample collected on different days; for the remainder of the year,
. the fecal coliform, level shall not exceed a geometric mean of 2000 per 100 milliJiters J
(ml) based on five consecutive samples collected on different days. '
(Coliforms/ 100 ml) Not more. than 5,000/100 ml as a monthly average value, noil
more than this number in more than 20% of the samples collected during any month,
nor more than 20,000/100 ml in more than 5% of the samples.
(Coliforms/100 ml) Not more than 5,000/100 ml as a monthly geometric mean.
(Fecal Coliforms/100 ml) Maximum geometric mean of 770/100 ml; samples shall
be taken at a frequency arid location to permit valid interpretation. ]
Not more than 150 mg/l. ''
Not more than 250 mg/l. -
Not more than 200 mg/l. .
Maximum 15-day mean 50 mg/l . . J
Not to exceed 0.05 mg/l as hexavalent chromium. |
' ' ' -..''..
Not more than 75 units on the platinum-cobalt scale; no other colors perceptible col
the human eye. . . .
Not to exceed 0. 1 of the 96-hour LC50 for representative important species. ^
Not to exceed 0.005 mg/l as free cyanide. ' J
Minimum daily average 6.0 mg/l; no value less than 5.0 mg/l. For lakes, ponds anl
impoundments only, no value less than 5.0 mg/i at any point. H
Minimum daily average 5.0 mg/l; no value less than 4.0 mg/l. For the epilimnion o£
lakes, ponds and impoundments, minimum daily average of 5.0 mg/l, no value less thai
4.0 mg/l. . \|
Minimum daily average not less than 5.0 mg/l; during periods 4/1-6/15 and 9/16-12/3ll
not less than 6.5 mg/l as a seasonal average. J
Minimum daily average not less than 3.5 mg,'J; during periods 4/1-6/15 and 9/16-12/3M
not less than 6.5 mg/l as a seasonal average. 1
For the period 2/ 15 to 7/31 of any year,.minimum daily average of 6.0 mg/l, no value less
5.0 mg/l. For the remainder of the year, minimum daily average of 5.0 mg/l, no valuJ
less than- 4. 0 mg/l. . . fl
. No value less than 7.0 mg/l. .
' Not to exceed 2.0 mg/l. . '' 'r ' ^
Maximum monthly mean 150 mg/l. . .
Maximum monthly mean 95 mg/l. H
Not to exceed 1.5 mg/l as a total iron; not to exceed 0.3 mg/l as dissolved iron. fl
Not to exceed 0.05 mg/l. ^
Not to exceed 1.0 mg/l as total manganese. U
Not more than 0.5 mg/l. . |
- 46 -
-------
TABLE 2.1.6.-10 (Continued)
Parameter
Symbol . Criteria
Blue Active Substance MBAS, Not more'than 1.0 mg/1.
Nickel
Nitrite plus Nitrate
PH
Phenol
Phosphorus
(Total Soluble as POO
.',-.-.
Radioactivity
Suifate
Temperature
Date
January 1
February 1
March 1
April 1
May 1
June 1
July 1
August 1
Ni Not to exceed 0.01 of the 96-hour LC50 for representative important species.
N Not to exceed 10 mg/1 as nitrate nitrogen.
pH, Not less than 6.0 and not more than 9.0.
pH, Not less than 6.5 and not more than 8.5.
pH, Not less than 7.0 and not more than 9.0.
Phen, Not to exceed 0.005 mgfl.
Phen, Maximum 0.02 mg/1.
PI Not more- than 0.10 mg/1.
Pt Not more than 0.30 mgA.
Pj . . , Not more than 0.40 mg/1.
'-. Had ' Alpha emitters, maximum 3 pc/1; beta emitters, maximum 1,000 pc/1.
S Not to exceed 250 mg/1. . - .
Temp, No measurable rise when ambient temperature is 58°F. or above; not more than
. 5°F. rise above ambient temperature until stream temperature reaches 58°F.; not to
be changed by more than 2°F. during any one-hour period.
Temp, No measurable rise when ambient temperature is 87°F. or above; not more than 5'F.
rise above ambient temperature until stream temperature reaches 87°F.; not to be
changed by more than 2°F. during any one-hour period.
Tempj For the period 2/15 to 7/31, no measurable rise when ambient temperature is 74°F. or
above; not more than 5°F. rise above ambient temperature until stream temperature
reaches 74°F., not to be changed by more than 2°F. during any one-hour period; for
the remainder of the year, no measurable rise when ambient temperature is 87°F. or
above; not more than 5"F. rise above ambient temperature until stream temperature
reaches 87T., not to be changed by more than 2°F. during any one-hour period.
Temp, Not to exceed the following temperatures in the month indicated:
' Month ' Temperature, °F.
January 56
February 56
March 62
April 71
May 80
June . 90
July 90
August 90
September 90
October 78
November 69
December 58
Temp, Not more than 5°F. above the average daily temperature during the 1961-66 period.
which is shown below, or a maximum of 86°F., whichever is less.
Average Daily Temperature
'1961-1966
(Temperatures May Be Interpolated)
Delaware Estuary, River Mile '
Delaware Estuary, Head of Tide 108.4 (about 1 mile below Delaware Estuary, from Big
to River Mile 108.4 (about 1 mile Pennypack Creek) to Big Timber Creek to Pennsylvania-
below Pennypack Creek) Timber Creek Delaware State Line
°F °F °F
37 41 42
35 - 35 36
38 38 40.
46 . 46 47
58 58 58
71 71 72
79 79 . 80
81 81 81
- 47 -
-------
TABLE 2.1.6.-10 (Continued)
Delaware Estuary, Head of Tide
to River Mile 108.4 (about 1 mile
Date below Pennypack Creek)
September 1 78
September 15 76
October 1 70
November 1 59
December 1 46
December 15 40
Delaware Estjiary., River Mile
108.4 (about 1 mile below
Pennypack Creek) to Big
Timber Creek
79
77
70
61
50
45
Delaware Estiuiry,from Big
Timber Creek to Pennsylvania-
Delaware Stntc Line
78
76
70
60
50
45
Threshold Odor Number TON
Total Dissolved Solids
Turbidity
Sulfate
Zinc
Temp, . Not more than 5°F. rise above the ambient temperatures until stream temperatures
reach 50°F., nor more than 2°F. rise above ambient temperature when temperatures
are between 50°F. and 58°F., nor shall temperatures exceed 58"F., whichever is less,
except in designated heat dissipation areas.
Temp, As a guideline, the maximum length of heat dissipation areas shall not be longer than
3,500 feet measured from the point where the waste discharge enters the stream. The
width of heat dissipation areas shall not exceed two-thirds the surface width measured
from shore to shore at any stage of tide or the width encompassing one-fourth the
cross-sectional area of the stream, whichever is less. Within any one heat dissipation
area only one shore shall be used in determining the limits of the area. Where waste
discharges are close to each other, additional limitations may be prescribed to protect
stream uses. Controlling temperatures shall be measured outside the heat dissipation
area. The rate of temperature change in the heat dissipation area shall not cause
mortality of the fish.
Temp, As a guideline, the maximum length of heat dissipation areas shall not be longer than
3,500 feet or 20 times the average stream width, whichever is less, measured from the
point where the waste discharge enters the stream. Heat dissipation areas shall not
exceed one-half the surface stream width or the width encompassing one-half of the
entire cross sectional areas of the stream, whichever is less. Within any one heat
dissipation area, only one shore shall be used in determining the limits of the area.
Where waste discharges are close to each other, additional limitations may be prescribed
to protect water uses. Controlling temperatures shall be measured outside the heat
dissipation zone. The rate of temperature change in designated heat dissipation areas
shall not cause mortality of the fish.
Temp, As a guideline, the maximum length of heat dissipation areas shall not be longer than
1,000 feet or 20 times the average width of the stream, whichever is less, measured
from the points where the waste discharge enters the stream. Heat dissipation areas
shall not exceed one-half the surface stream width or the width encompassing one-half
of the entire cross sectional area of the stream, whichever is less. Within any one heat
dissipation area, only one shore shall be used in determining the limits of the area.
Where waste discharges are close to each other, additional limitations may be pre-
scribed to protect water uses. Controlling temperatures shall be measured 'outside the
heat dissipation zone. The rate of temperature change in designated heat dissipation
areas shall not cause mortality of the fish.
Not more than 24 at 60°C. '
Not more than 500 mg/1 as a monthly average value; not more than 750 mg/1 at
any time.
TDS] Not more than 1,500 mg/1 at any time.
TDSj. Not to exceed 133% of ambient stream concentrations or 500 mg/1, whichever is less.
TDS, Not to exceed 133% of ambient stream concentration.
TuTi Not more than 30 NTU during the period 5/30-9/15, nor more than a monthly mean of
40 NTU or a maximum of 150 NTU during the remainder of the year.
Tur, Maximum monthly mean 40 NTU, maximum value not more than 150 NTU.
Turs Not more than 100 NTU.
Tur," For the period 5/15-9/15 of any year, not more than 40 NTU; for the period 9/16-5/14
of any year, not more than 100 NTU.
Tur, Maximum monthly mean of 10 NTU; maximum of 150 NTU.
Tur, Maximum monthly mean of 20 NTU, maximum of 150 NTU.
Tur, Maximum monthly mean of 30 NTU, maximum of 150 NTU.
Sul Not to exceed 250 mg/1.
Zn Not to exceed 0.01 of the 96-hour LC50 for representative important species.
- 48 -
-------
PROPOSED WATES QUALITY STANDARDS (AS OF MARCH 1978)
FOR MAJOR STREAMS IN THE PA ORBES REGION
SOURCE (11)
Drainage List
(See Fig.
2. 1.6. -9)
Q
a
s.
T
Stream
Allegheny River
Tioaesca Creek
Oil Creek
French Creek
Sugar Creek
Sandy Creek
Clarion River
Clarion River
(East Branch)
West Branch
Clarion River
Spring Creek
Toby Creek
Allegheny River
Bear Creek
Redbank Creek
Sandy Lick Creek
Mahoning Creek.
Little Mahoning
Creek
Covanshannock
Creek
Crooked Creek
Kiskiminetas
River
Conemaugh River
Stony Creek
Zone
Main Stem
Main Stem
From Farna-
worth Branch
to Allegheny
River
Main Stem
Main Stem
Basin
Main Stem
Main Stem
Basin
Main Stem
Basin
Basin
Main Stem
Main Stem
h_in Stem
Main Stem
Main Stem
Basin
Basin
Mi in Stem
Main Stem
Main Stem
Main Stem
from Source
to Beaverdam
Creek
Main Stem
from. Beaver-
dam Creek to
Quemahoning
Creek
County
Clarion
Forest
Venango
Venango
Venango
Venango
Clarion
Elk
Elk
Elk
Clarion
Armstrong
Armstrong
Armstrong
Jefferson
Armstrong
Indiana
Armstrong
Armstrong
Armstrong
Westmore-
land
Somerset
Somerset
Water Uses
Protected
WWF
CWF
CWF
WWF
CWF
WWF
CWF
EQ-CWF
CWF
HQ-CWF
CWF
WWF; Add
N
CWF
TSF
TSF
WWF
HQ-CWF
WWF
KWF
WWF
KVF
CWF
TSF
exceptions
to Specific
Criteria
Add Chx
MBAS and T0t>
None
Add TON
Add MBAS
TON and Am.
Add Am
Add Am2
Add TON
Add TON
Add TON
Add TON
Add TON
None
Add An^
Add A.m1
Add Am
Add Am.
Add Am. .
Add Am
Add Am
Add Am2
Add Am.
Add Am
Add Am
- 49 -
-------
Drainage List
(See Fig.
2.1. .6. -9)
'T (Continued) .
D
V
Scream
Scony Creek. (Cent.
Two Lick Creek
Loyalhanna Creek
Allegheny River
Buffalo Creek
Deer Creek
Plum Creek
Pine Creek
Monongahlela
'River
Cheat River
Zone
Main Seem
from Quema-
honiag Creek
Co Conemaugh
River
Main Seem
Basin from
Source co
Laughlincoun
Run
Main Seem
from Laugh-
lincown Run
Co Miller Run
Main Seem
from Miller
Run co Kisi-
minetas River
Main Seem
from Redbank
Creek co
Kiskiminetas
River
Main Seem
from Kiski-
mineeas Rivet
to Ohio Rive:
Basin From
Source eo
Little Buf-
falo Creek
Baain From
Little Buf-
falo Creek
Co Allegheny
ftiver
Basin From
Source co
Little Deer
Creek
Baain from
Little Deer
Creek co
Allegheny
River
Basin
Basin from
Source co
North Park
Lake Oam
Baain from
North Park
Lake Dam
to Allegheny
River
Main Seem
Main Seem
County
Cambria
Indiana
Westmore-
land
Wescmore-
land
Wescmore-
land
Armstrong
Allegheny
Butler
Butler
Allegheny
Allegheny
Allegheny
Allegheny
Allegheny
Allegheny
FayeCCe
Wacer Uses
Protected
WWF
TSF
HQ-CWF
TSF
WWF
WWF;
Add M
'rfWF ;
Add N
HQ-CWF
TSF
CWF
WWF
TSF
CWF
TSF
HttF ;
Add M
WWF
Exceptions
co Specific
Criteria
Add Am.
Add Am
Add Am
Add Am.
Add Am.
None
Add TON
Hone
None
None
None
None
Add P
Delete TDSj
Add TDS,
Add TON
Hone
- 50 -
-------
TABLE 2.1.6.-11 (continued)
Drainage List
(See Fig.
2. 1.6. -9)
V (Continued)
-
Scream
Dunkard Creek
Georges Creek
Whiceley Creek
Tenmile Creek
South Fork
Tenmile Creek.
'
Ounlap Creek
Redstone Creek
Peters Creek
Youghiogheny
River
Casselman
River
Laurel Hill
Creek
Indian Creek
Jacobs Creek
Zone
Main Stem
Main Stem
Basin
Basin from
Source to
South Fork
Tenmile
Creek
Basin Front
South Fork
Tennile
Creek to
Monongahela
River
Basin from
Source to
Browns Creek
Basin from
Browns Creek
to Tenmile
Creek
Basin
Basin
Basin
Main Stem
From Mary-
land-Penn-
sylvania
State Line
to Youghio-
gheny River
Dam
Main Stem
From Yough-
iogheny
River Dam
to gjnnell
Main Stem
From Con-
nell Run
to Mononga-
hela River
Main Stem
Basin
Basin from
Source to
Champion
Creek
Basin from
Source to
Bridgeport
Reservoir
Dam
County
Greene
Fayette
Green
Greene
Greene
Greene
Greene
Fayette
Fayette
Alleghen
Fayette
Fayette
Alleghen
Somerset
Somerset
Fayette
Fayette
Water Uses
Protected
WWF
WWF
WWF
TSF
WWF
HQ-WWF
WWF
WWF
WWF
TSF
WWF
HQ-CWF
f WWF
' WWF
HQ-CWF
HQ-CWF
CWF
Exceptions
to Specific
Criteria
None
Add Am,
Add Am
Add Am,
Add Am
Add' Am_
Add Am.
Add Am,
Add Am.
done
Delete
Temp,
Add Temp.,
'one
Hone
Sone
Add Am
Add Am,
Add Am
- 51 -
-------
TABLE 2.1.6.-1T (Continued)
Drainage List
(See Fig.
2.1. 6. -9)
V(Contiaued)
W
,
Scream
Jacobs Creek
(Continued)
Sewickley
Creelc
Turtle
Creek
Abers Creek
Ohio River
Zone
Basin from
Bridgeport
Reservoir
Dam to You-
hiogheny
River
Basin From
Source to
Brinkers Run
Main Stem
from Brin-
kers Run to
Youghiogheny
River
Main Stem
from Source
to Brush
Creek
Main Stem
from Brush
Creek to
the Monon-
gahela River
Basin
Main Stem
County
Fayette
Westmore-
land
Westmore-
land
Allegheny
Allegheny
Allegheyn
Beaver
Tater Uses
Protected
TSF
HQ-CWF
WWF
TSF;De-
lete PWS
WW7; De-
lete PWS
TSF;De-
lete PWS
WWF;
Add N
Exceptions
to Specific
Criteria
Add Am
i
None
None
Delete
TDS. Mn
and Si
Add TDS2
Delete
TDSL Mn
and S i
Add TDS,
2
Delete
TDS Mn
and Si
Add TDS2
Shown
Below
Exceptions to Specific Criteria Silver - Total silver shall
for Ohio River Main Stem: aot exceed 0.05 mg/1.
Delete; C3 and F; . Radiouuclides - .Gross total
alpha activity (including
Add: radium-226 but excluding
radon and uranium) shall
Ammonia - The concentration of aoe exceed 15 picocurie
u.n-ionized ammonia (NHj) shall per litre (pCi/1) and corn-
not, exceed 0.05 mg/1 as H. bined radium-226 and radium
228 shall not exceed 5 pci/1;
Barium - Total barium shall not provided that specific de-
exceed 1.0 mg/1. terminations of radium-226
and radium-228 are not re-
Cadmium - Total cadmium shall quired if gross particle
not exceed 0.01 mg/1. activity does not exceed
5 pCi/1. Concentration of
Chloride - Chloride shall not total gross beta particle
exceed 250 mg/1. activity shall not exceed 50
pCi/1; the concentration of
Cyanide - Total cyanide shall not tritium shall not exceed
exceed 0.025 mg/1; free cyanide 20,000 pCi/1; the concen-
shall not exceed 0.005 mg/1. tration of total scrontium-
90 shall not exceed 3 pCi/1.
Fluroida - Total fluoride shall
not exceed 1.0 mg/1. Mercury - Total organism
body burden of any aquatic
Nitrite - Nitrite shall not species shall not exceed 0.5
exceed 1.0 mg/1 as N. oicro grams/grcim as tctal
mercury. Total mercury con-
Selenium - Total selenium shall centration (unfilcered) ir.
not exceed 0.01 mg/1. any vrater sample shall not
exceed 0.2 micrograms/ liter .
- 52 -
-------
TABLE 2.1.6.-11 (Continued)
Drainage List
(See Fig.
2.L.6.-9
W (Continued)
.
-
Stream ' -
Zone
Water Uses
County Protected
Exceptions
to- Specific
Criteria
Ohio River (Continued-) , PCB - Total PCS shall not
exceed 1 nanograms per
liter; however, when the
- ' . level in water is less than
the practical laboratory
quantification level, a fish
flesh body burden level in
excess of 2 ppm shall be
cause for concern and
further investigation.
Chartiers
Creek
Beaver River
Mahoning River
Main Stem
Main Stem
Main Stem
Allegheny
Beaver
Lawrence
TSF
WWF;
Add N
WWF
None
Add TON
Shown
Below
Exceptions to Specific Criteria Free Cyanide - Not to exceed .
for Mahoning River Main Stem: 0.005 mg/1.
Oeletai the entire liae. Phottolica Hot to aiccod
0.010 mg/L.
Ammonia - tin-ionized ammonia
As, Ch2, Cr, D02, F, Pb, Ma, N, aoc co 9Xcaed 0.02 mg/1.
S, Temp., TDS
Cadmium - Not to exceed 0.01
pH - Not less than 6. a and not *8/1
more than 8.5. T(jcal chromiuin . Mot to
Total Iron - Not more than 1.0 e*ceed °'1 *8/lt
mg/1' PCB - Not to exceed 1 nano-
Threshold Odor Number - Not to 8ram per licer-
exceed 24 at 60«C as a daily _ No|. CQ exceed 0>Q2
avera88- mg/1 (total). .
Total Cyanide - Not to exceed Nlckle _ Hot to exceed 0 1
°-025 °8/1- mg/1 (total).
Zinc - Not to exceed 0.2
mg/1 (total)
Shenango River
Connoquenes-
sing Creek
Main Stem
from Pyma-
tuning Dam
to Beaver
River
Main Stem
from Source
to Pyma-
tuning
Reservoir
Dam
Basin from
Source to
Oneida Dam
Main Stem
from Lake
Oneida . Dam
to Beaver
River
Lawrence
Crawford
Butler
Lawrence
WWF
WWF
HQ-WWF
WWF
Add TON
Add Am.
None
None
- 53 -
-------
SfflflfiflA
<&
-------
2.1.6.4 SURFACE WATER QUALITY
Natural variations in the quality of the surface waters of the ORBES Region
in western Pennsylvania, caused by areal differences in geology and topography
were further enhanced by concentration of population and industrial development
during the last 150 years. Many of the streams have become severely polluted by
sewage, industrial waste, and acid mine drainage while others were only mildly
affected and a few escaped degradation.
Following the requirements of the 1972 Federal Water Pollution Control Act
Amendments and the guidelines for waste effluent characteristics established by
the U.S.E.P.A., the PA Department of Environemtnal Resources assessed the streams
in Pennsylvania as to the limitations needed to meet water quality criteria and
also assigned a priority value to each stream for abatement program purposes.
This resulted in a classification system of streams consisting of three classes
and three categories. Class is related to the type of problem in the stream or
stream segment, category refers to the priority for abatement as defined below (2)
Class I designates "effluent limited" streamsthose streams which
can meet 1983 water quality criteria if minimum effluent treatment
requirements are satisfied. (Designated by "EL" in subsequent Tables).
Class II - designates "water quality limited" streamsthose in
which the 1983 criteria will not be met unless effluent treatment
or control beyond the minimum requirement is provided. ("WQL" in the Tables.)
Class III - designates "acid mine drainage affected" streams
those streams in which acid mine drainage prevents meeting the
1983 water quality criteria regardless of the treatment level
of other effluents. (Designated by "AMD" in subsequent Tables).
In Category I, a significant portion of the segment has: (1) existing
or potential point sources of pollution that would violate water
quality standards with "best practicable treatment" in use, (2)
relatively large population and industrial concentrations in relation
to stream flows, (3) been identified as an area with very high growth
and development potential, (4) high quality waters which need special
protection, or (5) a combination of the above. Most Category I seg-
ments are water quality limited segments.
- 55 -
-------
Category II segments have: (1) existing or point sources of pollu-
tion which will meet water quality standards with best practicable
treatment, (2) been identified as areas with moderate or low growth
and development potential, (3) have limited non-point source pollu-
tion from abandoned coal mine drainage, or (4) a combination of the
above. Most Category II segments are effluent limited segments.
Category III segments have water quality problems caused by drainage
from abandoned mines which will prevent attaining water quality
standards even with "perfect" point source controls.
Due to accelerated protective measures, such as wastewater treatment and the
control of acid mine drainage, several of the streams have shown considerable
water quality improvement in recent years. There are programs underway or planned
to correct pollution problems on many more streams and the stream miles meeting
water quality criteria continue a positive trend. The 1978 Pennsylvania Water
Quality Inventory Report (25) indicates that approximately 80 percent of the
state's streams were meeting in 1977 the "fishable-swimmable" standards as estab-
lished under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended. It was estimated
that approximately 85 percent of the state's waters will meet the water quality
standards.by 1983, bacterial criteria not included.
Surface water quality problems associated with municipal waste, industrial
waste, and acid mine drainage are discussed in more detail in Sections 2.1.6.5 and
2.1.6.6. In this section the general quality of the surface waters is described
separately for the Monongahela, Allegheny, and Ohio River Mainstem Basins.
A. Monongahela River Basin
1. General
The surface waters of the Monongahe)a River Basin consist primarily of calcium
sulfate waters whose chemical quality is influenced by pollution from acid mine
drainage. The acid mine drainage from the bituminous coal fields underlying the
area lowers the pH and causes high concentrations of free sulfuric acid, sulfate,
- 56 -
-------
and trace metals especially iron, aluminum, and manganese (14). The acid load
carried into the Monongahela by its tributaries exceeds its neutralizing capacity.
The bulk of the residual mineral acidity comes from the small streams tributary
to the main stem, the principal tributaries contribute only 30% of the mineral
acidity to the main stem (15). A study in 1963 found the Monongahela to be acid
at all points examined with pH values less than 5.0. Most interstate tributaries
were found acid also: the Cheat River and Dunkard Creek had pH values less than
5.0. Laurel Run in the headwaters of the Youghiogheny had an average pH value of
3.5. The Youghiogheny was alkaline at the state line but became acid downstream
(16).
The acid conditions of the streams mask the effects of organic and bacterial .
pollution originating from municipal and industrial discharges. Coliform and
fecal streptococci concentrations in the Monongahela were generally low and dis-
solved oxygen concentrations generally high in the 1963 study reflecting the
inhibiting action of the acid conditions in the stream on micro-organisms. How-
ever, calculations indicated that under non-acid conditions and 1963 bacterial
loads nowhere would the coliform densities drop to near the 1,000 per 100 ml level
(16).
A 1964/65 study found significant increases in the lower reach of the Monon-
gahela River in the following components: BOD, hardness, calcium, magnesium,
sulfate, chloride, phenolics, total organic carbon, sodium, potassium, organic
nitrogen and total solids. The increase in these components was attributed to
municipal and industrial sources. The mean concentration of phenol was always
higher than the recommended limit for drinking water (1 ppb) (17).
A 1971 evaluation found the quality of the Monongahela River improving due
to better waste treatment at mines, industries, and communities. The pH and
alkalinity have improved significantly at Charleroi and Braddock on the Monongahela
- 57 -
-------
River and at Sutersville and Connellsville on the Youghiogheny River. Mine drain-
age from abandoned coal mines was -the major source of water pollution in the
Basin, discouraging pollution abatement. No significant improvement was found
in the phenol problem (18). The Environmental Protection Agency estimated that
approximately 2550 pounds per day of phenol was discharged to the Monongahela
River in 1971 by industries located on its main stem. Significant amounts of
BOD, oil, heat, suspended solids and cyanide discharged into the Monongahela River
were found to contribute substantially to the water quality problems of the Ohio
River. Use of the Monongahela for contact recreation in its headwaters near
Pittsburgh has been limited by oil, scum, floating debris and dangerously high
bacterial counts (19).
A 1973 water quality assessment indicated further improvement in the upper
portions of the Monongahela River but less improvement in the lower portions (20).
Nevertheless, data from 58 water quality monitoring stations in the Monongahela
Basin during 1972-73 (21) indicated that state water quality criteria for pH,
fecal coliform, and iron were often exceeded at several stations in the basin (22).
In the summer of 1975 the Corps of Engineers conducted two sampling surveys
of the entire length of the Monongahela River: one at an extreme combination of
low-flow conditions and high air temperatures and another at an intermediate flow.
The results again demonstrated that pH related problems in the Monongahela River
Basin have been considerably reduced in the previous few years by abatement of
acid mine drainage. It was also found that most of the water quality problems on
the Monongahela River mainstem are low-flow related and the navigation structures
on the river have a noticable effect on several important water quality parameters.
Consequently, low-flow augmentation from impoundments is an important factor along
the entire length of the river (23).
There are four major reservoirs currently in operation in the Monongahela
- 58 -
-------
River Basin (see Table 2.1.5.-8). Two of these, Deep Creek Lake on Deep Creek
(tributary to the Youghiogheny River) in Maryland and Lake Lynn on the Cheat
River in West Virginia, are owned by private power companies and are operated
primarily to produce peak load power. The two other reservoirs, Tygart River
Lake on the Tygart River in West Virginia and Youghiogheny River Lake on the
Youghiogheny River at the Pennsylvania/Maryland border, are operated by the Corps
of Engineers for flood control, recreation, and low-flow augmentation for water
quality and navigation. Tygart River Lake is operated to provide a minimum flow
of 340 cfs in the Upper Monongahela River and Youghiogheny River Lake provides
a minimum flow of 200 cfs at Connellsville, Pennsylvania.
The influence on water quality of the power producing reservoirs is minor.
Flow and temperature pulsations due to the releases from Deep Creek Reservoir
can be noticed during low flows in the Youghiogheny River at Friendsville, Maryland
(24) but these are absorbed by Youghiogheny River Lake. Youghiogheny River Lake
is a relatively deep and cool impoundment exhibiting summer thermal stratification
from which the outflow is cooler than the inflow in the spring and warmer than the
inflow in the autumn. This alteration of the Youghiogheny River temperature is
somewhat mitigated by the confluence of the warmer Casselman River only 1.2
miles downstream of the Dam, but so is the impact of the acid mine drainage pollu-
ted Casselman River. The low-flow augmentation provided by high quality water
from Youghiogheny River Lake has a favorable impact not only on the temperature,
pH, and acidity of the Youghiogheny River but it substantially mitigates the acid
mine drainage, thermal pollution, and low dissolved oxygen concentrations in the
lower Monongahela River and this mitigation is also significant to the water
quality of the Upper Ohio River (24). The impact depends on the selective magni-
tudes of the release from Youghiogheny River Lake and the flows in Casselman,
Cheat, Monongahela and Ohio Rivers.
- 59 -
-------
The pH of the Monongahela River mainstem was judged good in 1975 even at low
flow conditions (generally just sl-ightly less than 7.0) except a 20 to 25 mile
stretch immediately below the West Virginia border (23). The depression in pH
in this reach is caused by the acid Cheat River and other acid discharges feeding
into the Monongahela River. As a result, pH and acidity "are no longer crucial
considerations in the water quality of the lower Monongahela River. However, high
total dissolved solids (predominantly sulfates) remain a problem." (24)
Local water quality problems on smaller streams in the Monongahela River
Basin will be pointed out in subsequent tables.
2. Surface Water Quality
The yearly averages and ranges of water temperature, conductivity, dissolved
oxygen, and pH for the lower Monongahela River are shown in Figure 2.1.6.-10 as
calculated from ORSANCO's Robot Monitor Computer Printouts (6). There is no
definite trend in temperature, conductivity, and dissolved oxygen but the improve-
ment in pH is conspicuous in the figure. Figure 2.1.6.-10A shows the seasonal
variation- of the average monthly values for the same four parameters.
Table 2.1.6.-12 gives twelve-year means of selectd parameters at the WQN
Stations along the Monongahela and Youghiogheny Rivers as calculated by EPA's
STORET System (1), (2). Mean, maximum and minimum values of 39 parameters for
two successive three-year periods are given in Tables 2.1.6.-13 and 2.1.6.-13A.
Perhaps more informative are the results of a few recent studies by the Corps
of Engineers and the PA-DER on the Monongahela River and some of its tributaries
during critical summer conditions. Figures 2.1.6.-11 through 2.1.6.-19 show the
profiles of surface water temperature, surface dissolved oxygen concentration,
pH, conductivity, sulfates, nonfiltrable solids, transparency, N02 + NO,, and
- 60 -
-------
80-
60-
TEMPERATURE
Maximum1 Daily Average
,--,.--,
at Charleroi
-X- at S. Pgh.
800-
600-
400-
200-
n-
<
MM
.. . :.«-L : 1 ~- - .
...... , . ...
CON"
:"~ " "v" "(inlc
' i
...-...-: ._k J ~;:i I':::
: !-. -[ -
--.I.--!--'.-:!*".-!-- .-I-.::
DUCTI
romho
t ' ' '. '
::; h...-.
.-..-,-.-.-
' "" ' ' ' """' ''
VITY
s/cm)
''.-. i "-." '"' 1:
r..'.TH~'rii.I:.;:
. j- -: - - i-.
i .. . .... i -.-!
--.:'. t : ':'<-.
" " '-. :- -'-! -
*
-.---
v-?-~
-.:-: :.:
::-:'---
; :..._ 1
.... .j ,.... .. .
--
-
'i^m
f -
-?^
. t...
r
i ~
P«"
i
*H
-;
»'
-
m^
^^
r^J
-
in
-
r-
..:._ .
. . ... , ' , .
.... |
-
^T^
'.:-.
«
:
.. .
Ifi-
1 "> -
8-
4-
n-
-T
~~
-
.-
^^
I^B
; -
^--^p...-
' i
'-'-'-'-
~^- '--
;--;-..-
i
""DISSOLVED OXYGEN'""
- - ' - ^nic/ x / .
-.--! * : !
. --LL-..^.. i-:-;-- ; :'T
! ' - -i -i
-. .:..:.) ^.^_;l_iir^.^:__if.::-_
- [-'_
'
:1:..\.:^.
.: :.|:f;
-+;
-.!.-..
:
' . .'.
---r
-r-
mm
...
MM
h- 1--
*:i. .
- - -
" i : '-
{
::i-
...
!
. 1 .
J
..!
:'
'
:
f:
_
T."
::
--
T"
__
ii.
'
i
' '
-'i_r
. !
.:..
.-! .
... |
v-1
^J
-
::
L_.
....
;- r
^-~::-
.-.
:.:
-;
n
«
--.
" ~, _/
. : -
.J--
--.
«
-
8-
7-
6-
5-.
4-
?t-1;
' 1962. YEAR . 1970 '71 '72 '73 '74 '75 '76 '77
FIGURE 2.1.6'.-.10 ANNUAL'WATER QUALITY MONONGAHELA RIVER Source (6)
- 61 -
-------
80-
70-
LU
ce.
LU
60
50-
40
30
HilgKepti'.f
Average
"f:: = -l- '!':
rFTTF
rRHi:
^-.600-j
£lsoo-j
> t/>
£14°°^
I I 300 -j
Z (J
SE 200^
FIGURE 2.1.6.-10A SEASONAL VARIATION OF WATER QUALITY: MONTHLY AVERAGES
MONONGAHELA RIVER, 1970-1977 After Source (6)
- 62 -
-------
TABLE 2.1.6.-12
CO
I
MEAN VALUES OF SELECTED PARAMETERS AT SAMPLING
STATIONS IN THE MONONGAHELA RIVER BASIN
(Data collected from June 1962 to December 1974)
Source (2)
Parameter
pH (S.U. )
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/l)
Total Iron (ug/l)
Total Dissolved Solids (mg/l)
Temperature ( °C )
Turbidity (JTU)
Ammonia ( mg/l N )
Total Phosphorus (mg/l P)
Alaklinity (as CaCO^) (mg/l)
Biochemical Oxygen Demand (mg/l)
Total Coliform (#/100 ml)
. Stream
Monongahela River
Youghiogheny River
Sampling Station (PA-DER WQN No.)
701
6.2
8.5
2,825
115
12.6
18.1
0.27
0.16
20.0
2.3
31,900
702
5.3
8.6
1,925
H5
12.3
21.8
0.23
0.09
12.6
1.4
11,200
703
4.7
9.0
2,847
34
12.9
17.0
0.36
0.08
3-5 ,
1.2
1,500
706
6.3
9.2
- 2,943
81
11.7
26.3
0.13
0.09
13.8
1.9
22,600
707
6.7
10.4
399
22
10.1
13.1
0.08
0.21
12.0
1.3
6,000
708
6.6
10.3
751
64
12.4
11.2
0.09
0.19
14.8
1.6
4,800
-------
TABLE 2.1.6.-13
MONONGAHELA RIVER WATER QUALITY (from EPA STORET System)
Source (22)
Parameter
Water Temperature, *C
Flow, cfs
Turbidity, JTU
Threshold Odor Number
Conductivity at 25*C, nlcroohoa/cB
Dissolved Oxygen, mg/1
Biochemical Oxygen Demand. 3 day. «g/l
pll, units
Total Alkalinity, trg/1 aa CaCO,
Total Acidity, mg/1 aa C«CO|
Total Residue, mg/1
Ammonia Nitrogen, mg/1
Nitrate Nitrogen, mg/1
Total Phosphorus, mg/1
Orthophosphate, mg/1
Oil and Crease, mg/1
Total Organic Carbon, tog/1
Total Hardness, »g/l as C«CO»'
Chloride, mg/1
SuKatc, ng/1
Dissolved Fluoride, ng/1
Cyanide, ng/1
fArsrnl.:. me/I
Barium, mg/1
jfCadolum, mg/1
y Chromium, og/l
^Copper, oig/1
Iron, oiB/1
Manganese. mg/1
9 Load , rig/ 1
fzinc, mg/1
Korcury. fcg/1
Total Conforms, no./ 100 ol
Fecal Conforms, no./lOO ol
Phunola, Kg/1
Lock & Dam 7 at Greensboro, Pennsylvania
1/4/72 to 4/18/71
Number
of Mean Maximum Minimum
Samples Value Value Value
10 13. 5 24.5 1
-
3 0.5 1 0.1
1 24 (at GOOC) 24 24
4 }04 54} 173
9 10.6 17.8 S.O
2 0.8 1.2 0.4
8 S.I* 6.5 1.3*
4 1.3 3 0
5 7.6 14 2
1 0.36 0.36 0.36
2 0.43 O.S 0.36
1 0.08 0.08 O.OS
3 0.1S 0.43 0.001
-
6 3.8 S.S 2.0
3 99.7 130 84
3 4.7 6 3
3 BS. 7 108 63
1 0.01 0.01 0.01
_
1 0.01 0.01 0.01
.
1 0.004 0.004 0.004
1 0.001 0.001 0.001
1 0.011 0.013 O.UII
2 0.63 1 0.21.
2 0.51 0.52 0.49
1 O.OOS 0.005 ' 0.001 '
1 0.15 0.1S 0.1S
1 000
6 263 480 4
7 SO. 4 191 0
_
Charlerol, Pennsylvania
1/3/72 to 9/12/74
Number
of Mean- Maximum Mlnlmua
Samples Value Value Value
12.3 25 2
3,633 4,700 2.400
5.8 23 O.S
33.2 (at 60'C)* 33.2 33.2
326 600 130
10.9 13 7
1 1.8 1.8 1.6
7 6.2 6.9 5.3*
9 IS. 8 27 2
-
2 416 512 310
8 0.23 O.S8 0.06
8 0.77 1.14 0.4
8 0.09 0.2 0.04
1 O.OOS O.OOS O.OOS
. -
1 3.5 3.5 3.5
9 130.6 228 57
9 8.1 16 . 4
9 131.4 - 273 42
1 0.01 0.01 0.01
-
_
_
2 O.OOS 0.005 O.OOS
2 O.OOS 0.01 0
2 0.055 0.1 0.01
10 0.818 2.74* 0.02
3 0.820 1.19 0.63
2 O.OSO O.OSO O.OSO
2 0.120 0.200 0.040
2 0.0065 0.0005 0.0005
-
2 0.003 O.OOS 0.001
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
1/24/72 to 10/17/73
Hunber
of Mean Maximum Minloum
Samples Value Value Value
14 IB. 6 31 4
13 9,859 29,000 3,650
11 11.5 45 4
3 0 («t 40'C) 0 0
14 421 650 85
14 8.9 12.1 5.5
14 1.8 3.2 0.6
14 6.5 7 6.1
11 18.4 38 7
11 4.5 14 0
11 235.9 343 186
14 0.71 1.3 0.12
11 0.69 0.86 0.46
11 0.06 0.09 0.03
-
5 20.9 35 1.2
14 2.8 8 1.1
11 130.4 170 92
11 12.1 17 6
11 136.8 210 85
11 0.26 0.44 0.1
14 0.025 0.0*7 0.01
0.0017 0.01 0
0.039 0.078 0
0.0008 0.004 0
000
0.003 0.018 0
1.16 2.1* 0.018
0.52 1 0.2
0.005 0.011 0
0.05 0.06 0.04
1 0.0004 0.0013 0
11 7,236 27.000 700
11 308* 950* 10
11 0.012* 0.038* 0.001
I
CM
^Dissolved component only at lock I Ota 7 at Greensboro. Pennsylvania.
Exceeds Pennsylvania's specific Mater quality criteria.
-------
TABLE 2.1.6.-13A MONONGAHELA AND YOUGHIOGHENY RIVER WATER QUALITY, 1975-77
(From EPA's STORET System)
Parameter
Water Temperature, °C
Flow, cfs
Turbidity, JTU
Conductivity at 25°C, micromhos/cm
Dissolved Oxygen, mg/1
pM. Standard Units
Total Alkalinity, mg/1 as CaC03
Mineral Acidity, mg/1
Acidity from C02, mg/1
Total Residue, mg/1
Oissolve-i/1050 Residue, mg/1
Total (lonfilterable Residue, mg/1
Settleable Residue, ml/1
Oil and Grease, mg/1
Total MH3-N, mg/1
Total NOj-N. mg/1
Total H03-N, mg/1
Total Phosphorus, mg/1 P
Total Cymide, mg/1
Total Hardness, mg/1 as CaCOj
Dissolved Calcium, mg/1
DissolveJ Magnesium, mg/1
Chloride, mg/1
Total Sulfate, mg/1
Total Fluoride, mg/1
Total Arsenic, mg/1 :
Total Cadmium, mg/1
Total Chromium, mg/1
Total Copper, mg/1
Total Iron, mg/1
Total Lead, mg/1
Manganese, mg/1
Total Nickel, mg/1
Total Zinc, mg/1
Total Aluminum, mg/1
Total Col i forms, no./lOO ml
Fecal Coliforms, no./lOO ml
Total Phenols, mg/1
Total Mercury, mg/1
WQN Station No. 701
Mononaahela River at Braddock
No. of
Samples
16
Mean
Value
16.5
6 6,498 10
7
16
16
14
16
15
15
--
9
"
--
10
16
15
14
16
11
15
15
15
15
16
16
--
2
2
2
16
2
15
2
2
16
__
15
--
12.1
411
9.2
7.1
29.9
0
0
--
252
--
--
4.1
0.57
0.06
0.89
0.83
0.038
127
34.4
10.2
16.0
123
0.24
_-
0.010
0.020
0.015
1.125
0.050
0.267
0.050
0.120
0.421
__
__
0.009
Maximum
.Value
28.5
,800
28.0
600
12.3
7.5
54.0
0
0
--
394
--
--
5.0
1.35
0.42
1.38
9.59
0.100
170
53.7
21.0
35.0
220
0.38
__
0.010
0.020
0.020
2.480
0.050
0.380
0.050
0.200
1.520
f
0.025
--
Minimum
Value
3,5
2.150
2.0
200
.6.9
6.6
15.0
0
0
144
--
--
2.0
0.20
0.003
0.11
0.02
0.010
74
20.0
0
5.0
40
0.11
__
0.010
0.020
0.010
0.140
0.050
0.100
0.050
0.040
0.060
__
_
0.001
--
WQU Station No. 703
Monongahela River
Lock & Dam 17 at Greensburg
No. of
Samples
13
6 7
18
20
5
8
22
14
21
--
11
--
22
20
19
22
18
22
23
23
23
23
22 >
__
2
2
2
22
2
2
2
2
2
1
8
17
--
Mean Maximum
Value Value
11.0 22.0
,363 18.050
11.6 91.0
290 500
10.8 12.2
7.0 7.5
14.3 30.0
0 . 0
4.2 20.0
--
189 340
*-
--
0.43 4.73
0.04 0.31
1.23 10.03
0.19 1.31
0.029 0.100
105 195 -
27.8 50.4
9.0 28.4
17.6 163
107 235
0.68 12.0
0.007 0.010
0.015 0.020
0.010 0.015
. 1.395 11.000
0.038 ' 0,050
0.365 0.500
0.038 0.050
0.260 0.495
0.400 0.500
80 80
96 420
0.009 0.017
Minimum
Value
0
840
1.0
161
8.7
5.8
2.0
0
0
--
130
--
--
0.05
0.002
0.35
0.02
0.010
40
11.2
1.1
5.0
42
0.07
__
0.003
0.010
0.005
0.150
0.025
0.230
0.025
0.025
0.300
80
10
0.002
--
WQN Station No. 706
Youqhioqheny River at Sutersville
No. of
Samples
18
7
13
23
5
20
24
24
24
--
21
--
'
24
22
20
24
20
24
24
24
22
23
23
2
2
2
24
2
24
2
2
23
28
23
Mean
Value
11.3
1,969 6.
13.5
259
10.3 .
7.1
18.5
0
0
--
178
--
--
0.16
0.14
0.77
0.13
0.027
85
23.0
6.6
10.4
70
0.12
._
0.011
0.035
0.030
1.425
0.125
0.203
0.038
0.030
0.597
1,051 5,
0.005
Maximum
Value
24.0
200
58.0
450
13.0
7.5
40>Q
0
0
--
288
--
--
0.70
0.12
1.31
0.78
0.200
129
35.0
13.4
28.0
145
0.16
__
0.020
0.050
0.050
6.250
0.200
0.400
0.050
0.030
3.200
000
0.027
Minimum
Value
2.0
100
1.7
130
8.8
5.2
7.0
0
0
--
90
--
--
--
0.05
0.002
0.18
0.02
0.010
30
7.7
0.3
1.0
20
0.08
__
0.002
0.020
0.010
0.200
0.050
0.040
0.025
0.030
0
10
0.001
I
en
-------
FIGURE 2.1.6.-11 MONONGAHELA RIVER SURFACE WATER TEMPERATURE
Source (23)
I
en
CJ
O
-------
FIGURE 2.1.6.-12 MONONGAHELA RIVER SURFACE DISSOLVED OXYGEN CONCENTRATION
Source (23)
o
a
c:
o
10,
OJ-
o
c
o
o
o
C a
a>
X
o
T3 o
a> =
O r.
o
-------
FIGURE 2.1.6.-13 MONONGAHELA RIVER SURFACE pH
Source (23)
o
c
O-.
o
o
o>~
0
o
0>~
- * o
. o
-=> r-
oo
:n
Q. o
o
S «
(O
«*-
s_
3
OO 0
0
u»"
o
w
V
O
o
n"
0
c
"a
I 1 1
Jl IE!'
1 £ - $_
4. a ». O
8 « g =J £ OQ
t § a k. a _
5 S S «=C
M »- «M » « > B «
* . " " 3 S ^
0^0 0 .*-^J O
i i ? s [ ^ MI
£ 2 1 s 1 i -4 1 3 E
<. 32 3 2 SSsxc
\A 1 /** June 1975, Intermediate Flow (5000 - 12,000 cfs
\A" «/ X ^ ,
r ^v ^ j»- rra-.ra-'^ r A A
I T» i. . . f rrL JB SB-IT V... J /\ /
L -~~" "^ ^^^ C0~^^^^ BHStt--0 * / \ /
July 1975, Low Flow (650 - 1800 cfs)^^-^*\ / ^"t/7^"^
\ r^ K
, \ /
\ s
\ f* s as j
\ / t « *
\/ E?5 S 8 ES 2 o3 £3 S S S
fl tZs-J O O «sO O CvO r~0 0 C C
1
I i ? - s % " "
ug&ss ^ z» 3; x E s a; s s ^
0 0 Id 5 O f»3 GO .« 3 O O ?C^ O ft O . n.Ar-
"" - -- - -- -..--_. - - r,OKONGfi:lF.Lfl RIVER W. Q. SL'^VtY
i-iiiMMMiM PiTTSSUR3h, PR. TO
FRIRrtONT. W.Vfl.
2-5 JUN. 23 JUL- 1 fl'JC 1975
U.S. fir^lY C3SPS OF ENC-.^S .
00 10-OQ 20.00 30.00 »0-03 SO. GO 6C.CO 70 CO 60. GC 90.00 100-00 IIO-OO 120-00
Monongahela River Mileage above Mouth
o
c
0
a
o
"cs
c
a
"a>
o
0
c^
2
o
c
o
o
c
V
o
o
'.1
0
"" T
en
oo
-------
FIGURE 2.1.6.-14 MONONGAHELA RIVER CONDUCTIVITY (Midstream at Surface)
Source (23)
VO
I
o
f.
E
o
o
z
o
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
JULY 1975, LOW FLOW
(650-1600 CFS)
\
JUNE 1975, INTERMEDIATE FLOW
-~*^ (5000-12000 CFS)
10
I
20
i
30
i
50
RIVER MILES
60 70
80
I
90
100
I
no
120 |30
i i
-------
FIGURE 2.1.6.-15 MONONGAHELA RIVER SULFATES (Midstream at one meter depth)
Source (23)
I
o
350
300
230
200
150
100
50
10
10
a
4
a
4
\
o
ca
X
<
r-
a
4
JULY 1975, LOW FLOW
(650-1800 CFS)
JUNE 1975, INTERMEDIATE FLOW
(5000-12000 CFS)
t. o
! <
I s
< ui
S 3
a.
o
20
i
30 40
RIVER MILEAGE
50 60 70
i i. i
90
i 4-
100
I ,
110
120
i
130
i
-------
s
CP
£
i/i
' 2
_j
- s
to
<
Of
z
o
z
FIGURE 2.1.6.-16 MONONGAHELA RIVER NONFILTRABLE SOLIDS (Midstream at one meter depth) (Source (23)
300
400
300
200
50
30
20
10
o
4
IO
Q
4
I
Ol
o
DO
X
<
Z
at
o
o
oe
O
tr
«a
ui
O-
o
\
\ JUNE 1975, INTERMEDIATE FLOW
\
\
(5000-12000 CFS)
JULY 1975, LOW FLOW
(650-1800 CFS)
RIVER MILES
120
-------
I :
ro
in
UJ X
K O
a. ui
1/1 m
FIGURE 2.1.6.-17 MONONGAHELA RIVER TRANSPARENCY (Midstream)
12
10
SURFACE
N
a
-4
IO
O
X
<
3
cu
-o
o
CD
-i a.
or
oo
o
a:
o
JULY 1975, LOW FLOW
(650-1800 CFS)
Source (23)
«A
a.
o
JUNE 1975, INTERMEDIATE FLOW
(5000-12000 CFS)
-------
FIGURE 2.1.6.-18 MONONGAHELA RIVER N02+N03 (midstream at one meter depth)
Source (23)
1.3
1.2
I.I
1.0
i
z 0.9
CO |/I
<
0.8
-<
"*"" 0.7
i 0.6
4-
M
o n.
a: o.o
0*
.4
0.3
0.2
O.I
nn
z J-
o
RIVER MILES
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 1
i i i i i i i i i 1 I 1
JO
1
-------
o
«r
FIGURE 2.1.6.-19 MONONGAHELA RIVER TOTAL IRON (Midstream at one meter depth)
Source (23)
1C
15
13
O
4
n
o
a
4
i-
-------
total iron along the entire Monongahela River at two different flows (one low
flow and one intermediate flow) in the summer of 1975. The effect on some of the
parameters of the flow in the river as well as the impact of the Cheat and Yough-
iogheny Rivers is clearly discernible.
Figure 2.1.6.-20 shows the daily variation of Youghiogheny River water
temperature at three locations in 1975. The cooling effect of low-flow augmenta-
tion from Youghiogheny River Lake is obvious.
The maximum, minimum and mean monthly pH of the Youghiogheny River at
Connellsville, PA and the percent of flow at Connellsville contributed by the
Casselman River is shown in Figure 2.1.6.-21 from 1953 through 1975. Longitudinal
variation of several water quality parameters in April 1974 is shown in Figures
2.1.6.-22 and 2.1.6.-23 for the Ca'sselman River and Laurel Hill Creek, respectively.
3. Water Quality Problems
Table 2.1.6.-14 presents the major quality problems, the courses' and miles
of streams.degraded by those problems in the PA-ORBES Region as compiled from
References (2), (25), and (26). The class and category assigned to the streams
by DER is also given in the Table. Approximately half of the streams in the
basin are beset by the acid mine drainage problem. Most of the rest of the
streams are water quality limited and only a few are effluent limited.
The water quality of the main stem of the Monongahela River has deteriorated
due to acid mine drainage, inadequately treated sewage, thermal pollution from
power plants, and inadequately treated industrial waste. Waterways adversely
affected by acid mine drainage include: Turtle Creek, Peters Creek, the main
stem of the Youghiogheny River, Jacobs Creek, Jacobs Run, Indian Run, and the
Casselman River. Pigeon Creek is affected by sewage discharges. Inadequately
treated sewage, together with acid mine drainage, affects the quality in South
- 75 -
-------
cr»
i
20
a°|5
UJ
cc.
a:
u
a.
u 10
FIGURE 2.1.6.-20 YOUGHIOGHENY RIVER WATER TEMPERATURE 1975
1 \ 1
CONNELLSVILLE
T
T
T
FRIENOSVILLE
YOUGHIOGHENY RIVER LAKE
Source (24)
I
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR i MAY | JUN | JUL | AUG | SEP | OCT | NOV
DEC
68
59«
UJ
cc
CC
UJ
a.
50
41
-------
FIGURE 2.1.6.-21
MAXIMUM, MINIMUM, AND MEAN MONTHLY pH OF THE YOUGHIOGHENY RIVER AT CONNELLSVILLE, PA.
Source (24)
r i r i I i
I
0.
__5
i i i i i i i
OIMI naniHci ru
mil IUWIM.T ru
K IttM IUMTIL1 ru
THE PERCENT OF FLOW AT CONNELLSVILLE CONTRIBUTED BY THE CASSELMAN RIVER (MARKLETON GAGE)
195311954 I 1955 I 19561 1957 I 19581 1959 119601 1961 I 1962 I 1963119641 1965 11966 11967 11968 11969 11970 11971 11972 j 1973 11974 11975
-------
FIGURE 2.1.6.-22 SPATIAL WATER QUALITY PROFILE. CASSELMAN RIVER, APRIL 1974
Source (3)
o o o
^ x a
0
o
8
8.
(B
8
2
8
s
8
1
O
o-
00
§
8
V
I-
2'
-
8
S
O
o
. 8
§
Q
(£
q
J'
N
1
2
S
*
o
oi
LEGEND
TEMPERATURE
pH
SPECIFIC CONDUCTANCE
TOTAL ALKALINITY
aft
i 1 1
O " : " "
I £» 1 0
| |525!
ij° * ||
*" *~ r2
j TOTAL HARDNESS
SULFATE
0 TOTAL IRON
\NXW^
IBM
rjUKA
I I I I
sSS'
Bi
r*
\ \
I
ft - §
Illlllllllllllll
i
V////////////A
!2 MG/L MILLIGRAMS PER LITER
ft
CT
5
S
R
jj
i
p
k
p
p
P
l^
5
S
K
5
k
i
£
Jl
JJG/L MICROGRAMS PER LITER
0
~
r
_
^H
3/1 i i i i
i i .
* * »
» t f ' i 1 i i « w f w ^ 1 IF*
1 5 6 7 a 9 10 II 12 24 25 30
sj gj-
1 o°
uii ""5
^di s >-5
l|j sw p
tnol O.M wo:
§'u
o
(t
ffi<
X
fc5
gte
If
§u
Ul
OK
0:1/1
o
0
.
.
9
/
f
f
f
f
f
t
t
', « @
E
~
~
1 ~
E
Ji
'^
|5
i
i iffi | ijji ! ' 1 F ' f
39 36 37 38 39 47 46 ! 49 SO.S 51 0 51.5 I 52.0 524 33 64 55 56 57
0
3
8
S Nj "S' £2 ^ J|^ 0,1
«i "i "i! y^^ "i 1 5 °°
jd 2 |i °3^i 3^ || « ; §^
X Ol 4 <| «t2^l23ttjzoo:O -tAU. tnu.
i
i
».
^x
3'*
3?
'p
o
Ei
o
e
o
o
q
o
Q
.O
04
q
o
si
o
«
o
eo
q
*"'
q
tfi
a
S
Q
CXJ
q
£
O
0
a
§
i
g
S
Y-*-^ ^fc*
SB
* 1 i
S fc
i «
Mil FS FROM RFFFRFUCF POINT (HP)
CO
I
-------
FIGURE 2.1.6.-23 SPATIAL WATER QUALITY PROFILE LAUREL HILL CREEK, APRIL 1974
Source (3)
LEGEND
TEMPERATURE YSS///////A MG/L - MILLIGRAM PER
^ d ^ pH !
S S 5 DISSOLVED OXYGEN
1
ST I-., f- SPECIFIC CONDUCTANCE U£rV£ff4>
X
8-
o.
Q
o
00 "
o
3-
P.
3
. P.
N
Q
o
3-
3
5
0
S
d
r" AMMONIA -NITROGEN (N
2
.
!
3
O>
I-1
p
a
i
-i
£fc
HR
/ E
/ .
/ g
/ *
/ \
j
/ .
J|
;B
?P
n s
r
s
J
B
i
S3
M
^i
Fa
/o
£B
^B
i
i
8-8 ^a
Ma ^9
fc-3 /
P 'H
~
E
=
-
E
r;
=
E
H
._
1
E
-
|=
l-
E
E
-
-
E
E
E
r-
|E
II
1-
I-
iE
?
1 '-
i§
1 -
l^r
H-a Nl Illllllllllf 1 1 1 1 II
o« «S S
LITER 5± w2 *
i= SP 1
? " u -
°o *TIO ?
TOTAL PHOSPHORUS Illllllllllllllll
3
3!
0
;
S
«
J
;
:
:
S
=
E
S
»
:
'
»
^
/
/
'
/
'/
\
;
/
/
-
J;
J
!
J
J
§
i
i
i
3
3
5
V
(vi
iS
(0
M
i
i
^Q
i
1 s
PQ
2 3H
"B
«
«
20 . /2S
0 * W | /
° « x o . 3 o o. to "*
* »-: J£ £ ^ ~* £' £ £
O bj X * O |
tl 2 j -Jrt 2I Z 2
' 1 O uJ Ul Oi O O
s s . | s.. 5 5 5
ui f- ** ** *~ HI Hi H
-I M _i _Jcn wl 10 1 w
. ... MILES FROM REFERENCE POINT (ft P)
«
3
Z
S **
4 "
ttO
Si
~
2
O
P
H
IA
_5
^0
qc
wz
z<
LJ S
-J bJ
u. en
§w
4
O
.
i
3 -
o
a
a -
p
p .
o
'oi
=! .
i
p
S
.p
o
'10
S
o
g
O
§
o
o
o
2
S
o
«0
8
S
g
o
s'o " « *
» 1 i
< **
£ fe
" u
A.
1- **
UD
I
-------
TABLE 2.1.6.-14 CLASSIFICATION AND QUALITY PROBLEMS OF MAJOR STREAMS - MONONGAHELA RIVER BASIN
SOURCES (2), (25), (26)
Stream
Munongahela
River
Turtle Creek
Thompson Run
Abers Creek
Youghiogheny
River
Sewickley Creek
Sewickley Creek
Little Sewickley
Creek
Youghiogheny
River
Jacobs Creek
Indian Creek
Raster Run
Poplar Run
Champion Creek
Casselman River
Stream Segment
New Eagle to Point
Sewickley Creek to Mouth
Main Stem; Buffalo Run to Mouth
Entire Watershed above and includ-
ing Buffalo Run
Watershed above Sewickley Creek
Mt. Pleasant-Scottsdale Area,
including Stauffer Run and
Sherrick Run
Champion Creek to Mouth
Entire Watershed
Entire Watershed
Entire Watershed
CO-
WAMP
Sub-
Basin
19A
19A
19A
19A
190
190
19(1
190
190
190
19E
19E
19E
19E
19F
Class
(a).
WQL
WQL
WQL
WQL
AMD
UQL
EL
HQL
AMD
AMD
AMD
AMD
AMD
Cate-
gory
(b)
I
I
I
I
II
I
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
Problems
Cyanide; Oil; Possibly
Heavy Metals; Possibly NH,,
Phenols, Iron
BOD; Suspended Solids;
Heavy Metals
-
Heavy Metals; Oil
BOD; NH3; Suspended Solids;
Heavy Metals; Oil
Causes of Problems
(Parameter Group Violation)
(c)
Water quality affected by municipal sew-
age and industrial waste discharges,
thermal discharges from power generating
plants, acid mine drainage from abandon-
ed mines and urban runoff (1, 2, 3, 4,
5).
Water quality adversely affected by high
volumes of acid mine drainage and sew-
age (1, 2, 3, 4, 5).
Affected by industrial vaste in hea<1
waters and acid mine drainage through-
out the entire length (1, 4, 5).
Inadequately treated sewage
Problems result from sewage, acid mine
drainage, industrial wastes from tribu-
taries and urban runoff. Amounts not
significant to severely degrade the main
stem (1, 2, 3, 4, 5).
Headwaters excellent to Brinkcr Run;
mine drainage enters from this point.
Inadeouately treated sewaoe enters from
Jacks Run (1. 2, 3, 4, 5).
Water quality affected by sewage in
Hennine area (2, 3, 4).
Minor problems, acid mine drainage and
sewage in tributaries. Amounts not
significant to degrade main stem (1, 2,'
3, 4. 5).
Inadequately treated sewage and mine
drainage entering from some tributaries
(1, 2. 3, 4, 5).'
Concentrated mine drainage from deep and
strip mines appears to be degrading tri-
butaries (1, 4, 0),
Portions degraded due to raw sewage dis-
charges and acid mine drainage (1, 2, 3,
4, 5).
Miles of
Stream
Degraded
By Problems
15
30
6
12
23
3
18
12
4
28
CO
o
-------
TABLE 2.1.6.-14 (Continued)
Stream
Laurel Hill
Creek
Coxes CreeK
Peters Creek
Nonongahela
River
Monongahela
River
Pigeon Creek
Pike Run
Redstone Creek
Golden Run
Bute Run
Rank in Run
Redstone Creek
Dunlap Creek
Tenmile Creek
Stream Segment
Monessen to New Eagle
W. Va. Border to Monessen
Headwaters to Bentleyvllle
Phillips to Mouth
Entire Watershed
Entire Watershed
Entire Watershed
Entire Watershed above Phillips
Entire Watershed above South
Fork
CO-
WAMP
Sub-
Basir
19E
19F
19C
19C
19
B.C.G
19C
19C
19C
19C
19C
19C
19C
19C
19B
Class
(a)
UQL
WQL
EL
WQL
WQI
AMD
AMD
AMD
AMD
WQL
Cate-
gory
(b)
I
I
II
I
II
II
II
II
II
II
Problems
Cyanide; Oil; Possibly
Heavy Metals; Possibly
NH3
Iron; Sulfate; BOD; NH,;
Suspended Solids
BOD; NH3; Suspended Solids;
Oil
;
Suspended Solids; Iron
Causes of Problems
(Parameter Group Violation)
(f)
Untreated sewerage affects water quality
in Jefferson Twp. area. Remainder of
the stream is in good to excellent con-
dition (2, 4).
Water quality degraded due to inadequate
ly treated municipal and industrial
wastes and acid mine drainage (1. 2, 3,
4, 5).
High' volumes of sewage in main stem,
acid mine drainage in some tributaries
(1, 2. 3. 4, 5).
Major problems as a result of inade-
quately treated industrial waste,
thermal pollution, sewage and some acid
mine drainage (1, 2, 3, 4, 5).
Major water quality problem result from
mine drainage. Inadequately treated
raw sewage, thermal pollution and
inadequately treated industrial wastes
(1. 2. 3, 4, 5).
Problems associated with inadequately
treated municipal wastes (2,4).
Currently this stream is trout stocked
but exhibits minor water quality pro-
blems due to untreated sewage and acid
mine drainage- Neither is of sufficient
quality to degrade the main stem (1, 2,
4, 5).
Inadequately treated sewage at Union-
town. Further degradation from acid
mine drainage eliminates virtually all
stream life (1, 2, 3, 4, 5).
Headwater area affected by acid mine
drainage and sewage. Recovery occurs
near mouth (1 , 2, 4, 5).
Miles of
Stream
Degraded
Bv Problems
2
3
6
13
25
5
4
10
5
oo
_-i
I
-------
TABLE 2.1.6.-14 (Continued)
Stream
South Fork Ten-
mile Creek
Muddy Run
Little Witley
Creek
White ley Creek
Cats Creek
Jacobs Creek
Georges Creek
York Run
Dunkard Creek
Cheat River
Big Sandy Creek
Stream Segment
Main Stem
Maple town to Mouth
Entire Watershed
Entire Watershed
York Run to Mouth
Entire Watershed
State Line to Mouth
State Line to Mouth
CO-
UAMP
Sub-
Basin
19B
19B
19B
19G
19G
196-
19G
19G
19G
19G
19G
Class
(a)
WQL
UQL
AMD
AMD
AMD
AMD
AMD
AMD
WQL
AMD
WQL
Cate-
gory
(b)
II
n
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
Problems
BOD { NH3; Suspended Solids
Suspended. Sol Ids
Causes of Problems
(Parameter Group Violation)
(c)
Stream degradation due to inadequately
treated and raw sewage and mine drain-
ape from abandoned mines (2, 3, 4),
Inadequately treated sewage, acid mine
drainage.
Mine drainage from strip mines and
abandoned mines (1, 4, 5).
Sewage in headwaters, severe acid mine
drainage from confluence with York Run
to mouth (1, 2, 3, 4, 5).
Stream degradation due to mine drainage,
inadequately treated sewage and indus-
trial wastes (1, 2, 4, 5).
Miles of
Stream
Degraded
By Problem
10
10
12
10
CO
ro
NOTES:
(a) CLASSES:
WQL = Water Quality Limited Stream
EL = Effluent Limited Stream
AMD = Acid Mine Drainage Affected Stream
(b) CATEGORIES:
See definition in Section 2.1.6.4.
(c) PARAMETER GROUPS:
1 = Harmful substances (heavy metals, chemicals, pesticides,
other toxins)
2 = Oxygen'depletion
3 - Eutrophication potential (phosphorus, nitrogen)
4 = Physical modification (temperature, turbidity, suspended
solids, color, flow)
5 = Salinity, acidity, alkalinity (conductivity. pH, alkalinity.
total dissolved solids)
-------
Fork-Tenmile Creek, Muddy Run, Georges Creek, Dunkard Creek, Pike Run, Dunlap
Creek and portions of Casselman River, Redstone Creek and Sewickley Creek. Long
Run has a siltation problem (27).
4. Compliance Status
Table 2.1.6.-15 presents the 1974 state water quality criteria for the water
quality network stations in the Mononqahela River Basin along with a comparison
of the means and maximum values of the various water quality parameters with
those criteria (2). Although the 1974 water quality standards have been recently
proposed for revision (see Section 2.1.6.3) and the evaluation may soon be out-
dated, the Table reveals the major problem areas in complying with the.,standards.
The designation "OK" in Columns (9) through (20) means that the value of the
parameter satisfies the water quality criteria for that stream; however, it does
not imply that the stream consistently meets water quality criteria. The actual
concentrations listed do not meet stream criteria. In addition to the concentra-
tions of the five specific water quality parameters specified for all streams by
DER (pH, dissolved oxygen, total iron, temperature, and total dissolved solids),
odor and total coliform bacteria, and potential water quality problems are noted.
According to a recent report (29) about half of the Monongahela River Basin's
major streams met water quality standards in 1977. Within the basin, however,
only about one-sixth of the Turtle Creek watershed met the standards, while over
a third of the main stem of the Monongahela and three-quarters of the Youghio-
gheny, Indian, and Little Sewickley Rivers are satisfactory.
Column (21) summarizes the overall quality rating of the streams by DER and
the PA Fish Commission for 1974-75 (26). In Column (22) the water quality con-
ditions are projected to 1983 and the problems which are expected to prevent
attainment of the 1983 goals are listed (25). DER estimates that South Fork
Tenmile Creek, Pigeon, Peters, and Laurel Hill Creeks will probably meet standards
within the next five years.
- 83 -
-------
TABLE 2.1.6.-15 COMPLIANCE STATUS 1975 - MONONGAIIELA RIVER BASIN
SOURCES (2), (25), (26)
GENERAL INFORMATION
Sta-
tion
No.
(1)
701
702
703
70'.
70:
706
Stream
(2)
fonon-
gahela
River
Monon-
gahela
River
Monon-
gahela
River
Turtle
Creek
Abers
Creek
Yough-
iogherv
River
Class
(a)
(3)
WQL
WQL
EL
WQL
WQL
WQL
Cate-
gory
(b)
(4)
I
I
II
I
I
I
CO-
UAMP
Sub-
basin
(5)
19A
19C
19G
19A
19A
190
County
(6)
Vllegh-
eny
Wash-
ington
Greene
West-
more-
land
Alle-
gheny
West-
more-
land
Criter
Stand.
Group
(c)
(7)
B+h
M
B+h,
k.q
B+h,
k,q
B-b2
+b
3
B-b2
+b5
B '
Aver-
age
Flow
cfs
(8)
10,727
%781
5£65
77
(a)
43
4,556
SPECIFIC WATER QUALITY PARAMETERS
PH
S.U.
D.O.
mg/1
TOT.Fe
mg/1
FEMP.
°c
TDS
mg/1
ODOR
S.U.
Total
fnlif
/100ml
POTENTIAL PROBLEMS
ALL VALUES GIVEN AS mg/1
mean/max.
(9)
OK/
3.9
5.3/
3.5
4.7/
1.3
OK/
1.2
OK/
4
(10)
OK/. 5
OK/'
1.2
OK/
1.8
OK/
1,1
OK/
1.0
(11)
2.8/6
1.9/
15.6
2.8/
20
2.9/
50
2.9/
8
(12)
OK/40
OK
OK
OK
OK
(13)
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
(14)
30/-
27/-
32/
54
(15)
3X900/
533,300
iyoo/
139,200
l^OO/
27yM)0
I20POO/
518.000
22^00/
428,100
(16)
Al
4.2/22
Al
OK/
23.6
Phenol
.014/
.070
Phenol
OK/
.050
Al
3.2/19
(17)
soA
OK/540
Zn
.120/
.200
Al
IK/5.8
Ni
OK/3.0
Zn
)K/.oao
(18)
Tot.
Alk.
OK/ 150
NI
OK/
.120
Zn
.ISO/
.150
so4
OK/ 345
S°4
OK/345
(19)
Mn
OK/2.0
S04
OK/ 14 7
S04
OK/650
Mn
OK/
2760
Mn
OK/1.7
(20)
Tot. Alk
3K/147
Mn
)K/2.8
Fot. Alk
OK/ 154
Overall
Quality
Rating
(21)
Fair
Fair to
Poor
Fair
Severely
Depress-
ed
Fair
Fair to
Poor
Mill
Stream Meet Water
Quality Standards
By 1983?
(22)
No. Number and
complexity of the
municipal and
industrial dis-
charges will re-
quire consider-
able time and
money in order to
meet water qual-
ity standards.
No. Lack of funds
for mine drain-
age control pro-
jects.
Do.
No. Some mine
drainage affect-
ed areas will be
restored. How-
ever, inadequate
funds will pre-
vent complete
cleanup.
No. Much of the
mine drainage
will be correct-
ed , but lack of
funds will prc-r
vent abatement
of sewage pollu-
tion.
NOTES: (a) Classes: WQL = Water Quality Limited Stream (h) Categories: See definition in text. Section 2.1.6.4.
EL = Effluent Limited Stream (c) 1974 Pa. Water Quality Criteria Groups and Levels as defined in Reference (28).
AMD = Acid Mine Drainage Affected Stream (d) Data Source: USGS Mater Resources Bulletin No. 1. (e) Discontinued.
-------
TABLE 2.1.6.-15 (Continued)
GENERAL INFORMATION
Sta-
tion
Mo,
(1)
707
708
(")
710
712
713
714
715
Stream
(2)
Yough-
loglien;
River
Yough-
loghen;
River
Cassel-
man
River
Red-
stone
Creek
South
Fork
Ten-
mlle
Creek
Dun-
kard
Creek
Sewick
ley
Creek
Class
(a)
(3)
EL
EL
UQL
UQL
UQL
WQL
Cate-
gory
(b)
(4)
II
II
II
II
II
I
CO-
WAMP
Sub-
basin
(5)
19D
19E
19F
19C
19B
19G
19D
County
(6)
Fayettt
Fayettt
Somer-
set
Fayettc
Greene
Greene
West-
more-
land
Crlter
Stand.
Group
(0
(7)
B
A
B+V,
B+V,
B
.B
Aver-
age
Flow
cfs
(8)
24 3<
182i
22:
, 22;
30:
289
SPECIFIC WATER QUALITY PARAMETERS
pH
S.U.
D.O.
mg/1
TOT.Fe
ing/1
TEMP.
°C
TDS
mg/1
ODOR
S.U.
Total
fnlif
/100ml
POTENTIAL PROBLEMS
ALL VALUES .GIVEN AS mg/1
mean/max.
(9)
OK/
5.5
OK/
5.1
OK/
5.2
OK/
8.8
5. 1/
2.8
OK/
3.9
(10)
OK
OK
3.5/
0
OK/
2.0
OK/
1.4
OK/
1.0
(11)
OK/ 6
OK/.
8.0
58/
200
1.6/
32
31. 4/
200
12. 3/
34.
(12)
ok
OK
OK
OK/ 31
OK
OK
(13)
OK
OK
82 61
2538
OK
OK/
1066
OK/
1096
(14)
(15)
6000/
70/100
4BOO/
46^00
97.400/
443,300
34.900/
534,200
1800/
28^00
139.800/
591,100
(16)
'henol
)K/26
J04
JK/675
'henol
.300/
L.400
NHo-N
OK/3.1
'henol
.022/
.040
\1 18.3
/.320
U OK/
2.3
(17)
Al
2.7/27
Al
OK/3.9
Al
4.3/
1.8
Zn
.275/
.460
Zn
.050/
.090
(18)
In
.056/
.060
Zn
.060/
.090
Ni .
.210/
.330
Ni
.100/
.140
(19)
NI
.270/
.360
S°4
OK/ 7 20
S°4
f\*\(\l
?fton
S°4
300 /
695
(20)
S04
ftftfW
2150
Tot.Alk
OK/185
Hn 3. 1/
60
Mn l.l/
3.6
Overall
Quality
Ratinq
(21)
Margin-
ally
acid.
Good
Poor.
Good to
Excell-
ent.
Fair to
Good.
Depress-
ed down-
stream.
Excell-
ent head
waters,
poor
below
Head-
waters.
Mill
Stream Meet Water
Quality Standards
By 1933?
(22)
Do.
Do.
No. Lack of funds
for mine drain-
age control pro-
jects and sewage
tr-eutment plants.
No. Lack of funds
under 92-500 will
prevent construc-
tion of necessary
sewerage facil-
ities.
Yes.
No. Lack of funds
for mine acid
control projects.
No. Much of the
mine drainage
will be correct-
ed. Lack of
funds will pre-
vent complete
cleanup.
CO
in
NOTES: (a) Classes: UQL = Water Quality Limited Stream
EL = Effluent Limited Stream
AMD = Acid Mine Drainage Affected Stream
b) Categories: See definition In text, Section 2.1.6.4.
c] 1074 Pa. Water Quality Criteria Groups and Levels as defined in Reference (28).
d) Data Source: USGS Water Resources Bulletin No. 1. (e) Discontinued.
-------
TABLE 2.1.6.-15 (Continued)
GENERAL INFORMATION
Sta-
tion
No.
716
(e)
717
718
719
720
(e)
721
723
724
725
Stream
(2)
South
Fork
Tenmlle
Creek
Ten
Mile
Creek
I'igeon
Creek
Peters
Creek
Turtle
Creek
Jacobs
^reek
lig
Jandy
'reek
.aurel
till
lononga
ylass
(a)
HQL
WQL
WQL
WQL
WQL
WQL
WQL
EL
Cate-
gory
(b)
II
II
I
I
I
II
II
II
CO-
WAMP
Sub-
jasln
19B
198
19C
19C
19A
19D
19G
19 E
19G
County
(6)
Greene
Wash-
ington
Wash-
ington
Alle-
gheny
West-
no re-
Land
Vest-
nore-
Land
:ayette
Joiner-
set
Ireene
Crlter
Stand.
Group
(c)
(7)
B+V2
c+v2
c+v2
B-b,
+b5
B-b2
+b5
c+v2
A
B+h.k,
\ver-
ige
low
:fa
203
</1
mean/max.
(111
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
. -
NOTES: (a) Classes: WQL = Water Quality Limited Stream (b
EL = Effluent Limited Stream (c
AMD = Acid Mine Drainage Affected Stream (d
.
-
O^
(In)
Al
OK/1.9
S°4
OK/1382
Zn
.200/
.200
Zn
.140/
.140
soA
294/
408
Zn .100
/.160
Zn.123/
320
(17)
S°4
OK/410
Cl OK/
235
Nl
.510/
.510
S°4
477/858
30, OK/
528
HB)
ot.Alk
K/174
ot.Alk
K/156
°4
151/
i095
Mn
l-l/
1.1
Mn OK/
1.6
M9)
NH3-N
OK/3.3
Tot.
Alk.
171/
336
f>ny
In 5.5/
5.5
NH3-N
OK/2.0
Overall
Quality
Katlim
(^1)
Good
Cood to
Excell-
ent.
Marginal
to Poor.
Depress-
ed.
Poor
Severely
)epress-
2d Up-
iLre.un.
'air
4oun-
jtream.
ixcell-
;nt.'
Will
Stream Meet Wate
Quality Standard
Ry iqai? .
. ..(22) ,.
Yea.
Yes.
Yes.
No. Some mine
drainuf>e.-af fecte
areas will be
restored. llnwuv
inadequate funds
ivill prevent coin
plete cleanup.
No. Mine drainag
problem will not
je corrected uue
LO lack of funds
ifes.
for mine drainag
-onfrnl projci-rs
Categories: See definition in text, Section 2.1.6.4.
1974 Pa. Water Quality Criteria Groups and Levels as defined in Reference (28
Data Source: USGS Water Resources Bulletin No. 1. (e) Discontinue
00
en
-------
ORSANCO recently assessed the water quality of the Ohio River main
stem and its tributaries by comparing the data collected at its monitoring
stations during the year July 1, 1975 - June 30, 1976 with ORSANCO's stream
quality criteria (or with ORBC's criteria for the parameters lacking ORSANCO
criteria). The parameters found to have exceeded those criteria at South
Pittsburgh on the Monongahela River are listed below (37).
Parameter
% of Samples
(or time)
Exceeding
ORSANCO/ORBC
Criteria in
1975-76
Dis-
solved
Oxy-
gen
3
Total
Sus-
pended
Solids
7
Fecal Coli-
forms for
Recre-
ation
100
Water
Supply
63
Total
Phos-
phorus
20
Cyanide
62
Iron
29'
Acid mine drainage, affecting many of the streams in the basin will not
be brought under control within the foreseeable future due to insufficient
funds available. The following waters are so polluted by abandoned mines
that implementation of some effluent limitations to meet water quality
standards has been postponed (35).
Stream Name County
Thompson Run Allegheny
Indian Creek from Champion to mouth Fayette
Raspler Run Fayette
Poplar Run Fayette
Maple Creek Washington
Bolden Run Fayette
Bute Run Fayette
Rankin Run Fayette
Browns Run Fayette
Little Whitely Creek Greene
Whitely Creek from Mapleton to mouth Greene
Cats Creek Fayette
Jacobs Creek near Masontown Fayette
Georges Creek from York Run to mouth Fayette
York Run Fayette
Dunkard Creek from state line to mouth Greene
Cheat River Fayette
- 87 -
-------
5. Stream Quality Changes, 1973-1977
The Bureau of Water Quality Management, PA DER, bi-annually reports
the recorded improvements and degradations in water quality. Table 2.1.6.-16
presents the improved lengths and Table 2.1.6.-17 the degraded length of the
various streams in the Monongahela River Basin for the last five years (25).
In a recent study, ORSANCO evaluated the possible short-term trends in
water quality parameters by comparing the 1964-75 data base with the July 1,
1975 - June 30, 1976 data at its monitoring stations (37), The results of
the trend analysis at Charleroi on the Monongahela River are summarized below.
Parameter
Trend
Level of
Signific.
Dissolved
Oxygen .
Increasing
0.05
Water
Temperature
Increasing
0.05
pH
Increasing
0.001
Turbidity
No Statis-
tically
Signifi-
cant Trend
Spec.
Cond.
Total
Hardness
Decreasing
0.05
- 88 -
-------
TABLE 2.1.6.-16
STREAMS SHOWING WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENTS (1973-1977)
MONONGAHELA RIVER BASIN
Source (25)
Year
1974
1975
1976
Stream
Jacobs Creek
Monongahela River
South Branch
Muddy Creek
Sugar Run
Youghiogheny River
Pollock Run
Monongahela River
Youghiogheny River
Unnamed Tributary
of Turtle Creek
Unname'd Tributary
to P-eters Creek
Monongahela River
Monongahela River
Youghiogheny River
Long Run
Slate Run
Whitely Creek
Muddy Creek
Redstone Creek
Sewickley Creek
County
Westmoreland
Greene
Fayette
Washington
Westmoreland
Allegheny
Greene
Greene
Somerset
Westmoreland
Greene and Fayette
Westmoreland
Allegheny
Allegheny
Washington
Fayette
Westmoreland
Allegheny
Allegheny
Westmoreland
Westmoreland and
Allegheny
Westmoreland
Greene
Greene
Fayette
Westmoreland
Length
Improved
Miles
1
75
0.5
0.5
1
5
12
1
1
2
9
2
1.5
1
3
7
3.5
2.5
1
Reason for Improvement
Improved industrial waste
treatment
Mine drainage abatement
Improved sewage treatment
Industrial waste treatment
Sewage treatment
Sewage treatment
Mine drainage abatement
Improved sewage treatment
Elimination 'of siltation
problem
Improved sewage treatment
Industrial waste treatment
Improved sewage treatment
Sewage treatment
Sewage treatment
Sewage treatment
Erosion control
Sewage treatment
Removal of trash and debris
Improved industrial waste
treatment
- 89 -
-------
TABLE 2.1.6.-17
STREAMS SHOWING WATER QUALITY DEGRADATION (1973-1977)
MONONGAHELA RIVER BASIN
Source (25)
Year
1975
1976
Stream
Sewickley Creek
Rasler Run
Brush Run (Jacobs
Creek)
Little Pike Run
County
Westmoreland
Fayette
Westmoreland
Washington
Length
Dearaded
Miles
1.5
4
3
1
Reasons for Degradation
Abandoned mine breakout
Mine drainage
Surface mine drainage
Mine drainage
- 90 -
-------
B. Allegheny River Basin
1. General
The concentration of dissolved solids in the Allegheny River mainstem
was reported in 1956 to vary in an opposing manner to what is generally
expected. The relatively high concentration in the upstream region tended
to decrease downstream toward Kittanning, Pennsylvania. This was due to the
brine from the oil fields raising the sodium chloride content of the water in
the Upper Allegheny River Basin and the resulting high concentrations diluted
by water from other areas in the Middle and Lower Basins. Below Kittanning
additional changes in the chemical character of the river water were brought
about by acid mine drainage intorudced by the tributaries, especially the
Kiskiminetas River: bicarbonate disappeared, sulfate content increased, and
the pH dropped to acid condition (30).
In addition to acid mine drainage, which is still the most serious pollu-
tant reaching the river, other forms of pollution from municipalities and
industries resulted in further degradation of the Allegheny River quality in
its Middle and Lower Basins. Shapiro et al. reported that the following
pollutants were added in significant amounts in 1964-65: accidity, hardness,
calcium, sulfates, iron, manganese, sodium, chlorides, phenol, total solids,
and BOD (17).
The greatest portion of acidity, sulfates, iron, manganese, and hardness
is contributed by the Kiskiminetas drainage area. To reduce the impact of
these components on the Allegheny River, low-flow augmentation is provided by
the Corps of Engineers from Allegheny Reservoir at Kinzua since 1967. Releases
from the reservoir are coordinated not only with streamflow of the Allegheny
River (to provide a contemplated minimum regulated flow of 1,000 cfs at
Franklin and 2,000 cfs at Natrona) but also with its water quality, monitored
- 91 -
-------
at four stations in the basin (31). This low-flow augmentation for quality
control is especially valuable to- counteract slugs of acid mine waste from the
Kiskiminetas drainage basin. These slugs, produced by heavy rainfall in the
basin, are detained in the Conemaugh and Loyalhanna flood control reservoirs
until increased flows from the Allegheny Reservoir can reach the confluence of
the Kiskiminetas River to provide dilution water. The augmented flow also
helps to mitigate the taste and odor problems primarily caused by the organic
loading from Oil Creek, French Creek, and the Clarion River (32).
Another reservoir in the Allegheny River Basin operated for low-flow
augmentation is the East Branch Clarion Reservoir. Its main purpose is to
prevent septic conditions in the main stem of Clarion River between Johnson-
burg and Ridgway during periods of low flow. Its beneficial effect, however,
extends further downstream by providing dilution and neutralization of the
acid Clarion and Kiskiminetas Rivers (33).
With increasing control of waste effluents from manufacturing plants,
municipalities, and active mines, acid mine drainage from abondoned mines will
continue 'to be a problem. Also, the large concentrations of fecal bacteria
reaching Pittsburgh indicate a future problem, even after the acidity and
other problems are alleviated (34).
2. Surface Water Quality
Figure 2.1.6.-24 shows the yearly averages and ranges of water temperature,
conductivity, dissolved oxygen, and pH for the Allegheny River at Oakmont as
calculated from ORSANCO'S Robot Minitor data. The figure indicates generally
good dissolved oxygen levels, improving pH and slightly rising temperatures
during 1970 through 1977. Figure 2.1.6.-25 shows the range and mean of monthly
averages for the same parameters at.Oakmont. The summer is the critical
period for all four parameters: temperature and conductivity reach maxima,
- 92 -
-------
on _
yu
80-
70-
f.n _
ou
en .
j\J
An_
mj
m -
MM
MM
!
LMMI
,....;:!:-.
. TEMPERATURE
V (OF) " <
Maximum 'Daily Average ' '
' L ' , ; - ' ; i ' ' ' j | ' ; ; - ; '
~:i:'" . !':.'! ."..'. . r.-j . I ""!' '. i ; '
;- .! ]. .: :.-..;:. ':.; ' .
! "i ; r ..['.. -:::: -!.:.!: L: .!.;:- : I
.-! ; ".!:: -.::|-Y:-|. ::..,:-.. .-:j-r:i--r:r.-.- !: ;
Minimum! :Daily. Average' ii^i .; ;
; ! :'; : ' i:-.;"1 ^"^>
I
t
"
'
LJ
:
!.
l
i
i
:
I::
.| :
(-
- !
i
:j-
.;
*
L-l
n:.
...j _.
,,.
''*.
^mm
^^
;i
L I
I
j .
I I
;
-.
i
MB
~
I
i
PMH
':.
-J
1UUU -
300-
600-
400-
200-
16-
12-
8-
4-
0-
8-
7-
6-
5-
4-
1-
. ..,. . ........ .... .. :r.j--;- .. '
f*fi WT^TTf^T TXTT TV
! . »JlUUV;- J- K;. !"- ! .--r-v!..--
. .: ,:'.;...: ;.:.::.; "i;'"-r---:j' -..:..-:.! ;.:,":::!' '.:..
- -
; . ; : . .,.:,- ::..:-!'..::-;-..-.;::. | ., .:-L.:.-|. . : :':.
'
- - ^
MM!
..-'::-;iL-f-:f-f^~r~:!-~t-::i-^fcH{^Kr-: - :i U
.
..-.
mm
.. :
'-
- "
:
'«
MM
. . _
..... . . . .
...: (::_ .. j.. .;._ .;. . i:
MI
M
M
T^P-,. ;"~^ ; ':'"" '
"" -'!.' I..'';'" "; -
-. Vr1 :. M -H-LJ. : LJ ; 1 I
.- . - f ..,.- -.1 ---: . . .!
....
MM
LJ
'.."'..' \ ; .;...' : . . : . n
; - - - - - \H}§/ i / ' , " ' I -
;
r
r
^H
^^
^«
! . -; ' : j : . . .'i : .. . ;
..r..- : -.;.;:i:: ::::!... :{...:;.-; ...:;.i;p/.:.: (::;_.;:.::.. j. ..
:t: . j- : . i^i (S,.\l, . (. ,. |::::;:j: ::;i..:.:|,:;-:j-:
i:!- i::-- r^Lnrp-Fi: { .-:i;=rpfrfef'H:^:!fTrfjf ~.
|::;: ::;; ; <:- -- ;--;--\'\^~ '^^l^-l- 1;
r" ,-; ui )":-u^ U" j ! !(:. nutiifcU.;;-^' :!;.-:
; :.(.. :!:':. . '::;[ "T- . f 'i-'- ' :' i.!-;
. ... !. r .. j. :...... . -. ! .|::-!-- -^ : I ::j:. ;.!
....... - r. I:' .I::::!::::!- .'! .;;:.-: i: . .T": !,
rr
_ ^ ,
:-:
!
'i
::i
.: i.-
. |.j
iili-L
. I. .
' . : . I
' ;
::..;;.-
--
«^
f .
:i;
:i:
LuJ
...
'
-
"~
..........
^
"
i
. !
- .1.:
L-i_.
f
"
:f-
LJ
-
-.. .:
.:^i;;;;
"
_
_*iiU
;
OH
'. i;
i
-
. . . ; . '. .
U-J
* i * ** '
.."..:;.!
: V- T ! ' "~
»i; ! ;.;: ; -i -; ;
. . t ..!...-
' '.::'.''
::!:;;-|::-
rr-^-rr
»M1
WMM
:r:"r:r
:".:<"' t .- :
?
.
u
rrrrr
':-
.'
; :
-' ; : ' '" L- :
pfl
^*
i.-l: .. :... .:., : ' .
H-; ; ;- ".- -LJ - -"
::!::: '.''."' . : . : : :
. j i l , _ ; ' . ' ; . '- "' - --' .
: "[ :...:'-.
. [ . ' . ' .
..(::: ;:;;;:::::
... j.^. . .: i. ..:.. . . ..-..
' 1962 YEAR 1970 '71 '72 '73 '74 '75 '76 '77
FIGURE 2.1.6.-24 ANNUAL WATER QUALITY ALLEGHENY RIVER AT OAKMONT (6)
- 93 -
-------
LU
OS
-------
dissolved oxygen and pH reach minima during the warm weather period. Both
figures were derived from ORSANCO'-'S Robot Monitor data (6).
Tables 2.1.6.-18 and 2.1.6.-19 give twelve-year means of selected para-
meters at a number of Water Quality Network Stations in the Upper, Middle, and
Lower Allegheny River Basins (1), (2). Mean, maximum, and minimum values of
most parameters sampled at selected stations in the Allegheny River Basin are
presented in Table 2.1.6.-20 for the 1972-73 period and in Table 2.1.6.-21 and
2.1.6.-22 for the 1975-77 period, as derived from the STORET System.
The longitudinal variation of a few major water quality parameters in the
Little Conemaugh/Conemaugh Rivers and Stony Creek is illustrated in Figures
2.1.6.-26 and 2.1.6.-27, respectively. Figure 2.1.6.-28 shows the time
variation of major parameters at Station 811 in the Conemaugh River between
January 1970 and December 1974 (3).
3. Water Quality Problems
The major water quality problems in the Allegheny River Basin are pre-
sented in Table 2.1.6.-23, along with the DER-assigned classes and categories as
extracted from References (1), (2), (25), and (26).
Acid mine drainage is the major cause of water quality problems in the
Basin, especially in the Clarion, Conemaugh, and Kiskiminetas watersheds
where many streams suffer from low pH and high concentrations of free sulfuric
acid, sulfate, and metals such as iron, aluminum, manganese, nickel, and zinc.
The streams degraded by acid mine drainage are classed AMD in the Table.
Inadequately treated or raw (the latter mostly originating from mal-
functioning on-lot waste disposal systems) municipal and industrial waste
discharges cause additional problems, particularly in the Upper and Middle
Basins. Redbank Creek near Reynoldsvilie, Brookville and New Bethlehem,
- 95 -
-------
TABLE 2.1.6.-18
en
i
MEAN VALUES OF SELECTED PARAMETERS AT SAMPLING
STATIONS IN THE UPPER ALLEGHENY RIVER BASIN
(Data Collected from May 1962 to December 1974)
Source (1)
Parameter
pH (S.U.)
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/l)
Total Iron (ug/l)
Total Dissolved Solids (mg/l)
Temperature ( C )
Turbidity (JTU)
Ammonia ( rng/1 N )
Total Phosphorus (mg/l P)
Alkalinity (as CaCO ) (mg/l)
Biochemical Oxygen Demand (mg/l)
Total Coliforrn (#/100 ml)
Stream
Allegheny River
. French
Creek
Tionesta Creek
French
Creek
Tionesta
Creek
Sampling Station (PA-DER WQN No.)
804
6.9
10.0
795
132
ND
12.5
0.15
0.07
53.7
2.2
59,000
805
7.0
10.2
457
92
10.7
11.0
0.13
.0.06
50.6
1.7
12,000
826
6.8
9.8
1,000
120
11.5
12.9
0.33
0.1
74.5'
2.1
28,000
829
6.6
10.7
438
58
11.5
6.6
0.14
0.04
19.8
1.7
1,200
830
6.7
10.7
490
56
11.7
6.8
0.10
0.04
22.3
1.6
34,800
845
7.7
10.1
883
154
2-5.9
7.6
0.14
0.07
61.5
ND
ND
853
6.7
8.5
379
76
23.2
3.4
0.13
0.02
18.1
ND
ND
-------
TABLE 2.1.6.-19
MEAN VALUES OF SELECTED PARAMETERS AT SAMPLING
STATIONS IN THE MIDDLE AND LOWER ALLEGHENY RIVER BASINS
(Data collected from June 1962 to December 1974)
Source (2)
Parameter
pH (S.U. )
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/l)
Total Iron (ug/l)
Total Dissolved Solids (mg/l)
Temperature (QC)
Turbidity (JTU)
Ammonia (mg/l N)
Total Phosphorus (mg/l P)
Alkalinity (as CaCO ) (mg/l)
Biochemical Oxygen Demand (mg/l)
Total Coliform (#/100 ml)
Stream
Allegheny River
Clarion River
West
Branch
Clarion
River
East
Branch
Clarion
River
Clarion River
Sampling Station (PA-DER WQN No.)
801
6.7
10.2
4,975
24
10.9
13.6
0.27
0.04
19.8
2.0
12,300
802
7.1
10.8
646
11
12.8
11.7
0.23
0.05
37.9
2.0
7,800
803
7.3
10.5
1,008
61
11.5
11.8
O.H
0.12
41.3
1.9
32,600
821
5.2
9.0
735
113
12.0
8.3
0.18
0.05
9.8
1.4
300
823
6.2
8.9
452
91
13.5
18.9
0.15
0.05
19.0
13.1
133,600
824
6.6
10.7
375
74
10.7
5.7
0.08
0.02
25.8
1.7
61,500
825
5.2
10.9
329
61
11.4
5.0
0.9
0.02
6.1
1.4
8
833
5.3
8.2
395
63
12.4
7.5
0.25
0.06
22.6
2.6
29,800
843
5.6
8.1
741
228
24.8
4.5
0.15
0.02
6.5
ND
ND
I
10
-------
TABLE 2.1.6.-20
ALLEGHENY RIVER WATER QUALITY (from EPA STORET System)
Source (34)
Parameter
Water Temperature, c
Flow, cfs
Turbidity, JTU
Threshold Odor Number at 60^C
Conductivity at 25°C, uicromhos/cm
Dissolved Oxygen, mg/1
Biochemical Oxygen Demand, 5 day, mg/1
pll, units
Total Alkalinity, mg/1 as CaCOj
Total Acidity rag/1 CaCO^
Total Filtered Residue, mg/1
Ammonia Nitrogen, mg/1
Nitrate Nitrogen, mg/1
Total Phosphorus, mg/1
Orthophosphate, mg/1
Total Organic Carbon mg/1
Total Hardness, Mg/1 as CaCO,
Chloride, mg/1
Sulfate, rag/1
Dissolved Fluoride, mg/1
Cyanide, rag/1
Total Arsenic, mg/1
Total Cadmium, mg/1
Total Chromium, nig /I
Total Copper, mg/1
Total Iron, iug/1
Total Manganese, mg/1
Total Lead, iug/1
Total Zinc, rag/1
Mercury, rog/i
Total Conforms No/100 ml
Focal Collforms No/100 ml
I'litm.its, mg/1
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
4/4/72 to 12/17/73
Number of
Samples
15
13
12
15
15
15
15
12
1?
12
14
12
12
12
5
15
12
12
12
12
15
8
7
7
3
11
10
7
8
12
12
15
Mean
Value
14.6
14,563.1
8.9
328.5
9.7
1.8
6.7
17.2
1 L
181.2
0.3
0.5
0.07
0.04
">"> L
o q
103.8
15.9
86.3
0.2
0.003
.002
.001
.001
O.OU6
0.9
0.7.
0.012
0.097
6 783
OOti*
o . o:> 7
Maximum
Value
25.0
52,400
35.0
440.0
11.6
2.8
7.4
25
-------
TABLE 2.1.6.-20 (Continued)
Parameter
Water Temperature, C
Flow, cfs
Turbidity, JTU
Conductivity at 25 C, micromhos/cm
Dissolved Oxygen, mg/1
Biochemical Oxygen Demand, 5 day, mg/1
pH, units
Total Alkalinity, mg/1 as CaC03
Total Acidity, mg/1 CaC03
Total Filtered Residue, mg/1
Ammonia Nitrogen, mg/1
Nitrate Nitrogen, mg/1
Total Phosphorus, mg/1
Total Organic Carbon, mg/1
Total Hardness, mg/1 as CaC03
Chloride, mg/1
Sulfate, mg/1
Total Fluoride, mg/1
Dissolved Arsenic, mg/1
Dissolved Cadmium, mg/1
Dissolved Chromium, mg/1
Dissolved Copper, mg/1
Total Iron, mg/1
Total Manganese, mg/1
Dissolved Lead, mg/1
Dissolved Zinc, mg/1
Newjfensington, Pennsylvania
7-18-72 to 10-4-74
Number of
Samples
9
8-
3
8
8
1
9
8
2
1
2
3
2
6
3
4
4
3
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
Mean
Value
13.3
22',240
1.3
230.7
11.3
1.0
6.5
12.9
9.5
298
0.28
1.3
0.05
4.0
100
13
94.8
0.3
0.01
0.004
0.006
0.004
0.2
0.575
0.001
0.062
Maximum
Value
25
51,500
3.0
348
17.5
1.0
6.7
30
17
298
0.3
2.8
0.07
6.5
118
14
125
0.4
0.01
0.004
0.006
0.004
0.33
0.930
0.001
0.062
Minimum
Value
0.5
5740
0.5
130
7.8
1.0
6.2
6
2
298
0.25
0.4
0.02
3.0
84
12
62
0.2
0.01
0.004
0.006
0.004
0.07
0.220
0.001
0.062
-------
TABLE 2.1.6.-21 ALLEGHENY RIVER WATER QUALITY, 1975-77
(From EPA's STORET System)
Parameter
Water Temperature. °C
Flow, cfs
Turbidity, JTU 1
Conductivity at 25°C, micromhos/cm
Dissolve'! Oxygen, mg/.l -
pH, Standard Units
Total Alkalinity, mg/1 as CaCOi
Mineral Acidity, mg/1
Acidity from 003, ing/ 1
Total Residue, mg/1
Dissolved/1050 Residue, mg/1
Total Nonfll terabit e Residue, mg/1
Settleable Residue, ml/1
Oil and Grease, mg/1
Total rill3-N, mg/1 .
Total H02-N, mg/1
Total M03-N, mg/1
Total Phosphorus, mg/1 P '
Total Cyanide, mg/1
Total hardness, mg/1 as CaCOj
Dissolved Calcium, mg/1
Dissolved Magnesium, mg/1
Chloride, mg/1
Total Sulfatc, mg/1
Total Fluoride, mg/1
Total Arsenic, mg/1
Total Cadmium, mg/1
Total Chromium, mg/1
Total Copper, mg/1
Total Iron, mg/1
Total Lead, mg/1
Manganese, mg/1
Total Nickel, mg/1
Total Zinc, mg/1
Total Aluminum, mg/1
Total Coliforms, no./lOO ml
Fecal Coliforms, no./lOO ml
Total Phenols, mg/1
Total Mercury, mg/1
UQN Station No. 801
Allegheny River at New Kensington
No. of
Samples
9
4 30
2
9
8
9
9
8
9
»..
8
__
__
9
8
6
9
-.
9
9
9
9
9
1
2
2
2
9
2
2
2
2
2
-.
__
__
1
Mean
Value
0.9
,125 58
5.3
239
11.8
7.1
21
0
0
__
149
__
__
0.31
0.034
0.60
0.14
._
89
22.8
8.6
16.4
67
--
0.020
0.020
0.050
0.050
1.093
0.100
0.655
0.050
0.075
0.975
._
__
-_
0.00Gb
Maximum
Value
24.0
.600 18
5.6
320
14.0
8.1
34
0
0
_ _
205
--
--
0.89
0.120
1.06
0.20
-.
122
30.3
15.0
20.0
95
0.020
0.020
0.050
0.050
1.900
0.100
0.810
0.050
0.100
1.450
.-
--
o.ooub
Minimum
Value
0
.500
5.0
180
8.0
6.7
16
0
0
105
__
--
0.10
0.004
0.04
0.02-
__
60
15.0
5.3
12.0
35
0.020
0.020
0.050
0,050
0.550
0.100
0.500
0.050
0.050
0.500
--
0.0005
WQN Station No. 803
Allegheny River at PR 368
No. of
Samples
23
23 14
13
25 1
23
23
25
25
25
24
--
__
25
23
21
24
__
25
24
24
23
25
--
2
2
2
2
25
2
25
2
. 2
25
21
2
Mean Maximum
Value Value
fl.7 21.5
.756 56.000 3.
6.2 18.0
.236 26,600
11.0 13.6
7.4 8.1
46 256
0 0
0 0
118 190
_ -.1-
-- ^-
0.19 1.40
0.009 0.020
0.52 1.39
0.13 0.53
_-
69 140
18.2 27.9
5.5 17.3
16.1 35.0
35.9 400.0
__
0.060 0.100
0.015 0.020
0.050 0.050
0.050 0.050
. 0.426 1.250
0.055 0.100
0.158 0.660
0.050 0.050
0.050 0.070
0.227 0.800
_-
360 5,900
_-
O.GOuo 1.000
Minimum
Value
0
000
1.6
120
8.0
6.7
14
0
0
_ _
60
_._
__
0.03
0.002
0.17
0.02
__
22
6.7
0
10.0
10.0
--
0.020
0.010
0.050
0.050
0.050
0.010
0.020
0.050
0.030
0.010
__
20
O.OOOb
WQN Station No. 804
Allegheny River at Franklin
No. of Mean
Samples Value
25
26
34
34
27
29
34
....
2
13
33
22
15
34
34
34
34
__
34
28
28
34
34
-_
2
3
3
35
3
2
2
3
3
__
17
__
2
11.6
11.712
8.0
158
10.7
7.4
40
--
0
112
110
15
0.283
0.17
0.014
0.69
0.07
__
60
17.0
4.7
14.7
16
-_
0.003
0.013
0.013
0.808
0.037
0.085
0.018
0.033
0.447
337
0,002
Maximum
Value
25.0
48,200 2
40.0
290
15.0
8.4
14?
, 0
152
180
56
0.800
0.91
0.048
2.16
0.20
__
120
32.9
10.2
21.0
32
_-
--
0.003
0.020
0.020
2,990
0.050
0.100
0.020
0.070
0.640
__
4,300
0.002
Minimum
Value
0
,880
2.0
100
7.7
6.7
20
__
0
60
66
2
0.004
0
0
0
0.01
__
36
9.6
2.2
7.0
4
--
--
0.003
0.010
0.010
0.040
0.010
0.070
O.C15
0.010
0.200
--
10
__
0.002
o
o
-------
TABLE 2.1.6-22 KISKIMINETAS, CONEMAUGH. AND CLARION RIVER WATER QUALITY. 1975-77
(FROM ERA'S STORET SYSTEM)
Da |»j| IT1A f" 0 1*
rai a it ic ici
Water Temperature, °C
Flou, cfs
Turbidity, JTU
Conductivity at 25°C, micromhos/cm
Dissolved Oxygen, mg/1
pH, Standard Units
Total Alkalinity, mg/1 as CaC03
Mineral Acidity, mg/1
Acidity from C02» mg/1
Total Residue, mg/1
Oissolved/1050 Residue, mg/1
Total Nonfil tenable Residue, mg/1
Settleable Residue, ml/1
Oil and Grease, mg/1
Total NH3-N. mg/1
Total f!02-N, mg/1
Total tl03-N, mg/1
Total Phosphorus, mg/1 P
Total Cyanide, mg/1
Total Hardness, mg/1 as CaCOj
Dissolved Calcium, mg/1
Dissolved Magnesium, mg/1
Chloride, iwj/1
Total Sulfate, mg/1
Total Fluoride, mg/1
Total Ar:;enic, mg/1
Total Cadmium, mg/1
Total Chromium, mg/1
Total Copper, mg/1
Total Iron, mg/1
Total Lead, mg/1
Manganese, mg/1
Total Nickel, mg/1
Total Zinc, mg/1
Total Aluminum, mg/1
Total Coliforms, no./lOO ml
Fecal Coliforms. no./lOO ml
Total Phenols, mg/1
Total Mercury, mg/1
UQN Station No. 809
Kiskiminetas River at Vandergrift
No. of Mean Maximum Minimum
Samples Value .Value Value
15 8.2 22.0 0
5 2,204 2,980 1,200
9 17.1 36.0 3.2
16 493 1,000 275
14. 10.5 14.0 . 4.0
14 4.9 6.8 3.7
16 1.25 10 0
13 5.8 30 0
15 58 180 12
_ -
15 282 667 144
- - - -
-. - - -
_ _
16 0.80 1.85 0.20
15 0.012 0.038 0.002
13 0.89\ 1.50 0.04
16 0.13 0.37 0.02
9 0.03 0.05 0.01
16 171 475 80
16 40.0 83.9 21.0
16 17.2 64.6 7.1
16 15.3 21.0 11.0
16 175 300 65
16 0.18 0.28 0.10
_ -
_ - -
_
_
15 6.026 16.000 0.400
- -
15 1.212 2.800 0.620
. .
_ _
15 2.917 10.000 0.800
- -
15 24 60 20
10 0.011 0.041 0.003
- - -
UQN Station No. 810
Conemaugh River at Tunnelton
No. of Mean Maximum Minimum
Samples Value Value Value
8 10.5 31.0 0.3
5 2,348 4,320 1.070
4 16.3 28.0 4.0
9 471. 720 200
7 12.2 19.0 9.0
8 4.8 5.6 3.7
9 4.1 25.0 0
8 6.3 50.0 0
9 28.6 60.0 0
- .
8 297 500 140
- - .
_ -
- . -
9 0.76 1.64 0.20
8 0.019 0.038 0.002
6 1.06 \1.64 0.64
8 0.20 0.46 0.03
_ -
9 153 225 65
9 39 65 18
9 14 21 4.6
9 14 28 7.0
9 167 270 60
8 . 0.16 0.22 0.10
- -
1 0.003 0.003 . O.OQ3
1 0.040 0.040 0.040
1 0.040 0.040 0.040
9 3.475 8.000 0.450
1 0.050 0.050 0.050
9 1.141 1.770 0.600
1 0.100 0.100 0.100
1 0.140 0.140 0.140
9 2.539 4.700 0.100
- - -
_ - -
- - - -
WQN Station No. 821
Clarion River at Piney
No. of Mean Maximum Minimum
Samples Value Value Value
9 9.1 21.0 0
10 4,043 4,800 2,460
10 3.0 5.0 1.0
10 171 240 110
10 10.1 14.0 7.0
10 5.9 6.9 5.1
10 6.3 18.0 2.0
- T ~
3 5 10 2
41 1 O 1/1/1 Ct£
1 1 J 144 bo
10 128 176 54
7 3.7 6.0 2.0
4 0.11 0.20 0.05
- -
10 0.18 0.41 0.06
10 0.016 0.026 0.007
10 0.61 1.40 0.23
10 0.03 0.07 0.01
- -
10 63 78 44
9 15.4 32.1 9.8
9 5.7 8.8 2.0
10 9.1 .14.0 6.0
10 49 76 30
-
- -
0.001 0.001 0.001
0.010 1.010 0.010
0.020 0.020 0.020
10 0.645 1.210 0.180
0.010 0.010 0.010
0.960 0.960 0.960
1 0.050 0.050 0.050
1 0.120 0.120 0.120
5 0.610 1.200 0.250
- " -
5 10 10 10
- -
_
-------
FIGURE 2.1.6.-26 SPATIAL WATER QUALITY PROFILE LITTLE CONEMAUGH/CONEMAUGH RIVER, OCTOBER 1974
Source (3)
|
j
O
fXJ
I
LEGEND
-J j PH l>^xxx>^^xSI
^ *v
o o
TOTAL ACIDITY
* * TOTAL ALKALINITY
j>"
i
o
2
O
O
g
rt
§
2
o
8-
o
8'
8;
2
§
8
TOTAL IRON
SULFATE
IBHUBI
1 1
iiimiiiiiiinii
A VI
K 1-
S 5 -J
3 *%
m * '
""»-."
MG/L MILLIGRAMS PER LITER
i
i
HP
>-
a S
2
4 (C
UJ
M
X
9
M
a
TT 1 r | i i x f 1 ri fj 1 1 i f
4.0 45 \ t> /& /j 8 9 A. | II 12 /ft
\ y /< If IU f
u x o'
" u"1 ">'
» 4 OK ml
u. ~ z u f
Z °°. " Zl
9 .2 3 °i
f- O M U. */> L_|
<| a: M 22 \a\
H 0< OUI £
bll A U O ID 10 1
CONFLUENCE
TROUT RUN
BORO. OF POR1
STP DISCHARGE
CONFLUENCE
NORTH BRANC
BORO. OF WILMI
RAW ni&CMARG
u u
u °
- J«
a> J<
ol ua
H1 034
to 1 tt IA a:
CONFLUENCE
LAUREL RUN
( (
1 »
kl
BORO. OF
EHRENFELC
RAW DISCHARBi
g g g
o
in
?
£
\
'/
'',,
\
\
Ay
a
o
b. Ik
O
.1
01-
(O CO
PI
1 z
I
I
I
1
1
1
B
|
M
!-
3W-
a
a
D
B
B
B
D
a
B
B
Jk
x£
1
*[
n;
k -
Hf
\
l\
m
- CM
-
P
&
\
X
?
%
X
K
\
Li
^ *?\
CONFLUENCE
SOUTH FORK
L. CONEMAUGH
STATION 816 B
CONFLUENCE
SALTLICK RUN
STATION 8I6A
a
j
i
;
j
=
I
n
"
;
2
=
^ z
CONFLUENCE
CLAPBOARD RU
1
1
i
1
S
2!
1
^
1
1
C
p
<
i
0
:
:
i
i
;
I
I
j
/f i \
BORO. OF
FRANKLIN
uilw-
1 o 1 O Z
1 !- U. *
O4 I/)
4 OC 1 O ^_ I
inulu. o >
\"
CONFLUENCE
STONY CREEK
o
a:
0
0
BROWNSTOWN
CAMBRIA
COUNTY LINE
<0
^
r
r\
'', s
/ **
/ 2
' ;
V NVX xx AXXNXNXX x\x NX vx XXXXXX'
JB B QB B B E B B B 100
ntniiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiu
-P .
u>
o
ri
.P .
S
q
.0 .
X «
U) ft
o
t-
S
o
10
o
»
o
o
ISI
o
o
UJ UJ Z H
. 0| --
z^ *- ac
2 < " ° -1
3 Hs
CO (A U.
Mil ES FROM REFERENCE POINT IR P) '
-------
o
co
FIGURE 2. 1.6. -27 SPATIAL WATER QUALITY PROFILE STONY CREEK, MARCH 1973
AC AC
u o u
^g'S
i- i9
§5 §5
0. O 0. O
Q
BUS ? g;
s fef;; J>
^ axq^BJ fl;
m * ' 1 *-'T^
S
o
L
19
bJ{£
^2
Sig
i'Q
2.
iS 51 o* .id
SJ til t-,3 8*
X
a
5|
- [p
S
1 £
ol i
STATION_8]7
STOYSTOWN
«i
a
rf
5 f
I
-
£
fl
1 «
J Wl
iM *l
>; s
^ a
3/K H=
M < tj 1 /
;S.-li=
i/fc'-l'b [
E^l
i
1
1
1
!
1
1
i
1
IS
fe
B/ 01 *~
/ 2 w
jy S o
krf
= ^ iS
_ , -, |!H
3 ^ \ \~
r- 1
*. S cl, -
pi
s;b [ =
!'i h
; i
i
1
.
! -
N
«l
1 (Q |
'x>
\'/\ 5
Ix 1 01 a>
, ' S w
J/ I 2 n
*/\ *H
3; rl
; =
/ :
y\ -
' ' \ -
i'i
S,: .
;*-
i/ \ ' E
^ :
\<\ | =
' I
15 o 20
1 K |
1 2 |
J
0
f
(J
Source (3)
s* a| h
«Z "-LJ l« =
33 ow Q M
Ii £o: HS
fe° as KS
4 1
3}
1
S
UJ
LjZ
S3
?3«
ul H uj
gj->
H ' 0
O
to
2
p .
^)
o
*"
S
p .
IM
q
fj
o
i
i
o
V
o .
o
pj
2
Q
8
0
i
o
3
O
V
8
M
a
i
§
to
g
^
o
o
ID
O
O
»
S
o
M
§
« «-o
£ S -
i. 2
J
3
-------
FIGURE 2.1.6.-28 TEMPORAL WATER QUALITY PROFILE -- CONEMAUGH RIVER, STATION 811, 1970-1974
Source (3)
I
o
I
SYMBOLS
TOTAL ALKALINITY
TOTAL ACIDITY
SULFATE
SYMBOLS
TOTAL DISSOLVED SOLIDS
TOTAL IRON
-------
TABLE 2.1.6.-23 CLASSIFICATION AND QUALITY PROBLEMS OF MAJOR STREAMS - ALLEGHENY RIVER BASIN
SOURCES (2), (25), (26)
Stream
Sugar Creek
Oil Creek
Johnson Run
Daguscahonda Run
Elk Creek
Brandy Camp
Creek
Meade Run
Toby Creek
W.Br. Clarion R.
Mill' Creek
Toby Creek
Piney Creek
Deer Creek
Licking Creek
Canoe Creek
Clarion River
Sandy Lake
Sandy Creek
East Sandy Creek
Scrubgrass Creek
Sandy Lick Creek
Bear Creek
Stream Segment
Lower Reach
Entire Watershed
Entire Watershed
Vicinity of St. Marys.
Brandy Camp to Mouth
Shawmut to Mouth
Main Stem Only (Elk & Jefferson Col
Halsey to Wilcox
Main Stem Only
Entire Watershed (Clarion County)
Entire Watershed
Entire Watershed
Entire Watershed
Entire Watershed
Mill Creek to Mouth
Above Lake Wilhelm Dam
Headwater Area
Entire Watershed
South Branch & Main Stem below
Confluence to source. North
Branch
CO-
WAMP
Sub-
Basin
160
16E
17A
17A
17A
17A
17A
17A
17A
17B
17A,
B
17B
17B
178
17B
17B
16G
16G
16G
16G
17C
17C
Class
(a)
AMD
AMD
AMD
AMD
AMD
AMD
AMD
AMD
AMD
AMD
AMD
AMD
AMD
WQL
UQL
AMD
AMD
WQL
Cate-
gory
(b)
IT
II
II
II
II
II
III
III
III
III
III
III
HI
II
II
III
Problems
Oil pollution.
Solids and Iron precipitates
are primary problems.
Brines.
Depressed dissolved oxygen
levels, color.
Phosphorus:
Phosphorus, turbidity.
Acid mine drainage.
Dissolved oxygen, acid mine
drainage.
MBASl Oil; BOD; NH3; toxic
organics ; Iron, Sul fates,
low pit.
Causes of Problems
(Parameter Group Violation)
(c)
Sewage, filter backwash.
Oil drilling and related operations.
Water quality affected by heavy Indus-
trial loads, landfill discharge and acid
mine drainage.
Abandoned gas wells.
Water quality affected by acid mine
drainage (1 , 4, 5);
Discharges of raw sewage and inadequate-
ly treated paper mill wastes (2, 3, 4).
Wf>ter treatment filter backwash.
Acid mine drainage (1, 4, 5).
Abandoned mines (1, 4, 5).
Raw sewage discharges at Falls Creek
Borouah & Reynoldsville, abandoned mines
(1. 2, 3, 4, 5).
Petrochemical wastes from Petrol ia area;
raw & inadequately treated sewage dis-
charge from Bruin-Petrol ia-Karns City
area; minor affect from acid mine drain-
age. North branch affected by drainage
from extensive strip mining and oil
and gas wells. (1,2,3,4,5)
Miles of
Stream
Degraded
By Problems
3.5
8
52.5
4
9
6
3
20
o
en
-------
TABLE 2.1.6.-23 (Continued)
Stream
Redbank Creek
Soldier Run
Coder Run
Beaver Run
Pine Creek
Middle Run
Long Run
Leather-wood
Creek
Rock Run
Wildcat Run
Welch Run
Runaway Run
Town Run
Leisure Run
Fiddlers Run
Catfish Run
Redbank Creek
Stump Creek
Little Elk Run
Hamilton Run
Glade Run
Pine Run
Mahoning Creek
Cowanshannock
Creek
Stream Segment
Entire Watershed
Main Stem Only
Main Stem Only
Entire Watershed
Entire Watershed
Entire Watershed
Jack Run to Mouth
Entire Watershed
Entire Watershed
Entire Watershed
Entire Watershed
Entire Watershed
Mouth to ?
Main Stem Only
Entire Watershed
Entire Watershed
Entire Watershed
Entire Watershed
Pine Run to Mouth
CO-
WAMP
Sub-
Basin
17C
17C
17C
17C
17C
17C
17C
17C
17C
17C
17C
17C
17C
17C
17C
17C
17C
17D
17D
170
170
170
170
17E
Class
(a)
AMD
AMD
AMD
AMD
AMD
AMD
AMD
AMD
AMD
AMD
AMD
AMD
AMD
AMD
AMD
AMD
AMD
AMD
AMD
AMD
AMD
AMD
Cate-
gory
(b)
III
III
III
III
III
III
III
III
III
III
HI
III
III
III
III
III
III
III
HI
III
III
III
Problems
Iron
Causes of Problems
(Parameter Group Violation)
(c)
Water quality degradation due to dis-
charges of Inadequately treated & raw
sewage (2. 4).
.
Acid mine drainage pollution (1, 4, 5).
Acid mine drainage.
Acid mine drainage.
Affected by coal washing water from
Carpentertown Coal & Coke Works; severe
acid mine drainage at mouth (1, 4, 5).
Acid mine drainage & inadequately treatec
sewage in headwater areas; leaching coal
refuse piles along the stream (1.2.3,4,5]
Mi les of
Stream
Degraded
By Problems
3
36
22
18
o
CTv
-------
TABLE 2.1.6.-23 (Continued)
Stream
Plum Creek,
North Branch
Crooked Creek
Buffalo Creek
Stony Creek
Little Conemaugh
River
Johnston Run
South Fork &
North Branch
Little Conemaugh
River
Aulds Run
Aultmans Run
Dlacklick Creek
North Branch
Blacklick Creek
Buck Run
Dixon Run
Laurel Run
Maridis Run
Penn Run
Ramsey Run
Stream Segment
Entire Watershed, except below
Keystone Lake
Main Stem; McKee Run to Mouth
Headwaters
Entire Watershed ( Esp. Bens,
Paint, Shade, and Quemahonlng
Creeks)
Entire Watershed
Entire Watershed
Entire Watershed
Source to Mouth
Entire Watershed
Entire Watershed
Entire Watershed
Main Stem
Entire Watershed
Entire Watershed :
CO-
WAMP
Sub-
Basin
17E
17E
18F
18E
18E
18E
18E
18D
180
180
180
180
180
180
180
180
18D
Class
(a)
WQL
AMD
AMD
AMD
WQL
AMD
AMD
AMD
AMD
AMD
AMD
AMJL_
Cate-
gory
(b)
III
III
III
III
III
III
III
III
III
III
III
III
Problems
Phosphorus; low pH.
Low pH; Iron.
pH, Iron, Sulfate.
Iron, Suspended Solids, pH,
Sulfate.
Causes of Problems
(Parameter Group Violation)
(c)
Aquatic biology studies Indicate severe
mine drainage pollution at mouth. Aban-
doned, unsealed mines located in this
basin' (1, 4, 5).
Acid mine drainage from strip mining
in headwater areas (1, 4, 5). .
Raw sewage discharge & acid mjne drain-
age affect Stony Creek & its tributaries,
also landfill leachate (1, 2, 3, 4, 5).
Raw sewage discharge & acid mine drain-
age adversely affect water quality con-
ditions throughout most of the stream
(1. 2, 3. 4, 5).
Inadequately treated municipal & indus-
trial wastes are adversely affecting
water quality (1, 2).
Raw sewage discharges & acid mine drain-
age problems (1, 2, 3, 4, 5).
Acid mine drainage.
Discharge from active mines.
Sewage problems due to raw discharge &
malfunctioning on-lpt systems; acid
drainage from strip mining (1,2,3,4,5).
Acid mine drainage.
Acid mine drainage.
Miles of
Stream
Degraded
By Problems
6
5
20
25
3
18
27
I
o
I
-------
TABLE 2.1.16.-23 (Continued)
Stream
Richards Rgii
Runmel Run
Tearing Run
Tubmill Creek
Twolick Creek,
North Branch
Twolick Creek
Yellow Creek
Yellow Creek
Conemaugh River
Big Run
Blacklegs Creek
Crabtree Creek
Getty Run
Keystone Lake
Loyal hanna Creek
lonastery Run
*>iiieiiiile Hun
Stream Segment
Entire Watershed
Entire Watershed
Entire' Watershed
Hendricks Creek to Mouth
Entire Watershed
Source to Mouth
Entire Watershed above Moosehlll
Watershed Below Homer City Mater
Dam
Entire Stream
Entire Watershed
Main Stem; Source to Mouth
Entire Watershed
Entire Watershed
Watershed area above Keystone Lake
Dam
Ninemile Run to Mouth
Entire Watershed
From Bagally to Mouth
CO-
WAMP
Sub-
Basin
18D
18D
18D
18D
180
180
18D
180
18C.
0
18C
18C
18C
18C
18C
18C
18C
16C
Class
(a)
AMD
AMD
AMD
AMD
AMD '
AMD
UQL
AMD
AMD
AMD
AMD
AMD
AMD
WQL
AMD
AMD
AMD
Cate-
?ory
b)
III
III
III
III
III
III
III
HI
III
III
III
III
III
III
III
III
III
Problems
Phosphorus.
pH, Iron.
Causes of Problems
(Parameter Group Violation)
(c)
Acid mine dralnaqe.
V
Raw sewage discharged to Creek in Homer
City & Clymer areas; acid mine drainage
from deep mines & strip mining in lower
reaches (1. 2, 3, 4. 5).
Affected by acid mine discharges from
abandoned mines & runoff from refuse
piles below the Homer City water reser-
voir (1, 4. 5).
One of the most severely polluted
streams in Pennsylvania. Seriously
affected by acid mine drainage in head-
waters 4 from leachate from coal refuse
piles in Seward & New Florence areas.
Inadequately treated industrial wastes
& sewage, particularly in the Johnstown
area, add to the overall pollutional
load (1, 2, 3, 4, 5).
Acid mine drainage,
Acid mine drainage.
Acid mine drainage.
Affected by acid mine drainage below
Latrobe & malfunctioning septic tanks
in New Alexandria area (1 , 2, 3, 4, 5).
Miles of
Stream
Degraded
By Problems
13
3
25
23 .
o
CD
-------
TABLE 2.1.6.-23 (Continued)
Stream
Saxman Run
Sulfur Run
Union Run
Whiskey Run
Beaver Run
Beaver Run
Big Spring Run
Guffy Run
Ktskiminetas
River
Long Run
Uolford Run
Allegheny River
Allegheny River,
Tributaries of
Pine Creek
Pine Creek
Deer Creek
Stream Segment
Entire Watershed
Entire Watershed
Entire Watershed
Entire Watershed
Watershed above Beaver Run Dam
Dam to Mouth
Entire Watershed
Source to Mouth
Entire Watershed
Entire Watershed
Kisklmlnetas .River to Mouth
Kiskiminetas River to Mouth,
except Pine Creek and Deer Creek
Watershed above North Park Lake
Entire Watershed, except above
North Park Lake
CO-
WAMP
Sub-
Basin
18C
18C
18C
18C
18B
18B
18B
18B
18B
18B
18B
18A
18A
18A
ISA
18A
Class
(a)
AMD
AMD
AMD
AMD
UQL
AMD
AMD
AMD
AMD
AMD
AMD
WQL
WQL
WQL
WQL
Cate-
gory
(b)
III
III
III
III
III
III
III
III
III
III
III
I
III
III
III
Problems
Phosphorus; NIL .
pH and Iron.
pH and Iron.
"
Fecal Coliform; Combined
Sewers; Settleable Solids;
Oil; Iron.
BOD: NII3; Oil, Suspended
Solids.
BOD: NH3; Oil; Suspended
Solids; Phosphorus.
BOD: NH3; Oil; Suspended
Solids; Heavy Metals;
Phenols.
High Sulfate and Zinc
levels in West Deer Town-
ship. Acid mine drainage.
Causes of Problems
(Parameter Group Violation)
(c)
Acid mine drainage.
Acid mine drainage.
Acid mine drainage.
Acid mine drainage.
Sewage .
Acid mine drainage seriously affects
water quality downstream from the Beaver
Run reservoir, affected by sewage above
reservoir (1 , 2, 3, 4,5).
Strip mines (1, 4, 5).
Acid mine drainage.
Water quality adversely affected by acid
mine drainage & raw sewage discharges
the entire length of the stream (1,2,
3, 4, 5).
Acid mine drainage.
Acid mine drainage.
Water quality affected by flow from
Kiskiminetas River, urban runoff and
Industrial wastes (1, 2, 3. 4, 5).
Inadequately treated sewage & industrial
wastes. Biological studies indicate
good water quality upstream from Wild-
wood Mine, with downstream reaches bio-
logically depressed from mine drainage
(1. 2, 3. 4, 5).
Aquatic biological studies Indicate up-
stream reaches depressed by siltation &
sewage I mine drainage from Indianaola
shafts (1, 2, 3. 4, 5). Landfill areas.
Mi les or
Stream
Degraded
By Problems
5
27
10
6
9
I
_1
o
I
-------
TABLE 2.1.6.-23 (Continued)
Stream
Little Deer Creek
Plum Creek
Little Plum
Creek
Willow Run
Stream Segment
CO-
WAMP
Sub-
Basin
18A
18A
ISA
18A
Class
(a)
Cate-
gory
(b)
.
Problems
Acid mine drainage.
Causes of Problems
(Parameter Group Violation)
(0
Water quality adversely affected, parti-
cularly from the Russelton Mine (1, 4.
5).
Water quality adversely affected by
acid mine drainage & sewerage overflows
(1. 2, 3. 4, 5).
Coal refuse disposal area.
Industrial discharges.
Mi les of
Stream
Degraded
By Problem
9
7
o
I
NOTES;
(a) CLASSES:
WQL - Water Quality Limited Stream
EL - Effluent Limited Stream
AMD » Acid Mine Drainage Affected Stream
(b) CATEGORIES:
See definition In Section 2.1.6.4.
(c) PARAMETER GROUPS:
1 *> Harmful substances (heavy metals, chemicals, pesticides.
other toxins)
2 = Oxygen depletion
3 = Eutrophlcation potential (phosphorus, nitrogen)
4 = Physical modification (temperature, turbidity, suspended
sol Ids, color, flow)
5 = Salinity, acidity, alkalinity (conductivity. pH, alkalinity.
total dissolved solids)
-------
Cowanshannock Creek-at Rural Valley, the lower portion of Clarion River, and
Johnston Run are beset by periodic oxygen depletion and high mutrient, BOD,
and suspended solids concentrations due to these wastes.
Several streams suffer from both municipal/industrial waste discharges,
as well as acid mine drainage: Elk Creek in the vicinity of St. Marys, Little
Toby Creek, Sandy Lick Creek, Bear Creek, Plum Creek, Pine Creek, Loyalhanna
Creek, the Kiskiminetas River in the Vandergrift area, Twolick Creek, Yellow
Creek, Blacklick Creek, the Little Conemaugh/Conemaugh Rivers, and Stony Creek.
An additional problem in the Upper Basin is water quality degradation
caused by oil and gas well brine. The last few miles of Oil Creek, the upper-
most reach of the West Branch Clarion River, and the north branch of Bear
Creek are most severely affected by this problem.
High solids and turbidity, caused by water treatment plant filter back-
wash are the major problems in Sugar and Sandy Creeks.
The water quality of the Allegheny River itself is generally good due to
the high base flow provided by Allegheny Reservoir. Because of the augmented flow
the river can absorb most waste loads in the basin but localized areas of
degradation caused by inadequately treated municipal and industrial discharges
exist. The Tionesta area and the Ford City-Kittanning area near Emlenton are
most severely affected.
4. Compliance Status
The means and maxima of the various water quality parameters at the WQM
Stations are compared with the 1974 State criteria in Table 2.1.6.-24 as com-
piled from References (1), (2), (25), and (26). The actual concentrations
listed did not meet the criteria. Criteria for pH, metals, coliforms, and
phenols were most often exceeded while those for dissolved oxygen, TDS and
- Ill -
-------
TABLE 2.1.6.-24 COMPLIANCE STATUS 1975 - ALLEGHENY RIVER BASIN
SOURCES (1), (2). (25), (26)
GENERAL INFORMATION
Sta-
tion
flo.
0)
801
802
803
804
805
808
809
810
811
812
Stream
(2)
Alle-
gheny
River
Alle-
gheny
River
Alle-
gheny
River
Alle-
gheny
River
Alle-
gheny
River
Buff-
alo
Creek
Kiski-
mine-
tas
River
Cone-
ma ugh
River
Cone-
niaugh
River
Loyal-
liana
Creek
Class
(3)
EL
AMD
AMD
EL
EL
UQL
AMD
AMD
AMD
AMD
Cate-
gory
(b)
(4)
I
III
HI
II
II
I
in
ill
ill
ill
CO-
WAMP
Sub-
basin
(5)
ISA
17E
17C
16G
16F
1BF
18B
18C
18D
18C
County
(6)
West-
more-
land
Arm-
strong
Arm-
strong
Venangt
Forest
Arm-
strong
West-
more-
land
Indiana
West-
more-
land
West-
more-
land
Criter
Stand.
Group
(c)
(7)
B+h,k
B
B+h,
Jj. 0,
U+h.
ii ,0i
B+h,
1,. o
J-b
hb6
Mv
J+v2
i~j~v
»*v2
Aver-
age
Flow
cfs
(8)
20775
14113
12927
9019
6347
193
3330
2477
1318
381
SPECIFIC WATER QUALITY PARAMETERS
pll
S.U.
D.O.
mg/1
TOT.Fe
mg/1
TEMP.
°C
TDS
mg/1
ODOR
S.U.
Total
Cn\ if
/100ml
POTENTIAL PROBLEMS
ALL VALUES GIVEN AS mg/1
mean/max.
(9)
OK/
4.7
OK/OK
OK/OK
OK/OK-
8.f
OK/OK
OK/
4.5
4.3/3
4.2/3
i.9/
3.9
i.8/3
(10)
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK/0
OK/0
OK/. 8
OK/. 8
OK
3K
(11)
5/
13.4
OK/ 3
OK/
10.0
OK/ 14
OK/
3.6
OK/
9.6
8.8/
32
7.9/
28
13. 1/
58
7.9/
80
(12)
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
3K
(13)
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK/
760
OK
OK
OK
(14)
34/55
30/37
38/45
34/47
Nil -N
J
UK/ ,
1.8
NH.-N
OK/
2.6
NH.-N
nv I
4. '4
(15)
12300/
123500
7800/
169700
32600/
818200
59400/
537400
11600/
165600
49300/
350000
250/
3500
60/
1400
2500/
24000
1400/
"27000
(16)
Phenol
.026/
.110
Phenols
OK/. 036
Phenols
.022/
.05
SO. OK/
4
296.0
U.lll/
-111
U 3.6/
12
'henol
)K/.040
'henol
3K/.030
'hcnols
.039/
090
VI
.0/57
(17)
Al
3.4/21
Al
4.1/14
Al
10. 7/
53
Al
9.9/43
Al
8.5/25
Zn
.050/
.050
(18)
Zn
.062/
.062
Tot.Alk
9229/
800000
Zn .
.647/
.870
Zn
1.030/
1.030
in
1.063/
1.960
30
1350
(19)
S°4
OK/ 300
Hi
.170/
.230
Nl
.ISO/
.150
Nl
.166/
.180
(20)
Mn
1.5/26
Mn
3.9/20
SO
4
299/950
CN
1.069/
1.069
Overall
Quality
Rating
(21)
Fair
Fair to
good
Good
Good
Good
Fair
Poor
Poor
Severely
depress-
ed
Will
Stream Meet Water
Quality Standards
BY 1933?
(22)
No. Inadequate
funds to correct
acid & iron pro-
blems in the Kis
kipiinctas River.
No. Lack of fund
No. Lack of fund
for mine drain-
age projects.
No. Lack of funH
for mine drain-
age projects, ar
grants for sew-
age facilities.
Ves.
ro
i
NOTES: (a) Classes: UQL - Water Quality Limited Stream
EL » Effluent Limited Stream
AMD » Acid Mine Drainage Affected Stream
b) Categories: See definition in text, Section 2.1.6.4.
c) 1974 Pa. Water Quality Criteria Groups and Levels as defined in Reference (28).
d) Data Source: USGS Water Resources Bulletin No. 1. (e) Discontinued.
-------
TABLE 2.1.6.-24 (Continued)
GENERAL INFORMATION
Sta-
tion
Ho.'
(1)
613
an
815
818
819
820
821
822
Stream
(2)
Loyal-
hana
Creek
Black
Lick
Creek
Two
Lick
Creek
Crook-
ed
Creek
Mahon-
ing
Creek
Red-
bank
Creek
Clar-
ion
River
Clar-
ion
River
Class
(a)
(3)
AMD
AMD
AMD
AMU
AMD
AMD
AMD
AMD
Cate-
gory
(b)
(4)
ill
ill
ill
ill
ill
in
in
in
CO-
HAMP
Sub-
basin
(5)
18C
18D
18D
17E
17D
17C
17E
17B
County
(6)
West-
more-
land
Indi-
ana
Indi-
ana
Arm-
strong
Arm-
strong
Clarion
Clarion
Clarion
Crlter
Stand.
Group
(<0
(7)
B+v2
Wv,
C+V1
B+v2
B+v2
G+VI
V+h
\+h
Aver-
age
Mow
cfs
(B)
329
422
254
503
654
758
1739
1427
(d)
SPECIFIC HATER QUALITY PARAMETERS
pH
S.U.
D.O.
mg/1
TOT.Fe
mg/1
TEMP.
OC
TOS
mg/1
ODOR
S.U.
Total
Colif.
/100ml
POTENTIAL PROBLEMS
ALL VALUES GIVEN AS mg/1
mean/max.
(9)
>K/
..6
1.6/
>.8
,.2/3
i.8/
1.4
)K/
i.8
3K/
4.5
5.6/
4.5
(10)
)K
)K/
3.0
)K/2.7
)K
)K
OK/
1.0
OK/
4.1
(11)
3K/
9.0
62. 9/
300
20/75
L.9/
1.4
)K/2.
OK/
14.0
OK/
3.4
(12)
OK
OK/ 2 7
OK
)K
)K
OK/28
OK/ 2 5
(13)
OK.
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
(14)
m -N
OK/. 8
1
32/
54
(15)
16500/
240000
OK/OK
1100 /
21100
1200/
16500
52200/
800100
12700/
186100
300/
3900
(16)
Phenol:
.020/
.050
Al
25/136
Al
9.1/56
Phenol:
OK/
.040
Phenols
.035/
.150
S°4
OK/225
Mn
3.?/
3.7
(17)
Al
3.2/57
Zn
.280/
.280
Zn
.095/
.140
Al
2.7/14
Al
3.6/14
Al
OK/2,8
Zn
1.6/
1.6
(18)
£n
)K/.060
U
.120/
.120
5°4
331/
1040
'n
.050/
.080
'.n
.137/
.330
Phenol
3K/.023
U
)K/2.6
(19)
Mn
OK/10
S°4
574/
2325
Mn
2.0/
5.5
S°4
OK/520
Phenol
OK/.04(
(20)
in
2.3/7.0
NH3-N
.54/1.4
Overall
Quality
Rating
(21)
Good to
excell-
ent
Poor
Poor
Poor at
mouth
Poor
near
mouth
Poor
Poor
Will
Stream Meet Water
Quality Standards
Bv 1983?
(22)
Yes.
No. Lack of funds
for mine drain-
age abatement pro-
jects and lack of
federal grouts
for sewage faci-
lities.
V AK > 11 f»»-
City area; No-
below Homer City
due to lac!; of
funds for mine
drainage control.
No. Inadequate
funds to complete
acid mine drain-
age control .
Yes.
No, Low priority
for upgrading
treatment facili-
ties at Summer-
ville.
No. Lack of funds
for mine drain-
age control pro-
jects.
CO
I
NOTES: (?) Classes:
WQL = Water Quality Limited Stream (b
EL " Effluent Limited Stream (c
AMD " Acid Mine Drainage Affected Stream (d
Categories: See definition in text. Section 2.1.6.4.
1974 Pa. Water Quality Criteria Groups and Levels as defined in Reference (28'
Data Source: USGS Water Resources Bulletin No. 1. (e) Discontinue'
-------
TABLE 2.1.6.-24 (Continued)
GENERAL INFORMATION
Sta-
tion
Mo.
(M
823
824
825
826
828
(e)
829
830
833
835
(e)
Stream
(2)
Clar-
ion
River
West
Branch
Clar-
ion'
River
Ease
Branch
Clar-
ion
River.
French
Creek
Oil
Creek
Tlo-
nesta
Creek
Tio-
nesca
Creek
Clar-
ion
River
Halion-
ing
Creek
Class
(*)
(3)
AMD
AMD
AMD
WQL
EL
EL
EL
AMD
AMD
Cate-
gory
(b)
(4)
III
III
III
II
II
II
II
HI
HI
co-
l-IAMP
Sub-
basin
(5)
17A
17A
17A
16D
16E
16F
16F
17A
17D
County
(6)
Elk
Elk
Elk
Ven-
ango
Ven-
ango
Forest
Forest
Elk
Jeff-
erson
Criter
Stand.
Group
(0
(7)
A+h
A+h
A
-v
b3«h
B+h,
VV2
A+h
A
A
A+h
B+VZ
Aver-
age
Flow
cfs
(8)
330
101
111
1222
344
801
392
519
264
(d)
SPECIFIC WATER QUALITY PARAMETERS
pH
S.U.
D.O.
rag/1
TOT.Fe
mg/1
TEMP.
OC
TDS
mg/1
OOOR
S.U.
Total
Collf.
/1 00ml
POTENTIAL PROBLEMS
ALL VALUES GIVEN AS mg/1
mean/max.
<9)
OK/
5.3
OK/
5.9
5.6/
4.2
OK
OK/
9.0
OK/OK
OK/
2.5
OK
(10)
OK/
4.4
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK/
4.0
OK/0
OK
(")
OK/
1.8
OK/
2.2
OK/
2.0
OK/
10. 0
OK/
3.0
OK/
2.0
OK/
2.4
OK
(12)
9K/46"
*Quee«
tlonr
able
OK/
26
OK/
22.5
OK.
OK/
27
OK/ 2 7
OK/29
OK/25
(13)
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
(14)
37/64
28/54
OK/ 4 4
29/43
37/57
35/47
(15)
L33600/
460000
61500/
430000
OK/OK
2 8000 /
137500
24200/
550000
1200/
12000
34800/
845000
29800/
160900
(16)
Cu
.408/
.796
Cl
OK/540
Zn
.084/
.160
Ni
.128/
.128
Phenol
OK/. 03
Phenol
24/30
(17)
Nl
1.65/
1.65
Phenol
.033/
.080
(18)
Zn
.231/
.392
(19)
(20)
Overall
Quality
Rating
(21)
Good
Good
Good
Fair
Will
Stream Meet Water
Quality Standards
Bv 1933?
(22)
Yes.
No. Regulations
governing cruJe
oil recovery pro
jably will not b<
implemented by
then.
Yes.
NOTES: (a) Classes: WQL
EL
AMD
Water Quality Limited Stream
Effluent Limited Stream
Acid Mine Drainage Affected Stream
Categories: See definition 1n text, Section 2.1.6.4.
1974 Pa. Water Quality Criteria Groups and Levels as defined 1n Reference (2-
Data Source: USGS Water Resources Bulletin No. 1. (e) Discontinu
-------
TABLE 2.1.6.-24 (Continued)
GENERAL INFORMATION
Sta-
tion
Ho.
(1)
838
839
840
(e)
841
842
(e)
843
844
845
Stream
(2)
Pine
Creek
Deer
Creek
Btiffalc
Creek
Cowan-
shan-
nock
Creek
Ma hon-
ing
Creek
Clar-
ion
River
Elk
Creek
French
Creek
Class
(3)
WQL
WQL
WQL
AMD
AMD
AMD
AMD
WQL
Cate-
gory
(b)
(4)
i
i
i
in
in
in
in
ii
co-
HAMP
Sub-
basin
(5)
18A
18A
18F
17E
17D
17B
17A
16D
County
(6)
Alle-
gheny
Alle-
gheny
Butler
Arm-
strong
Arm-
strong
Clarion
Elk
Ven-
ango
Crlter
Stand.
Group
(c).
(7)
B-b0.
+b5.
e2
A
B-b
+b6
B+v,
2
B+v,
2
A+h
A+h-
B+h,
J1'V2
Aver-
age
Flow
cfs
(8)
1033
(d)
42
(d)
582
(d)
2252
(d)
291
(d)
265
(d)
SPECIFIC WATER QUALITY PARAMETERS
pH
S.U.
D.O.
mg/1
TOT.Fe
mg/1
TEMP.
°C
TDS
mg/1
ODOR
S.U.
Total
Colif.
/100ml
POTENTIAL PROBLEMS
ALL VALUES GIVEN AS mg/1
mean/max.
(9)
OK
OK
OK/
5.8
OK
OK
5.6/
5.7
OK
OK/
OK-
8.7
(10)
OK
OK
.
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
(11)
Z.4/
L0.9
OK
OK
OK/
1.8
OK
OK/
2.8
OK
OK/
2.5
(12)
3K .
OK/
20
OK
OK
OK
25/
27
OK/
22
OK
(13)
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
(14)
(15)
(16)
Zn
.100/
.100
Zn
.055/
.090
SO,
OK/425
*
(17)
Nl
.ISO/
.150
S°4
OK/490
Mn
2.6/
2.6
(IB)
S°4
254/
725
fot.Alk
147/270
in .!/
.1
(19)
CN
,140/
.548
(20)
Nil -N
OK/. 6
Overall
Quality
Rating
(21)
Good up-
stream
from
Wildwood
Mine; de
pressed
down-
stream
Depress-
ed -up-
stream,
some
recovery
down-
stream
Poor
Poor
Poor
Poor
Fair
Will
Stream Meet Water
Quality Standards
Bv 1983?
(22)
Yes.
Yes,
,
No. Lack of funds.
No, Lack of funds
for mine drain-
age abatement &
treatment .
Yes.
No. Lack of funds
for mine drain-
age control pro-
jects.
NOTES: (a) Classes: WQL
EL
AMD
Water Quality Limited Stream
Effluent Limited Stream
Acid Mine Drainage Affected Stream
Categories: See definition in text, Section 2.1.6.4.
1974 Pa. Water Quality Criteria Groups and Levels as defined in Reference (28).
Data Source: USGS Water Resources Bulletin No. 1. (e) Discontinued.
-------
TABLE 2.1.5.-24 (Continued)
GENERAL INFORMATION
Sta-
tion
Ho.
(1)
848
(e)
852
853
(e)
Stream
(2)
Lake
Creek
Oil
Creek
Tio-
nesta
Creek
Class
(*)
(3)
UQL
EL
EL
Cate-
gory
(b)
(4)
II
II
II
CO-'
HAMP
Sub-
basin
(5)
16D
16E
16T
County
(6)
Ven-
ango
Ven-
ango
Forest
Crlter
Stand.
Group
(c)
(7)
B+v2
A+h
A
Aver-
age
Flow
cfs
(8)
517
(d)
873
(d)
SPECIFIC WATER QUALITY PARAMETERS
pH
S.U.
D.O.
mg/1
TOT.Fe
mg/1
TEMP.
oc
TDS
mg/1
ODOR
S.U.
Total
Collf.
/100ml
POTENTIAL PROBLEMS
ALL VALUES GIVEN AS mg/1
mean/max.
(9)
OK
OK
OK
(10)
OK
OK
OK
(11)
OK
OK/
1-7
OK
(12)
OK
22/26
23/24
NOTES: (a) Classes: UQL = Mater Quality Limited Stream
EL = Effluent Limited Stream
AMD = Acid Mine Drainage Affected Stream .
(13)
OK
OK
OK
(14)
(15)
(16)
Pb
,5/.5
(17)
(18)
(19)
(20)
Overall
Quality
Ratinq
(21)
Good
Mill
Stream Meet Kate
Quality Standard
Bv 19S3?
(22)
\
No. .Regulations
governing crude
oil recovery pr
bably will not
implemented by
then.
b) Categories: See definition In text, Section 2.1.6.4.
cj 1974 Pa. Water Quality Criteria Groups and Levels as defined 1n Reference ('r
d) Data Source: USGS Water Resources Bulletin No. 1. (e) Discontim
Ch
I
-------
odor were mostly satisfied. Overall, the water quality standards were met on
less than half of the total stream mileage in the basin and several of the
streams were in poor condition -- mostly due to the abandoned mine drainage
problem.
Between July 1, 1975 and June 30, 1976 the water quality of the Alle-
gheny River at Oakmont exceeded ORSANCO's criteria (or ORBC's if no ORSANCO
criteria were available) for the parameters tabulated below (37).
Parameter
% of Samples
(or time)
exceeding
ORSANCO/ORBC
Criteria
PH
1
Total
Suspended
Solids
3
Fecal Coli-
forms for
Recreation
100
Total
Phosphorus
10
Phenol
3
Iron
57
DER estimates that, as the result of continued cleanup efforts, Loyal-
hanna Creek, Two Lick Creek above Homer City, Mahoning Creek, Clarion River,
Pine Creek, and Deer Creek will meet the standards by 1983 (29).
Lack of sufficient funds for mine drainage control projects will prevent
attainment of the standards on several streams and the following waters were
judged so polluted by acid mine drainage that implementation of some effluent
limitations to meet water quality standards has been postponed (35):
Stream Name
Kiskiminetas River
Guffy Run
Beaver Run, dam to mouth
Wolford Run
Long Run
Sulfur Run
Blacklegs Creek, main stem
from source to mouth
Big Run
Whiskey Run
Getty Run
Union Run
Conemaugh River
Aultmans Run
Black!ick Creek
Two Lick Creek, from Yellow
Creek to mouth
Tearing Run
County
Armstrong, Indiana, Hestmoreland
Armstrong
Westmoreland
Westmoreland
Armstrong
Indiana
Indiana
Armstrong, Indiana
Indiana
Westmoreland
Westmoreland
Indiana, Westmoreland
Indiana
Indiana
Indiana
Indiana
- 117 -
-------
Yellow Creek, Homer C.ity
water dam to mouth
Laurel Run
Aulds Run
Ramsey Run
Mardis Run
Rummel Run
Pine Run
Crooked Creek below dam
Glade Run
Redbank Creek from St.
Charles to mouth
Indiana
Indiana
Indiana
Indiana
Indiana
Indiana
Armstrong
Armstrong
Armstrong
Armstrong
5. Stream Quality Changes, 1973-77
Tables 2.1.6.-25 and 2.1.6.-26 summarize the stream lengths showing
improvement or degradation, respectively, in water quality during the
last five years in the Allegheny River Basin along with the reason for
the improvement or degradation (25).
ORSANCO performed a short-term trend analysis of water quality by
comparing the 1964-75 data to the 1975-76 data from the quality monitor
on the Allegheny River at Oakmont (37). Temperature, pH and specific
conductance showed no statistically significant changes but there was an
increasing trend in the dissolved oxygen concentrations at the 0.001
level of significance.
- 118 -
-------
TABLE 2.1.6.-25
STREAMS SHOWING WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENTS (1973-1977)
ALLEGHENY RIVER BASIN
SOURCE (25)
Year
1973
Stream
Little Toby Creek
Frencn Creek
French Creek
Clarion River
Allegheny River
Allegheny River
Lower Two Mile Run
Masorr Creek
Allegheny River
Tunungwant Creek
Oil Creek
Caylor Run
Linesville Creek
Deer Creek
Pine Creek
Little Conemaugh
Saltlick Run
County
Jefferson
Crawford
Venango
Elk
Warren
Venango
Venango
Elk
*Warren
*McKean
Venango
Jefferson
Crawford
Allegheny
Allegheny
Cambria
Cambria
Length
Improved
Miles
0.1
2.5
0.5
1.0
20
8
0.75
1.0
2.0
1.0
1.0
0.5
1.5
1.5
5
5
Reason for improvement
Sewage treatment
Sewage and industrial waste
treatment
Industrial waste treatment
Improved industrial waste
treatment
Recovery from 1972 spill
Improved industrial waste treat-
ment
Improved industrial waste con-
trols
Landfill leachate problem
corrected
Industrial waste discharge
stopped
Industrial connections to sewer
system
Improved industrial waste treat-
ment
Strip mine restoration
Industrial connection to sewer
system
Landfill operation halted
Partial sealing of abandoned
mine
Coal refuse runoff treatment
Elimination of industrial dis-
charge
*Erie, McKean, Potter and Warren Counties are not in the ORBES Region.
- 119 -
-------
TABLE 2. 1.6. -25 (Continued)
Year
1974
1975
1976
Stream
Stony Creek
Elk Creek
Big Conneautte Creek
Redbank Creek
Mahoning Creek
French Creek
Allegheny River
Crooked Creek
French Creek
Unnamed Tributary
of Redbank
Creek
Mahoning Creek
Elk Creek
Dutch Run/North
Branch Black! ick
Creek
South Branch
Black! ick Creek
Pine Creek
West Branch Deer
Creek
Allegheny River
Little Paint
Creek
Stony Creek
Wells Creek
. County
Cambria
Cambria
*Erie
Clarion-Arm-
strong bor-
der
Jefferson
Crawford
*Warren
Indiana
Crawford
Jefferson
Jefferson
Cambria
Cambria
Cambria
Allegheny
Allegheny
Armstrong
Cambria
Somerset
Somerset
Length
Improved
Miles
6
8
1.75
3
2
1
1
19
0.25
0.5
2
4
7
3
8
3
1
3.5
0.5
2.5
Reason for Improvement
Sewage treatment
Improved mine drainage treat-
ment
Improved sewage treatment
Mine drainage abatement
Improved sewage treatment
Improved industrial waste
treatment
Sewage treatment
Mine drainage abatement
Industrial waste discharge
abated
Industrial waste discharge
abated
Industrial waste discharge
abated
Mine drainage abatement
Improved industrial waste
treatment \
Sewage treatment «
Regionalized sewage treatment!
Improved sewage treatment -I
Improved sewage treatment ;
Sewage Treatment 1
Sewage Treatment
Sewage Treatment
*Erie, McKean, Potter and Warren Counties
- 120 -
are not in the ORBES Region.
-------
TABLE 2.1.5.-25 (Continued)
Year
1977
Stream
Allegheny River
Little Plum Creek
Haskins Run
Cowanshannock Creek
Kiskiminetas River
South Branch Bear
Creek
Pine Creek '
French Creek
Tunungwant Creek
Allegheny River
Allegheny River
South Branch
' Tionesta Creek
Unnamed Tributary
of Cal dwell
Creek
Conemaugh River
Wells Creek
Allegheny River
Redbank Creek
Allegheny River
Oil Creek
Buck Lick Run &
Chappel Fork
County
Al 1 egheny
Allegheny
Armstrong
Armstrong
Armstrong &
Westmorelar
Butler
Allegheny
Crawford
*McKean
Venango
*Warren
*Warren
*Warren
Cambria
Somerset
Armstrong
Clarion
Venango
Venango
*McKean
Length
Improved
Miles
2.6
4
2
n
i
id
1
3
0.5
0.5
0.5
1.0
0.25
0.5
2.0
0.5
1
1
0.5
0.5
3.5
Reason for Improvement
Improved industrial waste
treatment
Improved industrial waste
treatment
Mine drainage abatement
Mine drainage abatement
Sewage treatment
Industrial discharge abated
Connections to regional sewer
system
Industrial connection to sewer
system-
Improved sewage treatment
Improved industrial waste treat-
ment
Improved sewage treatment
Sewage treatment
Sewage treatment
Industrial waste treatment &
partial plant shut down
Connection of industrial waste
to municipal system
Sealing of mine
Improved sewage treatment
Industrial waste treatment
Industrial waste treatment
Stream has recovered from 1976
crude oil spill
*Erie, McKean, Potter, and Warren Counties are not in the ORBES Region.
- 121 -
-------
TABLE 2.1.6.-26
STREAMS SHOWING WATER QUALITY DEGRADATION (1973-1977)
ALLEGHENY RIVER BASIN
SOURCE (25)
Year
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
Stream
Tributary to Buck
Lick Run
Pine Creek
Dutch Run and
North Branch
Blacklick Creek
Cooney Run
i Sugar Run
Huling Run
Allegheny River
Blacklick Run &
Chappel Fork
Allegheny River
Conemaugh River &
Tributaries
Linesville Creek
East Sandy Creek
Mahoning Creek
Upper Sheriff Run
Tunungwant Creek
County
*McKean
Allegheny
Cambria
Indiana
Armstrong
Armstrong
Armstrong
*McKean
* Potter
Cambria
Crawford
Clarion
Jefferson
*McKean
*McKean
Length
Degraded
Miles
0.1
4.0
7
3
2
3
1
3.5
0.5
10.0
0.5
1.5
1.5
0.5
0.5
Reason for Degradation
Siltation (oil drilling)
Industrial waste discharge
Mine drainage discharge
Pesticide spill
Mine drainage
Mine drainage
Breakout of mine seal
Crude Oil spill
Overloaded sewage treatment
plant
Johnstown flood
Spill of paint thinner
Spill of wood preservative
Discharge of raw sewage due to
flood
Oil pipeline break
Overloaded secondary sewage
facilities
*McKean and Potter Counties are not in the ORBES Region.
- 122 -
-------
C. Ohio River Main Stem Basin
1. General
The waters of the Ohio River main stem and its tributaries in
Pennsylvania, in their natural state, are moderately hard to hard, depen-
ding on the season of the year (36). However, the quality of the Ohio
River is largely determined by three major factors:
(a) the contributions of the Allegheny and Mbnongahela Rivers;
(b) the waste residues discharged in the Pittsburgh metropolitan
area; and
(c) the contributions of the tributaries below Pittsburgh.
In the 195's and 1960's many of the smaller tributaries carried
substantial quantities of sulfuric acid into the Allegheny and Monongahela
River, lowering their pH and, consequently, of the Upper Ohio River
frequently to values less than 5.0 (30), (36). Various other changes in
water quality are affected by municipal sewage, industrial wastes, and non-
point runoff in the Pittsburgh metropolitan area. The average daily loads
of various components contributed to the Ohio River by the Allegheny and
Mbnongahela Rivers during the year October 1, 1974 - September 30, 1975
are summarized in Table 2.1.6.-27 (17). The Allegheny River contributed
more load in most of the components, which can be expected because of its
greater average flow. However, the loads of alkalinity, manganese,
chloride and total phosphate were much greater than what could be due to
the higher flow. On the other hand, the Monongahela River, in spite of
its lower average flow, contributed greater loads of phenols and ammonia
nitrogen.
The effect of the contributions from the Allegheny and Monongahela
Rivers becomes more pronounce with decreasing discharges in the Ohio River:
pH and dissolved oxygen are lowest, while the concentration of other com-
- 123 -
-------
TABLE 2.1.6.-27
CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE OHIO RIVER BY THE
ALLEGHENY AND MONONGAHELA RIVERS
SOURCE (17)
PARAMETER
Flow (cfs)
Dissolved Oxygen
Acidity (as CaCO-)
Alkalinity (as CaC03)
Hardness (as CaCO-)
Calcium
Magnesium
Manganese
Sulfate
Chloride
BOD '
Total Iron
Phenols (pounds/day)
Surfactants (ABS)
Total Organic Carbon
Total phosphate
Sodium
Potassium
Ammonia-Nitrogen
Organic Nitrogen
Total Solids
AVERAGE DAILY LOAD (TONS/DAY)*
DURING Oct. 1, 1964 - Sept. 30, 1965
FROM ALLEGHENY RIVER
17,100
572
153
554
3,900
1,010
348
46
4,500
683
57
102
278
2.5
272
88
555
91
7
22
12,500
FROM MONONGAHELA RIVER
10,100
314
151
198
2,910
801
216
21
4,020
272
32
80
1,550
1.8
191
29
502
58
15
17
8,740
*Except flow and phenols
- 124 -
-------
ponents are usually highest during the low flow period of the year, gene-
rally in late September (14), .(17), (36).
Significant changes in water quality are affected by the municipal
and industrial wastes reaching the Ohio River from the Pittsburgh metro-
politan area. Table 2.1.6.-28 summarizes the results of a study which
evaluated the changes in loads of various components in the lower Allegheny
River (Mile 4-5.1 to Pittsburgh Point), the lower Monongahela River (Mile
13.3 to Pittsburgh Point), and the upper Ohio River (Pittsburgh Point to
Mile 25.2) during October 1, 1964 - September 30, 1965 (17). The results
indicate that there was a general increase in the pollution loads in the
waters of the three rivers as they proceed downstream through the study
area (which comprised most of Allegheny County). Of major importance, at
the time of study, was the great reduction in dissolved oxygen in the Ohio
River which produced a critical reach below Pittsburgh where dissolved
oxygen levels were often less than 4-0 mg/1 during periods of low flows.
Conditions have greatly improved since 1965 due to increasing munici-
pal and industrial pollution control in the basin (especially the upgrading
of AICOSAN to secondary treatment in 1974), and to low flow augmentation
from storage reservoirs in the Allegheny and Mbnongahela River Basins
(as discussed in previous sections). In 1974 the Corps of Engineers con-
ducted a study on the effects of navigational dams on the water quality of
the upper Ohio River. The Emsworth, Dashields, and Montgomery Dams were
found to have an extremely beneficial effect on the dissolved oxygen con-
centration and it was recommended that the operation schedules of all
spillway gates be re-examined to determine the feasibility of increasing
aeration at low flows (33 ). The new operating procedures, since implemented,
will probably result in further improvements in the dissolved oxygen levels
in the Ohio River.
- 125 -
-------
TABLE 2.1.6.-28 CHANGES IN MEAN STREAM LOADS IN THE PITTSBURGH, PA
STUDY AREA (Tons/day, except Phenols) Source (17)
Parameter
Dissolved Oxygen
Acidity (as CaCC^)
Alkalinity (CaCO-j)
Hardness (CaCO^)
Calcium
Magnesium
Manganese
Sulfate
Chloride
BOD
Total Iron
Phenols ( Ibs/day)
Surfactant
TOG
Total Phosphate
Sodium
Potassium
Ammonia Nitrogen
Organic Nitrogen
Total Solids
Allegheny R.
A, A'
+65
-272
-150
+702
+183
+66
+2
+789
+113
-*
+41
+86
+0.8
+51
+27
+14S
' +16
-2
+ 11
+3,955
Monongahela R.
A B
+2
-135
+93
+ 408
+ 143
+ 12
+3
+289
+ 100
+6
0
+1,470
+1.1
+59
-9
+131
+27
+ 10.6
+7
+2,283
Ohio R.
AC
-91 .
+44
-111
+4
-21
+1
+296
+54
+24
-2
+289
+3.0
-15
+1
+18
0
+7
-7
-S.88,
Total Study
Area A D
-24
-454
-13
+999
+330
+57
+6
+1,374
+267
+26
+39
+1,845
+4.9
+95
+ 19
+297
+^3
+15-6
+11
3,335
AA = Difference in mean daily loads between the Allegheny River at its mouth
and the sum of the loads in the Allegheny River at Kittanning, PA and in
the Kiskiminetas River at Apollo, PA.
AB = Difference in mean daily loads between the Monongahela River at its mouth
and the sum of the loads in the Monongahela River at Belle Verncn, PA and
in the Youghiogheny River at West Newton, PA.
AC = Difference in mean daily loads between the Ohio River at Rochester, PA
and the sum of the loads from the Allegheny and Monongahela Rivers.
AD = Total net change of average daily loads in study area =£A +AB +AC.
- 126 -
-------
The major industrial sources of wastes reaching the upper Ohio River
in the greater Pittsburgh area are the basic steel and metal finishing
industries, inorganic and organic chemical manufacturing, coking, and
power plants. These and the municipal waste sources and their treatment
will be discussed in more detail in Section 2.1.6.5.
Mine drainage from bitumenous coal mining operations as well as
municipal and industrial wastes also reach the Ohio River through many of
its tributaries in Pennsylvania. The major tributary is the Beaver River
which also receives the flow of the polluted Mahoning River from Ohio.
There are four reservoirs in the headwater areas of the tributaries
to the Beaver River which provide partial low flow augmentation which has
some effect on the water quality of the Ohio River in Pennsylvania. Three
of these: Berlin, Mosquito Creek, and West Branch Mahoning Reservoirs are
located in Ohio and are operated by the Corps of Engineers to improve the
water quality in the Mahoning River Valley, particularly at Youngstown.
Shenango Reservoir on the Shenango River immediately above Sharpsville, PA,
stores 29,900 acre-feet of inflow for release during the summer month to
improve the water quality in the Shenango and Beaver Rivers (32).
2. Surface Water Quality
The yearly averages and ranges of temperature, conductivity, dissolved
oxygen and pH are shown for the Ohio River at South Heights, PA in Figure
2.1.6.-29. The average monthly values of the same parameters for the last
eight years at the same station are shown in Figure 2.1.6.-30. Similar
information for the Beaver River at Beaver Falls, PA, is presented in
Figures 2.1.6.-31 and 2.1.6.-32. The data for these four figures were
calculated from ORSANCO's Robot Monitor Computer Printouts (6).
The mean values of selected parameters for a twelve-year period (June
1962 through December 197-4) at the PA WQN Stations in the basin are presented
- 127 -
-------
on _
yu
80-
7H
/u
60-
5rt _
ju
An_
*tU ~
in -
" TEMPERATURE . . '
(°F) -X^
' Maximum :Daily Average
, ' ...-.;., -; Averager T, . I ., .. V . .:-j~
. ; .... :;..;.. :-!i::-i .: i r ; ! . .:: '
.: ' i j : :!. :':.;.' ' i:..!"j.: ';..': : ."!';
.;..;.; . .. j ..... -. ::;:.: ,.:::j .::j.-::j . ::. :. .,
Minimum Daily AVeragje ij^j;-. j"
...._,. .. , . . , [.. ...,..,.
i
' i .
«
!
IBM
!
-
r"
\
I
:
'-.
J
_
. ,.
.- r-
i
J.UUU -
ann _
ouu ~
f rtrt _
oUU
200-
^uu
1 £ _
10
1 7 _
8-
A
0-
8-
7 ^
fi
5 _
A
1 .,
;
,'
1 ' .
. __ ;.
'.- !«'-!.
'
~
: : .
_ _
. ; ... , . : i: : r 1 : . .:. .' .
: CONDUCTIVITY
- (micromhos/cm)
I . .; . .. ' '
f - f - '..:.."."..
'. '- ""- ""-" ! -"'' ^
.. '. ..KIT :...: :'-_'U""J':.. :...:.
- :;: ; ;:; :_;; " -; * '-.-
:...; ;;:; .-_-) .: '--;;.-.:.
-_.-... i -. i . - . . - 1 - -
. . , ... ...... .^. (
: :4 | ' ' ~ ' !
" DISSOLVED OXYGEN
/m /IN
; (tng/1)
".': :-.:-;;^.:.;r^. -/ip :/i .-:-t-.:r:
-. : ..!.:. :: . > .-.[--. .;-.:..
- i : - h -
; .... . '.:>...:-
- ! ,':j :::-i::-. '.' ''.'.'.': ::.;-|:: :
. ;.: : i' |-:"'---
:.... ::: ! ..-,-. .{:.:.-.!:::. . . i..::
.' r."i". P" ; . .".'
' ' C s u ) ' ;
-: _J ; i.. ^.: _.;^i .
-.-. :.'. :::.!:.: :. .'.f!:-
- - . .- i i - j .
. ::::]::::[: . ]-:. :. :...{.:;
.!...(..... . . . f ,.
-...., . . ... ....
. !... r i :-. '.I...
* ' '
. ;:'..:- -...; -
.': :! ::i :..'.
- '
......_-. - .
..-r -.-_! ;i:;.. .
: ' " . : . : . '
i ..
:...:..,.-:. .
: . .;i';.'- ;:.;
... -._ ,
.' ' ( ' _:' '
:- .:..'-'..-: -
::r'^-. :i.j.:7: -L: v:-:;
-..!.:".[-.::::.:.: ':
:-.:.:. - .[..:::;;-.:. .
: ;::.!: ,;:.:i.
:::.:.. : i ::. | ! :.:::.
...... r .. . . , . , .
::-:;;-::r:::L .(;.
I:;:;:-!:":!:::'.!'':
... I
-I . ,
:..;. .:|:...| :'. :.
!
i
1
«
f
'. I .
r-
H"
«[
: '
1
rr-
!
i -.
!
._ t - . .
"i
i ...
:. j:
1 "T.
.. . t .
!::
~h
i:
.'!':-
1.
1 .
" i :
..i: .
..!:.
'
t.
';-
;.
i
' 4 -
T
.1:
. i.
;
. r .
MMM
, t '
i ! :
.
.
...
-.
:
,J
:.:
.
-
:.:
"
:''
_
'i
LaW
.1:
f "1
^9^
1
1
!
:j: .
t
. |. .
!-;
i; ::
-
^
1
_
__
*»
-f.
Ml
i:
i
;
1 "
..i;.
~^-
-
:;
: I.
M
^^^
p_
_
Ml
'
>.
::
-^
!.
!
: 1 '.
i -
1
-
: .
.:
^H
*"^
^B-
L_J
r^i
_
i
'
.
. '.
i
. i-
UlBBl
1
LJ
_..
I
;
^
...
t
. '
.
L_J
«
. '
M^B
' 1962 . YEAR 1970 '71 '72 '73 '74 '75 '76 '77
FIGURE 2.1.6.-29 ANNUAL WATER QUALITY OHIO RIVER AT SOUTH HEIGHTS. ' (6)
- 128 -
-------
LU
O.
700
600-
E
01
O
400-
i £ 300 -j
s °
S e 200 -|
100
16
IS
X
o
o
LU
14-
12-
10
8
6
4-
2_
0
8
~[ir^
^If^Z-t^ferl
-t
EE;S
zr.~trr::
m
r:,:r^;i:t.-f;::.;:
^=fSEL:
- ..._ * -i i - -. _m. ; -- _i i _.. L _. - , j . -
T--r~- p -r-t.j . ._ . i ..- j
:.}=
1==^
-...,--_.... -j-
i(.;if;i }
w 6-
5-1
4
JAN. FEB.
.".-fe;:
frftfeEr
MAR.
APR.
M
:r.±r Tt:±;
MAY
JUNE
JULY
AUG.
-c-::|- ::-r-
-.h:-:
SEP.
OCT. NOV. DEC.
FIGURE 2.1.6.-30 SEASONAL VARIATION OF l-IATER QUALITY: MONTHLY AVERAGES
OHIO RIVER AT SOUTH HEIGHTS, 1970-77 After Source (6)
- 129 -
-------
80-
7A
70 ~
60-
50
"
800-
/Art
4UU *
0_
16-
-
a .
A _
0-
8-
7 _
6_
-"
5 _
A _
i-
.
-
....
-
1
r-i
L- J
~
U.
1 .
: " TEMPERATURE ' *
\(°F) S
s
Maximum Daily Average . . . .
; ;' . ! :-i i-. ' -;: r L..J-: :-:rl:-:-;v '."> .-'I
. ;. ! ,.| . 'J^. -'; -:: j ."; -! -I: ' ;.;-j
* - Minimum DsH^y AvQr-eH%^ -'- - < ,1 '
.. r . ... ' _ _ ' .._l__: ,,. ' ..."
:~'~~ ""CONDUCTIVITY -.-... --
:!-- '- ..: (m±cromhos/cm)
.'<. . i : .- .;..-:;_ ;:::- ; '-:'!:- .': .'
-.-. .:-.-::-.-. [-.:.. ;:.-:.,. :.. " ::.- ':. -i::.
- 1 : - . - '. ;..:.l ; ".. ::". ' :' : . '.'. '..'.: \ .rr ; : :
. . . } . . '. ... ' .
;:-; :.; :;:... ! --|^ - ' ; -.- ;;;: '. -....- i- :;;.--; - -
.. . i _ . . T. .:..'......- .r ._ . . : .. . . . r : . : . -
; : - ' . ; - - - ; ; ::..;.. \ . ;
: _' L_ ^_ , ; __;
; " ~ .''".. ' . . : . - ..'''' ' . t '..'
-.:' :: -. -DISSOLVED OXYGEN' ; .: ;.
' , / _ / 1 \ ' ; ~ " ' "" '
^ ..--..-- - (mg/l) - . .;: ..; .. ;.- ; - -
,-- : - ..,-..-..;.
r ... : i . . . . ' . . : . .
: ~: :;-' : : : . . .; . :. . . .:
_..._...._ J . t . . i ' ' '
:.:. ..: '-'--'. "" ' "' ' ' '" '''
..:..:. :i.-:. .:: 1 ...::-: . . .:- " |: .!. :i-:
' ; J , "TT ' rT":~T : T~
' : ... ' :...:. i ' : -:::!::;: :'. '. ..: -.;
' . :': :::: .':r :::::; j.:i: :::' !;:.': ::.' : :. : :::.i: 'i .
'. .:.-:.. :..,.. : _. . . . :! . . . ..';..' i:
":-. :[ P** ' ! . :.. :.'..:
.. ".::.. 1 fs .U. ) ..'.':;: !:
j ; .... | ... -. . . . . . . . . .
:. ::.:::.: .'; .: J-. .;:;::|::.- ::;: .":i'::;'. -':- '"'' ::;.. !::..(..
- . ... i .
' i : j ; i " " .-!.:....: , ' '. ' : j ' . : | .
. . , . .:.-..- i .:.:;.. i . :::.:.;.:...:. . . . ' . . | .
. i . .: |:. :. ! .. ! , . :: : !
.. .. i.... -.:. ..-:!i.-"ii".|. :::!.. : :: !! V-.-] ]'
'
'-
P 1
-r '
*
F"^
ii
;;
IOBB
:r
-
-...^:
!
t
........
! -
.1::
:':!;:
1
.-U-
'.'
**m
T-
^~J
t.
U>J
«
:.:
.'. .
^^
-r-
- :-
'
'
___
:.;
1
. . I.
_:_
." 1 "
-.::
....
«
^_
-
HHi
'
^
_.,
.1..
*,
1
- '.''
i
-- i
!.-
.
j
s-
^a
'
J
_.
_
.'
^^^
J
^M
J
->-.
;i
1
-:-
' ' 1 '
; ! .
:! '
' "
. . -.
i
! .
-_
i
! .
: : t : . .
Id:::
: . ; . .
- 1
' 1 .
!
-
1 -
-
"
^"
7^
"H
-J
i .
; ! '
'.
.._..
, ..
' ' '
. *
',-..
: : ' .
i...
i "
. ,...
J
-.
....
;.:-
_.
"*
_J
_...
~]
_
:
'-'
- . . -
:
^^
.^
__1
\
n
-H
J
-
'.
.
.. .
M
|
_
J
i '
^_
r-|
k
_;..
1962 YEAR 1970 '71 '72 '73 '74 '75 '76 '77
FIGURE 2.1.6.-31 ANNUAL WATER QUALITY BEAVER RIVER AT BEAVER FALLS (6)
- 130 -
-------
700'
^600-
£ ^ 500 -
en
O
o
Q
O
O
400-
300-
1 200^
100
" 16
14-
X
o
a
UJ
o
co
oo
3
CO
Q.
5-
FIGURE 2.1.6.-32 SEASONAL VARIATION OF WATER QUALITY: MONTHLY AVERAGES'
BEAVER RIVER AT BEAVER FALLS, 1970-7 After Source (6)
- 131 - .
-------
in Table 2.1.6.-29 (2). More detailed information for the 1975-1977
period at the two stations on the Ohio River and one on the Beaver River
is presented in Table 2.1.6.-30, as obtained from EPA's STORET System.
Similarly detailed information on water quality at the two ORSANCO stations
in the basin is presented for 1977 in Table 2.1.6.-31 (39).
3. Water Quality Problems
The major water quality problems in the Ohio River Main Stem Basin are
due to acid mine drainage, municipal sewage and industrial wastes. These
problems and their specific causes are detailed for the streams affected in
Table 2.1.6.-32 (1), (2), (25), (26). The COWAMP classification and the
miles of streams degraded by the problems are also presented in the Table.
4. Compliance Status
Table 2.1.6.-33 compares the 1975 water quality at the WQN Stations in
the basin with the 1974 State standards (1), (2), (25), (26).
Average- dissolved oxygen levels were within standards at all stations
but the minima were below the standard in the Ohio River and several other
streams as well. Mean pH was unsatisfactory in Raccoon and Slippery Rock
Creeks only, but many other streams were occasionally either were either
lower or higher than the standard for the minimum or maximum pH. Tempera-
ture was a proble in the Beaver River and some of its tributaries. Most
widespread violation of the standards was obtained for total iron and
fecal coliform.
ORSANCO assessed the water quality of the Ohio River main stem and its
major tributaries and compared the conditions during July 1, 1975 - June 30,
1976 with ORSANCO's stream quality criteria (or with ORBC's where ORSANCO
criteria were not-available) (37). Several parameters were found to
violate the criteria as summarized in the table below. Parameters not
- 132 -
-------
TABLE 2.1.6.-29
MEAN VALUES OF SELECTED PARAMETERS AT SAMPLING
STATIONS IN THE OHIO RIVER MAIN STEM BASIN
(Data Collected from June 1962 to December 1974)
Source (2)
Parameter
pH (S.U. )
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/l)
Total Iron (ug/l)
Total Dissolved Solids (mg/l)
Temperature ( °C )
Turbidity (JTU)
Ammonia (mg/l N)
Total Phosphorus (mg/l P)
Alkalinity (as CaCO^) (mg/l)
Biochemical Oxygen Demand (mg/l)
Total Coliform (#/100 ml)
River
Ohio River
Beaver River
Shenango River
Little
Shenango
River
Sampling Station (PA-DER WQN No.)
901
6.7
9.8
2,463
73
12.7
19.3
0.29
0.11
25.2
2.8
39,000
902
6.5
8.9
2,262
50
12.8
16.3
0.88
ND .
13.1
1.9
28,300
904
7.3
8.8
1,288
172
H.3
16.8
0.35
0.22
57.2
4.4
69,000
905
7.3
8.2
1,832
111
14.1
16.9
0.66
0.20
57.8
8.5
57,900
909
6.7
8.2
2,176
169
14.1
17.6
0.31
0.23
51.7
3.8
82,400
910
6.9
12.5
814
146
12.3
14.3
0.24
0.09
53.9
2.4
10,600
913
6.8
10.8
916
164
10.9
10.2
0.14
0.05
77.4
2.0
37,700
CO
CO
-------
TABLE 2.1.6.-30 OHIO AND BEAVER RIVER WATER QUALITY. 1975-1977
(From EPA's STORET System)
Parameter
Water Temperature, °C
Flow, cfs
Turbidity, JTU
Conductivity at 25°C, roicromhos/cm
Dissolved Oxygen, mg/1
pll, Standard Units
Total Alkalinity, nig /I as CaC03
Mineral Acidity, mg/1
Acidity from COg, mg/1
Total Residue, mg/1
Dissolved/1050 Residue, mg/1
Total Nonf ilterable Residue, mg/1
Settleable Residue, ml/1
Oil and Grease, mg/1
Total NH3-N. mg/1
Total N02-N. mg/l
Total M03-N, mg/1
Total Phosphorus, mg/1 P
Total Cyanide, mg/1
Total Hardness, mg/1 as CaCOj
Dissolved Calcium, mg/1
Dissolved Magnesium, mg/1
Chloride, mg/1
Total Sulfate. mg/1
Total Fl.ioride, mg/1
Total Arsenic, mg/1
Total Cadmium, mg/1
Total Chromium, mg/1
Total Copper, mg/1
Total Iron, mg/1
Total Lead, mg/1
Manganese, mg/1
Total Nickel, mg/1
Total Zinc, mg/1
Total Aluminum, mg/1
Total Col i forms, no./lOO ml
Fecal Coliforms, no./lOO ml
Total Phenols, mg/1
Total nercury, mg/1
WQN Station No. 901
Ohio River at East Liverpool
No. of Mean Maximum Minimum
Samples Value Value Value
25 13.8 27,0 0.5.
-_
11 10.9 39.0 2.9
25 -345 530 175
21 . 10.6 15.0 .6.6
24 7.1 7.6 6.8
25 29 70 14
24 0 00
25 0.16 4 0
25 373 4.062 100
-- -- -- --
,-- *.W «-
22 4.9 17.0 0.5
25 0,46 1.40 0.20
24 0.031 0.140 0.002
22 0.81 1.59 0.13
25 0.13 0.25 0.03
25 0.02 0.10 0.01
26 112 180 30
25 31.4 49.5 7.7
25 8 14 1
26 22 40 8
25 101 440 36
__
3 0.043 0.100 0.010
4 0.010 0.020 0.001
4 0.040 0.050 0.008
4 0.040 0.050 0..010
26 1.604 6.000 0.250
4 0.058 0.100 0.010
5 0.380 O.BOO 0.160
4 0.043 0.050 0.020
4 0.040 0.060 0.010
5 0.640 2.100 0.100
26 591 3,500 20
25 0.014 0.063 0.002
i U.UOOU 0.0010 O.uOUb
HQN Station No. 902
Ohio River at Ambridge
No. of Mean Maximum Minimum
Samples Va'ue Value Value
23 12.1 25.0 0.5
-- --
10 16.6 85.0 3.0
22 325 490 200
18 10.3 13.5 5.8
21 7.1 7.8 6.3
22 27 70 12
22 0 0 0
22 0 00
_T
21 242 1.034 112
-- ' -- r,-
« »» ^
21 3.7 5.8 0.5
22 0.47 2.20 0.10
21 0.024 0.120 0.002
18 0.68 1.50 0.01
21 0.14 0.34 0.03
21 0.03 0.23 0.01
22 104 157 60
22 28.0 44.6 17.8
22 8.5 20.0 2.8
22 19.3 40.0 10.0
22 118 680 48
~ - ,. - - -*.
2 0.010 0.010 0.010
3 0.007 0.010 0.001
3 0.025 0.050 0.004
3 0.022 0.050 0.006
22 . 1.450 10.500 0.002
3 0,060 0.100 0.030
4 0.895 2.400 0.260
3 0.040 0,050 0.020
3 0.050 0.070 0.030
4 0.950 2.000 0.100
*.- -. _- . _.
18 982 6.000 - 20
20 16.7 74.0 2.0
2 0,0005 0,0005 0.0005
WQN Station No. 905
Beaver River at Eastvale
No. of M.ean Maximum Minimum
Samples Value Value Value
21 16.4 27.0 1.0
4 6,505 11,400 4,359
13 10.2 33.0 3.6
22 472 610 335
20 8.7 14.0 3.4
22 7.4 8.6 6.8
24 64 110 17
24 0 0 0
23 0.52 12 0
-.. .... -- --
23 294 448 121
- r-v »*- -
_ - -
2 4.8 8.6 1.0
24 0.60 1.80 0.10
22 0.082 0,410 0.002
20 1.43 . 3.05 0.43
23 0.20 0.66 0.09
21 0.025 0.100 0.006
24 164 225 115
24 45.7 58.1 34.0
24 11.7 27.0 2.6
24 41 75 21
24 92 295 50
3 0.040 0.100 0.010
3 0.010 0.010 0.010
3 0.050 0.050 0.050
3 0.037 0.050 0.010
23 2.752 43,000 0.250
3 0.053 0.100 0.010
3 0.200 . 0.300 0.100
3 0.050 0.050 0.050
3 0.093 0.180 0.050
3 0.233 0.300 0.100
19 3.903 20,000 20
20 0.012 0.095 0.002
3 0.0007 n.niiin n.nnnfi
CO
-------
TAHLE 2.1.6.-31 OHIO AND BEAVER RIVER WATER QUALITY, 1977
Source (39)
Parameter
i_
0
4-*
C
O
f.
u
c
O
I.
M
a
UJ
6
e
li_
*
SZ
ZD
rz
§
L-
11-
Arsenic, ralcrograms/llter
Barium "
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Cyanide
Iron
Lead
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Phenol
Selenium
Silver
Zinc
Fecal CoHform, number/100 ml
Water Temperature, °F
PH
Specific Conductance, mlcronihos/cm
Sodium, mg/1
Sulfate, mg/1
Suspended Solids, mg/1
5-Oay BOD, mg/1
Anmonia-N, mg/1
Hitrate-N, mg/1
Total Phosporus, mg/1
Total Kjeldahl-N. mg/1
Dissolved Oxygen, mg/1
Dissolved Oxygen, X saturation
Total Hardness, mg/1
Non-Carbonate Hardness, mg/1
Sulfate. mg/1
Alkalinity, mg/1
Chloride, mg/1
Turbidity, standard units
Threshold Odor Number, standard units
Ohio River at South Heights
No. of
Samples
4
12
11
12
12
35
12
12
12
12
12
35
4
4
12
31
Cont.
Cont.
Cont.
11
35
34
11
35
35
35
35
Cont.
Cont.
Maximum
Value
2
110
6
24
24
70
6,500
35
BOO
0.5
40
63
5
1
210
213,000
82.7
7.9
608
30
245
162
4.8
1.9
1.76
0.52
6.6
128
Minimum
Value
1
20
1
4
8
10
400
3
40
0.5
10
2
1
1
20
150
6.3
10
48
2
2.0
0.10
0.06
0.04
0.5
6.2
62
s
Average
Value
56.9
305
19
90
34
2.8
0.49
0.72
0.15
1.5
10.89
Beaver River at Beaver Falls
No. of
Samples
4
12
12
12
12
. 36
12
12
. 12
12
12
36
4
4
12
31
Cont.
Cont.
Cont.
11
36
35
10
36
36
36
36
Cont.
Cont.
104
104
47
365
104
365
365
Maximum
Value
10
90
5
16
112
60
4,500
50
500
0.5
40
40
5
1
170
20,000
86.2
8.2
949
42
233
81
7.4
3.3
1.70
0.48
6.3
109
218
138
150
97
141
320
100
Minimum
Value
1
10
1
4
6
10
650
10 '
180
0.5
10
2
1
1
50
6.6
15
44
2
2.0
0.25
0.69
0.10
0.7
2.2
28
102
35
52
36
21
6
30
*Mater Users' Network
Average
Value
57.9
436
27
83
22
3.9
0.91
1.20
0.23
2.1
7.17
154
84
100
70
43
20
77
CO
in
-------
TABLE 2.1.6.-32 CLASSIFICATION AND QUALITY PROBLEMS OF MAJOR STREAMS - OHIO RIVER flAIN STEM BASIN
Sources (I), (2). (25), (26)
Stream
Pymatunlng Lake
Shenango River
Mahonlng River
Beaver River
Wallace Run
Two Mile Run
Brady Run, South
Branch
Brady Run
North Fork
Little Beaver
Creek
Ohio River
Thorn Creek
Breakneck Creek
Stream Segment
Shoreline
Above Pymatuning Reservoir
Below Pymatuning Reservoir
State line to mouth
Entire watershed
Downstream from Westinghouse
Industries
Watershed above Brady Run Dam
Downstream from reservoir
Entire stream length
Pittsburgh Point to state line
CO-
WAMP
Sub-
Basin
20A
20A
20A
208
20B
20B
208
20B
20B
208
20B.
G
20C
20C
Class
(a)
WQL
WQL
WQL
WQL
WQL
EL
WQL
Cate-
gory
(b)
I
I
I
I
I .
I
I
Problems
Eroslorl and sedimentation
Phosphorus, taste and odor
Taste and odor, solids. Fe,
oil, pll, fecal col i forms,
CN, NII3, phenol, 00, temper-
ature
Combined sewers, fecal coli-
forms, temperature, heavy
metals, phenol, cyanides,
oil and grease
Degradation in water quality
and reduction of aquatic div-
ersity and population down-
stream due to elevated heavy
metal concentrations
Phosphorus
Siltation
High dissolved solids,
stream bed slltation
Fecal coll form, oil, heavy
metals
Causes of Problems
(Parameter Group Violation)
(c)
Sewer line construction (4)
Combined sewers, industrial discharges,
nonpoint sources (1, 2, 3, 4, 5)
Domestic & industrial wastes in Ohio
Depressed water quality due to influx
of Mahoning River which received sub-
stantial industrial waste discharges .in
Ohio. Organic loadings due to raw and
inadequately treated sewage discharges
(1, 2, 3, 4, 5)
Industrial waste and runoff (1, 4, 5)
Industrial waste (1, 4, 5}
Clay mine drainage (1, 4, 5)
Runoff from extensive coal and fire
clay strip mining operation in past.
Moderate strlppino still carried on
(1, 4, 5)
Combined sewers, industrial waste dis-
charges, urban runoff, (1, 2,. 3, 4, 5)
Inadequately treated sewage and leach-
ate from malfunctioning septic system
in Penn Twp. and from Saxonburg STP
(2, 3, 4)
The Mars STP is not providing tertiary
treatment as required by the upgrade
notice (2. 3, 4)
Mi ies of
Stream
Degraded
By Problems
11
20
10
2
2
2
1
33
2
2
CO
en
-------
TABLE 2.1.6.-32 (Continued)
Stream
Little Connoque-
. ness Ing Creek
Connoquenesslng
Creek
Muddy Creek
Brush Creek
Slippery Rock
Creek
Mulligan Run
Seniiconan Run
Yellow Creek
Glade Run
Wolf Creek
Cross Creek
Harmon Creek
Little Raccoon
Creek
Burgetts Fork
Raccoon Creek
Potatoe Garden
Run
Brush Run
Oilloe Run
Cross Creek
Stream Segment
Entire watershed above Slippery
Rock Creek
Entire watershed
Entire watershed
Entire watershed
Watershed including North Fork.
from North Fork to Mouth
Entire watershed
Entire watershed
Reach between Slovan-Atlasburg end
the stream mouth
Lower 40 miles
Entire watersheds
CO-
w-AMP
Sub-
Basin
20C
20C
20C
20C
20C
20C
20C
20C
200
200
200
200
200
Class
(a)
WQL
WQL
AMD
AMD
WQL
AMD
AMD
AMD
Cate-
gory
(b)
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Problems
Fe, pll. sulfate
BOO. NH3. oil. suspended
solids, heavy metals, sulfate
Phosphorus
pll. Iron, siltation, d1ssolve<
solids
BOO. NH3. phosphorus
Severely depressed
Severely degraded
Causes of Problems
(Parameter Group Violation)
(c)
Localized problem due to mine drainage
from tributaries (1, 4, 5)
Industrial wastes. Inadequately treated
sewage (1, 2, 3. 4)
Mine drainage and inadequately treated
sewage result in water quality problems
under low flow conditions (2, 4)
Headwaters severely degraded by acid mine
drainage due to extensive mining in
Butler County area. Occasional siltation
and increased suspended solids due to
active limestone mining operations in
vicinity of McConnel Mills Park (1, 4. 5)
Strip mining activities responsible for
water quality degradation (1, 4, 5)
Sewage, acid mine drainage
Water treatment backwa'sh sludge
Acid mine drainage
Acid mine drainage
Seepage from industrial waste disposal
site. Runoff from coal refuse piles de-
grade one of the tributaries (1 4, 5)
Acid mine drainage, as well as raw and
inadequately treated sewage discharges
from the communities along the stream
(1, 2, 3, 4. 5)
Abandoned and active strip mines (1, 4, 5
Miles of
Stream
Degraded
By Problems
2
10
1
7
10
6
10
63
I
CO
I
-------
TABLE 2.1.1.-32 (Continued)
Stream
Service Creek
Traverse Creek
Dutch Fork
Buffalo Creek
Wheeling Creek,
North Fork
Saw Mill Run
Chartiers Creek
Robinson Run
Brush Run
Millers Run
Ohio River,
Tributaries of
Mont our Run
Moon Run
Big Sewickley
Creek
Stream Segment
Watershed above Service Creek Dam
Watershed above State Park Dam
Watershed above Dutch Fork Dam
Watershed above Ryerson Station.
Dam
Entire watershed . . .
Entire watershed above Allegheny-
Washington County Line
Watershed from Allegheny-Washing-
ton County Line to mouth
Entire watershed
Lower reach
Entire watershed
Point to Big Sewlckley Creek,
except Chartiers Creek
Headwaters upstream from Imperial
Entire length
Entire watershed
CO-
WAMP
Sub-
Basin
200
20D
20E
20E
20F
20F
20F
20F
20F
20F
20F.
G
20G
20G
20G
Class
(a) .
WQL
WQL
WQL
WQL
WQL
WQL
AMD
WQL
WQL
WQL
WQL
WQL
WQL
WQL
Cate-
gory
?b)
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
Problems
Phosphorus
Phosphorus
Phosphorus
Phosphorus
BOD, NH,. combined sewers.
fecal col i form, heavy metals
Oil, combined sewers, sus-
pended solids, fecal coll-
form, heavy metals, dis-
solved oxygen ,
Poor quality
BOD, NIL, suspended solids,
oil, combined sewers
Suspended solids. BOD. NH,
heavy metals
Causes of Problems
(Parameter Group Violation)
(c)
Water quality Is adversely affected by
acid mine drainage, illegal discharge
from unsewered homes and storm water
runoff, solid waste (1, 2, 3. 4, 5)
Middle reach between Washington and
Cannonsburg affected by inadequately
treated sewage discharges. Lower reach
from Bridgeville to the mouth contains
high concentrations of iron due to
abandoned mine drainage. Industrial
waste discharges in Washington area and
urban runoff (1, 2, 3, 4, 5)
Raw and inadequately treated sewage;
acid mine drainage (1, 2, 3, 4, 5)
Inadequately treated sewage overflows
(2. 3, 4)
Cecil and Mt. Pleasant Twp. areas
affected by raw and Inadequately treat-
ed sewage discharges. Lower reach
affected by acid mine drainage and
industrial wastes (1, 2. 3, 4, 5)
Raw and Inadequately treated sewage
and acid mine drainage from coal
stripping operations (1, 2, 3, 4, 5)
Sewage, abandoned mine drainage (1, 4
5)
Industrial wastes
Miles of
Stream
Degraded
By Problems
9.5
35
16
1
8
5.5
5
CO
CO
HOTiS: (a) CLASSES: WQL - Hater Quality Limited Stream
EL - Effluent'Limited Stream
AMD - Acid Mine Drainage Affected Strean
(b) CATEGORIES: See definition In Section 2.1.6.4.
(c) PARAMETER GROUPS:
I Harmful substances (heavy metals, chemicals, pesticides,
other toxins)
2 > Oxygen depletion
3 - Eutruphicatlon potential (phosphorus, nitrogen)
4 Physical modification (temperature, turbidity, suspended
solids, color, flow)
i - Salinity, acidity, alkalinity (conductivity. pH. alkalinity.
total dissolved solids)
-------
TABLE 2.1.6.-33 COMPLIANCE STATUS 1975 - OHIO RIVER MAIN STEM BASIN
Sources (1), (2), (25),
GENERAL 'INFORMATION
Sta-
tion
tlo.
(1)
901
902
903
904
905
906
907
908
(e)
909
Stream
(2)
Ohio
River
Ohio
River
Racoon
Creek
Beaver
River
Beaver
River
Beaver
River
Conno-
quen-
essing
Creek
Slip-
pery
Rock
Creek
Shen-
ango
River
Class
(a)
(3)
EL
WQL
EL
EL
EL
EL
WQL
WQL
EL
Cate-
gory
(b)
(4)
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CO-
HAMP
Sub-
basin
(5)
200
20C
20o
20 B
20B
20B
20C
20C
20A
County
(6)
Beaver
Alle-
gheny
Beaver
Beaver
Beaver
Law-
rence
Beaver
Law-
rence
Law-
rence
Criter
Stand.
Group
(c)
<7)
B+h,
k.1,1
B+h,
k.i.q
B
B+li,q
B-Hi.q
B
B
A-bj
+b9
B+h.q
Aver-
age
Flow
cfs
(8)
10650
35257
141
5551
3259
1741
394
435
6
SPECIFIC HATER QUALITY PARAMETERS
pit
S.U.
D.O.
mg/1
TOT.Fe
mg/1
TEMP.
°C
IDS
mg/1
ODOR
S.U.
Total
Colif.
/100ml
POTENTIAL PROBLEMS
ALL VALUES. GIVEN AS mg/1
mean/max.
(9)
OK/
5.4
OK/
5.3
5.2/
3.4-9
OK/
8.8
OK/
9.0
OK
OK/
8.8
OK
OK
(10)
OK
OK/.
1.0
OK/
3.5
OK
OK/
3.6
OK/
2.2
OK
OK/
5.8
OK/
3.0
(")
?.s/
11.2
2.?/
13.6
5.5/
20
OK/
4.0
1.8/
18.0
2.2/
12.0
OK/
9.1.
OK/
6.0
2.2/
7.4
(12)
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK/ 32
OK
OK/
24
OK
,
(13)
OK
OK
OK/
1716
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
(14)
26/27
30/53
25/37
28/34
28/35
(15)
39000/
166800
70100/
104600
28300/
197000
69200/
190000
57900/
.03300
57000/
i 54000
30500/
,60000
10900/
00000
82400/
130000
(16)
Phenol
.030/
.300
Phenol
.040/
.190
Al
16.5/84
/
Phenol
OK/. 062
Al
4.2/31
Phenol
.033/
.078
Al
3.5/21
Phenol
.038/
.142
Zn
.114/
.110
(17)
Al
OK/4.0
Al
8.6/77
Zn
.180/
.160
Zn
.no/
.110.
Pb
.053/
.060
S°4
OK/495
(18)
Zn
.135/
.140
S°4
OK/ 390
Ni
.480/
.480
S°4
OK/386
(19)
S°4
OK/ 3 36
Mn
OK/4.0
S°4
660/
1900
(20)
CN
OK/40
Mn
4.6/7.4
Overall
Quality
Rating
(21)
Fair
Fair to
good
Poor
Poor
Poor
Good
Will
Stream Meet Water
Quality Standards
Bv 1933?
(22)
No. Direct dis-
charges expected
to be corrected,
but combined
sewers in the
Pittsburgh metro-
politan area will
still have ad-
verse affects.
No. Some cleanup
Is expected with
use of funds
previously alloc-
ated to Chart iers
Creek.
No. Sewage pro-
blem will be cor-
rected; Indus-
trial waste pro-
blems may remain
due to lack of
control over die-
charges In Ohio.
Yes.
No. Lack of funds
for mine drain-
age projects.
Yes.
NOTES: (a) Classes:
WQL = Water Quality Limited Stream
EL » Effluent Limited Stream
AMD Acid Mine Drainage Affected Stream
Categories: See derinitlon in text. Section 2.1.6.4.
1974 Pa. Water Quality Criteria Groups and Levels as defined in Reference (28).
Data Source: USGS Water Resources Bulletin No. 1. (e) Discontinued.
-------
TABLE 2.1.6.-33 (Continued)
GENERAL INFORMATION
Sta-
tion
no,
(1)
910
913
914
916
915
917
Stream
(2)
Shen-
ango
River
Lit tic
Shen-
ango '
River
Char-
tiers
Creek
Char-
tiers
Creek
Mahon-
ing
River
Conno-
quen-
essing
Creek
Class
(3)
EL
WQL
WQL
WQL
EL
WQL
Cate-
gory
(t>)
(4)
I
II
I
I
I
I
.
CO-
WAMP
Sub-
basin
(5)
20A
20A
20F
20F
208
20C
County
(6)
Mercer
Mercer
Alle-
gheny
Wash-
ington
Law-
rence
Butler
Criter
Stand.
Group
(c)
(7)
fl+h,
q
c+v,
J.
B-b
t.
5
B-b
4-h
*1
B-d2i
dc * n
1 ,m,(|
B
Aver-
age
Flow
cfs
(8)
76 i
262
23:
23.8
Cd)
SPECIFIC WATER QUALITY PARAMETERS
PH
S.U.
D.O.
mg/1
TOT.Fe
ng/l
TEMP.
OC
TDS
mg/1
ODOR
S.U.
Total
Colif.
/100ml
POTENTIAL PROBLEMS
ALL VALUES GIVEN AS mg/1
mean/max.
(9)
OK
OK/
5.8
OK/
4.4-
10
OK
OK
OK
(10)
OK
OK '
3K/
1.0
OK
OK/0
OK
(11)
OK/
3.4
OK/.
10.5
17. 1/
100
OK/2 . :
3.2/
10.0
OK/
2.8
(12)
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK/33
OK
(13)
OK
OK
OK/
1500
OK
OK
OK
(14)
39/45
34/45
(15)
10600/
180000
37700/
540000
55800/
350000
<16]_
S°4
OK/425
Tot.
Alk.ss
CaCO
OK/174
Phenol
.024/
.100
Zn
.i.r./
.120
CN
.027 1
.145
Zn
.080/
.090
(17)
Cu
.107/
.194 -
Al
15/.10^
S°4
1450
Phenol
.052/
.255
Nl
-105/
.210
(18)
'Nl
.166/
.306
-
Zn
.305/
.3.50
Tot.
Alk.
138/
158
so4
OK/280
S04
1
OK/395
(19)
Zn
.085/
.129,
Nl
-290/
.330
Mn
OK/
1.25
(20)
S°4
305/
350
In
387/387
Overal I
Quality
Ratinq
(21)
Fair
Fair to
poor
Poor
epressi-t
own-
tream
roiu But-
er. Eid-
nave.
eliea-
ple;faii
o good
n remali
er
Will
Stream Meet Water
Quality Standards
Bv 1983?
(22)
Yes.
Not entirely.
Approx. 18 miles
in twiddle reach
W4J.1 intreL faiiifin*~
ards by 1983; 17
miles in lower
reach will vio-
late standards
due to mine drain-
age discharges
and lack of funds
for abatement and
t re.it rii-iit , and
difficulties In
acquiring land on
which to build
acid drainage
abatement facili-
ties.
Yes.
O
I
NOTES: (&) Classes: WQL
AMD
Water Quality Limited Stream
Effluent Limited Stream
Acid Mine Drainage Affected Stream
(b) Categories: See definition in text. Section 2.1.6.4.
(c) 1974 Pa. Water Quality Criteria Groups and Levels as defined in Reference (28).
(d) Data Source: USGS Water Resources Bulletin No. 1. (e) Discontinued.
-------
TABLE 2.1.6.-33 (Continued)
GENERAL -INFORMATION
Sta-
tion
Ho.
(1)
918
919
(e)
920
921
922
923
924
(e)
Stream
(2)
Two
Mile
Run
Brush
Creek '
Glade
Run '
Slip-
pery
Rock
Creek
Slip-
pery
Rock
Creek
North
Fork
Little
Beaver
Creek
Big
Run
Class
(a)
(3)
EL
EL
UQL
UQL
UQL
EL
EL
Cate-
gory
(b)
(4)
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CO-
UAMP
Sub-
basin
(5)
20B
20C
20C
20C
20C
20B
20A
County
(6)
Beaver
Beaver
Butler
Butler
Law-
rence
Law-
rence
Law-
rence
Crlter
Stand.
Group
(<0
(?)
B
B
B
MV
+bg
MV
*9
IV
j
Aver-
age
Flow
cfs
(8)
481
(d)
20
(d)
564
(d)
2
(d)
SPECIFIC WATER QUALITY PARAMETERS
PH
S.U.
D.O.
mg/1
TOT.Fe
mg/1
TEMP.
°C
TDS
mg/1
ODOR
S.U.
Total
Colif.
/100ml
POTENTIAL PROBLEMS
ALL VALUES .GIVEN AS mg/1
mean/max.
(9)
OK
OK
OK
OK
8.6/
8.6-
8.7
OK
(10)
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
(11)
OK/
11.2
1.7/
5.6
OK/
2.3
OK/
4.8
OK/
1.8
OK/
2.2
(12)
OK
OK
OK
OK/ 2 3
25/25
24/24
(13)
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
780/
1132
(14)
(15)
65300/
287500
(16)
in
.260/
.260
in
..100/
.100
i04
)K/296
5°4
i44/
J652
(17)
(18)
(19)
.
(20)
Overall
Quality
Rating
(21)
Fair
Good to
excell-
ent
Good
Good
Mill
Stream Meet Water
Quality Standards
Bv 1933?
(22)
Ves.
Yes.
No. Lack of funds
for mine drain-
age projects.
Yes.
NOTES: (a) Classes: WQL
EL
AMD
Mater Quality Limited Stream
Effluent Limited Stream
Acid Mine Drainage Affected S:>-eam
Categories: See definition in text. Section 2.1.6.4.
1974 Pa. Water Quality Criteria Groups and Levels 2S defined in Reference (23).
b
c
d) Data Source: L5GS Water Resources Bulletin No. 1.
(e) Discontinued.
-------
listed were either not sampled or were not violated at any time.
Parameter
Dissolved Oxygen
pH
Total Suspended Solids
Fecal Coliform
for Recreation
for Water Supply
Total Phosphorus
Phenol
Cyanide
Total Iron
% of Samples (or Time) which Violated
ORSANCO's (or ORBC's) Stream Quality
Criteria in 1975-1976
' Ohio River at
South Heights
0
3
8
100
0
38
0
8
67
Beaver River at
Beaver Falls
31
0
3
100
50
100
3
6
45
Due to drainage from abandoned mines in the basin, some effluent
limitations have been postponed on Cross, North Fork Cross, and Harmon
Creeks p5).
According to a recent report, over three-quarter of the stream length
in the basin meets standards but, within the basin, four-fifth of the
Connoquenessing-Slippery Rock Creek watershed and about half of the Ohio's
main stem is satisfactory, while practically none of Chartiers Creek's
main stem or Saw Mill Run is meeting standards (29).
DER estimates that with increasing municipal and industrial pollution
control, most of the Ohio River probably will meet the standards by 1983
and many of the problems on the tributaries will be eliminated or reduced.
Nevertheless, acid mine drainage, combined sewer overflow, urban runoff
and other non-point sources will remain unabated in the near future (29).
- 142 -
-------
5. Stream Quality Changes, 197>1977
Table 2.1.6.-34 lists the. length of improved stream miles and
Table 2.1.6.-35 the length of degraded stream miles in the basin during
the five-year period of 1973-77 (25).
A trend analysis was was performed for the major water quality para-
meters by comparing the 1953-75 (long-term) and the 1964-75 (short-term)
data with the July 1, 1975 - June 30, 1976 data from ORSANCO's monitors.
Available data in Pennsylvania allowed the short-term trend analysis only,
the results of which are summarized below (37).
Parameter
Water Temperature
Dissolved Oxygen
Total Coliform
Threshold Odor
Turbidity
PH
Alkalinity
Specific Conductance
Total Hardness
Non-Carbonate Hardness
Chloride
Short-Term Trend
Ohio River at
South Heights
N.S/
Increasing
(0.001)
Increasing
(0.001)
N.S.
Beaver River at
Beaver Falls
N.S.
N.S.
Decreasing
(0.001)
Increasing
(0.001)
Decreasing
(0.01)
Increasing
(0.05)
Increasing
(0.01)
N.S.
Decreasing
(0.001)
Decreasing
(0.001)
N.S.
N.S. - No statistically significant trend
(In parentheses): level of significance
- 143 -
-------
TABLE 2.1.6.-34
STREAMS SHOWING WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENTS (1973-1977)
OHIO RIVER BASIN
SOURCE (25)
YEAR
1973
1974
1975
1976
STREAM
Otter Creek
McCauley Run and
Shenango River
Shenango River
Lardingtown Run
Tributary to North
Fork of Little
Beaver Creek
Slippery Rock Creek
Beaver River
Shenango River
Raccoon Creek
Ohio River
Chartiers Creek
Millers Run
Breakneck Creek
Big Sewickley Creek
Montour Run
Breakneck Creek
Beaver River
Beaver River
Ohio River
Walnut Bottom Run
Mill Run
Shenango River
COUNTY
Mercer
Mercer
Lawrence
Butler
Beaver
Lawrence
Lawrence
Mercer
Beaver
Allegheny
Beaver
Allegheny
Allegheny
Butler
Allegheny
Beaver
Allegheny
Butler
Beaver
Lawrence
Beaver
Beaver
Mercer
Mercer
LENGTH
IMPROVED
MILES
0.5
2
2.0
3
2
2
5
2
12
and 40
1
3
2
& 0.5
1
1
3.5
0.25
4
0.5
0.5
5
REASON FOR IMPROVEMENT
Sewage treatment
Improved industrial waste
controls
Improved industrial waste
treatment
Strip mine reclamation
i
Improved industrial waste j
treatment ...
Improved sewage treatment
Closing of industrial plant
Industrial discharge .
phased out
Mine drainage abatement '
Improved sewage treatment
Industrial waste discharge
abated
Sewage discharge abated
Improved sewage treatment
Improved industrial waste
treatment
Sewer system connection
Industrial waste treatment
Improved sewage treatment
Improved sewage treatment
Industrial waste treatment .
Sewer system connection
Sewage treatment :
i
Sewage & industrial waste
treatment
- 144 -
-------
TABLE 2.1.6.-34 (Continued)
YEAR
1977
STREAM
Charti ers Creek
Little Raccoon Creek
Raccoon Creek
State Line Creek
Connoquenessing Creek
Wolf Creek
Unnamed Tributary of
Munnelt Run
Unnamed Tributary of
Squaw Run
COUNTY
Washington
Washington
Beaver
Beaver
Lawrence
Mercer
Mercer
Lawrence
LENGTH
IMPROVED
MILES
4.0
0.5
40.0
2.0
1.0
1.0
3.0
1.0
REASON FOR IMPROVEMENT
Sewer connection to
treatment facility
Treatment facility for
refuse pile mine drainage
Treatment facility &
cleanup operation at
industrial facility
New treatment facility in
Ohio-discharge in Penna.
abated
Improved sewage treatment
Industrial waste treatment
Sewage treatment
Sewage treatment
- 145 -
-------
TABLE 2.1.6.-35
STREAMS SHOWING WATER QUALITY DEGRADATION (1973-1977)
OHIO RIVER BASIN
SOURCE (25)
YEAR
1Q73
1976
1977
STREAM
Little Beaver River
Little Connoquenessing
Creek
Semiconon Run
Chartiers Creek
Brush Run
(Chartiers Creek)
Peggs Run
Ohio River
Pymatuning Lake
'McClure Run
Shenango River
Unnamed Tributary to
Neshannock Creek
COUNTY
Lawrence
Butler
Butler
Washington
Washington
Beaver
Beaver
Crawford
Lawrence
Lawrence
Lawrence
LENGTH
DEGRADED
MILES
1.0
9
2
1
1
1.5
2.0
11.0
1.5
15.0
0.5
REASON FOR DEGRADATION
Industrial waste discharge
Mine drainage
Mine drainage
Overloaded sewage treat-
ment plant
Overloaded sewage treat-
ment plant
Coal discharge stock piles
& treatment "pi ant
Discharge of fuel oil
from storm sewer
Erosion & sedimentation
problems due to sewer
Spill of industrial waste
Industrial waste discharge
Fish kill due to industrial
waste spill
- 146 -
-------
2.1.6.5. TREATMENT AND DISCHARGE OF WASTEWATERS
A. Municipal Wastewaters
Wastewater originates from residential, commercial and industrial water
users and also from stormwater flows. Industrial and urban stormwaters con-
tain a variety of potential pollutants but the major impact on the water
quality is from pollutants present in residential and commercial sewage.
The existing Pennsylvania requirements governing wastewater treatment
are contained in Chapter 95 of the Department of Environmental Resources
"Rules and Regulations" (12). However, revisions were proposed in March 1978
(11) and although they have not been adopted the new formulation is probably
a more accurate guide of requirements which will apply to the ORBES Region.
Table 2.1.6.-36 sets forth the existing wastewater requirements and Table
2.1.6.-37 outlines the proposed revisions. The revisions are more stringent.
They place responsibility for justifying any exception to the protection of
high quality waters on the discharger. Also, any new development discharging
into high quality waters would need to utilize best available, rather than
best practicable, technology. A new section on waste load allocations pro-
vides the department greater flexibility to address the problems of (a) non-
attainment of quality criteria in some stream sections, and (b) the lack of
knowledge of the impact of some pollutants. Similarly the concept of land
disposal has received emphasis which was absent in the preceding regulations.
Primary, secondary and tertiary treatment levels are mentioned extensively
with reference to wastewater treatment. The Department of Environmental
Resources actually established eight treatment level classifications which
are defined in terms of the expected effluent concentrations of the most
important water parameters (2). Table 2.1.6.-38 lists the eight treatment
levels and the expected concentration of the four water parameters correspond-
ing to them. Colifrom bacteria are maintained at low concentrations by
- 147 -
-------
TABLED.1.6.-36
EXISTING WASTE WATER TREATMENT REQUIREMENTS
Source (12), (40)
TITLE 25. RULES AND REGULATIONS
PART I. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES
Subpart C. PROTECTION OF NATURAL RESOURCES
ARTICLE II. WATER RESOURCES
CHAPTER 95. WASTE WATER TREATMENT REQUIREMENTS
Authority
The provisions of this Chapter 95 issued under act of June 22, 1937, P.L. 1987,
§ 5 (35 P.S. § 691.5.).
Source
The provisions of this'Chapter 95 adopted June 1977.
§95.1 General requirements.
(a) Specific treatment requirements and effluent limitations for each waste
discharge shall be established based on the most stringent of subsection (b) of
this section, the water quality criteria specified in Chapter 93 of this title
(relating to water quality criteria), the applicable treatment requirements and
effluent limitations to which a discharge is subject under the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act, as amended (33 U.S.C, §§ 1251 et seq.) or the treatment
requirements and effluent limitations of this title.
(b)-Waters having a better quality than applicable water quality criteria
as of the effective date of the establishment of such criteria shall be main-
tained at such high quality unless it is affirmatively demonstrated that a
change is justified as a result of necessary economic or social development and
will not preclude uses presently possible in such waters.
(c) Any industrial, public or private project or development which would
constitute a new source of pollution or an increased source of pollution to
high quality waters shall be required to provide the highest and best practi-
cable means of waste treatment to maintain high water quality.
(d) In implementing the provisions of subsection (b) and (c) of this
section, the Department shall keep the Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency advised and shall provide him with such information as he
will need to discharge his responsibilities under the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act (33 U.S.C. I 151 et seq.).
- 148 -
-------
TABLE 2.1.6.-36 (Continued)
§ 95.2 Waste treatment requirements.
(a) All wastes shall be given a minimum of secondary treatment.
(b) Secondary treatment for sewage, except discharges from the bodies of
animals, is that treatment which shall accomplish the following:
(I) Reduce the organic waste load as measured by the biochemical oxygen
demand test by at least 85% during the period May I to October 31, and by at
least 15% during the remainder of the year based on a five consecutive day
average of values.
(2) Remove practically all of the suspended solids.
(3) Provide effective disinfection to control disease producing organisms.
(4) Provide satisfactory disposal of sludge.
(5) Reduce the quantities of oils, greases, acids, alkalis, toxic, taste
and odor producing substances, color and other substances inimical to the public
interest to levels which shall not pollute the receiving stream.
(c) Secondary treatment-for other wastes is that treatment which achieves
either of the following:
(I) The effluent limitations resulting from the application of the "best
practicable control technology currently available" as defined by the Adminis-
trator of the United States Environmental Protection Agency pursuant to Sections
301, 304, and 402 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. §§ 1311,
1314, and 1342); or
(2) For those discharges for which "best practicable control technology
currently available" has not been defined by the Administrator under the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. §§ 1251 et seq.), effluent
limitations resulting from the Department of Environment Resources' determina-
tion of the equivafent of "best practicable control technology currently
aval I able".
- 149 -
-------
TABLE 2.1.6.-36 (Continued)
§95.3 Reserved.
§ 95.4. Discharge to acid stream.
(a) Where wastes are -discharged to a stream polluted by coal mine drainage from
abandoned mines to the extent that all the alkalinity of the stream has been exhausted
and the pH of the stream is 4.0 or less at practically all times at the point of discharge
and throughout the stream, a minimum of primary treatment or its equivalent for industrial
wastes shall be provided to bio-degradable wastes.
(b) A minimum of secondary treatment shall be required on such streams where:
(1) the quality of the water in the receiving stream is expected to improve
significantly due to a scheduled program for abatement of pollution from abandoned mines;
or
(2) the primary treated effluent would cause pollution in downstream waters.
(c) Primary treatment is that treatment which shall accomplish the following:
(1) Remove practically all the settleable solids.
(2) Remove at least 35% of the organic pollution load as measured by the
biochemical oxygen demand test.
v (3) Provide effective disinfection to control disease producing organisms.
(4) Provide satisfactory disposal of sludge.
(5) Reduce the quantities of oils, greases, acids, alkalis, toxic-, taste-, and
odor-producing substances, color and other substances inimical to the public interest to
levels that will not pollute the receiving stream.
§ 95.5. Effective disinfection.
Effective disinfection to control disease producing organisms shall be the production
of an effluent which will contain a concentration not greater than 200/100 ml of fecal
coliform organisms as a geometric average value nor greater than 1,000/100 ml of these
organisms in more than 10% of the samples tested.
§ 95.6. Change in treatment requirements.
(a) Whenever there is a change in the provisions of Chapter 93 (relating to water
quality criteria) or this Chapter or whenever the department adopts a plan or makes a
determination that would change existing or impose additional water quality criteria or
treatment requirements, it shall be the duty of the permittee of facilities affected thereby,
upon notice from the department, to promptly take such steps as shall be necessary to
plan, obtain a permit or other approval, and construct such facilities as may be required
to comply with the new water quality criteria or treatment requirements.
(b) Within ninety (90) days of the receipt of such notice, or within such lesser
period as the department may specify, the permittee shall submit to the department either
a report establishing that its existing facilities are capable of meeting the new water quality
criteria or treatment requirements or a schedule setting forth the nature and date of
completion of steps that shall be necessary to plan, obtain a permit or other approval,
and construct facilities to comply with the new water quality or treatment requirements.
The permittee shall comply with the schedule as approved by the department.
- 150 -
-------
TABLE 2.1.6.-37
PROPOSED REVISIONS TO WASTE WATER TREATMENT
REQUIREMENTS AS OF MARCH 1978
Source (11)
Material proposed to be added to an existing rule or regulation is printed in bold face and material proposed to be deleted
from such a rule or regulation is enclosed in brackets [) and printed in bold face. Proposed new or additional regulations are
printed in standard type face. ^
Chapter 95. Wastewater Treatment Requirements
§ 95.1. General Requirements:
(a) Specific treatment requirements and effluent limita-
tions for each waste discharge shall be established based on
the more stringent of subsections (b) and (c) of this section, the
water quality criteria specified in Chapter 93 of this title (re-
lating to water quality [ofitoria] standards), the applicable
treatment requirements and effluent limitations to which a.
discharge is subject under the Federal Water Pollution Con-'
trol Act, as amended (33 U.S.C. §§ 1251 et seq.) or the treat-
ment requirements and effluent limitations of this title ['.];
and such treatment requirements and effluent limitations
shall be incorporated by the Department into permits and or-
ders issued under. The Clean Streams Law (35 P. S. §§ 691.1-
691.1001) and into certifications issued under the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act. .
(b) Waters having [a botte* wato* quality than tho opnli
cable wato^ quality criteria as of 'the- effective- date of comb-
lishmcnt of such criteria] a water use designated as "High
Quality Waters" in § 93.9(b) of this titleirelating to designated
water uses and water quality criteria).shall be maintained and
protected at [ouch high .quality] their, existing quality, unless
[it- io] the following are affirmatively demonstrated [that a
ango is justified ao a roe
00<
such
ill not proaluda usoa pro&ontly poooiblo in
by a proposed discharger of sewage, industrial .
wastes, or other pollutants: , '.". . ' \ _
(1) the proposed new, additional, or increased discharge or
discharges of pollutants is justified as. a result of necessary
economic or social development which is of significant public
value; and . .. .,/ .'..-/-
(2) such proposed discharge or discharges, alone or in com-
bination with any other anticipated discharges of pollutants
to such waters, will not preclude any use presently possible in
such waters and downstream from such waters and will, not
result in a violation of any of the numerical water quality
criteria specified in § 93.9 (b) of this title for such waters or for
any other of the waters of this Commonwealth.
(c) [-Any industrial public- of private project or develop-
ment which- would constitute-a-new-source-of-pollution-or-an.
increased source- of- poHtttion-to-high-quaHty- waters-shall- be
required-to-provide-the-lHghestand best-practieable-nreajvs-of
waste-treatmen«-to-rnainta+n-lugh-qua4ity.] Waters having a-
water use designated as "Exceptional Value Waters" in
§ 93.9(b) of this title (relating, to designated water uses and
water quality criteria) shall be maintained and protected at a
minimum at their existing quality.
revisions of subsections (l>Hmd
(d) [In-implc««n>ing t
(c) of this-SectioiMhe^DepartmentshalUieep-the-AdiiHiHStFa-
tion- of- the- Environmental- Protection- Agency- advised- and
shall provide him-with such-informatioa-as-he-will need to
discharge his responsibilities under the-Federal Water Pollu-
tion Control Act(33-U.S.C. § 1151 et seq.).] Any project or devel-
opment which would result in a new, additional, or increased
discharge or discharges of sewage; industrial wastes, or other
pollutants into waters having a- water use designated as "High
Quality Waters" in § 93.9(b) of this title (relating to water
quality criteria) shall be permitted only in compliance with
the requirements of subsection (b) of this section and, fur-
thermore, shall be required to do either of the following:
(1) utilize the best available combination of treatment and
land disposal technologies and practices for such wastes
where such land, disposal would be economically feasible, en-
vironmentally sound, and consistent with all other regula-
tions in this title,
(2) if such land disposal is not economically feasible, is not
environmentally sound, or cannot be accomplished consistent
with all other regulations of this title, utilize the best avail-
able technologies and practices for the reuse and discharges
of such wastes.
5 95.3. [Reserved] Waste load allocations.
(a) Waste load allocations are specific daily limits on the
discharge of wastes from point sources as opposed to require-
ments of minimum waste treatment performance as specified
elsewhere in this title.
(b) Waste load allocations are an administrative device to
allow the Department to determine effluent limitations nec-
essary to protect water quality and to treat waste dischargers
equitably and will normally be implemented by their inclu-
sion as effluent limitations in permits, orders, NPDES permit
certifications, or similar Departmental actions concerning
point source discharges.
(c) .Waste load allocations do not establish a transferable
property right: that is, the discharger cannot transfer his al-
location to another discharger. The Department may transfer
a waste load allocation when a permit is. transferred provided
that no violations of this title exist.
(d)- Waste load allocations will be made by the Department
when the following conditions prevail:
.(1) Water quality criteria for stream section, segment, or
zone are not being achieved, even though discharges to such
section, segment, or zone are being treated to meet the mini-
mum treatment requirements specified in Chapters 93, 95 and
97 of this title or the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, 33
U.S.C.A. §§ 1251-1276.
(2) Water quality criteria for a stream section, segment, or
lone may not be achieved during periods of accepted design
stream flow, as identified in § 93.5(b) of this title (relating to
designated water uses specific water quality criteria), even if
existing or anticipated discharges to such section, segment,
or zone were treated to meet the minimum treatment re-
quirements specified elsewhere in this title.
(3) Minimum treatment requirements have not been,estab-
lished for a particular pollutant
(e) In making a waste load allocation, the Department will
determine the stream section, segment, or zone and the pol-
lutant for which a waste load allocation is needed. The De-
partment will also determine the maximum allowable daily
load ("IYIDL") of the pollutant from point and nonpoint sources
which the receiving waters can.assimilate at the accepted de-
sign, stream flow without endangering the achievement of
water quality criteria or water uses.
(f) In determining the MDL, the Department will do the
following:
(1) Determine whether the pollutant in question is a persis-
tent or nonpersistent-decaying-substance. The Department
will treat all pollutants as persistent unless it finds, on the
basis of information available to it, that the substance is non-
persistent,
(i) For persistent substances, the MDL shall be calculated
on the basis that instream concentrations of the substance are
determined solely by dilution in the receiving waters.
. (ii) For nonpersistent substances, the Department will de-
termine and specify, in writing, the mechanism by which the
substance decays in the stream, including mathematical
equations or formulae used to describe such instream decay.
(2) Provide a margin of safety which takes into account:
(i) any lack of knowledge concerning the relationship be-
tween effluent limitations and water quality including any
uncertainty or imprecision in mathematical models utilized
to determine this relationship; and
(ii) in. the case of a nonpersistent substance, any impreci-
sion or uncertainty concerning the mechanism by which the
substance decays in the stream.
(3) Determine what portion of the MDL shall be attributed
to nonpoint sources and what portion to point sources. In mak-
ing this determination, the Department will consider a spe-
cific allowance for anticipated economic and population
growth over a period of at least ten years.
- 151 -
-------
TABLE 2.1.6.-37 (Continued)
(g) The portion of the MOL which is determined to be at-
tributable to point sources shall be the maximum daily allow-
able load ("'HAL") and shall be equitably allocated among'
existing and proposed point source discharges in the form of
effluent limitations specifying maximum daily quantities of
the pollutant in question that may be discharged'from each
such point source, subject, however, to the following:
(1) A portion, not less than 10%, of the MAL shall be re-
served as an allowance for anticipated economic and popula-
tion growth over at least a five-year period, including an addi-
tional allowance reflecting the precision and validity of the
method used to- estimate such population and economic
growth.
(2) The pollutant-loadings allocated to individual point
sources are compatible with achieving and maintaining water
quality criteria and protecting existing or possible beneficial
uses at each discharge point.
(3) The Department may specify daily average quantity
effluent limitations, as well.as.average and maximum concen-
tration limitations, in addition to any daily maximum-quantity
limitation allocated to a particular point source. ...
(h) Whenever a mathematical modeling technique is
utilized to determine.the iWDL, or to describe instream decay
of.a nonconservative substance, the modelling technique.
selected should represent the minimum level of sophistica-
tion and complexity needed to provide for waste load alloca-
tions. ' . .
(i) The Department will revise the waste load allocation for
a stream segment using the procedures described in this sec-
tion if the Department determines that the reserve specified
in subsection (g) (1) of this section will be exhausted or
whenever it deems it necessary to do so. Allocations not used
will be returned to the reserve, ....-
(j) Whenever a permit^ order, certification, or other De-
partmental action specifies an effluent limitation for a par-
ticular point source which is based on.a waste load allocation,
the Department may also require appropriate monitoring, of
the receiving waters and reporting of such monitoring data to
the Department unless the Department makes a specific find-
ing that such monitoring would be redundant.
(k) The Department may request any present or potential
dischargers of any pollutant for which a waste load allocation
is being made'under this section to supply information con-
cerning any of the factors specified in this section as well as
any waste load allocation model or formula such discharger
may have developed for waste load allocation. If the dis-
charger fails to submit the-requested information within 30
days or such longer period as the Department may specify in
writing, such discharger shall be deemed to have waived its
right to contest in any forum, the factors, formulae, and mod-
els used by the Department in the waste load allocation.
(1) Where the Department determines that the procedures
specified in this section are inappropriate for making a
waste load allocation for a particular stream segment, it may
adopt a revised method of waste load allocation for that seg-
ment, provided it publishes the substance of such proposed
revised method in the Pennsylvania Bulletin and solicits
comments thereon.
§ 95.4. Location of waste discharges.
(a) Wastewater discharge effluent limitations relating to
the water quality criteria of Chapter 93 of this title (relating to
water quality standards) shall be established so as to attain
and maintain those criteria and shall be calculated upon the
assumption of complete mixing of the discharge effluent with
the receiving waters at the point of discharge, based upon an
allocated portion of the design stream flow.
(b) Wastewater discharge effluent limitations described in
subsection (a) of this section shall be determined as follows:
(1) They shall be established so as to provide for the main-
tenance and propagation of a balanced community of aquatic
life, animal life, and waterfowl in and on the receiving waters,
and so as to prevent pollution as defined in section 1 of the
Clean Streams Law (33 P. S. § 691.1).
(2) They shall be calculated, at a minimum, so as to insure
that the discharge will at no time cause the applicable water
quality criteria to be violated in areas described as follows:
(i) Outside an area greater than Vi the width, or more than Vj
the vertical cross-sectional area of the receiving waters at the
point of discharge.
(ii) Outside an area, in any direction from the point of dis-
charge, equal to 10% of the surface of any receiving reservoir
or inland lake except Lake Erie, where the area shall not ex-
ceed 12 acres:
(iii) In any hypolimnetic waters of any inland lake or reser-
voir, waters which serve as a migratory route for any species
of aquatic life, waters contributing to a drinking water supply
intake; or any waters within a bathing place permitted pur-
suant t» the Public Bathing Law, (33 P. S. §§ 672-68W).
(iv) In waters which constitute or interface with the spawn-
ing areas of aquatic life.
(3) They shall, at no time, allow for a change in the tempera-
ture of the receiving waters at any point by more than 2°F. in
any one-hour period or result in mortality of any indigenous
fish species.
(c) The phrase, "allocated portion of the design stream
flow," shall be defined, for purposes of this section, as that
portion of the accepted design stream flow, as set forth in
§ 93.5 of this title (relating to application of water quality
criteria to discharge of pollutants), of the receiving waters
which is selected by the Department for use in calculating
water quality criteria-related effluent limitations; provided
that no portion shall be allocated to more than one discharge.
§ fr96i4J 95.5. Discharge to acid stream.
§ 95.6. Discharge to lakes, ponds, and impoundments.
(a) Except where otherwise specified in the Department's
waste-water management implementation plans, new dis-
charges or expanded or upgraded existing discharges to
watersheds and their tributaries that flow into lakes, ponds,
and reservoirs more than 25 acres in surface area or more
than 15 feet maximum depth, or both, and that have 30- days or
more detention time based on average daily flow shall be
treated or otherwise abated to remove phosphorus such that
the total phosphorus in the discharge does not exceed 0.5 mg/1
as P. The Department will determine, on a case-by-case basis,
the proximity to the lake, pond, or reservoir that shall require
these special phosphorus controls.
(b) Land disposal of wastes should be utilized wherever'
feasible to prevent the discharge of nutrients' into lakes,
ponds, or reservoirs.
95.7. Effective disinfection.
§ {9fc«j 95.8. Change in treatment requirements.
(a) If there is a change in the provisions of Chapter 93 (relat-
ing to water quality [criteria] standards) or this Chapter or
whenever the Department adopts a plan or makes a determi-
nation that would change existing or impose additional water
quality criteria or treatment requirements, it shall be the duty
of the permittee of facilities affected thereby, upon notice from
the Department, to promptly take steps as shall be necessary
. to plan, obtain a permit or other approval, and construct such
facilities as may be required to comply with the new water
quality [efitopia] standards or treatment requirements.
(b) Within 90 days of the receipt of such notice [.] or within
such lesser period as the Department may specify, the permit-
tee shall submit to the Department.either a report establishing
that its existing facilities are capable of meeting the new
water quality [ofitoina) standards or treatment requirements
or a schedule setting forth the nature and date of completion
of steps that shall be necessary to plan, obtain a permit or
other approval, and construct facilities to comply with the
new water quality or treatment requirements. The permittee
shall comply with the schedule as approved by the Depart-
ment.
- 152 -
-------
TABLE 2.1.6.-38
TREATMENT LEVELS AND THEIR CORRESPONDING EXPECTED EFFLUENT CONCENTRATIONS
Source (2)*
Treatment
Level
Classification
(1) No treatment
(2) Leas than Primary
(3) Primary
(4) Intermediate >
(5) Secondary
(6) Secondary 4 High
BOD + Hill Removal
(7) Tertiary
(8) Tertiary & Other
Parameter (mg/1)
BOD
30
Uay avg.
7
day avg.
dally max.
NII3-N
30
day avg.
7
day avg.
dally max.
TOT P
30
day avg.
7
day avg.
dally max.
TSS
30
day avg.
7
day avg.
dally max.
^ No effluent concentrations have been designated for these four treatment levels.
30
10-30
10
00
45
10-30
10
<10
60
20-60
20
<10
__
1.5-9.0
1.5-9.0
<1.5
_
1.5-9.0
1.5-9.0
<1.5
^
3-18
3-18
O
_
0.5-1.0
<0.5
_
0.5-1.0
<0.5
_
1-2
a
30
25-30
25
<25
65
25-30
25
<25
60
50-60
50
<50
en
Co
*0riginal source: DER Bureau of Water Quality Management, Pittsburgh Regional Office
BOD - Biochemical Oxygen Remand
NH3-N - Ammonia Nitrogen
TOT P - Total Phosphorus
TSS - Total Suspended Solids
-------
chlorination in combination with the various treatment levels.
The bulk of the population-in the ORBES Region is served by municipal
wastewater facilities and some are served by non-municipal facilities such
as septic tanks. Inventories of the municipal facilities are available in
Chapter VII, Appendix A, Study Areas #8, and #9, of the COWAMP study for
Pennsylvania (1), (2). Maps showing the location of the facilities are
available in the COWAMP reports for Areas #8, #9, #5, and #6 {(1), (2),
(3), and (4)}. (The overlap of the COWAMP Study Areas with the ORBES Region
was described in Section 2.1.6.1.)
The municipal facilities' inventories in COWAMP list the facilities
individually and tabulate the location, facility owner, population served
(design and actual), wastewater flow (design and actual), treatment provided,
and the name, condition, and classification of the receiving stream. Addi-
tional relevant data (e.g. wastewater characteristics) are listed in a
separate table for the major facilities. A summary of municipal facilities
in COWAMP Study Areas #8 and #9 is presented in Table 2.1.6.-39. This groups
the number of facilities, population served and level of treatment provided
by county. Table 2.1.6.-40 gives a similar summary for non-municipal facil-
ities. These include treatment such as septic tanks, Imhoff tanks, stabiliza-
tion ponds, extended aeration, activated sludge, and sand filtration. Five
non-municipal facilities in COWAMP Area §9 have flows that exceed 0.25 million
gallons per day and they comprise 25% of the area's non-municipal flow. In
Area #8, non-municipal facilities serve less than half the population that
is so served in Area #9. In addition, four of the counties in Area #8 do not
belong to the ORBES Region.
The volume of wastewater discharged to a receiving stream is an important
aspect of the water quality of rivers. The heaviest concentration of waste-
water treatment plants occurs, as one would expect, in urban areas and the
- 154 -
-------
en
tn
TABLE 2.1.6.-39
MUNICIPAL FACILITIES SUMMARY: COMAMP AREA 08
Source (1)
County
Clarion
0 C J**
Crawford
Elk
Forest
Jefferson
Laurence
McKean**
Mercer
Potter**
Vc-oango
**
Warren
Total
Z of Total
No.
Facilities*
9
10
3
2
7
7
9
13
3
7
4
74
100
Actual Pop.
Served
18.000
47,000
22,000
3.000
27.000
79.000
41.000
89.000
6,000
42.000
22.000
3!>6.000
-
Treatment Provided*
Primary
No.
Facilities
1
1
0
0
2
3
0
3
0
3
0
13
18
Population
Served
350
8,000
0
0
6.000
9,000
0
24,500
0
19,000
0
66,850
17Z
Secondary
Ho.
Facilities
6
8
3
0
4
4
6
9
2
4
4
50
67
Population
Served
15.200
35,600
22,000
3,000
19.800
70,000
39,000
64,000
5,000
23,000
22,000
318,600
an
Tertiary
No.
Facilities
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Population
Served
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Other
No.
Facilities
HU.KR)
100
-
2(R)
1(R)
-
2(L).1(R)
KR)
1(R)
-
-
8(R).3(L)
11
-------
TABLE 2.1.6.-39 (Continued)
MUNICIPAL FACILITIES SUMMARY: COMAMP AREA #9
Source (2)
County
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Creenc
Indiana
Washington
Westmoreland
Total
Z of Total (b)
Humber
of
Facllltlee(a)
96
4
25
14
22
B
4
22
47
242
54Z
Actual
Population
Served
1,760.000
25,000
168,000
73.000
146,000
14,000
39,000
186,000
297.000
2,708,000
94Z(d)
Treatment Provided
Primary
1 of
Facilities
8
2
4
0
3
4
1
2
3
27
6Z
Population
Served
182,000
7,500
54,600
-
19,000
4,000
5,226
27,900
64.746
364,972
13. 5Z
Secondary
1 of
Facilities
75
2
19
12
18
4
3
18
28
179
40Z
Population
Served
1,560.000
7,500
110,400
72,300
69,300
7,000
29,133
135,408
136.026
2,127,067
78. 5Z
Tertiary
II of
Facilities
10
0
2
0
1
0
0
2
15
30
7Z
Population
Served
4,000
'
2.000
.
200
_^
558
53.460
60,218
2.2Z
Other (c)
t of
Facilities
3(L)
7(R)
6(R)
2(R)
2(L)
9(R)
25(R)
5(R)
6(K)
12(R)
1(L)
31(R)
6(L)
103 (R)
1Z(L)
46Z(R)
Population
Served
2,000
12,000
10,000
1,000
700
57,500
3,000
4,641
22,134
1,485
41,283
4,185
151,558
0.2%
56. OX
I
en
i
(a) Tlicce numbers do not include raw discharges.
(b) These numbers Include raw discharges (i.e. (R) + No Facilities - Total)
(c) (R) Raw, (L) * Lagoons
(d) Baaed on 1970 population of 2,875,000 [p. V-6]
-------
TABLE 2,1.6.-40
NON-MUNICIPAL FACILITIES SUMMARY: COWAMP AREA #8
Source (1)
en
County
~lar Ion
Crawford*
Elk
Toreat
Jefferson
.awrence
IcKcsn**
!crcer
Potter **
Venango
*#
.'arren **
foul
! of Total
Ho.
Facilities
19
36
4
5
6
36
4
58
7
29
26
230
1001
Actual
Pop.
Served
4.800
25.700
1,100
7.300
6.400
13.300
1,400
28.400
2,300
13,800
10,300
114,800
.
Treatment
Septic Tank
' lla.
Facilities
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
2
It
Fop.
Served
0
0
.. 0
0
0
900
0
0
0
0
A/ 260
1,160
U
Septic Tank/
Sand
Filtration
No.
Facilities
4
4
0
1
4
5
0
12
1
6
12
49
21Z
Pop.
Served
560
240
0
100
5.100
1.915
0
2,500
10
775
1,600
12,600
11Z
Stabilization
Pond
No.
Facilities
5
4
0
1
0
7
0
ia
i
5
0
41
18X
Pop. .
Served
1.110
650
0
300
0
765
0
11.200
50
1.100
0
1J.175
13X
Provided
Extended
Aeration
No.
Facilities
9
15
4
2
2
13
4
15
4
9
9
86
381
Pop.
Served
3.080
17.100
1.100
6,500
1,300
4.940
1.400
4,600
940
4,050
3,800
46,810
42Z
Extended Aeration/
Advanced
Treatment*
No.
Facilities
0
10
0
1
0
6
0
10
1
3
2
3)
141
Pop.
Served
0
6.750
0
400
0
1,980
0
6.940
1,300
3.000
1,100
21.470
19X
Other
No.
Facilities
Kaj
2(b).l(g)
0
0
0
Hb).l(c).
Kd).Kg)
0
Kb). Kg),
Kh)
0
Kb),l
-------
TABLE 2.1.6.-40 (Continued)
NON-MUNICIPAL FACILITIES SUMMARY: COWAMP AREA
Source (2)
Hiuibet
of
County Facllltlee
Allegheny
Ar»at ronf
Beaver
Butler
Payetta
Creena
Indiana
Udlilngton
V«*u>oial*D»
Total
I of TiU.l
80
21
18
59
54
27
11
70
88
472
1001
Actual
Population
Served
49.100
9.200
19.400
44.400
26,600
10,100
11.400
10,600
41.700
244,700
8.51 «
Treataent Provided
11
H f
U Q
O..5
*3
1 of
Fac.
4
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
5
16
1.41
Pop.
Served
5.175
.
-
^
1,000
1.112
_
1,600
1.121
10,208
4.11
a*
U M
0 3 J
2 0 M
t Of
Fac.
17
1
1
7
14
4
1
19
10
77
16.lt
Pop.
Served
1.617
74
155
710
1.240
1,947
152
8.048
1.114
16.477
7.61
1
M
3*
u o
IA flu
1 of
Pac.
0
0
2
9
0
0
1
1
1
18
3.81
Pop.
Serve*
-
149
1,776
.
_
_
140
105
2,770
l.U
18
12
s
U M
x
Hi <
1 of
Pac.
12
11
21
25
28
9
18
19
11
196
il.M
Pop.
Served
12,798
5,140
8,168
10,414
17.522
4,512
5.496
8,727
22.777
95.594
19. OX
t
2 S J 3
M " 3£
1 of
Pac.
14
7
4
11
7
6
8
19
26
104
111
Pop.
Served
6.212
2.940
4.18.
4.795
5.116
2.225
4.788
6,114
7.116
41.912
181
j,
o u **
3 ££
f of
Pac.
6
0
0
1
1
0
0
2
4
14
IX
Pop.
Serve*
6,470
.
-
266
115
_
410
1.640
9,121
1.71
U
H «
> H
SI
< «
1 of
Pac
0
1
2
0
0
1
0
0
0
5
L.I*
Pop.
Serve*
-
276
2.910
^
217
..
.
^
1.421
1.41
raClcm
vz
5, K.
1 Of
Pac.
1
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
a
j
1.1X
Pop.
Serve*
1.200
..
97
_
144
.
mf
^
1.441
0.6*
*
0
lot
Fac.
2(b) !())
Kc)
Ka) Kg)
Kd) Kc)
»(b) 1(1)
K.) Kc)
Ke) Ka)
Kc)
*(e) K.)
Kb) l(h)
Uk) 2(1)
l(o) 2(c)
'U> Kc)
i(b) 2(g)
L5(c) l(h)
Kd) 2(1)
Kj) 2(k)
1(1) Kj.)
7. 8X
Pop.
Served
11.628
770
1.117
26.419
187
101
2,764
5,141
7.185
59.714
24. 4X
Wvinced treatment la defined at lcroitralnto|, a«nd filtration or etabllltallon pond*.
laacd oa 1970 population of 2.875,000'
Pootootat: (a) Ho Information (e) Sand flltraclon/pollahlng pood
(b) Trickling filter (O Septic tanV/trlckllng filler
(c) Ho tr«atncnt (|) Prc-Aeratlon
(d) Stablllratlon pond/aand filtration (h) Trickling fllter/aand filtration
(1) Trickling filter/extended aeration
(j) Lahoif Tank/extended aeration
(k) Contact >tablll>atlon
(1) Activated aludge/eand (lltratloo
() Prlury aattllng/aind filtration
-------
receiving rivers in these areas have to assimilate large volumes of discharge.
For example, Table 2.1.6.-41 lists the important municipal facilities in
COWAMP Area #9 having a discharge greater than one million gallons per day,
and names their receiving streams. Table 2.1.7.-42 tabulates total waste
flows for large urban areas in COWAMP Study Areas #8 and #9. This table also
compares total waste flows to average and 7-day, 10-year low flows of receiv-
ing streams. Although Pittsburgh has, by far, the largest waste flow (almost
200 million gallons per day) there is greater potential impact on water quality
from several of the smaller urban areas. For example, five urban areas in
COWAMP Area #9 have a total waste flow which is about 20% of the average
receiving stream flow. These areas are: (2)
'Uniontown area on Redstone Creek
'Washington area on Chartiers Creek
'Greensburg area on Jack's Run
'Jeannette-Irwin area on Brush Creek
'Bethel Park-Pleasant Hills area on Peters Creek
COWAMP Area #8 does not have any urban waste flows greater than 1.4% of the
average receiving stream flow so the potential water quality impact is not
high from that source. (1)
It is not always large urban discharges that have a high potential for
creating wastewater problems. In some cases municipal and non-municipal dis-
charges from smaller areas may cause a greater impact if the receiving stream
is small or if wastes are poorly treated. For example, serious problems may
occur on small streams by discharge from small extended aeration plants that
are poorly maintained or where the ratio of waste flow to stream flow is high.
Table 2.1.6.-43 lists the municipal facilities that discharge to small streams
and compares the waste flow for each facility with the average flow and 7-day,
10-year low flow for each receiving stream. There are some alarmingly high
- 159 -
-------
TABLE 2.1.6.-41
IMPORTANT MUNICIPAL FACILITIES BY FLOW: COWAMP AREA #9
Source (2)
Facility Name
Piney Fork System
Coraopolis MSA
Upper Allegheny JSA
McKeesport WPCA
Sandy Creek STP
ALCOSAN Pgh.
Pleasant Hills MA
Aliquippa STP
Beaver Falls STP (a)
Butler Area STP
Connellsville STP
Uniontown STP
Indiana MSS
Canonsburg-Houston STP (a)
Hon. Valley Auth. STP
Washington STP (a)
Kiski Valley WPCA
Greensburg STP
Jeanette STP
Latrobc STP (a)
S. Kensington STT
W. Westmoreland STP
Unity Twp. SS
County
Allegheny
Allegheny
Allegheny
Allegheny
Allegheny
Allegheny
Allegheny
Beaver
Beaver
Butler
Fayette
Fayette
Indiana
Washington
Washington
Washington
Westmoreland
Westmoreland
Westmoreland
Westmoreland
Testmoreland
Westmoreland
Westmoreland
I QTP
(m«d)
2.7
2.7
4.0
5.5+
2.1
190
2.4
3.2
2.1
4.5
2.0
4.0
6.0
2.9
2.9
4.5
2.5
5.0
2.7
2.1
6.?
11.0
1.6
Receiving Stream
Piney Fork Cr.
Ohio R.
Allegheny R.
Monongahela R.
Sandy Cr.
Ohio River
Lick Run
Ohio R.
Beaver R.
Connoquenessing R.
Youghiogheny R.
Redstone Cr.
Two Lick Cr.
Char tiers Cr.
Monongahela R.
Char tiers Cr.
Kisklminetas R.
Jack's Run
Brush Cr.
Loyalhanna Cr.
Allegheny ?..
Brush Cr.
Four Mile Run
Treatment
Method
Secondary
Primary
Primary
Primarv
Secondary
Secondary
Secondary
Secondary
Primary
Secondary
Primary
Secondary
Secondary
Primary
Secondarv
Secondary
Secondarv
Secondary
Secondary
Primary
?riaary
'Tertiary
None
- 160 -
-------
TABLE 2.1.6.-42
WASTE FLOW AND STREAM FLOW FOR MAJOR URBAN AREAS
COWAMP AREA #8
Source (1)
cr»
Urban Area
Mead vi lie
5 Municipal Facilities
14 Private Facilities
Total
Sharon
6 Municipal Facilities
13 Private Facilities
Total
New Castle
2 Municipal Facilities
18 Private Facilities
Total
Warren
2 Municipal Facilities
14 Private Facilities
Total
Oil City - Franklin
4 Municipal Facilities
10 Private Facilities
Total
Waste Flow
(mfid)
3.97
0.2705
4.2405
5.56
0.696
6.256
5.07
0.242
5.312
2.71
1.0463
3.7563
4.7
0.1227
4.8227
Receiving Stream
French Creek
Shenango River'*
Beaver River-*
Allegheny River^
.
Allegheny River^
Average
Flow
(cfs)
l,400l
713
2,335
3,758
10,250
% Waste Flow
of Average
Flow
0.47
1.4
0.35
0.15
0.073
Low
Flow
(cfs)
70
204*
495
170*
1,0004
% Waste Flow
of Low
Flow
9.4
4.7
1.7
3.4
0.70
Notes: * Flow controlled by reservoir
1 Estimated from drainage area
2 Gaging station at Sharpsville
3 Gaging static n at Wampum
4 Low flow for 1973 water year from USGS records
5 Gaging station at Kinzua Dam .
6 Gaging station at Franklin
Average flow data taken from USGS gaging station data, except where noted.
Low flow estimated from drainage area and low flow areal yields as given in the UDOM data base
prepared by Buchart-Horn, Inc., except wh^re noted.
-------
TABLE 2.1.6.-42 (Continued)
WASTE FLOW AND STREAM FLOW FOR MAJOR URBAN AREAS
COWAMP AREA #9
Source (2)
Urban Area
iCittanning-Ford City
7 Municipal Facilities
6 Non-Municipal Facilities
Total
Heaver Falls-New Brighton
5 Municipal Facilities
4 Non-Municipal Facilities
Total
\liquippa-Rochester
13 Municipal Facilities
7 Non-Municipal Facilities
Total
Butler
8 Municipal Facilities
1 Non-Municipal Facility
Total
Jnlnntovm
5 Municipal Facilities
7 Non-Municipal Facilities
Total
Conncllsville
4 Municipal Facilities
2 Non-Municipal Facilities
Total
Indiana
1 Municipal Facility
2 Non-Municipal Facilities
Total
Waste Flow
(mgd)
2.630
0.100
2.730
3.179
0.043
3.222
9.470
0.212
9.682
4. 816
0.038
4.854
6.660
0.073
6.733
2.410
0.017
2.427
6.000
0.021
6.021
Receiving Stream
Allegheny River
Beaver River
Ohio River
Connoquenesslng Creek
Redstone Creek
Youghiogheny River
Two Lick Creek
Avg.Flow
(cfs)
15,460
3,379
32,680**
161**
41.8**
2,533
150**
'i Waste Flow
of Avg.Flow
0.03
0.15
0.05
4.66
24.92
0.15
6.21S:
Low Flow
(cfs)
1,550*
552
5,505
40.0
1.2
249
12.1
2 Waste Flow
of Low Flow
0.27
0.96
0.27
18.77
868
1.5
77.0
I
en
i
-------
TABLE 2.1.6.-42 (Continued)
Urban Area
Washington
5 Municipal Facilities
8 Non-Municipal Facilities
Total
"anonsburg
2 Municipal Facilities
2 Non-Municipal Facilities
Total
Yandergrif t
1 Municipal Facility
3 Non-Municipal Facilities
Total
jrecnsburg
4 Municipal Facilities
2 Non-Municipal Facilities
Total
leannette-lrwin
8 Municipal Facilities
9 Non-Municipal Facilities
Total
Latrobe
7 Municipal Facilities
4 Non-Municipal Facilities
Total
-fonongahela-Donora-Moncssen-Charleroi-
Callfornla
18 Municipal Facilities
11 Non-Municipal Facilities
Total
Waste Flow
(mgd)
A. 611
0.053
4. 664
3.370
0.009 '
3.379
2.500
0.085
2,585
5.035
0.031
5.066
5.535
0.262
5.797
A. 237
0.043
4.280
9.405
0.303
9.708
Receiving Stream
Chartiers Creek
Chartlers Creek
Klsklmlnetas River
Jack's Run
Drush Creek
Loyalhanna Creek
Monongahela River
Avg.Flou
(cfs)
32.7**
81.4**
3,051
\
37.9**
52.2**
358**
8,758
Z Waste Flow
of Avg.Flow
22.1
6.42
0.13
20.7
17.2
1.85
0.17
*ow Flow
(cfs)
0.69
1.72
488
0.23
0.31
8.33
907
Z Waste Flow
of Low Flow
1.046
304
0.82
3,408
2,893
79.5
1.66
en
Co
-------
TABLE 2.1.6.-42 (Continued)
Urban Area
Bethel Park-Pleasant Hills
3 Municipal Facilities
No Non-Municipal facilities
Total
IcKeesport-Duquesne-West Mifflin
11 Municipal Facilities
2 Non-Municipal Facilities
Total
Jew Kensington-Brackenridge
5 Municipal Facilities
1 Non-Municipal Facility
Total
Pittsburgh **'<
26 Municipal Facilities
18 Non-Municipal Facilities
Total
Waste Flow
(ragd)
5.130
5.130
12.752
0.057
12.809
12.360
0.096
12.456
196.493
0.741
197.234
Receiving Stream
Peters Creek
Monongahela River
Allegheny River
Ohio River
Avg.Flow
(cfs)
38.7**
12,200
19,030
32,530
% Waste Flow
of Avg.Flow
20.5
0.16
0.10
0.94
Low Flow
(cfs)
0.82
1,197
3,798
5,500
2 Waste Flow
of Low Flow
968
1.66
0.51
5.55
I
CTl
I
* Low flow in 1973 water year, from USCS gaging station.
** Estimated from drainage area given in UDOM data base and average areal yield in nearest USCS gaging station.
*** The facilities Hated are only those which discharge into watershed 20G. This Includes ALCOSAN, which treats
wastes from most of the Pittsburgh area and has a flow of 190 mgd.
NOTE; Average flows are from USCS gaging stations except where noted otherwise. Low flows are calculated from
drainage area and low flow area yields given in the UDOM data base prepared by Buchart-Horn, Inc., except
where noted otherwise. Low flows, therefore, do not include flows from municipal treatment plants.
-------
TABLE 2.1.6.-43
MINICIPAL WASTE DISCHARGES TO SMALL STREAMS:
COWAMP AREA #8
Source (1)
Borough
Clarion County
Knox
Rimersburg
Elk County
St. Mary's
Ridgeway
Jefferson County
Sykesville
Lawrence County
New Wilmington
Mercer County
Mercer
Grove City
McKean County*
Bradford
Kane (Kinzua Road)
(West Run)
Mt. Jewett
Potter County*
Coudersport
Venango County
Pleasantville
Waste
Flow
(mgd)
0.150
0.08
1.5
1.5
0.055
0.2
0.377(a)
1.159(b)
4.8
0.35
0.35
0.15
0.62
0.064
Receiving Stream
Canoe Creek
Wildcat Run
Elk Creek
Elk Creek
Stump Creek
L.Neshannock Creek
Neshannock Creek
Wolf Creek
Tunnungwant Creek
Hubert Run
West Run
Kinzua Creek
Allegheny River
Pithole Creek
Average
Flow
(cfs)
20
5
20
110
50
150
180
120
250
20
20
74
170
5
1 % Waste
Flow of
Average
1.2
2.5
11.6
2.1
0.2
0.2
0.3
1.5
3.0
2.7
2.7
0.3
0.6
2.0
Low
Flow
(cfs)
-
3.7
9.8
3
5
16
5
4
% Waste
. Flow of
. Low Flow
63
24
10.3
11.7
46
4.6
24
* McKean and Potter Counties are not in the ORBES Region
(a) Includes East Lackawannock Township municipal plant and
several private racilities. Flow measured at Mercer.
(bj Includes several private facilities.
Low flow data included only where available from the UDOM data base
prepared by Buchart-Horn, Inc. Average flow data estimated from
drainage area.
en
in
-------
TABLE 2.1.6.-43 (Continued)
MUNICIPAL WASTE DISCHARGES TO SMALL STREAMS:
CQWAMP AREA i9_
Source (2)
Municipality
ALLEGHENY COUNTY
Hampton Twp.
(Allison Park STP)
McCandless Twp.
(Longvue Hi STP)
Moon Twp.
(Fern Hollow Road STP)
Penn Hills Twp.
(Long Road STP)
Gascola STP
Plum Creek STP
Plum Borough
(Holiday Park STP)
BUTLER COUNTY
Cranberry Twp.
(Fenway & Porch Road Plants)
GREEN COUNTY
Uaynesburg
FAYETTE COUNTY
Georges Twp.
Waste Flow
(mgd)
0.5
1.1
1.7
0.85
1.3
0.85
0.8
0.659
0.78
0.716**
Receiving Stream
Pine Creek
Little Pine Creek
Montour Run
Chalfont Run
Thompson Run
Plum Creek
Abcrs Creek
Brush Creek
South Fork Ten
Mile Creek
Georges Creek
Avg.Flow
(cfs)
58.1
1.61
43.6
1.75
5.0
24.6*
8.9
14.9*
150
17.4
X Waste Flow
of Avg.Flow
1.33
106
6.04
75.2
40.2
5.3
13.9
6.85
0.80
6.37
Low Flow
(cfs)
0.98
0.03
0.73
0.01
0.04
0.18*
0.07
0.33*
0.137
0.0
X Waste Flow
of Lou Flow
79
5,676
360
13.158
5.031
731
1,770
309
881
CTi
CT>
-------
TABLE 2.1.6.-43 (Continued)
Municipality
KASHINCTON COUNTY
Peters Twp.
(Brush Run STP)
Ellsworth-Bentleyville Area
(Pigeon Creek STP)
IJESTMORELAND COUNTY
Franklin Twp.
(Franklin Twp. STP)
Ligonier
Me. Pleasant
Scottdale-Everson Area
Waste Flow
(mgd)
0.8
1.02***
1.4
0.6
0.91
1.18
Receiving Stream
Brush Run
Pigeon Creek
Turtle Creek
Loyalhanna Creek
Shupc Run
Jacobs Creek
Avg.Flow
(cfs)
7.1
39.4
60.3
55.3
4.1
79.5
Z Waste Flou
of Avg . Flow
17.4
4.01
3.59
1.68
34.4
2.30
Low Flow
(cfa)
0.19
1.18
0.44
1.98
0.16
0.52
Z Waste Flow
o£ Low Flow
652
134
493
46.9
880
351
I
en
**
***
NOTE (1):
Drainage area estimated from map; low flow areal yields taken from UDOM data base for
Nearest stream.
Raw Sewage
Treatment plant is under construction as of 1975.
Average flows are calculated from drainage areas given in the UDOM data base prepared by
Buchart-Horn, Inc. and areal yields at the nearest USGS gaging station. Low flows are
calculated from drainage areas and low flow yields given in the UDOM data base. Neither
average nor low flows include the flows from municipal waste treatment plants.
NOTE (2): Only discharges greater than 0.5 mgd have been listed for Area
-------
ratios of waste flow relative to the average flow for small streams - one
in excess of 100% on Little Pine Creek in Allegheny County. The other high
percentages occur on Chalfont Run, Thompson Run, Abers Creek, Brush Run and
Shupe Run in COWAMP Area #9 and Elk Creek and Tunungwant Creek in Area $8.
Furthermore, regardless of the flows, there are numerous discharges which
are raw or receiving only primary treatment. They are, therefore, in violation
of Federal standards and are considered to be degrading the water quality of
their receiving streams. Most problems concerning municipal discharges are
attributed to these discharges. 46% of municipal facilities in COWAMP Area #9
have raw discharges and 6% have only primary treatment. In COWAMP Area #8
these figures are 11% and 18% respectively (see Table 2.1.6.-39). COWAMP
Area #9 report (2) examines this problem on a county-by-county basis, while
COWAMP Area #8 report (1) looks at it by watersheds. Extracts from both
reports are reproduced below. The water quality network sampling stations
cited are defined in Table 2.1.6.-3.
COWAMP AREA 19
In Allegheny County, WQN sampling stations on the Ohio River
(Station 902), the Monongahela River (Station 701), Chartiers
Creek (Station 914), and Abers Creek (Station 705) show
minimum dissolved oxygen (DO) concentrations below standards.
Although some of the problem can be attributed to industrial wastes,
municipal wastes are probably the principal source of the oxygen
demanding material. Other streams depressed by sewage are Plum
Creek, Turtle Creek, Montour Run, and New England Hollow Run (site
of the 1.2 mgd West MiffTin sewage treatment plant). Deer Creek,
Pine Creek, and Peters Creek have been described as being affected
by sewage; but sampling stations on these streams show acceptable
DO levels, possibly because samples were collected not more than
four times per year. The DO for Peters Creek is surprising in
view of the high volume of wastes relative to stream flow.
Armstrong County is bordered by Redbank Creek in the north and
the KiskTminetas River in the south. Both streams have had
quality problems resulting from raw discharges. Problems in
Redbank come from out of the study area; problems in the Kiski-
mtnetas will be discussed under Westmoreland County. Cowan-
shannock Creek is depressed in the headwaters by sewage, notably
the raw discharge at Rural Valley. The creek recovers downstream
and at WQN Station 841 indicates no DO problems.
- 168 -
-------
The Beaver River already carries a significant organic load when
it enters Beaver County, and water quality is further depressed
by sewage treatment plants in the county; two of the larger
plants (Beaver Falls and/New Brighton) are providing only primary
treatment, although upgrading is in progress at both facilities.
.With the exception of Station 903 on Raccoon Creek, no other
WQN stations in Beaver County indicated DO levels below standards.
Numerous small treatment plants on the Raccoon Creek may be the
cause of the low DO levels.
Many streams in Butler County are affected by municipal wastewater
treatment facilities. Connoquenessing Creek has nutrient problems
from the sewage treatment plants in the Butler area. Saw Mill Run,
a small tributary of Connoquenessing Creek, is depressed downstream
from the Deshon treatment plant. Thorn Creek has problems caused
by the Saxonburg facility, which has been proposed for upgrading.
Breakneck Creek and Brush Creek have problems at low flow from
sewage treatment facilities scattered along the streams. South
Branch Bear Creek is severely depressed by raw sewage discharges
from Bruin, Petrolia, and Karns City.
Redstone Creek in Fayette County is severely affected by sewage,
having average DO levels below standards. Raw sewage discharges in
the Uniontown area-are responsible for this degradation. Dunlap
Creek and Georges Creek both have problems with raw municipal dis-
charges at the headwaters.
In Greene County, the South Fork Tenmile Creek experiences stream
degradation from raw sewage. There are occasional problems resulting
from the Waynesburg discharge even though secondary treatment is
provided because of the wide ratio between average stream flow and
low flow. Dunkard Creek and Muddy Run experience problems from
municipal discharges receiving only primary treatment.
Indiana County has water quality problems in Two Lick Creek caused
by raw discharges in Clymer and Homer City; treatment plants are
planned at both locations. Raw discharges from Center Township are
having some effect on Black Lick Creek. The Conemaugh River is
degraded from.municipal wastes. Most of the load comes from outside
the study area, but raw discharges in Indiana and Westmoreland Counties
add to the problem.
In Washington County there are two large urban areas on Chartiers
Creek, and the creek is affected by sewage discharges. Because of
the large waste flow relative to stream flow and the use of the stream,
tertiary treatment has been ordered for the major municipal plants in
both areas. Pigeon Creek also has problems from high waste
volumes relative to stream flow. The Monongahela River is
experiencing some degradation from raw discharges. Raw discharges
also are causing problems on Dutch Fork, Cross Creek, Pike Run,
and Peters Creek.
Municipal discharges are scattered throughout Westmoreland County,
and many localized problem areas on small streams may not have been
identified. The Kiskiminetas River has been depressed by raw
discharges in the Vandergrift area; but these problems should be
- 169 -
-------
corrected by the new Kiskiminetas Valley sewage treatment plant.
Sewickley Creek is in good condition upstream of Jack's Run, but
Jack's Run is depressed b-y sewage, and raw discharges occur on
several other tributaries. Jacobs Creek is depressed upstream by
sewage but recovers downstream from Scottsdale. Despite problems
in tributaries in Westmoreland and Fayette Counties, the Youghio-
gheny River is not significantly degraded. A WQN station on the
Youghiugheny in Westmoreland County (707) did have a minimum 00
value below standards. Stations on Sewickley Creek (715) and the
Kiskiminetas River (809) also indicated low DO concentrations;
stations on the Conemaugh River, Loyalhanna Creek, Allegheny River,
Jacobs Creek, and Turtle Creek indicated satisfactory DO levels.
In several cases municipal facilities have been identified as affecting
stream quality while data indicate only slight effects on dissolved
oxygen; for example, at WQN station (916) just below Canonsburg
on Chartiers Creek, all DO values satisfied standards. In these cases
impacts are based on levels of the nutrients, nitrogen and phosphorus.
Concentrations of these nutrients found in streams draining non-
urban, forested watersheds in northern Pennsylvania generally.were
less that 0.06 mg/1 total phosphorus as P, less than 0.15 mg/1
ammonia as N, and less than 0.3 mg/1 nitrate as N. Of the 50 sampling
stations in the study area, 10 had total phosphorus levels less than
0.1 mg/1 as P, 25 had ammonia concentrations less than 0.2 mg/1 as N,
and 5 had nitrate levels less than 0.6 mg/1 as N. None of the WQN
stations had concentrations of all three parameters below background
levels found in northwestern Pennsylvania, and only station 840
had concentrations of both phosphorus and ammonia within the range
of background levels found in northwestern Pennsylvania. Actual
"background" levels vary depending on the area and other sources of
nutrients exist, but municipal wastes are a major contributor to
high levels of nutrients in surface waters in the study area. Con-
centrations of ammonia and total phosphorus at the station on Chartiers
Creek below Canonsburg (916), for example, averaged 1.59 mg/1 as
N and 1.04 mg/1 as P. These nutrients may lead to eutrophication
under certain conditions... (2)
COWAMP AREA #8
Apart from the Bradford Plant, the only major municipal treatment
plants...haying a severe impact on the receiving stream are those
plants providing primary treatment or discharging raw wastes...Major
municipalities served by facilities providing only primary treatment
as of March 1975 are Titusville on Oil Creek (Watershed 16E),
Brookville on Redbank Creek (Watershed 17C), Ellwood City on Conno-
quenessing Creek (Watershed 20C), and Parrel! on the Shenango River
(Watershed 20A). Upgrading is in progress at Ellwood City and Parrel!.
There is a major municipal discharge of raw sewage from Falls Creek
Borough on Sandy Lick Creek (Watershed 17C). Treatment plants are
planned at Falls Creek and Brookville pending federal funding. Other
discharges of raw or primary treated wastes are: in Clarion County,
New Bethlehem on Redbank Creek (17C), and Sligo on Licking Creek
(17B); in Crawford County, Saegertown on Woodcock Creek (16A) and
Bloomfield Township on Canadohta Lake (16E); in Forest County, Tionesta
- 170 -
-------
on the Allegheny River (16F); in Jefferson County, Snyder Township
on Little Toby Creek (17A); in Lawrence County, Ellport on Connoquen-
essing Creek (20C), Neshannock Township on a tributary of the
Shenango River (20A), and Wampum on the Beaver River (20B); in
McKean County, East Smethport on Potato Creek (16C); in Mercer
County, East Lackawannock on a tributary of Neshannock Creek (20A)
and West Middlesex on the Shenango River (20A); in Potter County,
Ulysses on the Genessee River (14A); in Venango County, Coopers-
town on Sugar Creek (16D) and Emlenton on the Allegheny River (16G).
Private facilities discharging untreated wastes are the Carbon
Limestone Company in Lawrence County and the Grandview Convales-
cent Home in Venango County...(1)
B. Industrial Wastewaters
Pittsburgh and its vicinity is the most highly industrialized section of
Pennsylvania and is a major steel producing area of the United States. ' Within
COWAMP Study Area #9 there are 550 direct stream industrial dischargers that
generate an average wastewater flow of 2,260 million gallons per day. This
flow is approximately 9.4% of the average 1973 flow of the Ohio River at
Sewickley. COWAMP Area #8 to the north is not a highly industrialized area,
so the major potential for water quality impact from industrial waste lies in
Allegheny and surrounding counties.
The-state requirements governing industrial waste discharge are contained in
Chapter 97 of the Department of Environmental Resources "Rules and Regulations"
(12). The requirements relating to mineral preparation, oil and natural gas
wells, underground disposal and heat pollution from the existing version of
Chapter 97 (40) are presented in Table 2.1.6.-44.
Recently, in February, 1978 (3), and March, 1978 (11), there were proposed
revisions to delete sections of the Chapter because some jurisdiction will be
transferred to Chapter 95 concerning wastewater treatment and will no longer
be the domain of industrial waste. Most of the subject matter to be deleted
deals with milk processing, the paper industry and organic waste from distilleries
and tanneries (3). The section on heat pollution has been rewritten in accord-
- 171 -
-------
TABLE 2.1.6.-44
EXISTING INDUSTRIAL WASTE TREATMENT REQUIREMENTS
Sources (12), (40)
TITLE 25. RULES AND REGULATIONS
PART I. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES
Subpart C. PROTECTION OF NATURAL RESOURCES
ARTICLE II. WATER RESOURCES
CHAPTER 97. INDUSTRIAL WASTES
Authority
The provisions of this Chapter 97 issued under act of June 22, 1937,
P.L. 1987 § 5 (35 P.S. § 691.5).
Source
The provisions of this .Chapter 97 adopted
GENERAL PROVISIONS
§ 97.1. Definitions.
The following words & terms, when used in this Chapter, shall have the
following meanings, unless the context clearly indicates otherwise:.
Daily Average - The arithmetic average of all daily determinations
made during a calendar month.
Daily Determination - The arithmetic average of all determinations
made during a 24-hour period.
Federal Water Pollution Control Act - The Federal Water Pollution
Control Act (33 U.S.D. §§ 1251 et seq.) as amended.
£j 97.2. Degrees of treatment required.
(a) In issuing its orders for abatement or treatment of polluting wastes
to the waters of this Commonwealth, the Department shall set forth the degree
of treatment required in terms of the treatment of sewage and shall specify that
in the case of industrial wastes they shall be given equivalent treatment.
(b) The tests to be applied to such wastes shall be those appropriate to
the particular type of waste under consideration, as well as suitable, for deter-
mining equivalency.
(c) As the equivalency of various industrial wastes is determined perio-
dically by the Department, the information shall be made available to the public
in the form of standards for industrial wastes.
STANDARDS
97.11. Special Values.
In order to specify the required reduction in pollution load of wastes
- 172 -
-------
TABLE 2.1.6.-44 (Continued)
from various sources, certain values shall represent the "normal raw waste
characteristics" from various manufacturing processes. Except where, in the
opinion of the Department, special- conditions require some modification of these
values, the reduction in pollution load required shall be computed from adopted
and applicable standards.
S 97.12. Effluent characteristic standards.
In some cases the Department shall adopt standards with respect to the
characteristics of the effluent discharged to the receiving stream or as to the
amount, rate or manner in which the wastes may be discharged. These standards
shall be revised when, in the opinion of the Department, changed conditions or
increased knowledge warrant the revision.
§ 97.13. Characteristics of waste water.
The characteristics of the waste waters from an industrial establishment
to be used in determining compliance with standards established by the Depart-
ment for "normal" raw wastes and final effluent shall be those due to changes
or additions resulting from the use of the water by the industry.
§ 97.14. Measures to be used.
The pollution load of wastes shall be reduced to the maximum extent practical
by process changes, segregation of strong wastes, reduction in volume and re-use
of water, and by general measures of "good housekeeping" within the plant. The
term "practical" shall not be limited to profitable or economical.
| 97.15. Quality standards.
Industrial wastes regulated by this Chapter shall meet the following
quality standards:
(1) There shall be no discharge of wastes which are acid.
(2) Wastes shall have a pH of not less than 6.0 and not
greater than 9.0 except that wastes discharged to acid streams may have a
pH greater than 9.0
(3) Wastes shall not contain more than 7.0 mg/1 of dissolved iron.
(4) When surface waters are used in the industrial plant, the quality
of the effluent need not exceed the quality of the raw water supply if the source
of supply would normally drain to the point of effluent discharge.
MINERAL PREPARATION
§ 97.31. Coal washer!es.
Operators of all coal washeries constructed in this Commonwealth, whether
a closed system or not, shall be required to submit an application and plans
and secure a permit from the Department prior to placing the facilities in
operation.
| 97.32. Discharges to surface waters.
Wastes discharged to surface waters of this Commonwealth from mineral
- 173 -
-------
TABLE 2.1.6.-44 (Continued)
preparation, handling or processing plants shall meet the following quality
standards:
(1) Wastes shall contain no more than 200 mg/1 of suspended solids.
(2) There shall be no discharge of acid wastes.
(3) Wastes shall have a pH of not less than 6.0 nore more than 9.0
(4) Wastes shall not contain more than 7.0 mg/1 of dissolved iron.
(5) When surface waters are used in the mineral preparation plant,
the quality of the effluent need not exceed the quality of the raw water supply
if the source of supply would normally drain to the point of effluent discharge.
§ 97.33. Discharges to underground waters.
Wastes discharged to the underground waters of this Commonwealth shall meet
one of the following conditions:
(1) The quality standards set forth in § 97.32(2) - (4) of this Title
(relating to discharges to surface waters).
(2) That the wastes shall be discharged in accordance with the con-
ditions of a permit issued under the provisions of § § 97.71 - 97.75 of this
Title (relating to underground disposal of wastes).
(3) That the wastes shall be discharged into mine workings where the
wastes do not adversely affect the quality of the mine drainage.
§ 97.34. Drainage from active mineral refuse.
Drainage from active mineral refuse piles, mineral stockpiles and related
facilities, other than seasonal surface run-off caused by precipitation on the
refuse and stockpiles, shall meet the quality standards of § 97.32 of this Title
(relating to discharges to surface waters).
| 97.35. Disposal of solids from water-borne wastes.
The disposal of solids removed from water-borne wastes shall be conducted
so that the solids are not washed, conveyed or otherwise deposited into the
surface waters of this Commonwealth.
OIL AND NATURAL GAS WELLS
97.51. Sumps.
(a) A sump shall be provided for each well drilling operation.
(b) Each sump shall be large enough to receive without overflow all drill
cuttings, water and oil that may be produced in the drillings and cleaning of the
well.
(c) Surface water shall be excluded from the sumps by means of diversion
ditches on the uphill sides, or by other appropriate measures.
(d) After completion of the well, any oil and basic sediment that has
accumulated shall be burned or disposed of in such a manner as to avoid a fire
hazard.
(e) Propoer measures shall be taken to prevent sump contents from being
washed into streams.
- 174 -
-------
TABLE 2.1.6.-44 (Continued)
§ 97.52. Sump overflow device.
In case abnormally large quantities of water are encountered in drilling,
as to exceed the capacity of the sump, the sump shall be provided with a suitable
overflow device and the water shall be discharged to the sump at a rate and manner
that any overflow from the sump will be free of settleable solids and substan-
tially free of turbidity.
§ 97.53. Sump equivalent.
Where the location of a well precludes or makes unnecessary the use of a
sump, equivalent measures shall be taken to prevent the pollution of the waters of
this Commonwealth.
§ 97.54. Domes for wells.
(a) If large volumes of oil are encountered in shooting a well, a dome
shall be placed over the well or other suitable measures shall be taken to prevent
the discharge of any oil to the waters of this Commonwealth.
(b) Oil wastes shall not be dumped or drained upon the surface of the ground
in such a manner that they may flow or be washed into the waters of this. Common-
wealth.
I 97.55. Waste tanks.
For all producing wells, adequate provision shall be made to receive all
salt water, oil and BS in tub tanks or suitable containers from which all such
wastes, tank bottoms and other petroleum residues shall be discharged into one
or more sumps of adequate size, or into equivalent settling devices, equipped
with baffles, siphons or other suitable means to prevent all oil and residues
from reaching the waters of this Commonwealth.
§ 97.56. Cleaning operations.
Cleaning tubing or other apparatus connected with the operation of an oil
well shall be done in a manner and location that the wastes shall not drain or
be washed into a stream, and in such a manner that combustible wastes can and
will be burned periodically, using proper precautions to control the fire.
§ 97.57. Receiving tanks.
(a) All run tanks, separators or siphon tanks shall be so located that
salt water, oil, BS or other wastes will be discharged into one or more sumps
of adequate size to receive and settle the wastes, and so located as not to be
washed out by stream flows. Any water from such sumps shall be discharged
through a siphon or other suitable device so installed as to prevent any oil
or petroleum residues from reaching the waters of this Commonwealth.
(b) Oil and petroleum residues shall be periodically burned using proper
precautions to control the fire.
§ 97.58. Water filter backwash.
(a) The backwash from the operation of water filters shall be settled in
sumps or equivalent devices adequate to provide at least an eight-hour retention
- 175 -
-------
TABLE 2.1.6.-44 (Continued)
period, and so arranged as to provide quiescent sedimentation and the discharge
of the clarified effluent free from settleable solids and substantially free from
turbidity.
(b) The sludge from any sedimentation basins which precede the filter units
shall be removed periodically and disposed of in such a manner so as not to be
drained or washed into the waters of this Commonwealth.
OTHER WASTES
§ 97.61. Hells other than oil or gas.
(a) At each well drilling operation there shall be provided a sump or
other receptacle large enough to receive all drill cuttings, sand bailings, water
having a turbidity in excess of 1,000 ppm, or other polluting wastes resulting
from the well drilling operations.
(b) Surface water shall be excluded from the sump or receptacle by means
of diversion ditches on the uphill 'sides, or by other appropriate measures.
(c) After completion of the well the sump shall be covered over or other-
wise protected or the contents of the receptacle disposed of, so that the contents
will not be washed into the waters of this Commonwealth.
(d) Any waste oil, coal, spent minerals or other polluting substances shall
be so disposed of that they, will not be washed into the waters of this Common-
weal th.
5 97.62. Reserved.
§ 97.63. Oil Bearing Haste Haters.
(a) For the purpose of this section, the quantity of oil shall be measured
by the freon extraction gravimetric method of oil analysis (Standard Methods for
the Examination, of Hater and Wastewater - Method 502A; 14th Edition, published
by the American Public Health Association, America Waterworks Association and the
Water Pollution Control Federation, 1015 18th Street M.W., Washington, D.C.
20036). "
(b) Wastewaters, except those from petroleum marketing terminals, discharged
into the waters of this Commonwealth shall comply with all of the following:
(1) At no time cause a film or sheen upon or discoloration of the
waters of this Commonwealth or adjoining shoreline; and
(2) At no time contain more than 15 milligrams of oil per liter as a
daily average value nor more than 30 milligrams of oil per liter at any time,
or whatever lesser amount the Department may specify for a given discharge or
type of discharge as being necessary for the proper protection of the public
interest or to meet any requirements based upon the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act.
(c) Petroleum marketing terminals shall be provided with facilities to
remove oil from waters, including stormwater runoff, before discharge into the
waters of this Commonwealth. Compliance with this subsection shall constitute
compliance with subsection (b) of this section except to the extent that the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act imposes a more stringent requirement.
Pollution Incident Prevention Plans as described in Section 101.3 of this title
(relating to activities utilizing polluting substances), are required for all
petroleum marketing terminals.
(d) Unless it can be shown that an alternate design is equivalent, oil
removal facilities of petroleum marketing terminals shall consist of an American
- 176 -
-------
TABLE 2.1.6.-44 (Continued)
Petroleum Institute (A.P.I.) oil separator designed and operated in accordance
with the following standards:
(1) The horizontal velocity through the separator shall not exceed
three feet per minute except when rainfall produces a runoff exceeding 80 gallons
per minute per acre of land draining to the separator. When such runoff occurs
there will be no limit on the horizontal velocity.
(2) The detention time of water flowing through the separator shall be
at least 20 minutes except when rainfall produces a runoff exceeding 80 gallons
per minute per acre of land draining to the separator. When such a rainfall
occurs the detention time may be less than 20 minutes. .
(3) The separator shall be capable of treating 80 gallons per minute
for each acre of land draining to it during the runoff period.
(4) Solids build up in the separator shall be measured after each
rainfall, and when the build up exceeds one -foot in depth from the bottom, the
solids shall be removed before the next rainfall.
(5) The separator shall be inspected after each rainfall to insure that
the oil is being properly removed. Excessive oil shall not be allowed to accum-
ulate in the separator.
(6) Oil and solids, removed from the separator shall be disposed of in
a manner that will not violate the laws of the Commonwealth.
(7) A record showing the dates when solids and oil are removed from the.
separator and the location of the disposal site shall be kept and maintained for a
period of one year.
(e) Where the standard design in subsection (d) of this section or an equiva-
lent alternate design are followed, no permit for the discharge of oil from petro-
leum marketing facilities to the waters of this Commonwealth shall be required
pursuant to Section 307 of the act of June 22, 1937, P.L.I987, as amended (35 P.S.
§ 691307).
| 97.64. Distillery wastes.
Distillery waste waters shall be completely evaporated or shall be given
enough equivalent treatment before discharge to the waters of this Commonwealth
to remove not less than 95% of the five-day BOD of the wastes.
§ 97.65. Tannery waste waters.
(a) The process for the treatment of waste waters resulting from the
vegetable tanning of leather, as set forth in the report of the Tannery Waste
Disposal Committee of Pennsylvania to the Sanitary Water Board, dated November 8,
1930, shall be considered by the Department to be reasonable and practicable.
(b) Tannery waste waters shall be treated by one or more of the steps set
forth in such report, as may be required by the Department for particular streams
or locations.
§ 97.66. Reserved.
UNDERGROUND DISPOSAL
§ 97.71. Potential pollution.
The Department shall, except- as otherwise provided in this section consider
the disposal of wastes, including storm water runoff, into the underground as
- 177 -
-------
TABLE 2.1.6.-44 (Continued)
potential pollution unless the disposal is close enough to the surface so that the
wastes will be absorbed in the soil mantle and be acted upon by the bacteria
naturally present in the mantle before reaching the underground or surface waters.
§ 97.72. Discharge into mines..
Discharge of inadequately treated wastes, except coal fines, into the under-
ground workings of active or abandoned mines shall be prohibited.
§ 97.73. Discharge into wells.
Discharge of wastes into abandoned wells shall be prohibited.
§ 97.74. Disposal in underground horizons.
(a) Disposal of wastes into underground horizons shall only be accepted as
an abatement of pollution when the applicant can show by the log of the strata
penetrated and by the strati graphic structure of the region that it is improbable
that the disposal would be prejudicial to the public interest. Acceptances shall
be conditional and shall not relieve the applicant of responsibility for any
pollution of the waters of this Commonwealth which may occur.
(b) If any pollution occurs the disposal operations shall be stopped
immediately.
§ 97.75. New wells for waste disposal.
New wells constructed for waste disposal shall be subject to the provisions
of § § 97.71 - 97.74 of this Title (relating to underground disposal of wastes).
HEAT POLLUTION
§ 97.81. .Prohibition.
The temperature of the waters of this Commonwealth shall not be increased
artificially in amounts which shall be inimical or injurious to the public
health or to animal or aquatic life or prevent the use of water for domestic,
industrial or recreational purposes, or stimulate the production of aquatic
plants or animals to the point where they interfere with these uses.
§ 97.82. Allowable discharges.
(a) The heat content of discharges shall be limited to an amount which
could not raise the temperature of the entire stream at the point of discharge
5?F. above ambient temperature or a maximum of 87°F., whichever is less, nor
change the temperature by more than 2°F. during any one-hour period, assuming
complete mixing but the heat content of discharges may be increased or further
limited where local conditions would be benefited thereby.
(b) Where downstream circumstances warrant, the specific area in which the
temperature may be artificially raised above 87°F. or greater than 5°F. above
ambient temperature or by more than 2°F. during any one-hour period shall be
prescribed.
§ 97-83- Fishways.
A fishway shall be required in streams receiving heated discharges where
it is essential for the preservation of migratory pathways of game fish, or
- 178 -
-------
TABLE 2.1.6.-44 (Continued)
for the preservation of important aquatic life. The dimensions of the fishway
shall be prescribed in each case, dependent upon the physical characteristics
of individual streams whenever necessary.
§ 97.84. Acid-impregnated streams.
Sections 97.82 and 97.83 of this Title (relating to heat and discharges into
streams) shall not apply to streams so impregnated with acidic mine drainage that
they cannot support a fish population typical of the region.
5 97.85. Trout Streams.
There shall be no new discharge to waters providing a suitable environment
for trout if as a result the temperature of the receiving stream would be by
more than 5°F. above natural temperatures or be increased above 58°F.
§ 97.86. Estuarial waters.
(a) Reduction of heat content of discharges to estuarial waters shall be
required where necessary to protect the public interest.
(b) Estuarial waters shall not be considered all those containing ocean
salts. Tidal waters not containing ocean salts are considered as fresh water
streams.
- 179 -
-------
ance with the recently proposed Chapter 93 which sets water quality standards
in general (11). Part of this section (dealing with aquatic life and estuary
waters) will be deleted to clarify the division of responsibility between the
three chapters. These proposed revisions are detailed in Table 2.1.6.-45.
There are 721 industrial direct stream discharges in COWAMP Study Areas 8
and 9. These are inventoried in Chapter VII, Appendix A of both the Area #8
and Area #9 COWAMP Reports (1), (2). Maps showing the location of facilities
and discharges are available in the Plates in the COWAMP Reports for Areas §8,
#9, #5, and #6. (1), (2), (3), and (4). The inventories list the following
for each plant, county by county: name and owner, DER-WAMIS identification
number, location (municipality and COWAMP Sub-basin), Standard Industrial Class-
ification (SIC) Code, number of employees, total (both design and actual)
wastewater flow, number of outfalls, treatment provided, receiving stream
(name, condition, and classification), priority of discharge (based on a system
of rating which considers potential water quality impact and flow rate of
effluent), and estimates of area available for expansion of the facility.
More specific and detailed information on each industrial plant and the waste-
water discharges are given in subsequent tables of the COWAMP Reports for the
248 "major" industriesthose with serious potential water quality impact and/or
large wastewater flow rate.
A relatively small number of major industrial dischargers account for a
large portion of the total industrial wastewater flow. For example, in Study
Area #9, the 17 largest dischargers (3.0% of all industries, by number) account
for over 93% of the total study area industrial wastewater flow.
A summary of areas with high concentrations of industrial facilities is
given in Table 2.1.6.-46. The number of industrial facilities in the geographic
area, the name of those with most severe impact, the total waste flow, and
- 180 -
-------
TABLE 2.1.6.-45
PROPOSED REVISIONS TO INDUSTRIAL WASTE TREATMENT REQUIREMENTS
AS OF MARCH 1978
Sources (3), (11)
Deletion of Sections February 4, 1978:
97.2,
97.11 - 97.13,
97.21 - 97.25,
97.41 - 97.45,
97.64 - 97.66.
HEAT POLLUTION
$ 97.82. [Allowable discharged] Relation to Federal actions.
[ fa>--Th«-h«tt<-eont«nt- of discharges-shall- be-liroited-to an
amount-wfrrea-ceu-ld-not raise the-temp»r-ature-o£-the-entire
. strearo-ai-the- potnt-of dis-ofc^e-giFr-abwe-anibient-tempera-
ture or a'ina.timtmt-of-8-T'FVdtwag-^ny-one^our-pgriodras-
sinning comploto mixing but *h»-h«at-conten*- of-dis«harges
may. he increased or further limited whore-local-conditions
vrmtlA be benefitted-thereby..- .
cificarea in which the temperature-may-be-artiflcially-raised-
above 37T. 01- gpcotor than a?F. above ambient temperatures
by more than PF.- during any one-hoar-period-shail-be pre»
Subject to the provisions of § 97.S3 of this title (relating to
allowable discharges), .effluent limitations upon the dis-
charge of heated wastewaters to waters of this Commonwealth
shall be established so as to attain and maintain the specific
thermal water quality criteria of Chapter 93 of this title (relat-
ing to water quality standards} and the requirements off 97.81
of this title (relating to prohibition); provided that, for the
purpose of establishing thermal effluent limitations in a cer-
tification issued pursuant to section 401 of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act, 33 U.S.C.A. § 1341, or (35 P. S. 35 691.1-
691.1001) a permit issued pursuant to the provisions of The
Clean Streams Law, the Department may rely upon a determi-
nation of the United States Environmental Protection Agency
or a state, if appropriate, pursuant to Section 318«-appJy-to-9tream*-s<)4
-------
TABLE 2.1.6.-46
AREAS WITH HIGH CONCENTRATIONS OF INDUSTRIAL DISCHARGES:
COWAMP AREA #9
Source (2)
CO
ro
Area
Clairton-
Pittsburgh
New Kensing-
COWAMP
3ub-Basir
19A, 19C
18A
ton-Pittsburgh
Pittsburgh-
Kcetsdale
Bridgeville-
Carncgie
20G
20F
Total No.
Industrial
Facilities
43
50
28
15
Facilities with
Severe Impact
Penna. Ind. Chero. Corp/
Hercules Inc.
Clairton Uorks/
U.S. Steel Corp.
Irvin Plant/
U.S. Steel Corp.
National Plant/
U.S. Steel Corp.
Duquesne Plant/
U.S. Steel Corp.
Edgar-Thompson Plant/
U.S. Steel Corp.
Westinghouse Elec. Corp.
Carrie Furnace Plant/
U.S. Steel Corp.
Homestead Plant/
U.S. Steel Corp.
Pittsburgh Works/
Jones & Laughlin Steel
Allegheny Ludluro Steel
Corp.
PPG Clatu Research Center
Alcoa Research Lab
Russell Burdsal 6 Ward
Vulcan Detlnning/
Vulcan Materials Co.
Shenango, Inc.
Mayco Co. & Chemical Co.
USS Chemicals/
U.S. Steel Corp.
Specialty Steel Dlv./
Universal Cyclops Corp.
St. Regis Paper
Teledyne Col. Summerhill
Total
Industrial
Flow (mgd)
1,246
/
116
41
4
Receiving
Stream
Monongahela River
Allegheny River
Ohio River
Chartlers Creek
Receivinc
Average
(cfe)
12,200
19,030
32,530
384*
Stream Flow
7 day, 10 yr.
(cfs) .
1,197
'
3,798
5.500
6.21
-------
TABLE 2.1.6.-46 (Continued)
oo
CO
Area
Klttannlng-
Ford City
Vandergrlf t
.
Aliquippa-
Rochester
Denver Falla-
Beaver
Butler
Washington
COWAMP
Sub-Basi
17E
18B
20C
20B
20C
20F
Total No.
Industrial
Facilities
9
11
20
16
11
12
Facilities with
Severe Impact
Ford City Works/
Pl'G Industries, Inc.
Llnde Division/
Union Carbide Corp.
Parks Twp. Plant/
Nuclear Mat. i Equl. Co.
Altmire Coal
Apollo Plant/
Nuclear Mat.fc Equip. Co.
Vandergrift Plant/
U.S. Steel Corp.
West Leechburg Plant/
Ally, Ludlum Steel, Inc.
Aliq.iippa Works/
Jones & Laugh] In Steel
Armco Steel Corp.
Wyckof f-Steel Div./
Ampco Pittsburgh Corp.
Valvollne Oil/Ashland
Oil & Refining Co.
Pittsburgh Tube Co.
Colonial Steel Div./
Vasco Teledyrie
Zinc Smelting Div./
St. Joe Minerals
Tubular Prod. Div./
Babcock & Wllcox Co.
Uutler Works/
Armco Steel Corp.
Jessop Steel Co./
Athalone Corp.
Washington Steel Co.
Total
Industrial
Flow (mgd)
74
7
424
10
6
3
Receiving
Stream
Allegheny River
Kfskimlnetas River
Ohio River
Beaver River
Connoquenesslng River
Chartlers Creek
Receivin
Average
(cfs)
15,460
3,051
32,680**
3,379
161**
32.7*
; Stream Flow
7 day, 10 yr.
(cfs)
1,550
488
5,503
522
40
0.69
-------
TABLE 2.1.6.-46 (Continued)
Area
-tonongahela-
Callfornia
COWAMP
Sub-Basil
19C
Tocal No.
Industrial
Facilities
20
Facilities with
Severe Impact
AllenporC Plant/
Wheeling-Pgh. Steel Co.
Page Fence Diveion/
American Chain & Cable
Monessen Works/
Whecllng-Pgh. Steel Co.
Neual Plant/
Allied Chemical Corp.
Total
Industrial
Flow (ragd)
103
Receiving
Stream
Monongahela River
Receivln
Average
(cfs)
8,758
;> Stream Flow
7 day ,10 yr.
(cfs)
907
,
I
oo
i
* Calendar year 1972.
** Estimated drainage and flow at Sewlckley gaging station.
-------
details of the receiving stream are listed.
The industrial direct stream- discharges are summarized by Major SIC groups
in Table -2. 1.6. -47 for Study Area #9 and in Table 2. 1.6. -48 for Study Area £8.
The industry type, its Major SIC Group number, a potential water quality impact
rating assigned to the group, and the total wastewater flow is given in the
tables.
The total industrial direct discharge in the two COWAMP Study Areas is
244.8 mgd. By far the largest source is the primary metals industry (SIC Major
Group 33) with a total flow of 2077 mgd, which comprises approximately 84.9%
of the total industrial discharge. Second largest is the chemicals and allied
products industry (SIC Major Group. 28) with 201 mgd discharge comprising 8.2%
of the total .
An account of industrial discharges by county was written in the COWAMP
Reports (2) and (1), and this is reproduced below for Area #9 and #8 counties
in the ORBES Region.
COWAMP AREA #9
Allegheny County has the largest concentrations of industrial
discharges in the study area. Over 150 industrial facilities
discharge wastewaters directly into streams in the county.
(Another 250 major industries discharge wastewaters into ALCOSAN)
...Over half the industrial discharges are along the Allegheny,
Monongahela, and Ohio Rivers. There are also a number along
Chartiers Creek; the remainder are scattered throughout the
county.
Along the Monongahela River, total industrial discharges are
almost 2000 cfs, about one-sixth of the river's average flow
and more than half the industrial flow in the study area. Most
discharges emanate from steel plants. Industrial discharges to
the Allegheny and Ohio Rivers in Allegheny County are large but
do not compare with discharges to the Monongahela in terms of
waste flows (see Table 2. 1.6. -46). Nevertheless, some industries
present hazards to water quality because of the characteristics
- 185 -
-------
TABLE 2.1.6.-47
INDUSTRIAL DIRECT STREAM DISCHARGE SUMMARY BY MAJOR SIC GROUPS
COWAMP AREA #9
Source (2)
Major
SIC Group
01-02
12
13
14
15-17
20
22
24
26
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
40
42
44.
45
46
49
50
51
65
72
73
75
Rating*
C
A
C
C
C
A
C
C
A
A
A
B
B
C
A
B
B
B
C
C
C
C
C
B
C
C
B
C
C
A
A
B
Industry
Agriculture
Coal Processing
Natural Gas
Mineral Processing
Construction
Food Products
Textiles
Lumber and Wood
Paper Products
Chemicals and Allied Products
Petroleum Refining
Rubber and Misc. Products
Leather Products
Stone, Clay, Glass, Concrete
Primary Metals
Fabricated Metals
Machinery-Nonelectric
Machinery-Electric
Transportation Equipment
Instruments
Railroad Services
Motor Freight Services
Water Transportation Services
Air Transportation Services
Pipe Lines
Utilities
Wholesale Trade
Petroleum Bulk Stations
Commercial Buildings
Laundries
Laboratories
Automotive Services
TOTALS
Number
4
56
1
22
10
61
1
4
6
44
30
7
1
61
75
52
12
18
4
6
16
5
1
2
3
4
3
11
1
4
7
17
550
Total Flow
(mgd)
0.005
16.3
0.013
3.3
0.00
5.2
0.010
0.006
0.15
193.
5.2"
5.4
0.014
14.4
. 1971.
15.9
5.3
8.14
0.56
0.17
0.23
0.007
0.001
0.058
0.300
0.246
0.109
0.934
13.5
0.055
0.683
0.065
2260.
% Total
S.A. Flow
0.1
0.7
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.1
,0.1
0.1
8.6
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.6
87.2
0.7
0.2
0.4
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.6
0.1
0.1
0.1
1CO.O
*Rating was assigned to each SIC Group based on the potential water quality
impact of major pollutants associated with the-type of industry in the group.
A - Serious potential water quality impact
B - Moderate potential water quality impact
C - Slight potential water quality impact
- 186 -
-------
TABLE 2.1.6.-48
INDUSTRIAL DIRECT STREAM DISCHARGE SUMMARY BY MAJOR SIC GROUPS
COWAMP AREA #8
Source (1)
Major
SIC Group
09
12
14
20
24
25
26
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
42
49
72 '
75
Rating*
C
A
C
A
C
C
A
A
A
B
B
C
A
B
B
B
C
C
C
B
C
C
A
B
Industry
Fish Hatcheries
Coal Processing
Non-Metalic Mineral Proc.
Food Products
Lumber and Wood
Furniture
Paper Products
Chemicals and Allied Products
Petroleum Refining
Rubber and Misc. Products
Leather Products
Stone,' Clay, Glass, Concrete
Primary Metals
Fabricated Metals
Non-Electric Machinery
Electric Machinery
Transportation Equipment
Instruments
Misc. Manufacturing
Railroad Services
Motor Freight
Utilities
Laundries
Automotive Services
TOTALS
Number
3
10
24
8
1
1
1
8
9
6
1
19
24
15
17
11
9
1
1
3
2
2
3
2
171
Total Flow
(mgd)
8.56
0.73
15.11
0.15
0.02
0.0
13.05
8.01
25.14 '
2.14
0.03
4.00
. 106.47
1.44
0.34
1.30
1.67
0.03
0.16
0.02
0.002
0.002
0.02
0.001
188.40
% Total
Study Area
Industrial
Flow
4.5
0.4
8.0
0.1
0.1
6.9
4.2
13.3
1.1
0.1
2.1
56.5
0.8
0.2
0.7
0.9
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
100.0
*Rating was assigned to each SIC Group based on the potential water
quality impact of major pollutants associated with the type of
industry in the group.
A - Serious potential water quality impact
B - Moderate potential water quality impact
C - Slight potential water quality impact
- 187 -
-------
of the discharges. Discharges to Chartiers Creek are not parti-
cularly large in terms of flow, but represent a significant frac-
tion of the low flow in the creek. Industrial discharges to
small streams in the area present problems only during low flow
events.
Four power generating facilities in the county use once~throuah
waste heat cool ing...Two facilities on the Allegheny River
discharge 620 mgd (approximately 3.1 billion BTU's/hr.); there
is a 507 mgd discharge to the Monongahela (BTU not given) and a
231 mgd discharge to the Ohio (approximately 1.7 BTU's/hr.).
Industrial cooling water adds to the temperature effect from
power generating facility discharges; but the additional heat is
not significant in relation to the output from the generating
facilities except in the Monongahela, where over half the indus-
trial discharge is some form of cooling water.
Of the major rivers, the Monongahela experiences the most
problems from industrial wastes with excessive loads of phenols,
iron, oil, suspended solids, and occasional problems from thermal
discharges. In December 1974, hundreds of complaints were made
about bad drinking water in the South Hills area of Pittsburgh.
The problem was caused by high levels of phenols in the Western
Pennsylvania Water Company water supply, which is drawn from the
Monongahela. The high phenol concentrations were attributed to
U. S. Steel and Pennsylvania Industrial Chemical Corporation
discharges. The Allegheny River has fewer water quality problems
from industrial wastes, but has experienced fish kills from
industrial operations. The Ohio River, affected by the pollutant
load" carried by its tributaries and by industrial plants on the
main stem, has high phenol levels. Of the smaller streams in the
area, Chartiers Creek and Pine Creek have problems caused by
industrial wastes; although Pine Creek has only a few industrial
discharges, their volume and waste load is large relative to the
small flow in the stream. In addition to the above streams,
fish kills attributed to industrial sources have occurred on Bull
and Blockhouse Creeks.
Industrial discharges in Armstrong County are centered in two
areas, the Kittanning-Ford City area on the Allegheny and the
Vandergrift area on the Kiskiminetas River. The latter area is
discussed under Westmoreland County. Only a few other discharges
are scattered throughout the rest of the county; of these, only
coal washeries...have a significant impact on stream quality.
The one major industrial discharge to a municipal facility causes
no problems. In the Kittanning-Ford City area, 9 industries
discharge 73.653 mgd to the Allegheny River, with the Linde
Division of Union Carbide contributing 72 mgd. Armstrong Electric
- 188 -
-------
Generating Station at Reasedale on the Allegheny discharges 196 mgd
of waste heat cooling water (approximately 1.8 billion BTU's/hr.).
Discharges into the Allegheny probably add to the gradual deterior-
ation in water quality of the river as it flows southward, but the
Allegheny remains in good ^condition above its confluence with the
Kiskiminetas.
Beaver County has heavy concentrations of industrial discharges
along the Ohio and Beaver Rivers, but few other industrial facilities.
In the Beaver Falls-Beaver area, 16 industries discharge about 10 mgd
into the Beaver River. Twenty industries discharge more than 400 mgd
to the Ohio River in the Aliquippa-Rochester area. Two other large
discharges are the 105 mgd Arco Polymer discharge to Raccoon Creek
at its confluence with the Ohio and the 8 mgd wastewater flow from
the Tubular Products Division of Babcock and Wilcox Company into the
Beaver River above Beaver Falls. A nuclear power generating facility
at Shippingport discharges 165 mgd of cooling water to tha Ohio
(approximately 0.53 billion BTU's/hr.).
The Beaver River already is polluted when it enters Beaver County;
the industrial discharges in Beaver County add to the pollutant load
but are not the major cause of its relatively poor water quality.
The discharges to the Ohio are large even in relation to the flow in
the Ohio and, combined with the pollutant load carried by the Beaver,
cause excessive concentrations of heavy metals, cyanide, and phenols
in the Ohio. Connoquenessing Creek shows pollution from industrial
waste sources outside Beaver County.
Butler County does not have the high concentrations of industrial
waste discharges found in other counties, but does have water quality
problems from industrial wastes because receiving streams for major
discharges are rather small. The Butler area has the largest concen-
trations of industrial discharges, with about 6.4 mgd flowing into
Connoquenessing Creek, which has an average flow of only slightly
over 100 mgd. There are a number of industrial discharges scattered
along Glade Run, Breakneck Creek, Slippery Rock Creek, and the South
Bear Creek. There are additional discharges on the Connoquenessing
in the Zelienople area.
The Connequenessing has relatively severe water quality problems
resulting from industrial wastes, largely from Armco Steel in Butler,
although the other discharges contribute to the problem. Glade Run
has high heavy metal concentrations but is in good shape biologically.
Breakneck Creek experiences periodic problems with industrial spills.
The south branch of Bear Creek is severely depressed by refinery
wastes. Fish kills have occurred in all of the above streams, and
one kill in Slippery Rock was attributed to an industrial discharge.
Fayette County.is not heavily industrialized, having a number of
industries in a broad area between Uniontown and Connellsville and
several more scattered along.,the Monongahela River and Jacobs Creek.
The major industrial dischargers are Allied Chemical in Newell on the
- 189 -
-------
Monongahela and Anchor Hocking in South Connellsville on the
Youghiogheny. The Newell plant - 7.92 mgd - is considered as
part of the Monongahela-California area and is discussed under
Washington County. The Anchor Hocking plant flow, 0.81 mgd, is
small in comparison to the 2500 cfs flow in Youghiogheny; con-
sequently, smaller discharges on Jacobs Creek and the small
creeks in the Uniontown-California area have more impact. One
such plant is Joseph Packing, which has a high BOO effluent
discharged to Opossum Run about one mile above its confluence
withe the Youghiogheny. Several small plants discharge to
Redstone Creek and its tributaries, and there are a. relatively
large number of industrial discharges to municipal treatment
plants in the Uniontown area; many of these municipal facilities
provide less than secondary treatment.
Redstone Creek has significant problems from industrial wastes,
particularly phenol and heavy metals. The Youghiogheny River is
in good condition but does have high concentrations of aluminum
and occasional high phenol levels. Jacobs Creek has high levels of
zinc, but discharges in Westmoreland County probably are more
responsible than the few in Fayette County.
Greene County, the least industrialized county in the study area,
has only 10 industrial discharges directly into the streams and
only 1 discharge to a municipal treatment facility. The discharges
are not concentrated in any one area but are scattered along the
Monongahela River and Tenmile Creek. The only major discharge is
a coal washery, discussed in the mineral extraction section. An
electric generating station on the Monongahela River opposite
Masontown discharges 732 mgd of waste heat cooling water to the
Monongahela (approximately 4.5 billion BTU's/hr.).
South Fork Tenmile Creek, because of its small size, does have some
problems with industrial wastes even though there are only a few
small discharges. Dunkard Creek is depressed due to industrial wastes
near its mouth; the sampling station on Ounkard Creek shows high levels
of nickel in addition to other constituents normally associated with
acid mine drainage, but no industrial discharges on the lower reaches
of Dunkard Creek are listed in the NPOES permit files. The Monon-
gahela River is affected by industrial pollution, but major sources
are in West Virginia; it is not until the Monongahela-California
area that heavy industrial discharges occur.
Indiana County is lightly industrialized, with several industries
concentrated in the Indiana - Homer City area on Two Lick and Yellow
Creeks and the other discharges scattered throughout the county. The
most significant discharge is that of the McCreary Tire Company, with
a flow of 3.91 mgd to White Run, a tributary of Two Lick Creek.
Several other discharges to Two Lick Creek and its tributaries in the
Clymer area make this stream the most heavily affected by industrial
discharges originating in Indiana County. The Conemaugh River is
depressed by industrial wastes, but most of the impact comes from
outside the study area.
Washington County has industrial discharges scattered throughout the
area; the greatest concentrations occur in the Washington area,
- 190 -
-------
Canonsburg area, and Monongahela-California area on the Monongahela
River. The first and last areas are included in Table 2,1.6,-46. The
Monongahela area is more notable in terms of industrial flow - over
100 mgd - but in the Washington area there is a greater impact on
water quality because the receiving stream, Chartiers Creek, is
rather small in that area.. Discharges to Chartiers Creek in the
Canonsburg area add to the problem. Almost all industrial connec-
tions to municipal facilities are also in the above three areas.
Industrial discharges outside the three areas are small except for
a coal washery on Pigeon Creek. An electric generating facility
on the Monongahela at Courtney discharges 453 mgd of cooling water
(approximately 2.4 billion BTU's/hr.).
Chartiers Creek has very poor water quality, largely due to acid
mine drainage and municipal discharges. Industrial discharges add
to the pollutant load. Discharges to the Monongahela River in
Washington-County are significant because the river has little
time to recover before encountering the heavy concentration
industrial discharges to Allegheny County.
Westmoreland County is second to Allegheny County in number of
industrial discharges, but ranks below Beaver in total flow. The
large number of discharges to small streams creates several potential
problem areas. Concentrations of industries occur in the Monessen
area (part of the Monongahela-California area); in the Vandergrift
area on the Kiskiminetas River, where 11 industries discharge 7.4 mgd;
in the Greensburg area on Jack's^Run, where the industrial flow is
2.2 mgd; in the Jeannette area on Brush Creek, where the industrial
flow is 2 mgd; and in the Latrobe area on Loyalhanna Creek, where a
total of slightly less than 0.9 mgd is discharged from 9 industrial
facilities. Five of the industries in the Vandergrift area and 2
industries in the Latrobe area (see Table 2.1.6.-.461 are considered to
have potentially severe impacts on water quality. A power gener-
ating facility on the Conemaugh River at Hooverville discharges
260 mgd of cooling water (approximately 1.28 billion BTU's/hr.).
Other discharges are scattered throughout the county, with numerous
discharges in the southwestern portion of the county along Sewickley
and Jacobs Creeks and their tributaries. The eastern part of the
county is relatively free of industrial discharges.
As previously mentioned, the Conemaugh River already is polluted
when it enters the study area. Except for thermal problems from
the power generating station, little additional pollution is added
to the Conemaugh before its confluence with Loyalhanna Creek to
form the Kiskiminetas River. Loyalhanna Creek, however, is affected
by industrial wastes, although it has recovered substantially by
the time it joins the Conemaugh. Industries in the Vandergrift
area make a significant contribution to the pollutant load carried
by the Kiskiminetas. Jacobs Creek is in relatively good condition.
Sewickley Creek is severely affected by acid mine drainage so that
the impact from industrial wastes is difficult to determine. There
-is little information on Jack's Run and Brush Creek, but the large
size of the discharges relative to the small creek flows indicates
that careful control of waste discharges in the Greensburg and
- 191 -
-------
Jeannette areas must be exercised to prevent degrading water quality
of the streams.
COWAMP AREA #8
There are only a few industrial
charges scattered throughout Clarion County. Of the major discharges,
the Glass Container Corporation's cooling water discharge probably
is the most significant - the flow is small (o.!57 mgd) but the
receiving stream (Canoe Creek [17B]) also is small. Water from coal
washeries also may cause problems in Clarion and other counties, but
this is discussed in the section on acid mine drainage. The sampling
stations on the Clarion River in Clarion County (WQN Stations 821
and 843) show high concentrations of manganese and zinc - this may
be due in part to acid mine drainage.
Elk County does not have as many industrial discharges as some of the
more urbanized counties but, nevertheless, has several problem areas
from industrial wastes. There are five industrial facilities with'a
total flow of over 1.4 mgd in St. Marys, where the average flow in
Elk Creek (17A) is only' about 20 cfs (13 mgd). Much of the waste
flow is from carbon companies and has high heavy metal concentrations.
Several chemical company discharges occur in Ridgway, at the confluence
of Elk Creek and the Clarion River (17A). Several fish kills have
occurred in this area, attributed to chemicals and metals from indus-
trial operations. However, the WQN sampling station on Elk Creek
(844) does not show particularly high levels of heavy metals and
the fish kills probably represent spill events or periodic discharges
rather than, continuous discharges. The largest industrial discharge
in Elk County is Penntech Paper, located on Riley Run, a tributary
of the Clarion River near Johnsonburg (17A). The large flow (13 mgd)
and high BOD loading of the wastes cause Riley Run to be severely
depressed and cause occasional low dissolved oxygen levels in Clarion
River.
Forest County has only three industrial discharges, none of which has
a major impact on water quality.
Jefferson County also has very few industrial discharges. None has
major impacts on water quality other than the concentration of plating
industries in Punxsutawney which causes problems with the sewage
treatment plant and may be responsible for several fish kills in Mahoning
Creek at Punxsutawney (17B).
Lawrence County is one of the urban and industrial centers of the
study area, with a large concentration of industries in the New Castle
area and many other industrial facilities scattered throughout the
county. In the New Castle area, 11 facilities contribute 1.87 mgd
of wastewater to the Shenango River (20A) and nearby tributaries.
Only one of these facilities, Rare Earth, Inc., is listed as having
a severe impact on water quality. Other major facilities in the
county are the U. S. Steel facility at Ellwood City on Connoquenessing
- 192 -
-------
Creek (20C), which, with a flow of 5.73 mgd carrying several
pollutants including BOD, has a potentially severe impact on
water quality. There are two major discharges from limestone
companies; these are discussed in the mineral extration section.
Of the streams in the county,-the Mahoning River (208) has
serious water quality problems due to both industrial and domestic
wastes, but most of the waste stems from the Youngstown-Struthers-
Gerard area in northeastern Ohio. The pollutant load from the
Mahoning seriously affects quality of the Beaver River (20B),
formed by the confluence of the Shenango and Mahoning Rivers just
below New Castle, so that the effect of the industries in the
New Castle area and the effect of the U. S. Steel plant is diffi-
cult to determine.
Mercer is the most heavily industrialized county in the study area,
with most of the discharges occurring along the Shenango River (20A).
Six industrial facilities contribute 0.703 mgd to the Shenango at
Greenville. One of these facilities, Damascus Tube/Sharon Steel,
has a potentially severe impact on water quality from heavy metals.
In the Sharon-Parrel! area, 9 industries have a total waste flow of
92.143 mgd. Almost all of this flow is from one industrial source -
the 87.56 mgd from Sharon Steel, by far the largest single indus-
trial waste flow in the.study area. Slightly over 20 mgd of this flow
is cooling water and is. relatively clean, although the temperature
is 28° C. The rest of the flow is process water, containing a
number of pollutants... The high heavy metal concentrations found in
the Shenango River in Mercer County probably are attributable
largely to this plant since there is no appreciable acid mine
drainage, although contributions from other plants in the area are
not inconsiderable, notably from the Sawhill Tubular Pipe Plant.
Several fish kills have occurred in the Sharon area, but not
particularly severe ones; apart from the heavy metals and high
nutrient levels probably caused by municipal wastes, the Shenango
River is in fairly good condition, indicating that even very large
flows of industrial wastes will not impair water quality if proper
control measures are taken (e.g., for heavy metals).
Venangp County has a heavy industrial concentration in the Oil City-
Frankfin area with .only a few industrial waste discharges elsewhere
in the county. Seventeen industries discharge 5.5438 mgd of indus-
trial wastewater into the Allegheny River and its tributaries in the
Oil City-Frank!in region (!6D, G, E). Of the streams in the area,
Oil Creek (16E) is the most severely affected. Oil Creek is in
excellent condition throughout most of its length, but the last two
miles before its confluence with the Allegheny have poor conditions
from oil pollution and related petroleum activities. French Creek
(160) actually receives more waste flow, including the 3.11 mgd
flow from the Franklin Steel Division of Borg Warner. Fish kills
have been recorded in both French and Oil Creeks, but not in the
Allegheny itself - apparently the large, relatively clean flow of
the Allegheny is enough to dilute the effect of the industrial wastes.
Another major jndustrial waste discharge occurs at Emlenton, where
the Quaker State OiTRefinery has a 5.25 mgd discharge into the
Allegheny. This discharge is listed as potentially severe, but
no data exist to indicate adverse effects on the Allegheny.
- 193 -
-------
2.1.6.6. ACID MINE DRAINAGE AND CONTROL
A. Introduction
The effect of acid mine drainage on streams is the single most severe water
quality problem in western Pennsylvania. Acid mine drainage can occur in assoc-
iation with several types of mining, e.g., copper, gold, zinc and sulfur (41)
but predominantly it is a problem of the coal mining industry. Chemically it
can be described as the effluent originating from a coal seam and containing
(3) (42) (43):
2-6
Over 2,000 milligrams per liter
10 - 3,000 milligrams per liter
0 - 9,300 milligrams per liter
22 - 9,700 milligrams per liter
0.1 - 530 milligram's per liter
0.04 - 127 milligrams per liter
0 - ? milligrams per liter
0 - 720 milligrams per liter
Over 1,000 milligrams per liter
To the eye, acid mine drainage is indicated by a reddish-yellow scum called
"yellowboy" which stains the beds of streams. The water becomes toxic to fish,
irritates the eyes and skin of those that use the rivers for recreation, and is
unsuitable for drinking.
The origin of acid mine drainage is pyritic (iron sulfide) material occurring
in the coal bearing strata. If left to erode naturally this material would
oxidize slowly and only slight natural acid drainage would be detectible in
Low
High
High
High
High
High
High
Low
Low
High
pH
acidity
ferrous iron
total iron
sulfate
aluminum
. manganese
bicarbonate
alkalinity
hardness
-log (H+ Cone)
.Titratable acid
(Fe2+)
(Fe2+ + Fe3+)
(so;-)
(A13+)
(Mn ions)
(HC03")
Titratable base
(CaC03)
- 194 -
-------
streams. In fact, the natural occurrence of yellowboy was used by early coal
explorers to locate buried coal seams (3). However, the importance of coal to
the economy over the past 200 years has meant extensive mining, and large quant-
ities of pyrite overburden have been disturbed and exposed to the air. Oxida-
tion of the exposed pyrite has taken place at an accelerated pace and out-
stripped the capacity of the environment to assimilate the acid drainage through
the neutralizing effect of limestone and dolomite occurring within the coal-
bearing formations. Although only about half of the coal mines in western
Pennsylvania have a mine discharge which is acid by EPA standards (pH < 6)
(44), the result has been a severe degradation of the quality of the streams in
producing areas - a degradation that has followed America's search for coal
even up to this decade.
Currently the coal industry is undergoing a rebirth after half a century
of decline. Coal production in 1978 has regained the production level of 1913
(45) but this time it has a more sophisticated technology and is the focus of
a national energy plan. To trace the rise and fall of coal before this latest
resurgence, let us go back to the beginning of the United States as a country,
before the Revolution:
The earliest recorded coal mining in the United States occurred in
1701, near Richmond, Virginia, but commercial mining of coal did
not begin in this country until 1745. Coal was discovered in Ohio
in 1755...(46).
There was no other important production until 1759 when a coal mine
was opened on the Monongahela River opposite Fort Pitt, now Pitts-
burgh. (47).
In 1770 George Washington commented on an Ohio Coal mine he had
seen. Yet with concentrated deposits of coal available for exploit-
ation, at presumably very low cost, coal still did not make sign-
ificant inroads into the market for fuels. In fact, even with
American deposits of coal having been identified, most of the coal
used in America up until the Revolution was imported from England
or .Newfoundland. The shortage of coal occasioned by the break
with England spurred the growth of American coal mining during the
Revolution. Government requisitions of coal in Pennsylvania and
- 195 -
-------
Maryland, to support the manufacture of munitions, stimulated the
beginning of American coal mining as an industry. Thus the industry
began, not as a natural response to price but as the result of a
shock - the loss of English coal during the Revolutionary War.
A great discovery of coal-was made in 1810 when an unusually violent
freshet unearthed a huge coal seam, now believed to have been the
Pittsburgh seam, near the town of Barton (Ohio). Coal from this
seam was hauled by wagon as far east as Romney (West Virginia) and
Winchester (Virginia). Later it was hauled overland to Western-
port (Maryland) where it was placed on barges and rafts and shipped
to Washington (O.C.). Yet, even with these early discoveries of
coal in rich deposits, where fuel could be picked from the surface
of the ground, coal production did not make significant inroads
in the market for fuels (46).
In 1793 the United States produced about 63,000 tons of coal which
was mined mainly in Pennsylvania and West Virginia (47).
It was not until 1850 that coa-l production reached 10 percent of
the fuel provided by firewood (46).
Beginning in the mid 1850's the use of coal as an industrial fuel
grew rapidly. In 1840, when the first Federal census was taken,
coal production was approximately 2,000,000 tons. From 1841 to
1869 annual production grew to about 15,000,000 tons (47).
By 1885 coal production surpassed firewood production and continued
to grow vigorously (46).
In the period, roughly 1890 to 1920, coal mining was one of the
Nation's most rapidly growing industries. Production approximately
doubled every 8 to 10 years but following the first World War peak,
reached in 1918, the general long time trend has been downward...
In 1900 coal contributed 89 percent of the energy derived from
the mineral fuels (coal, oil and gas) and water power. By 1937
this had dropped to 54 percent. Natural gas and petroleum con-
tributed 43 percent and water power 3 percent (47).
In about 1920, the production of oil and natural gas, and their
use as industrial fuels began a growth that ultimately exceeded
even the previous growth in the use of coal. As coal had replac-
ed wood as the principal industrial fuel, so oil and gas came to
replace coal (46).
A dramatic turn in the development of coal took place in 1973-74 when the
oil embargo was imposed on the United States of America. By this time the
contribution from coal to the United States energy consumption had dropped to
19 percent and was overshadowed by natural gas and petroleum which had risen
- 196 -
-------
to 75 percent (48). The effect of the embargo and other changes can be seen
in the readjustment of energy sources in Pennsylvania between 1974 and 1975.
The contribution from coal increased 2.1 percent and the hydro/nuclear con-
tribution increased 2.8 percent, while petroleum and natural gas contributions
dropped 2.7 percent and 1.3 percent respectively (49). Funds spent on coal
research by the Federal government in 1974 were equivalent to the combined
budgets of the previous 13 years for such research (45). In 1977 a major
thrust back to coal commenced when President Carter took office with a proposed
national energy plan to relieve United States dependence on foreign petroleum
and natural gas. This was in the atmosphere of a renewed increase in national
energy consumption after the temporary decline following the oil embargo and
the economic recession (49).
Pennsylvania is particularly sensitive to a renewed emphasis on coal be-
cause of the large resources located in the state. However, it has been argued
that the new thrust has done more to shift the energy source from natural gas
to oil in 1977 than to coal.
"Industries experiencing plant closings because of winter-
time gas cutoffs have switched in substantial numbers to
fuel oil, propelling a 14.5 percent increase in the demand
for residual oil (50).
On the other hand, as Charles Berg has pointed out, historically the change
of a fuel source may have as much to do with increased opportunity to develop
new and more productive processes, as with competitive cost (46). The inven-
tive minds which have been attracted to coal as a "new energy source" are evi-
denced by their work in coal gasification and coal liquefaction. Scientists
and engineers have also researched the pollution problems of coal as in the case
of sulfur dioxide scrubbers and the treatment of mine drainage. The Research
and Development budget for coal research within the Federal government has
grown strongly since 1974 and has now reached half a billion dollars annually
(45).
- 197 -
-------
So the return to coal as a major source of energy may be the prospect
for the close of the 20th century.- Beyond is solar energy, wind and other
renewable-energy sources and perhaps a break with the traditional idea or a
centralized energy distribution system. But for now the political and long-
term economic forces are placing coal in the spotlight, including a focus on
the environmental consequences of coal mining and conversion. Acid mine drain-
age along with sulfur dioxide emissions are front runners in that controversy.
B. History of Acid Mine Drainage and Control
1900 - 1940
The history of acid mine drainage closely paralleled that of the coal
industry in the early years. Acid loads in the rivers increased in proportion
to the cumulative tonnage of coal mined. For example, Figure 2.1.6.-33 shows
the rise in acidity (methyl orange) levels in the Monongahela River in rela-
tion to the cumulative production of coal between 1917 and 1940.
While it was no great problem in 1900, acid mine drainage made its presence
felt by 1910. By 1920, the Kiskiminetas and Youghiogheny Rivers became acid
and the upper Monongahela River was soon to follow. In the high-acid year,
1934, the Allegheny River, which at that time had a natural alkalinity of 25
parts per million, barely missed becoming acid in average quality (47). Figure
2.1.6.-34 shows the acidity in the Monongahela River from 1931-1947. The
acidity (methyl orange) is expressed in milligrams per liter calcium carbonate
equivalent (23). The Figure also illustrates the adrupt drop in acidity in the
Monongahela River in 1939 when the Tygart Reservoir (in its headwaters) became
operational.
Coal mines were responsible for 98% of the acid load discharged to streams
in the upper Ohio River Basin in 1940. The balance originated from spent pickle
- 198 -
-------
FIGURE 2.1.6.-33
COMPARISON OF CUMULATIVE COAL PRODUCTION AND
FLUCTUATION IN MONONGAHELA RIVER ACID LEVELS: 1917-1940
Source (47)
10
IO
OHIO mvc* POLLUTION aunviv
U. S. PUBLIC HEALTH ICilVICC
1MJ
-
PRODUCTION
COAL- »CIOI tY-HIH t »CIO
MONONGAHELA RIVER BASIN
ABOVE HOUIH OF (OUOHI06HCNT RIVCH
-------
FIGURE 2.1.6.-34 ACIDITY LEVELS IN THE'MONONGAHELA RIVER: 1931-1947
Source (23)
INJ
o
o
£U
14
O
0 15
a
0
(/)
<
X
o
e 10
>-
\-
a
o
<
d 5
2
A
1931
1932
1933
1934
1935
1936
1937
1938
TYGART RESERVOIR
IN OPERAT
1939
1940
1941
1942
1943
'ION
1944
1945
1946
1947
MONONGAHELA RIVER ABOVE McKEESPORT,PA.
AVERAGE METHYL ORANGE ACIDITY ( JUNE - NOVEMBER )
-------
liquor discharged by the metallurgical industry and natural contributions of
humic acids from swamps. The heaviest concentrations of acid occurred in the
Monongahela River and the Kiskiminetas River which had the distinction of being
the most acid major Ohio tributary basin, and the most acid large stream
respectively (47). Table 2.1.6.-49 shows the acid load in the upper Ohio
Basin compared to the Ohio River itself. The bulk of the load came from mine
discharge, some of which was removed by sealing of abandoned mines.
In general, pickle liquor was a minor source of acid compared to the acid
mine drainage except in the .case of the Beaver River, which flows through the
steel industry complex in Youngstown, Ohio. Here pickle liquor was responsi-
ble for almost half of the acid load discharged into the water. Along the
Ohio mainstem the contribution from this source was under 9% and in the Alle-
gheny and Monongahela Rivers it was about 1%.
Abandoned mines were a very significant source of the mine acid load in
1940. Table 2.1.6.-50 shows the contribution from abandoned mines in the major
streams of the Upper Ohio Basin. It also indicates the reduction of acid load
made possible by the sealing of some of the abandoned mines.
Abandoned mines were responsible for more than half of the mine acid load
in the upper Allegheny and Beaver Rivers, about one-third in the upper Monongahela,
and about one-quarter of the load in the Kiskiminetas and Youghiogheny tributaries.
Active mines were the source of the balance of the load. The sealing program
- 201 -
-------
TABLE 2.1.6.-49
1940 ACID LOADS IN THE UPPER OHIO BASIN
COMPARED TO THE OHIO RIVER MAINSTEM
After Source (47)
River
Allegheny
Mbnongahela
Beaver
Ohio in PA
Total Upper
Ohio Basin**
Ohio
Mainstem***
Original
Mine Acid
Load
Removal
By
Sealing
Residual
Mine Acid
Load
Pickle
Liquor
Acid Load
Total
Acid
Load
Tons per Year (as CaCO-j )
405,150
920,656
17,333
49,397
1,392,591
230,430
29,704
274,642
2,280
9,030
315,656
53,966
375,446
646,014
15,108
40,367
1,076,935
176,464
3,375
7,125
8,000
5,340
24,340
15,000
378,821
653,139
23,108
46,207
1,101,275
191,464
Mine
Contribution
3y River
Percent*
34-9
60.0
1.4
3.7
100.0
-
Contribution from residual acid mine load expressed as a percentage of the
total residual load upstream of-the Pennsylvania/Ohio/West Virginia border.
**Upstream of the Pennsylvania/Ohio/West Virginia border.
***Minor tributaries and direct drainage of entire mainstem.
TABLE 2.1.6.-50
ABANDONED MINE ACID LOAD AND REMOVAL (IN 1940)
DUE TO SEALING PROGRAMS IN THE UPPER OHIO RIVER BASIN
After Source (47)
River
Allegheny -
except Kiskiminetas
Kiskiminetas
Monongahela -
except Youghiogheny
Youghiogheny
Beaver
Original
Mine Acid
Load
Tons/Yr*
83,461
321,689
700,972
219,684
17,388
Abandoned
Mine Load
Tons/Yr*
50,244
73,988
223,634
52,340
10,920
%
'60
23
32
24
63
Removal
By Sealing
Tons/Yr*
18,750
10,954
251,900
22,742
2,280
Qt
io
22
3
36
10
13
*As CaC03
- 202 -
-------
could be regarded as successful in; the upper Monongahela, where the reduction
matched the contribution from abandoned mines. Elsewhere the removal was
significantly out of pace with abandoned mine drainage, especially in the
Kiskiminetas River.
The remedial measures used around 1940 were mine sealing and flow regula-
tion by reservoirs. Field studies were started in 1925 by the Bureau of Mines
to find the means to prevent acid formation by sealing abandoned mines. Large
scale sealing commenced in 1933, based on the principle of excluding air to
prevent oxidation of the pyrite, marcasite and other sources of sulfur, occur-
ring in association with coal seams. In addition, surface water was diverted
from entering the mines through cracks or caves'. Burke and Downs (47) pro-
posed the reaction responsible for acid mine drainage as:
2FeS2 + 702 + 2H20 = 2FeS04 + 2H2S04 (Eq. 1)
'Pyrite + Oxygen + Water - ^ Iron Sulfate + Sulfuric Acid
The damage from the acid was assessed in terms of the cost of repairing
corrosion of equipment on the rivers. Other consequences included the site
suitability of food and textile industries, and the loss of aesthetic and
recreational value of the river which, however, were not possible to be given
a dollar value. Table 2. 1.6. -51 demonstrates the cost due to acid mine drain-
age in terms of the damages that could be given a monetary value. It totalled
over $2 million damage in Pennsylvania in 1940. By way of comparison $2,666,000
were spent up till that time on mine sealing in the Upper Ohio River Basin by
the Works Progress Administration (47).
- 203 -
-------
. TABLE 2.1.6.-51
1940 COST OF DAMAGE DUE TO ACID MINE DRAINAGE
IN THE UPPER OHIO RIVER BASIN*
Source (47)
Industry
Domestic Water Supplies
Industrial Water Supplies
Steamboats and Barges
Power Plants
River and Harbour Structures
Floating Plant
Total
1940 $ Per Year
364,000
407,000
1,143,000
76,000 '
76,000
5,000
$2,071,000
*Upstream of the Ohio-West Virginia-Pennsylvania-border.
- 204 -
-------
Cure rather than prevention was the methodology of the day. Power plants,
for example, found it cheaper to repair and replace their equipment for $76,000
than to neutralize the cooling water for $261,000 per year. Neutralization
at the source, using limestone at the mine, had been tried as early as 1914
when a coal company near Mount Pleasant, Pennsylvania set up a treatment plant
(51). However, due to economic reasons, the practice of treating acid mine
drainage did not gain acceptance until half a century later.
Pennsylvania and West Virginia were the biggest mine drainage problem
areas in the Ohio basin, as can be seen on Figure 2.1.6.-35. The acid load
from mines was approximately 1,400,000 tons per year, and after 23% was. removed
by sealing programs, over 1 million tons were actually discharged to the streams
in the upper Ohio Basin in 1940 (47).
The major problem areas were the Kiskiminetas River and the upper Monon-
gahela River. The Kiskiminetas was responsible for 83% of the Allegheny Basin
mine acid load and recorded a minimum pH of 2.9 at its mouth in 1940. The
lowest pH in the Kiskiminetas drainage area was pH 2.4 in Blacklick Creek.
This was .the lowest pH recorded for the Upper Ohio River Basin that year. A
similarly low pH of 2.5 was recorded in the upper Monongahela drainage area
at Cats Creek (Masontown, Pa.). The upper Monongahela River (above the Yough-
iogheny) contributed 70% of the Monongahela basin acid mine load and had an
average pH of 4.2 in the mainstem.
The Ohio River itself showed worsening water quality due to acid mine drain-
age. Back in 1914 acid conditions had been occasionally observed downstream as
far as Wheeling, West Virginia (River Mile 90). By 1940, acid mine drainage
affected the Ohio as far west as the mouth of the Kanawha River (River Mile
266) (47). The upper 100 miles of the Ohio was acid for a considerable part
of the time in 1940 because of mine drainage. The river had to assimilate a
- 205 -
-------
FIGURE 2.1.6.-35 COMPARISON OF MINE ACID LOADS BY STATE IN THE OHIO RIVER BASIN IN 1940-Source (47)
I
l\>
o
ori
I
OHIO BASIN
ACID MINE DRAINAGE
MOIE ;
Capable ! p««ilbl» 5O p«f <*!
ling
LEGEND
Af
-------
further 120,000 pounds per day of pickle liquor discharged by the 62 steel
plants situated predominantly along this stretch (47).
1940 - 1960
The abatement of acid pollution lagged other pollution clean-ups because
of the already acid condition of the streams and the depressed economy of coal
mining regions. In 1947, 99% of the samples of the Kiskiminetas River con-
tained free acid (pH < 4.5). This caused a drop in minimum pH in the Alle-
gheny River from 6.5, above the mouth of the Kiskiminetas, to less than 5.6
for 45 days of that year, downstream of the mouth (30).
The Monongahela suffered a handicap in comparison to the Allegheny" Basin.
It does not have a high upstream alkalinity and the acid intensity (tons per
square mile) at that time was about four times that of the Allegheny River (47).
Consequently, pH levels upstream of the Youghiogheny River registered free
acid for an average of 166 days per year during 1943-1949 (30). The Youghiogheny
itself demonstrated free acid conditions about 50% of the time in 1947-48 at
Sutersville (30).
The"Beaver River was relatively dilute and free of acid because of the
influence of the Mahoning and Shenango Rivers. However, although the water
seldom dropped to free acid conditions, the high sulfate content indicated that
interaction of sulfuric acid, from mine drainage, was taking place with bicar-
bonate in the river, and thereby depleting the Beaver's alkalinity (30).
The Pennsylvania program to regulate mining began in 1945 when discharge
into unpolluted streams was prohibited (18). However, already polluted streams
were exempted from this legislation and the control of existing operations was
not attempted. This was due to the widely held belief that the control of acid
mine drainage would be futile, until complete answers regarding the complex
reactions involved had been developed through research. This attitude was so
- 207 -
-------
entrenched that in 1955, when ORSANCO (Ohio River Valley Sanitation Commission)
adopted basic requirements for the control of industrial wastes, mine drainage
was specifically exempted "until such time as practical means are available
for control." (52)
1960's
Five years later (1960) ORSANCO removed the special exemption for acid
mine drainage because the concept of ameliorating conditions by applying
knowledge-at-hand gained acceptance (52). Monetary damage to industry and
river structures during the early sixties in the Monongahela Basin alone was
$2,251,000 annually (16). The standards for mine drainage and industrial acid
and iron discharges were upgraded statewide in 1963.
A study undertaken in August of that year by the Public Health Service
(16) showed that the Monongahela River acid loads were not significantly differ-
ent from the 1940 loads with some values for 1963 exceeding those of 1940 and
the reverse at other stations. The results of both the 1940 and the 1963 measure-
ments are.displayed in Figure 2.1.6.-36. The 1940 acidity is given at the side
of each bar graph for 1963 acidity.
In the case of the Youghiogheny River there was a general improvement be-
tween the acid loads of 1940 and 1963. The Youghiogheny measurements are
shown in Figure 2.1.6.-37. In Maryland the mainstem was alkaline but Laurel
Run, an interstate tributary in the headwaters, was acid and caused a water
supply problem for Oakland, Maryland. In Pennsylvania the mainstem was acid,
but the loads were generally less than in 1940. However, the Sutersville station
near the mouth of the Youghiogheny showed a triple increase in acid load. (This
may have been due to the load from Sewickley Creek just upstream of the station.)
The Casselman River was alkaline in its upper reaches but the stream deterior-
ated due to acid mine drainage in Pennsylvania.
- 208 -
-------
FIGURE 2.1.6.-36
1963 ACIDITY AND ALKALINITY IN THE MONONGAHELA RIVER
1940 ACIDITY COMPARISON
Source (16)
126
106
X
0
0
s
i
156
148
Hot Acidify As CdCO.
Tons/ Day 1963
Alkalinity At CdCO.
Tons/ Day 1963
- 209 -
-------
FIGURE 2.1.6.-37
1963 ACIDITY AND ALKALINITY IN THE YOUGHIOGHENY RIVER
1940 ACIDITY COMPARISON
Source (16)
26
MY-18
,-
0
1
o
0)
9
~
8
^ «
^1 7
^^2
o
v
Hot Acidity As Co Co,
Tons / Day 1963
Alkalinity A* Co Co
- 210 -
-------
An important amendment to the' Clean Streams Law in 1965 gave the polluted
streams of Pennsylvania the same protection as the unpolluted ones. The
Department of Health required all active mine discharges to meet effluent
standards. These were:
' pH range 6.0 - 9.0
' Total iron concentration not more than 7 milligrams per liter
' Alkalinity greater than acidity
A comparison between the observations in 1940 (47) and a study done in
1965 by the University of Pittsburgh (17) indicates small changes in the pH
values in the Allegheny and Monongahela Basins. Table 2.1.6.-52 shows the
comparative pH values in both the mainstem and major tributary in each basin.
There was noticeable improvement in the Ohio River in Pennsylvania and in the
Monongahela at its mouth, but the other rivers and tributaries showed only
marginal increase in pH.
Despite this small progress in abatement, the area affected by acid mine
drainage remained large. Figure 2.1.6.-38 shows the streams in the Allegheny
Basin significantly affected by mine water in the late 1960's. More than 1,000
miles of streams in the watershed were affected to some degree by coal mining
(51). In the Monongahela'Basin the area affected is shown in Figure 2.1.6.-39.
Between 1963 and 1970, pH and alkalinity improved significantly at Charleroi
and Braddock (near Pittsburgh) on the Monongahela River, and at Sutersville and
Connellsville on the Youghiogheny River. There was slight improvement at the
Youghiogheny River Dam but no apparent change at Greensboro on the Monongahela
(18). A map of this area is shown in Figure 2.1.6.-40.
- 211 -
-------
.' TABLE 2.1.6.-52
COMPARISON OF pH VALUES IN THE UPPER
OHIO RIVER BASIN BETWEEN 1940 AND 1965
After Sources (47), (17)
River
Allegheny above
KiskLminetas
KisMminetas
Allegheny Mouth
Mbnongahela above
Youghiogheny
Youghiogheny
Mbnongahela Mouth
Ohio in Pennsylvania
1940 (47)*
pH
7.3
3.2
6.6
4.2
6.1
4.9
5.4
Number of
Samples
14
6
12
17
6
12
22
1965 (17)**
PH
7.3
3.7
6.9
4.3
6.4
6.5
6.3
Number of
Samples
57 -
80
80
80
79
79
80
*Source (47) samples were obtained at intermittent intervals
during the period August-December 1940.
**Source .(17) samples were obtained on a regular basis during
the period October 1964 - September 1965 at approximately
the same stations as used in Source (47).
- 212 -
-------
FIGURE 2.1.6.-38
TRIBUTARIES OF THE ALLEGHENY RIVER AFFECTED BY
COAL MINE WASTES IN THE LATE 1960's
Source (51)
Areas significantly
affected by mine water
- 213 -
-------
FIGURE 2.1.6.-39
TRIBUTARIES OF THE MONONGAHELA RIVER
AFFECTED BY COAL'MINE WASTES IN THE LATE 1960's
Source (18)
H- 2
-------
FIGURE 2.1.6.-40
MAP OF THE MONONGAHELA RIVER BASIN
Source (16)
Rowlesburg
Tyyart
River
Reservoir
20
- 215 -
-------
The U.S. Bureau of Mines began to study the neutralization of acid mine
drainage in 1966 (53). Two years 'later "Operation Scarlift" got underway as
part of a'$500 million bond issue that was approved by the Pennsylvania legis-
lature under the Land and Water Conservation and Reclamation Act of 1968.
"Scarlift" provided for the expenditure of $200 million over a 10-year period
to remove the land and water scars of past coal mining. Abandoned mine drain-
age was the target of the bulk of this allocation, to the tune of $150 million
(2). Although some abatement projects had been funded by the Pennsylvania
government prior to "Operation Scarlift," they were more moderate in scale
and area. For example, approximately $85,000 was spent on 27 abatement pro-
jects in the Monongahela Basin between 1965 and 1971 (18). This covered
Allegheny, Fayette, Somerset, and Westmoreland counties.
C. Current Status (1970's)
The 1970 amendments to the Clean Streams Law broadened control over poten-
tial pollution by requiring plans for treatment facilities for mine drainage
before permits for mine operation were issued. The operation of a strip mine
requires three permits:
' Mining license
' Surface mining permit for the specific location
' Water discharge permit (NPDES)
The first two permits are issued by the Bureau of Surface Mine Reclamation and
require restoration of the site to its original contours. The third permit is
issued by the Bureau of Water Quality Management and requires plans and engineer-
ing data which indicate the manner in which pollution will be prevented during
and after the operation of the mine. Plans for treatment facilities must be
included if the coal seam does not contain sufficient lime to treat the mine
- 216 -
-------
discharge naturally. Deep mine applications must include geologic structure
maps showing the manner of mine development (including maintenance of barriers
along outcrops) and pertinent hydrogeologic data regarding the sealing of the
mine after completion (18).
The current standards for mine discharge are those of the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) which requires:
'pH: 6.0 to 9.0
'Iron: no more than 7.0 mg/1
'Alkalinity greater than acidity
'Suspended solids: not more than 30 mg/1
The proposed Federal effluent standards for best practical control technology
are as follows: (2)
30-Day Average Maximum Daily Maximum
pH 6.0 - 7.0 6.0 - 9.0
Total iron 3.5 mg/1 7.0 mg/1
Dissolved iron 0.3 mg/1 0.6 mg/1
Aluminum 2.0 mg/1 4.0 mg/1
Manganese 2.0 mg/1 4.0 mg/1
Nickel 0.2 mg/1 0.4 mg/1
Zinc 0.2 mg/1 0.4 mg/1
Total suspended solids 35.0 mg/1 70.0 mg/1
The number of facilities which have violated these standards since 1972 are
listed in Table 2.1.6.-53 for the counties in the ORBES region in Pennsylvania.
As can be seen from the Table about 11% of treatment facilities report inci-
dents of stream pollution due to malfunctioning. However, this does not repre-
sent the true seriousness of the problem because there are many abandoned mines
which have no drainage treatment facilities.
An exacerbation of the acidity problem is the neglect of treatment of
sewage in acid streams. It has been known since as early as 1910 that acid
mine drainage inhibits the growth of sewerage organisms. In 1971, 60% of the
- 217 -
-------
TABLE 2.1.6.-53
RECENT* WATER QUALITY VIOLATIONS
AT ACID MINE DRAINAGE TREATMENT PLANTS IN WESTERN PENNSYLVANIA
After Sources (1), (2), (3)
County
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Cambria
Clarion
Elk
Fayette
Forest
Greene
Indiana
Jefferson
Lawrence
Mercer
Somerset
Venango
Washington
Westmoreland
Deep Mines
Number of
Violations**
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
3
3
0
0
0
0
3
1
Number of
Facilities
5
12
1
3
13
1
1
2
0
8
18
2
0
0
6
0
15
5
Surface Mines
Number of
Violations***
1
15
1
1
12
2
1
0
0
1
3
0
0
1
0
1
Number of
Facilities
13
81
9
- 18
98
11
62
0
6
48
54
16
6
14
25
47
*As of November 1975.
**Cited for violating stream quality standards.
***0ccasionally violating stream quality standards, but not
necessarily cited.
- 218 -
-------
municipalities in Pennsylvania that discharged into acid streams did not treat
their sewage, "despite court orders'. This was due to the low incentive to
treat sewage where the improvement was difficult to detect because of the
already degraded condition of the stream (18). The danger inherent in this
practice is that acid streams, essentially devoid of biological populations,
cannot effectively assimilate organic waste. The organic material is carried
downstream unaffected until it reaches a "healthy" portion of the stream, where
it often exerts too great a demand on the stream's oxygen resource. Excess-
ive deoxygenation can result because of the high biological oxygen demand.
The streams so affected by acid mine drainage that the 1983 water .quality
criteria could not be met re.gardless of the treatment level of other waste-
water effluents, were classified "acid mine drainage affected" by DER. The
streams receiving the acid mine drainage mostly from abandoned mines which will
prevent attaining water quality standards even with perfect control of all
point sources, were placed in Category III. The streams affected by acid
mine drainage and their classification (Class and Category) are listed in
Table 2.1..6.-14 for the Monongahela River Basin, in Table 2.1.6.-23 for the
Allegheny River Basin, and in Table 2.1.6.-32 for the Ohio River Mainstem Basin.
The standards for pH and total iron are often exceeded in these streams and
concentrations of calcium, magnesium, sulfate, manganese, aluminum, and other
trace elements are high (see Tables 2.1.6.-15, 2.1.6.-24, and 2.1.6.-33 for
the same three river basins, respectively).
Until recently the Monongahela River was severely degraded by acid mine
drainage. The mainstem was acidic from the head of the river at Fairmont, West
Virginia, to the mouth at Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. In the last few years
there has been substantial progress in the abatement programs and pH related
problems have been reduced considerably. During the summer of 1975 an inter-
- 219 -
-------
mediate-flow survey conducted by the Army Corps of Engineers (23), showed that
the pH of the mainstream ranged from 6.5-7.5. The low flow survey showed a
range of pH 3.8-8.0. Figure 2.1.6.-41 depicts the variation in pH with mile-
age along the Monongahela River in the Summer of 1973. The problem area lies
between Maxwell Dam (River Mile 65) and Lock and Dam #8 (River Mile 95).
Hatfield Power Plant is located in this reach at River Mile 78. Mines in the
Morgantown area will, at times, cause pH depressions and this is evident at
Lock and Dam #8. The most abrupt pH depression occurs immediately downstream
of the mouth of the Cheat River. When the flow at Dam #8 is low (less than
1,000 cubic feet per sec.), there is little water available for the dilution
and neutralization of the ac.id Cheat River water. Acid is discharged from
Lake Lynn, a private hydroelectric power station of 19 megawatts peak capacity,
located several miles upstream of the mouth of the Cheat. Because travel time
below the mouth is relatively slow during low flow, the acid discharges from
Lake Lynn are retained and concentrated in this reach. Figure 2.1.6.-40 shows
the location of .this area which is just north of the Pennsylvania-West Virginia
state line.
The following list and discussion of streams affected by acid mine drainage
is taken from the COWAMP Reports (1) and (2). The limits mentioned are those
set for desirable stream quality; i.e. total iron concentrations less than 1.5
mg/1 and pH 6 to 8.5.
COWAMP AREA #9
Allegheny County
Tributary of Bull Creek, 18A - incidents of mine drainage pollution
as a result of malfunctioning treatment systems.
Turtle Creek, 19A - severely depressed throughout by mine drainage,
essentially dead.
Thompson Run, 19A.
Youghiogheny River, 19D.
- 220 -
-------
FIGURE 2.1.6.-41 VARIATION IN pH ALONG THE MONONGAHELA RIVER IN 1973
Source (23)
o
o ST
o . 5 5
o
o
o
o
c
o
r-'
P) 0
10"
W
O
=>!
PH a
CO
o
o
a
a
<*>'
a
0
ec
: ! d
£ r I
" K a
2 « -
«. «- S
s
ss :
! ! !
* * *
o o
x^^ \ ^^\
^V ^^
FLOW: 500-3500
fl C2 10.02 ₯b.OO -30.00
(U a
T) c
O o
2 «
i E S
0 ^>
^4
V 0-1 0 *
" - 5 5
8* * J o
a 00 ON
& > 2 * si:
1 1 ? I 1 I 1
3 c 3 S * 2 fe
\ / \
\ '''
\/
/
/
/
\/
/
/
/
.
i '
MONONGflHELfl RIVER W. Q. SURVEY
PITTSBURGH. Pfi. TO
FRHHONT. H. Vfi.
1S-20 JUL 1ST3
U.S. flRMY C3RP OF ENGRS.
c
o
0
o
o
"r-
o
"l3
0
C
l/l
0
-r
3
'vi
cr
40.00 sF-CO GO-GO To.ao 60.00 30.00 100.00 UO. CO 720.02 H&.OC
MONONGAHELA RIVER MILEAGE ABOVE MOUTH
I
ro
-------
Peters Creek and Tributaries, 19C - marginally affected; four of 13
samples over a 900-day period (1972-1975) were above the maxi-
mum limit for total iron-, pH remained within limits for this
same period.
Chartiers Creek and Tributaries, 20F - severely depressed by acid
mine drainage; since before 1955 total iron concentrations have
been consistently above the maximum limit; 19 of 40 samples
taken from 1962 to 1971 were below the minimum pH limit; all
8 samples from 1971 to 1975 were within limits.
Montour Run and Tributaries, 20G.
Deer Creek, ISA - over an 800-day period (1972-1974) total iron
concentrations and pH were within limits.
Plum Creek and Tributaries, ISA - moderately to severely depressed by
acid mine drainage.
Perry Mill Run, 19C.
Pine Creek,ISA - depressed downstream from Wildwood Mine; incidents
of mine drainage pollution as a result of malfunctioning
treatment systems; 8 of 15 samples taken over an 800-day
period (1972-1974) were above the total iron concentration
limit; however, pH was always within limits.
Allegheny River; 13A - marginally affected; total iron concentration
frequently rose above the limit from 1955 through 1974; pH
fell below the limit on occasion from 1962 through 1973.
Monongahela River, 19A and 19C - marginally affected; from 1955
through 1974 total iron concentration was above the limit and pH
below the limit frequently.
Armstrong County
Tributary Mudlick Creek, 190 - incidents of mine drainage pollution
as a result of malfunctioning treatment system.
Crooked Creek and Reservoir, 17E - severe acid mine drainage pollu-
tion at mouth; incidents of mine drainage pollution as a result
of malfunctioning treatment system; total iron concentrations
were frequently above the limits from 1958 through 1971; from
1971 through 1975 total iron concentrations were within or
nearly within limits; pH was on most occasions from 1963
through 1970 below the minimum limit; however, from 1970
through 1975, pH has remained within limits.
Kiskiminetas River, 188 - severe AMD pollution at mouth; from 1955
to 1975 total iron concentrations have been above the limit on
all but three occasions; from 1963 to 1975, pH has been below
the limit on all but one occasion.
Long Run and Tributaries, 188.
Big Run and Tributaries, 18C - incidents of mine drainage pollution
as a result of malfunctioning treatment system.
Guffy Run and Tributaries, 188.
Mahoning Creek, 17D - severe AMD pollution at mouth; incidents of mine
drainage pollution as a result of malfunctioning treatment.
system; total iron concentrations and pH have been within limits
on most occasions in other sections.
Pine Run and Tributaries, 17D.
Glade Run and Tributaries, 170.
- 222 -
-------
Cowanshannock Creek, 17E - somewhat depressed in headwaters by
AMD; recovered at mouth;.from 1972 through 1975, total
iron concentrations exceeded limits in only 2 of 14
samples; pH remained within limits during this period.
Tributary of Roaring Run, 188 - incidents of mine drainage
pollution as a result of malfunctioning treatment system.
Tributary of Allegheny River, 17D - incidents of mine drainage
pollution as a result of malfunctioning treatment system.
Redbank Creek, 17C and 170 - depressed by AMD near mouth; incid-
ents of mine drainage pollution as a result of malfunction-
ing treatment system.
Buffalo Creek, 18F - depressed by AMD in headwaters, good to
excellent remainder of length; incidents of mine drain-
age pollution as a result of malfunctioning treatment
system; total iron and pH limits were infrequently exceed-
ed from 1962 to 1975.
Tributary of Allegheny River, 17C - incidents of mine drainage
pollution as a result of malfunctioning treatment systems.
Tributary of Allegheny River, 17E - incidents of mine drainage
pollution as a result of 2 malfunctioning treatment systems.
Tributaries to Scrubgrass Creek, 17D - incidents of mine drain-
age pollution as a. result of malfunctioning treatment
system.
Limestone Run, 17E - incidents of mine drainage pollution as a
result of malfunctioning treatment system.
Garret Run, 17E - incidents of mine drainage pollution as a
result of malfunctioning treatment system.
Whiskey Run, 18C - incidents of mine drainage pollution as a
result of malfunctioning treatment system.
Beaver County
Raccoon Creek, 20D - total iron concentrations from 1955 through
1974 have, on most occasions, been above the limit; pH from
1962 through 1974 has most often been below the limit; how-
ever, all samples since mid-1972 through 1974 have been
within limits.
Tributary Brush Run, 208 - incidents of mine drainage pollution
as a result of malfunctioning treatment system.
Butler County
North Slippery Rock Creek and Tributaries, 20C - 1972 through 1974
pH remained within limits; total iron limit was exceeded
once in mid-1973.
Bear Creek, 17C - severely depressed downstream from abandoned
strip mines.
Yellow Creek, 20C - severely depressed by AMD.
Tributary of Yellow Creek, 20C - fair stream conditions indicated.
Tributaries Allegheny River, 17C - incidents of mine drainage
pollution as a result of malfunctioning treatment system.
Tributary Mulligan Run, 20C - incidents of mine drainage pollu-
tion as a result of malfunctioning treatment system.
- 223 -
-------
Fayette County
Jacobs Creek, 190.
Indian Creek, 19E.
Champion Creek and Tributaries, 19E.
Stony Run and Tributaries, 19E.
Poplar Run and Tributaries, 19E.
Monongahela River, 19C and 19G - marginally affected; from 1962
through 1973 total iron concentrations and pH were rarely
within limits.
Youghiogheny River, 19C and 19G - marginally affected; from
1962 through 1974 total iron concentrations and pH rarely
beyond limits.
Galley Creek, 19C.
Redstone Creek, 19C - total iron concentrations from 1964 to 1975
have been above the maximum limit; pH rarely below the
minimum.
Bolden Run and Tributaries, 19C.
Bute Run and Tributaries, 19C.
Rankin Run and Tributaries, 19C.
Browns Run and Tributaries, 19C.
Jacobs Creek and Tributaries, 19G.
Cats Creek and Tributaries, 19G.
York Run, 19G - severely depressed by AMD from strip mining.
Georges Creek, 19G - severely depressed by strip mine runoff
from York Run
Little Sandy Creek, 19G - headwater drainage of poor quality due
to mine drainage.
Dunlap Creek, 19C - some mine drainage problems; conditions improv-
ing.
Ferguson Creek, 19D - incidents of mine drainage pollution as a
.result of malfunctioning treatment system.
Greene County
Dunkard Creek, 19G - depressed downstream by mine drainage; inci-
dents of mine drainage pollution as a result of malfunction-
ing treatment system; all samples taken from 1955 through
1974 had total iron concentrations equal to or greater than
the limit; from 1963 to 1971 pH was most frequently below
limit; 1971 through 1974 produced samples within the limits
for pH.
Whiteley Creek, 19G - incidents of mine drainage pollutions as
a result of malfunctioning treatment system.
Tributary Witley Creek, 19G - very good quality; Buckeye Coal
Company discharge showed no permanent damage.
Muddy Creek, 196 - slightly depressed upstream by intermittent
mine drainage from Buckeye Coal Company; incidents of mine
drainage pollution of malfunctioning treatment system.
Indiana County
North Branch Two Lick Creek and Tributaries, 18D.
South Branch Two Lick Creek and Tributaries, 18D.
Dixon Run and Tributaries, 180.
Two Lick Creek, 180 - 1962 through 1974 samples were rarely within
- 224 -
-------
limits for total iron concentration and pH; total iron above
the maximum and pH below-the minimum.
Penn Run and Tributaries, 180.
Two Lick Creek Reservoir, 18D.
Yellow Creek and Tributaries, 18D - productivity is very low;
several tributaries are severely polluted with mine drainage.
Blacklick Creek, 18D - 1962 to 1975, all samples had pH below
minimum limit; 1955 to 1975 total iron concentration was above
maximum limit.
Stevens Run, 180 - incidents of mine drainage pollution as a result
of malfunctioning treatment system.
Carney Run, 180 - incidents of mine drainage pollution as a result
of malfunctioning treatment system.
Brush Creek Tributaries, 18D.
Ahltman Run and Tributaries, 180.
Whiskey Run and Tributaries, 18C.
Big Run and Tributaries, 18C.
Richards Run and Tributaries, 18D.
Tributary Crooked Creek 17E - incidents of mine drainage pollution
as a result of malfunctioning treatment system.
Tributary Blacklegs Creek, 18C - incidents of mine drainage pollu-
tion as a result of malfunctioning treatment system.
Hicks Run, 180 - incidents of mine drainage pollution as a result
of malfunctioning treatment system.
Washington County
Harmon Creek and Tributaries, 200 - severely depressed due to mine
drainage, especially aluminum; slight recovery in lowest
reaches.
North Forks Cross Creek and Tributaries, 200.
Cross Creek and Tributaries, 200.
Raccoon Creek, 200.
Burgetts Fork, 200.
Chartiers Run, 20F.
Chartiers Creek, 20F - severely depressed by AMD; incidents of
mine drainage pollution as a result of malfunctioning treat-
ment system; from 1972 through 1974, pH has remained within
limits, total iron concentration has risen above the limit
on occasion.
Peters Creek, 19C - marginally affected.
Maple Creek and Tributaries, 19C.
Pigeon Creek, 19C - marginally affected; incidents of mine drain-
age pollution as a result of malfunctioning treatment system;
from 1972 through 1974, total iron concentration has risen
above the limit on occasion; pH has remained within limits;
excessive amounts of manganese.
Brush Run, 20F - incidents of mine drainage pollution as a result
of malfunctioning treatment system.
Westmoreland County
Beaver Run, 188.
Wai ford Run and Tributaries, 188.
Getty Run and Tributaries, 18C.
- 225 -
-------
Loyalhanna River and Reservoir, 18C - severely depressed in down-
stream zones; from 1962 to 1975, total iron concentration
and pH have rarely been within limits.
Crabtree Creek and Tributaries, 18C - incidents of mine drainage
pollution as a result of malfunctioning treatment system
Union Run and Tributaries, 18C.
Saxman Run and Tributaries, 18C.
Jamison Reservoir and Tributaries, 18C.
Brush Creek, 19A.
Turtle Creek, 19A - severely depressed throughout by mine drain-
age; essentially dead.
Sewickley Creek, 19D - several sources of mine drainage eliminate
most aquatic life; from 1963 through 1974 on all but one
occasion, total iron concentration above the maximum limit;
pH frequently below the lower limit.
Barren Run, 19D.
Meadow Run, 190.
Stauffer Run, 19D.
Sherrick Run, 190.
Youghiogheny River, 190 - marginally acid downstream from confluence
with Casselman River; incidents of mine drainage pollution
as a result of malfunctioning treatment system; from 1955
through 1974, total iron concentration remained below maxi-
mum limit; from 1962 to mid-1969, pH below the minimum
limit frequently; from mid-1969 through 1973, pH has remain-
ed within limits.
COWAMP AREA #8
In Clarion County 12 malfunctioning surface mine drainage
treatment facilities nave caused pollution in nine streams:
Long Run and Jacks Run (17C) in Porter Township, tributary to
Curtly Run (17B) in Beaver Township, tributary to Cherry Run (17B)
in Toby Township, Piney Creek (17B) in Limestone Township, Bausch
Run (17B) in Monroe Township, unnamed run to Deer Creek (17B)
in Elk Township, tributary to Toby Creek (17B) in Highland Town-
ship, Little Licking Creek (17B) in Limestone Township, and an
unnamed tributary to Anderson Run and Licking Creek (17B) in
Licking and Perry Townships.
Two streams in Elk County, Beaver Run (17A) and an unnamed tribu-
tary to Little Toby Creek (17A), both in Fox Township, have been
polluted by malfunctioning surface mine drainage treatment facili-
ties. There was one similar problem in Venango County on the
East Branch Wolf Creek (20C) in Irwin Township. No other counties
indicated problems resulting from either surface or deep mine
drainage treatment facilities.
Non-point source AMD occurs in Mill Creek (17A), Toby Creek (17A),
Deer Creek (17B), Paint Creek (17B), Little Piney Creek (17B),
Licking Creek and its tributaries (178), Little Licking Creek (17B),
and the main stream of the Clarion River (17B) at its confluence
with Toby Creek (17A) approximately one mile from its mouth, dis-
charging into Piney Dam (17A).
- 226 -
-------
On the Clarion River only Station 825 just above Glen Hazel had a
consistently low pH, generally between pH 4 to 6 prior to 1971 and
only once thereafter, in 1974. Other stations (821, 822, 823, 824,
833, and 843) occasionally had pH's below 6.0 and total iron con-
centrations greater than 1.5 mg/1.
East Sandy Creek (16G) is polluted at its headwater area by acid mine
drainage; several Scar!ift projects are underway in this area.
Mahoning Creek (17D) also is affected by severe acid mine drainage
at its mouth. In the Bear Creek Basin (17C), the north branch is
affected by drainage from extensive strip mining. Fiddlers Run
(17C), Leisure Run (17C), Town Run (17C), Welch Run (17C), Runaway
Run (17C), and Redbank Creek (17C) show evidence of acid mine
drainage pollution. Several Operation Scarlift projects also are
in operation in this area.
High sedimentation problems and correspondingly high total dissolved
solids (IDS) values probably can be found in acid mine drainage pro-
blem areas. Slippery Rock Creek (20C) in the area of McConnell's
Mills State Park has sedimentation problems and high dissolved
solids values due to active open pit limestone mining in the sur- .
rounding area and strip and deep mine activity.
Abatement programs are designed to prevent the initial formation of sulfuric
acid, backed up by treatment facilities and river flow regulation.
All active mines have been required to treat acid drainage since 1965.
In 1975, there were 105 deep mine drainage treatment facilities in the PA
ORBES Region, these are summarized in Table 2.1.6.-54 according to activity
status for each county. The estimated total actual flow treated is also given.
There were over 700 facilities in existence for surface mine drainage
treatment. Their numbers in each county and activity status are given in
Table 2.1.6.-55.
More details of the treatment plants (both for deep and surface mine drain-
age), effluents, and effects on the receiving stream water quality are available
in the COWAMP Study Reports (1), (2), (3), (4).
The effluent from active mine drainage treatment facilities comprises the
smaller portion of the mine drainage reaching the surface waters in the area.
The drainage from only a few^abandoned mines receives direct treatment, the
majority reaches the surface waters without any treatment at all. (Actually,
- 227 -
-------
." TABLE 2.1.6.-54
DEEP MINE DRAINAGE TREATMENT SUMMARY
IN THE PA. ORBES REGION AS OF 1975
Sources (1), (2), (3), (4)
County
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Cambria
Clarion
Clearfield
ELfc
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Jefferson
Somerset
Washington
Westmoreland
Totals
No. of
Active
Facilities
' 5
9
1 .
1
13
o'
5
1
2
8
12
0
14
14
4
89
No. of
Inactive
Facilities
0
' 1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
2
1
0
0
1
6
No. of
Completed
Facilities
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
1
0
1
0
5
No. of
Facilities
Not Started
0
1
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
5
Total
No. of
Facilities
5
12-
1
3
13
. 1
5
1
2
8
18
2
14
15
. .5
105
Total
ictual
Flow
(mgd)
6.0
5.3
0.04*
3-3
0.0005
Var.
5.1
6.6
3.5
0.001
11.7
16.7
58.2+
*Design flow used.
- 228 -
-------
TABLE 2.1.6.-55
SURFACE MINE DRAINAGE TREATMENT SUMMARY
IN THE PA ORBES REGION AS OF 1975*
Sources (1), (2), (4)
County
Allegheny
Armstrong
Bever
Butler
Clarion
Clear-field
Elk
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Jefferson
Lawrence
Mercer
Venango
Washington
Westmoreland
Totals
No. of
Active
Facilities
10
75
9
19**
124 .
129
21
61
6
49
53
14
3
14
28
47
662
No. of
Inactive
Facilities
3
14
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
3
0
0
0
23
No. of
Completed
Facilities
0
5
0
0
6
0
2
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
15
Total
No. of
Facilities
13
94
9
!9 ~
131
129
23
62
6
49
54
16
6
14
28
47
700
Cambridge and Somerset Counties not included.
**Includes two facilities of uncertain status.
- 229 -
-------
deep mines abandoned before 1966 have not been included in the COWAMP inven-
tory due to lack of data.) However, if mining is to be initiated in the
area of an abandoned mine, the company must assume the responsibility for
treatment of the discharge from the old mine.
Current iron and acid loads in the streams of the Upper Ohio Basin are
listed in Table 2.1.6.-56. Also given is the type of mine (active or abandoned)
responsible for the loads. The predominant number of sources are either aban-
doned mines or marginal cases where it is not known whether the source is
active or inactive. The Table is based entirely on a literature review of
available data and does not represent a comprehensive listing (1), (2).
Responsibility for abatement of acid mine drainage from former opera-
tions has been taken up by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Re-
sources (D.E.R.). This is because the original mine operator cannot legally
be held responsible for acid mine drainages that now emanate from abandoned
sites. The program adopted by D.E.R. in 1967 consisted of four stages (18):
Phase I: Source Inventory.
Field crews located and mapped the sources of pollution from
abandoned mines.
Phase II: Engineering Studies and Plans.
Feasibility studies were undertaken and engineering plans for
abatement were drawn up.
Phase III: Construction.
. Sealing of deep mines
. Burial of exposed acid-forming refuse.
. Backfilling pre-act strip pits
. Correction of defective backfills
. Diversion of streams and rainfall run-off seeping into mines
- 230 -
-------
TABLE 2.1.6.-56 ACIDITY AND IRON LOADS.IN THE STREAMS OF WESTERN PENNSYLVANIA
After Sources (1), (2)
Stream
Allegheny River Basin
Redbank Creek*
Mahoning Creek
Big Scrubgrass Creek
Clarion River
Toby Creek (Clarion County)
Piney Creek
Mill Creek
Licking Creek
Toby Creek (Elk and
Jefferson Counties)
Deer Creek
East Branch Clarion River
Cowanshannock Creek
Kiskiminetas River
Conemaugh River
Blacklick Creek
Twolick Creek
Loyal hanna Creek
Monongahela River Basin
Lower Monongahela
Middle Monongahela
Upper Monongahela**
Redstone and Dunlap Creeks
Tenmile Creek
Dunkard Creek**
Big Sandy Creek**
No. of Sources
Mines
Active
3
1
3
2
1
14
7
Unknown
2
38
31
33
47
232
125
195
20
53
30
42
Inactive
68
70
15
141
118
43
78
29
125
143
Other
2
14
6
6
1
1
16
9
6
22
24
5
Average
Annual
Discharge
(gpm)
102
5,500
3,165
2,090
1,623
423
1,095
10,164
1,403
4,439
3,045
25,196
7,102
11,165
Total
Acidity
Load
(Ibs/day)
327
2,036
7,167
81 ,005
10,941
6,947
6,314
37,408
10,842
5,568
8,789
57,880
35,104
273,196
36,645
65,407
12,400
50,400
233,453
21,203
838
10,994
1,496
Total
Iron
Load
(Ibs/day)
152
1,226
220
6,558
678
611
673
2,311
2,119
186-
1,380
8,802
11,587
58,174
4,023
26,090
9,069
16,428
64,844
18,352
2,094
4,506
160
OJ
-------
TABLE 2.1.6.-56 (Continued)
Stream
Monongahela River Basin (Cont. )
Youghiogheny River
Sewickley Creek
Jacobs Creek
Indian Creek
Ohio River Mainstem Basin
Beaver River
Slippery Rock Creek
Charti ers Creek
Robinson Run
N. Br. Robinson Run
Millers Run
Saw Mill Run
Raccoon Creek
Unnamed Tributaries
Burgetts Fork
Little Raccoon Run
St. Patrick Run
Brush Run
Chamberlain Run
Dilloe Run
Bigger Run
Potato Garden Run
No. of Sources
Mines
Active
1
2
Unknown Inactive
83
4
17
16
2
4
3
30
14
25
12
6
3
1
7
31
14
12
2
7
Other
4
Average
Annual
Discharge
(gpm)
13,653
14,326
42
944
7,326
2,657
1,506
1,328
1,552
1,698
1,616
463
488
281
125
120
633
373
Total
Acidity
Load
(Ibs/day)
26,200
73,780
810
13,510
8,073
4,868
8,381
9,099
9,764
22,648
21 ,674
7,307
5,681
3,620
1,007
2,988
9,258
10,190
Total
Iron
Load
(Ibs/day)
12,720
19,610
140
1,230
528
1,728
3,437
372
1,294
1,355
3,947
382
432
24
11
42
817
1,633
ro
OJ
ro
*Available unpublished information includes only major pollution sources in the Welch Run Watershed.
**Portions of basins in West Virginia are included.
-------
. Regulation of stream flows by low flow augmentation
. Treatment
Phase IV: Operation and maintenance of abatement facilities such
as treatment plants, mine seals and flow regulation dams.
When "Operation Scarlift" became operational in 1968, numerous specific
projects were undertaken because of the huge increase in funds available.
Table 2.1.6.-57 lists the number of projects in the ORBES Pennsylvania counties,
';
both completed and current, as of December 1975.
Approximately $76 million of the ten-year allotment for abandoned mine-projects
($150 million) had been encumbered as of December 1975 and $50 million had
been actually disbursed over the State. A detailed listing of project loca-
tions and descriptions is given in the Appendices to Chapter VI of the COWAMP
Reports for Study Areas #8 and #9 (1), (2).
Sludge generated by acid mine drainage treatment is handled in .a variety
of ways. The volume generated is very large and contains from 1 - 5% dry
solids by-weight (53). Systems either currently in use, or proposed, for de-
watering and disposal of sludge include (53): lagoons, landfill, abandoned
deep mines, air drying, porous drying beds, and vacuum filtration.
Details concerning the sludge generated from each mine drainage facility
in western Pennsylvania counties is presented in COWAMP Reports (1)& (2).
The estimated sludge volumes are summarized in Table 2.1.6.-58.
- 233 -
-------
- TABLE 2.1.6.-57
NUMBER OF OPERATION SCARLIFT PROJECTS
IN-WESTERN PENNSYLVANIA COUNTIES
(As of December 1975)
Sources (1), (2), (3)
County
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Butler
Cambria
Clarion
Clearfield
Elk
Fayette
Indiana
Jefferson
Lawrence
Mercer
Somerset
Venango
Washington
Westmoreland
Total s
Completed
Projects
20
2
1
24
10
6
9
7
14
4
1
3
5
5
15
11
137
Current
Projects
19
1
2
22
2
19
18
8
16
2
0
1
4
10
18
10
152
Total
Projects
39
3
3
46
12
25
27
15
30
6
1
4
9
15
33
21
289
- 234 -
-------
TABLE 2.1.6.-58
ACID MINE DRAINAGE SLUDGE PRODUCTION SUMMARY
Sources (1), (2)
County
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
But! er
Clarion
Elk
Fayette
Greene
Indiana
Jefferson
Washington
Westmoreland
Totals
Total Wet Sludge
Produced (tons/day)
Deep
1,480
3,340
-
2,710
0.4
130
5,430
1,500
0.8
8,230
8,890
Surface*
3
450
-
-
2.5
4.8
50
-
3
116.8
-
31,711.2 630.1
Total Dry Sludge
Produced (tons/day)
Deep
130
90
-
70
0.01
-
no
140
75
-
230
350
1,200
Surface*
0.1
12.2
-
- -
0.06
0.15
1.5
-
0.1
2.74
-
-
15.35
*Many data gaps exist.
- 235 -
-------
-REFERENCES
1. Green International, Inc..: "Comprehensive Water Quality Management
Plan, Upper Allegheny River Basin, Study Area 8;" Preliminary Draft
prepared for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Environ-
mental Resources, Sewickley, PA, 1976.
2. Green International, Inc.: "Comprehensive Water Quality Management
Plan, Ohio Valley Study Area~Study Area 9;" Preliminary Draft pre-
pared for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Environ-
mental Resources, Sewickley, PA, 1976.
3. Gilbert Associates, Inc.: "Comprehensive Water Quality Management
Plan, CQWAMP Study Area 5;" Preliminary Draft prepared for the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Environmental Resources,
Reading, PA, 1975.
4. Gannett Fleming Corddry and Carpenter, Inc,: "Comprehensive Water
Quality Management Plan, Central Susquehanna RiYer Basin, Study Area
67"" Preliminary Draft prepared for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
Department of Environmental Resources, Harrisburg, PA, 1976.
5. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Environmental Resources:
"Pennsylvania Water Quality Network - Sampling Station Description;"
Publication No. 33, 1975.
6. ORSANCO: Robot Monitor Computer Printouts; Cincinnati, Ohio.
7. ORSANCO: "Quality Monitor;" Cincinnati, Ohio.
8. National Commission on Water Quality: Staff Draft Report; Washington,
D. C., November 1975.
9. U. S. Department of the Interior, Heritage Conservation and Recreational
Service, Northeast Regional Office: "Youghiogheny River - A Wild and
Scenic Rivers Study, Maryland - Pennsylvania;" Draft Report, May 1978.
10. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Philadelphia, PA, and PA Depart-
ment of Environmental Resources, Harrisburg, PA: "Water Quality
Standards Summary for Interstate Waters in the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania;" Document No. 42-001, 1972.
11. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Legislative Reference Bureau: "Pennsylvania
Bulletin," Volume 8, No. 9; Harrisburg, PA, March 4, 1978.
12. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania: "Pennsylvania Code;" Title 25 - Rules
and Regulations, Part I - Department of Environmental Resources, Sub-
part C - Protection of Natural Resources, Article II - Water Resources;
Harrisburg, PA.
- 236 -
-------
13. Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources: "Pennsylvania Scenic
Rivers Inventory," Harrisburg, PA, July 1975.
14. Durfor, C. N. and P. W. Anderson: "Chemical Quality of Surface Waters
in Pennsylvania;" U.S.G.S., Water Supply Paper 1619-W, 1962.
15. Whetstone, G. W.: "Statement on Water Resources Investigations in the
Monongahela River Basin;" Conference in the Matter of Pollution of the
Interstate Waters of the Monongahela River and Its Tributaries, Pittsburgh,
PA}, December 17, 1963.
/
16^ S>dio, A. D. and K. M. Mackenthun: "Report on Pollution of the
Interstate Waters of the Monongahela River System;" R. A. Taft Sanitary
Engineering Center, Cincinnati, Ohio, December 1963.
17. Shapiro, M. A., J. B. Andelman, P. V. Morgan: "Intensive Study of the
Water at Critical Points on the Monongahela, Allegheny and Ohio Rivers
in the Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania Area;" Dept. of Public Health Practice,
GSPH, Univ. of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, 1965.
18. PA Department of Environmental Resources, Bureau of Sanitary Engineering:
"Water Quality Management in the Monongahela River Basin;" Publication
No. 29, August 1971. '
19. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III: "A Report on the
Pollution of the Ohio River and Its Tributaries in the Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania Area;" Philadelphia, PA 1971.
20. Preston, H. R.: "Monongahela River Basin Aquatic Biology, Part I:
Fish Population Studies of the Monongahela River;" U.S.E.P.A. , Wheeling
Field Office, Wheeling, W.Va., October 1974.
21. Ohio River Basin Commission: "Level B Report for the Monongahela River
Basin;" Comprehensive Coordinated Joint Plan (draft copy), Cincinnati,
Ohio, 1974.
22. U. S. Army Corps of Engineers: "Monongahela River - Pennsylvania and
West Virginia, Draft Environmental Statement on the Operation and
Maintenance of the Navigation System;" Pittsburgh District, Pittsburgh,
PA, June 1975.
23. U. S. Army Corps of Engineers: "Monongahela River Navigation Projects -
Annual Water Quality Report 1976;" Pittsburgh District, Pittsburgh, PA,
February 1976.
24. U. S. Army Corps of Engineers: "Youghiogheny River Lake Water Quality
Report;" Pittsburgh District, Pittsburgh, PA, June 1978.
25. PA Department of Environmental Resources, Bureau of Water Quality
Management: "Commonwealth of Pennsylvania - 1978 Water Quality
Inventory," Publication No. 42, Harrisburg, PA, April 1978.
- 237 -
-------
26. Southwestern Pennsylvania Regional Planning Commission: "208/COWAMP
Progress Report - Water Quality Management Planning in Southwestern
Pennsylvania;" Pittsburgh, PA, June 1976.
27. PA Department of Environmental Resources: "Sub-Basin 16. & 14,"
"Sub-Basin 17," "Sub-Basin 18," "Sub-Basin 19," "Sub-Basin 20;"
State Water Plan (Draft Copy); Harrisburg, PA, August 1977.
28. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania: "Pennsylvania Water Quality Criteria;"
Pennsylvania Code, Title 25 - Rules and Regulations, Part I - Environ-
mental Resources, Chapter 93, Adopted September 2, 1971, Amended
through June 20, 1974, Effective July 14, 1974.
29. Southwestern Pennsylvania Regional Planning Commission. "Plans and
Choices - Water Quality Management for the Southwestern Pennsylvania
Region;" Report prepared for the PA Department of Environmental
Resources, October 1978.
30. Love, S.K.: "Quality of Water in the Upper Ohio River Basin:" -
in: "Man and the Waters of the Upper Ohio Basin - A Symposium;"
Pymatuming Laboratory'of Field Biology; Special Publication No. 1,
February 1956.
31. Reilly, Thomas L.: "Allegheny Reservoir's Role in Water Quality;"
Journal American Water Works Association, Vol. 61, No. 5, May 1969.
32. U. S. Army Corps of Engineers: "Water Quality Reservoirs;" Pittsburgh
District, Pittsburgh, PA, November 1969.
33. U. S. Army Corps of Engineers: "Annual Water Quality Report - East
Branch Clarion River Project, 1975;" Pittsburgh District, Pittsburah,
PA, July 1975.
34. U. S. Army Corps of Engineers: "Allegheny River, Pennsylvania (Mile
0 to Mile 72) - Final Environmental Statement on the Operation and
Maintenance of the Navigation System;" Pittsburgh District, Pittsburah,
PA, October 1975.
35. PA Department of Environmental Resources, Bureau of Water Quality
Management: "Report to the PA Environmental Quality Board on
Recommended Revisions to Water Quality Criteria" (Comment Draft, pre-
pared for the 1976-77 Water Quality Standards Review); Harrisburg,
PA, May 25, 1977.
36. U. S. Department of Interior, Federal Water Pollution Control Adminis-
tration: "Framework Study of Water Supply and Water Pollution Control
Problem Areas in the Ohio River Basin;" Ohio River Basin Comprehensive
Survey, Volume V, Appendix D, U. S. Army Engineer Division, Ohio River
Cincinnati, Ohio, June 1967.
- 238 -
-------
37. Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Commission: "Assessment of Water
Quality for the Ohio River Main Stem;" (Draft), Prepared for The Ohio
River Basin Commission's Ohio River Main Stem Water and Related Land
Resources Study, Cincinnati, Ohio, March 1977.
38. U. S. Army Corps of Engineers: "An Evaluation of the effects of Main
Stem Navigation Dams on the Water Quality of the Upper Ohio River;"
Army Engineer District, Pittsburgh, PA, June 1975.
39. Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Commission: "Ohio River Main Stem -
Assessment of 1977 and Future Water Quality Conditions;" prepared for
inclusion in 1978 State Water Quality Reports to the Administrator,
U.S.E.P.A., March 1978.
40. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Legislative Reference Bureau: "Pennsylvania
Bulletin;" Volume 7, No. 10, Harrisburg, PA, March 5, 1977.
41. R.D. Hill and R.C. Wilmoth: "Limestone Treatment of Acid Mine Drainage;"
Transactions, Vol. 250: pp. 162-166, June 1971, E.P.A. 14010 10/70.
42. H.F. Grubb and P.O. Ryder, "Effects of Coal Mining on the Water Resources
of the Tradewater River Basin, Kentucky." Geological Survey Water-
Supply Paper 1940, U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Washington, D.C. 1972.
43. "Development Document for Interim Final Effluent Limitations Guidelines
and New Point Source Performance Standards for Coal Mining Point Source
Category." EPA 440/1-75/057, Washington, D.C. October 1975. in "Acid
Mine Drainage Program (Draft)." Green International Inc., Sewickley, PA,
April 1977.
44. C. Boyer, Bituminous Coal Research Inc. Monroeville, PA (personal commun-
ication) March. 1978.
45. R. Zahradnik, "Coal: The Burning Question." in Panel at Conference
held by League of Women Voters of Pennsylvania. Carnegie Mellon
Institute of Research, March 10, 1978.
46. C.A. Berg, "Process Innovation and Change in Industrial Energy Use."
Science: Vol. 199, No. 4329, pp. 608-614, Feb. 1978.
47. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; Ohio River Committee. "Ohio River Pollu-
tion Control." 78th Congress, 1st Session House Document, No. 266,
Washington, D.C. 1944.
48. J.P. Hartnett, "Development of Baseline Data for the Ohio River Basin
Energy Study." Environmental Protection Aaency, Washington, D.C. June
1977.
49. J.P. Hartnett, "A Preliminary Report prepared for the Ohio River Basin
Energy Study." University of Illinois at Chicago Circle, April 1978.
- 239 -
-------
50. A.L. Hammond, "An Interim Look at Energy" Science: Vol. 199, No. 4329,
p. 607, Feb. 1978.
51. E.F, McCarren, "Chemical Quality of Surface Water in the Allegheny
River Basin Pennsylvania and New York." U.S. Dept. of the Interior,
Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 1835, Washington, D.C. 1967.
52. Ohio River Valley Sanitation Commission, Fifteenth Annual Report.
Cincinnati, Ohio 1963.
53. Skelly and Loy Consultants, Penn Environmental Consultants, "Processes,
Procedures, and Methods to Control Pollution from Mining Activities."
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., EPA-430/73-011,
Oct. 1973.
- 240 -
------- |