NASHUA RIVER SURVEY
JUNE AND AUGUST
1977
United States
Environmental
Protection Agency
Region I
JOHN F. KENNEDY FEDERAL BUILDING GOVERNMENT CENTER - BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02203
-------
NASHUA RIVER SURVEY
JUNE AND AUGUST
1977
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
WATER QUALITY
CONCLUSIONS
SUMMARY
APPENDICES
-------
The Nashua River Basin is located in the north central part of
Massachusetts. The basin has a drainage area of approximately 530
square miles. The Nashua's head waters consist of two Major streams,
the North Branch and the South Branch. These streams meet in Lan-
caster to form the Nashua River. The river then continues north-
easterly into New Hampshire where it discharges into the Merrimack
River.
The Nashua River is known for its gross pollution by industries
and municipalities. The North Branch received the majority of the
pollution by papermills and two communities. The only noticeable
source of pollution on the South Branch is the MDC-Clinton WWTP.
The major industries connected with the Nashua are paper making and
textiles. These industries were located in the Fitchburg area and
for many years discharged their untreated wastes into the North Branch.
In the late 1950's and early 60's many of these industries either
moved or closed down thus removing a large amount of the pollutants.
WATER QUALITY
The first comprehensive survey of the Nashua River was in 1936
followed by one in 1948. The two most recent surveys were in 1973
and 1977.
The 1973 survey was conducted by the Massachusetts Division
of Water Pollution Control to provide baseline data. This period of
time was important for the water quality of the river had greatly improved
from its dark days in the late forties and yet none of the major sources
on the North Branch had completed upgrading their facilities.
-------
The 1973 survey showed that massive violations in the water quality
still existed in the North Branch from Fitchburg down through Leominster.
The study also showed that the MDC Treatment Plant at Clinton, degraded
the South Branch, however, it made no noticeable impact on the mainstem
of the Nashua. The river begins to stabilize down through Ice House
Dam and Pepperell Pond. The James River Paper at Pepperell discharge
causes a noticeable drop in water quality. This drop in quality begins
to recover at the Nashua reaches the Massachusetts state line.
The 1977 survey was performed in order to evaluate the change
in water quality with the upgraded treatment systems on line. In
1975, two major treatment plants, Fitchburg Westerly and Fitchburg
Easterly, had come on line. The industries that had been discharging
IM-.F-"jj-Ca into the river tied into the Westerly plant. The industries
on the mainstem, i.e., Hollingsworth & Vose Co., Groton LeaLherboard>
and James River Paper - Pepperell had either installed or upgraded
treatment systems since 1973.
The 1977 data showed a number of changes and improvements over the
1973 data. The flow rates were slightly lower in 1977 than 1973, thus
giving conservative comparable data between the two surveys. The two
most marked changes were Dissolved Oxygen and Suspended Solids con-
centrations. In 1973, there were many DO vioDations while in 1977
there was only one station (Crocker Burbank Mill Dain) which consis-
tently violated the standard (see graph). Suspended Solids dropped
drastically with the Fitchburg Westerly plant coming on line (see graph).
The 1977 data also showed that Total Phosphorus and BOD values had made
-------
a significant drop in the upper portions of the North Branch. This
drop can be attributed to the advanced treatment systems at Fitchburg.
Coliform values were still high. However, they were down from the
1977 survey. The 1977 survey was a more extensive survey than the
1973 survey. The 1977 survey looked at the tributaries to the Nashua,
as well as the benthic community along the river. The 1977 survey
showed that contrary to popular belief the tributaries to the Nashua
were in good condition. The benthic portion of the survey revealed
that there were healthy communities downstream of the Fitchburg Eas-
terly plant. However, the benthic communities below Leominster and
Clinton were stressed due to the existing treatment at these plants.
The survey showed that there were visual improvements in the amount
of sludge deposits found along the North Branch.
While the 1977 survey show noticeable improvement to the water
quality it also shows that many areas still need improvement.
Among these problems were sludge deposits, high coliform values,
and high nutrient values. The survey showed that the stretch of river
below the Leominster WWTP still had the worst problems. This is due
to a number of reasons. Non-point sources from agricultural and high-
way runoff along with leachate from the Leominster landfill, sewer
overflows from Fitchburg and Leominster, operational problems at the
Fitchburg Westerly plant, and numerous upstream dams degrade the water
quality to a marginal state by the time it reaches the Leominster plant
and when coupled with the old overloaded plant at Leominster causes
the problems in the reach of the river downstream of the plant.
-------
In conclusion, the 1977 survey showed that the Nashua River had
improved to the point where it could meet water quality standards
except for coliforms. The water quality standards for the Nashua
could be attained with two major additions:
1. The addition of new advanced treatment systems proposed for
Leominster, Clinton, Ayer and Pepperell.
2. The development of a dam management program. This program
would have to deal with what to do with the sludge trapped behind the
dams and the question whether to remove some of the dams. The next
survey on the Nashua River Basin should show attainment of water
quality standards except for coliforms.
-------
CONCLUSIONS
The State of Massachusetts' Division of Water Pollution Control
conducted the water quality portion of this survey while EPA
conducted the compliance monitoring portion.
The compliance monitoring consisted of sampling five municipa-
lities and ten industrial plants. Two permits were not sampled due
to no discharge at the time of the survey.
Out of the 15 sources sampled, 12 were out of compliance with
their permits and only three were in compliance.
Of the 12 out of compliance, the breakdown is as follows:
Number of Plants Number of Parameter Violations
4 1
2 2
5 3
1 4
-------
SUMMARY
Municipals
Atlantic Union College; There is a small package treatment plant
serving the college. The plant experiences large fluctuations in flow
which cause poor effluent results. The college is presently investi-
gating flow equalization to correct the problem. The town is considering
tying this plant into the town system. No further action recommended.
Ayer: This is an old trickling filter plant which is overloaded
and not meeting final effluent limits. A new treatment plant is
currently being designed. The Enforcement Branch has issued an
Administrative Order to the town requiring an Engineering Report on
the industrial waste Influent. The order deals with Cain's Mayonnaise
and Epic Bottling, the two major industrial dischargers, to examine
methods for reducing their loadings to the system.
Clinton; This plant is owned by the MDC; it is an old overloaded
trickling filter plant. The overloading is caused by a inflow problem.
The permit is in the process of being issued. This plant is presently
under Enforcement review.
Gushing Academy; This permit has the same general problems as
Atlantic Union College and is scheduled to be tied-in to the municipal
system.
Fitchburg-East: This is a new advanced wastewater treatment
system presently operating at 35% of the design flow. The plant was
designed to use second stage biological treatment for nitrification.
-------
Fitchburg-East; This is a new advanced wastewater treatment
system presently operating at 35% of the design flow. The plant was
designed to use second stage biological treatment for nitrification.
However, they are accomplishing nitrification in the first stage
biological system and the second stage portion of the plant lies
idle. There are sporadic effluent violations due to incineration
problems. The incinerator is having major structual problems; and,
therefore, the plant cannot waste solids.
Fitchburg-West; This plant is a new advanced physical-chemical
treatment system. The Carbon Columns which follow the settling tanks
are presently inoperative. The problem is twofold: (1) When the
plant tries to operate the columns they generate H^S as a byproduct
which in turn causes an air pollution problem. (2) The physical
equipment for the carbon regeneration is not operational. The four
paper mills overload the plant organically. The plant is not meeting
permit limits. Water Compliance has referred the plant to the Mass.
Attorney General.
Leominster; This is an old plant which does not usually meet
final effluent limits. Sampling shows they were in compliance at
time of survey. They are presently under a consent judgement for
design and construction of a new plant.
-------
Industrials
Conductorlab, Inc.: The permit is a printed circuit board
manufacturer. The treatment system and plant are in pretty decent
shape; however, sampling showed a violation of their copper limit.
Self-monitoring indicates that this is a fairly constant problem.
This permit is currently under enforcement review for its copper
limit. Sampling also showed that they were in violation of their
lead, chromium and tin limits. It should be noted that our values
are total metal values while the permit values are dissolved metals.
Hollingsworth & Vose: This company manufactures specialty
paper. The permittee is on final effluent limits and is meeting
them.
ITT Suprenant; This permit consists of three cooling water
discharges with no treatment. The discharges are well within their
limits. No further action needed.
James River Paper; This company manufactures kraft paper using
purchased pulp. They are on final limits, and they are usually
within their permit limits. Sampling showed a BOD violation. No
further action required.
Pinecrest Duck Farm; This permittee raises ducks for slaughter.
The entire process from egg to packaged product is contained on the
property. The permit is presently unissued. The company is out of
compliance with respect to coliform; however, this is to be expected
because their secondary treatment system has no chlorination facilities.
-------
Polysac Resins; This permit consists of two cooling water dis-
charges, one contact and the other noncontact cooling water. The
company makes plastic pellets for injection mold processes. The
company was within their permitted limits. No further action
recommended.
Ray-0-Vac: This company is an electroplating facility manufac-
turing flashlights. The company has installed a new treatment system
for its electroplating process. The system appears to be operating
properly; however, sampling showed a total chromium violation. The
permittee is presently being referred to the Mass. Attorney General
for an unpermitted discharge.
Simonds Cutting Tools; The effluent from this plant is non-
contact cooling water. There is no treatment system involved at
this plant. The permittee has been referred to the Mass. Attorney
General in the past for oil and grease violations. No further action
recommended.
-------
APPENDICES
-------
Municipalities
Leominster
Clinton
Ayer
Parameter
(mg/1)
BOD
NFRS
PH
BOD
NFRS
Settleable Solids
Total Coliform
Fecal Coliform
Total Phosphorus
D.O.
PH.
BODS
NFRS
Settleable Solids
Fecal Coliform
Total Coliform
BODc
NFRS
Settleable Solids
Fecal Coliform
Total Coliform
D.O.
BOD
NFRS
pH
NH- as N
Total P as P
Fecal Coliform
Total Coliform
*Existing Data consists of 8 or 24 hr. comp.
**Except where otherwise noted.
K - Indicates actual value less than that shown.
Fitchburg, West
Fitchburg, East
Permit
Limitations
(mg/1)**
60
60
6.0-8.5 SU
50
50
0.3 ml/1
2000/100 ml
400/100 ml
1.0
5,5
6.0-9.0 SU
50
50
0.3,ml/1
400/100 ml
2000/100 ml
15
15
0.3 ml/1
400/100 ml
2000/100 ml
5.0
15
20
6.0-9.0 SU
2.0
1.0
400/100 ml
2000/100 ml
Existing
Data
(mg/1)*-
17
27
7.1 SU
27
38
2X106/100 ml
19X104/100 ml
6.47
21
36
220/100 ml
111,000/100 ml
84
420
K100/100 ml
11,000/100 ml
26
23
7.3 SU
0.57
0.83
400/100 ml
37,000/100 ml
Compliance
Status
In
In
In
In
In
Out
Out
Out
In
In
In
Out
Out
Out
In
Out
Out
Out
In
In
In
In
Out
-------
Municipalities
Atlantic Union College
Gushing Academy
Parameter
(mg/1)
BOD
NFRS
PH
BOD5
NFRS
Settleable Solids
Fecal Coliforms
Total Coliforms
pH
Permit
Limitations
(mg/1)**
50
50
6-9 SU
50
50
0.3 ml/1
400/100 -ml
2000/100 ml
6.0-9.0
Existing
Data
(mg/1)*
68
46
22
120
29,000/100 ml
810,000/100 ml
Compliance
Status
Out
In
In
Out
Out
Out
^Existing Data consists of 8 or 24 hr. comp.
**Except where otherwise noted.
-------
Industrials
Pinecrest Duck Farm
Parameter
(mg/1)
James River, Fepperell
ITT Surprenant Div. 001
002
003
Hollingsworth & Vose, Co,
Conductorlab, Inc.
*Existing Data consists of 8 or
**Except where otherwise noted.
K - Indicates actual value less
Residue Total
PH
Fecal Coliform
Total Coliform
BOD
NFRS
pH
Temperature
Zinc
Phenols
Temperature
Zinc
Phenols
Temperature
Zinc
Phenols
BOD5
NFRS
pH
Cr+6
NFRS
PH
Cr
Pb
Sn
Ni
Cu
24 hr. comp.
than that shown.
Permit
Limitations
(mg/1)**
200
550
6.0-9.0 SU
400/100 ml
2000/100 ml
20
30
6.0-8.5 SU
60°F
1.0
0.01
60°F
1.0
0.01
60°F
1.0
0.01
20
45
6.0-8.5 SU
0.1
30
6.0-9.5
1.0
0.2
2.0
2.0
1.0
SU
Existing
Data
(mg/1)*
100
210
7.6 SU
110,000/100 ml
5,500,000/100 ml
28
19
68°F
KO.l
K0.002
64.4°F
KO.l
K0.002
69.8°F
KO.l
0.006
K5
32
K0.025
22
8.1 SU
1.31
1.1
2.9
0.5
4.4
Compliance
Status
Hi
In
In
Out
Out
Out
In
Out
In
In
Qttt
In
In
Qttt
In
In
In
In
In
In
In
Out
Out
Out
In-
Out
-------
Industrials
Simonds Cutting Tools 001
002
003
Ray-0-Vac
Folysac Resins, Inc.
SOL001A
Polysac Resins, Inc.
SOL001B
Parameter
(mg/1)
pH
Oil & Grease
PH
Oil & Grease
PH
Oil & Grease
NFRS
Cyanide (total)
Cyanide (Cl2>
Chromium (total)
Chromium (Hexavalent)
Lead
Copper
Nickel
Temperature
Oil & Grease
Phenols
NFRS
Settleable Solids
PH
Temperature
Oil & Grease
Phenols
NFRS
Settleable Solids
PH
comp,
*Existing Data consists of 8 or 24 hr.
**Except where otherwise noted.
J -Indicates an approximate value.
K -Indicates actual value less than that shown.
Permit
Limitations
(mg/1)**
80°F
15
0.1
60
0.3 ml/I
6.0-8.5 SU
80°F
15
0.1
60
0.3 ml/1
6.0-8.5 SU
Existing
Data
(mg/1)*
6.0-8.5 SU
15
6.0-8.5 SU
15
6.0-8.5 SU
15
30
1.0
0.1
1.0
0.1
0.2
1.0
2.0
6.8 SU
KO.l
6.5 SU
0.3
6.0 SU
KO.l
11
K0.01
-
2.3
K 0.025
KO.l
J.14
J.44
86°F
0.7
87.8°F
0.8
Compliance
Status
In
In
In,
In
In
In
In
In
Out
In
In
In
In
Out
In
Out
In
-------
In the following graphs it should be noted that only August 1973
and August 1977 data is plotted while more data is available. Data
collected in July 1973 and 1977 was not used for two reasons: 1. Ease
of interpreting the graphs, and 2. The flows were higher in July than
in the August surveys.
-------
12 -
II -
10 -
9 -
8 -
7 -J
6 1
5 -J
4 -
3 -
2 -
MINIMUM D. 0.
NASHUA RIVER
August 1977
August 1973
1
I /
1 /
'/
1 1 1 1
RIVER
MILES
48
44
40
36
32
28
24
16
12
8
10
1520
STATION NUMBERS
i l
25
30
-------
12 H
AVERAGE D. 0.
NASHUA RIVER
II
10 -
9 -
8 -
7 -
o 6 H
E
5 -
4 -
3 -
2 -
•
August 1977
^-August 1973
RIVER MILES
52
48
44
40
36
32
28
24
20
16
12
10
15 20
STATION NUMBERS
30
-------
60 •
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
NASHUA RIVER
55
50
45 -
40
35 •
30 •
25
15 -
10 •
5 -
Sfotion 2 *
209
Station 3
187.5
96
RIVER MILES
{August 1973
August 1977
II
4O
32
28
24
20
16
12
8
I I
5
T—TT
T T
10
TT-1 1
1520
STATION NUMBERS
TT
T
25
TT
-------
3.00H
AMMONIA - NITROGEN
\ NASHUA
RIVER
275-
2 50-
2 25-
2 00-
1.75-
1.50-
I 25-
1.00-
0.75-
0.50-
0.25-
/August 1973
August 1977
5*6
52
48
40
36
32
28
24
20
16
12
8
I
10
I I I
1520
STATION
I
NUMBERS
I I
25
II
30
-------
2.2-
TOTAL PHOSPHORUS
NASHUA RIVER
2 0
1.8-
1.6
1.4-
1.2-
1.0-
0.8-
0.6-
0 4-
0.2-
.6.0
August 1977
August 1973
OD 52
T 1 T
10
44
T
40
—T
36 32 28 24
20
16
12
8
15 20
STATION NUMBERS
TT
25
T r
30
------- |