BASIN CONCEPT
FRENCH AND QUINEBAUG RIVERS
March 28 - April 08
1977
United States
Environmental
Protection Agency
Region I
OHN F. KENNEDY FEDERAL BUILDING • GOVERNMENT CENTER - BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02203
-------
BASIN CONCEPT
FRENCH AND QUINEBAUG RIVERS
March 28 — April 08
1977
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
WATER QUALITY
CONCLUS IONS
SUMMARY
APPENDICES
-------
WATER QUALITY
The Quinebaug River Basin covers 744 square miles in South
Central Massachusetts, Eastern Connecticut and Northwestern Rhode
Island. The’.major rivers in this basin are the Quinebaug River which
is 76 miles long and the French River which is 26 miles long. The
major sources of pollution on both rivers lie within the Massachusetts
borders.
The water quality of the French and Quinebaug Rivers has been
extensively monitored by the Massachusetts Division of Water Pollution
Control over the past twelve years. Intensive surveys were conducted
in 1965, 1972, 1974 and most recently in 1976. A complete copy of the
data is on file in the S&A Division. Part C of the 1974 report collates
the water quality data for 1974 with data obtained during the previous
years. Part C for the 1976 data should be available sometime in 1978.
The 1965, 1972 and 1974 surveys were important to both rivers
because they revealed, pinpointed and verified the existence of severe
problems on the rivers prior to completion of all the treatment plants.
There has been a general improvement in water quality over the past
twelve years; however, the most critical areas still have water
quality problems.
After reviewing past data, it is evident that along most of the
French and Quinebaug rivers there is an abundant supply of nutrients.
This problem can be caused by both point and non-point sources.
The three sections of the French and Quinebaug River that are of
prime concern are Cady Brook downstream of the Chariton Woolen discharge,
-------
French River downstream from where Mill Brook discharges into the river,
and downstream of the Webster and Dudley discharges. As seen from Graphs
I, II and III, water quality of Cady Brook degrades quickly downstream
of the Charlton Woolen and the Town of Chariton discharges, which are
the only two waste outfalls on the brook. From the graphs it is apparent
that the water quality recovers by station CBO4 which is just prior to
the confluence with the Quinebaug River. When comparing 1974 data with
1976 data, it appears that. there is a noticeable improvement in water
quality; however, it should be noted that the 1976 flow is approximately
four times that of the 1974 flow. This fact will account for a major
portion of the apparent improvement. Even though Graph II shows no
dissolved oxygen violation in water quality for 1976, it is low enough
during high flow to cause a problem at low flow. Graph III shows that
there is an abundant supply of phosphorus to cause a nutrient problem.
The second problem area is where Mill Brook discharges into the
French River. Prior to 1975, the Cranston Print Works discharged directly
into Mill Brook. In November 1975, Cranston Print Works connected to
the town of Webster Wastewater Treatment Facility. It is obvious from
Graphs IV, V, and VI that there is a major improvement downstream from
Mill Brook in the 1976 data.
The third area of concern is downstream of the Webster - Dudley
discharges. A review of the graphs show that there is still a water
quality problem downstream of these discharges. There are DO and
total phosphorus violations immediately downstream. This problem is
-------
further complicated by the fact that the flow in 1976 was approximately
eight times the ] O—year, 7—day low flow. While it is acknowledged that
both Webster and Dudley have serious problems that need to be resolved
and are not operating consistently at secondary treatment standards it
is evident that the water quality problem downstream has not noticeably
improved with secondary treatment on line.
In conclusion, the following points can be made. First, 68% of the
treatment systems on line were in compliance with their permits. The
two most noticeable exceptions were Webster and Dudley. Second, a review
of past and present water quality data shows a slight improvement in water
quality; however, there are still many standards violations especially
downstream of the Webster—Dudley discharges. Third, the basin plan for
the French and Quinebaug Rivers calls for advanced treatment systems
(nitrogen and phosphorus removal) for Webster and Dudley. The plan is
also considering low flow augmentation (36 cfs) downstream of the Hodges—
ville Dam.
-------
CONCLUS IONS
The original estimate called for13 municipal inspections and
5 industrial inspections. The survey produced inspections and data
for all 13 municipalities, 6 industrial plants and 2 inspections
of non—operational industires.
The field inspectors made judgements as to compliance or non—
compliance. The overall percentage (municipal and industrial) of
correct estimates was 63%. This was broken down into 69% and 50%
for municipal and industrial, respectively. It should be noted that
all the municipal incorrect estimates were on the conservative side.
We believe that if the high storm water flows which caused dilution
of the effluent had not been present, then the percentage would have
been higher.
The upstream/downstream sampling for toxics (see Table V) showed
no noticeable increase In concentration. This is not to be taken as
absolute values, but just as an indicator.
Out of the 19 sources sampled, 6 were Out of compliance with
their permit conditions and 13 were in compliance.
-------
SUMMARY
Municipals — Massachusetts
Chariton WWTP — This plant is very old and in poor condition. While
the flow is relatively low (0.04 NGD), the plant needs to be upgraded to
a secondary plant. Although the plant was found in compliance with its
permit the limits do not reflect secondary NPDES requirements. EPA Water
Compliance Section has sent an enforcement letter requesting information
concerning the facilities plan for upgrading.
Dudley WWTP — The plant is hydraulically overloaded; the flow
regularly exceeds two—and one—half times design flow. The plant is
also organically overloaded. The main source of this problem comes
from periodic batch dumping of wastes by a dairy. This plant was not
in compliance with NPDES permit requirements. EPA Enforcement Division
Is working with the State and Town to resolve this serious problem.
Dudley has been referred to the Attorney General’s Office for action.
A consulting firm has been rehired for further testing of industrial
wastes. The resubmitted Engineering report has been accepted and the Town
and dairy have reached an agreement on the dairy’s discharge.
Leicester WWTP — This plant appears to be well operated and main-
tained. The plant is in compliance. No follow—up action recommended.
Oxford — Rochdale WWTP — This plant appears to be operating well.
The plant is in compliance with NPDES limitations. No follow—up action
recommended.
Southbridge WWTP — This plant appears to be well—operated and achieves
a good effluent. It appears that there is a large infiltration problem-
and the sludge handling facilities are marginal. This plant is in
-------
compliance with permit limitations. No follow—up enforcement action recom-
mended. A new NPDES permit should include provisions for handling inf 1].—
tration and sludge problems.
Sturbridge WWTP — This plant produces an excellent effluent despite
the fact that the plant is at design capacity and accepts septage and
industrial waste. The operator does an outstanding job. The plant is in
compliance with NPDES permit limitations. No action recommended.
Webster WWTP — The plant receives a large volume of industrial waste
with varying pH from Cranston Print. This problem coupled with inadequate
sludge handling facilities cause the plant to bulk on a regular basis.
This plant is not in compliance with NPDES permit limits. The Enforcement
Division is working with the Town, State, and industry and have worked
out a plan of attack to resolve the problem. The industry has agreed to
control its pH problem; the Town has submitted an engineering report on
the sludge handling problem. The Enforcement Division is reviewing this
case for a potential enforcement action.
-------
Industrials — Massachusetts
American Optical — The waste treatment systems associated with this
huge complex are well—operated and maintained. The company was in
compliance with permit limitations. No further action recommended.
Chariton Woolen Co . — The treatment system at this plant needs to
improve its O&M. General housekeeping and maintenance are lax. A number
of recommendations were made to the operator on how to improve O&M. Plant
was not in compliance with permit limitations. Enforcement Division is
reviewing this case for a potential enforcement action on the permit viola-
tions. EPA’s S&A should have a follow—up inspection to see if improvements
have been made.
West Dudley Paper (Boise—Cascade ) — The mill was visited on April 6th
with John Hackler from Permits Branch. A tour of the plant and the recently
completed treatment system was conducted. The physical plant and general
attitude have improved greatly since Boise—Cascade purchased this plant.
The plant was in good operating condition and well within its permitted
limits. No further aciton recommended.
Worcester Tool and Stampir g Company — This plant was out of compliance
at time of sampling. It was found that testing for NPDES permit require-
ments was performed by a Hach kit. This is not an acceptable procedure.
Warren Oldaker, S&A, and Water Compliance Section are working to resolve
this problem. It is recommended that follow—up action be taken to insure
that the proper methods are being used. If, with correct methods, the
company is still in violation with its permit then enforcement action is
recommended.
-------
Hunicipals — Connecticut
Danielson WWTP — This is a new plant and is well operated. The
effluent, O&M, and staff appear very good. This plant was in compliance
with permit limitations. No further action recommended.
Jewett City — This plant is in compliance with permit conditions.
No further action recommended.
Plainfield — North — This plant appears to be well—maintained and
operated. The plant was well within permit limits. No further action
recommended.
Plainfield — Village — The plant had just gone to sand filters a
few days prior to sampling. The plant appears to need sludge handling
facilities to achieve a good effluent. The sludge handling facilities
are presently almost non—existent. Plant was in compliance with permit
limits at the time of sampling. Connecticut DEP has recently issued
enforcement orders to develop a facility plan for sludge handling.
EPA ’s O&N should follow—up on this problem.
Putnam WWTP — This plant receives textile mill waste, which gives the
effluent varying colors. The plant is barely maintaining compliance with
its permit. Connecticut DEP is trying to assist the plant in solving its
BOD problem.
Thompson WWTP — This plant is producing a good effluent; EPA’s O&M
personnel feel that the plant’s operation and maintenance could be
improved. Plant is in compliance with NPDES limitations. Connecticut
DEP and EPA’s O&M should follow—up on this problem.
-------
Industrials — Connecticut
Belding Chemical Industries — This plant was not In operation at
time of inspection. The plant has no treatment system for its high
organic ,low flow waste at this time. The company does not wish to
invest the money necessary to dispose of the low flow properly and the
Town of Thompson refuses to accept the waste. The Connecticut DEP is
handling the case and has just reached a decision. A copy of this
decision is being forwarded to EPA Water Compliance Section.
National Chromium Co . — Although this company has a new treatment
system and a new permit, it was not in compliance with one metal limit
in its permit. It is recommended that the State of Connecticut continue to
monitor this discharge to see if the company can meet its permit.
Rogers Corp . — This plant has virtually closed down its permitted
discharge and was in the process of completing the termination. A
follow—up Inspection of this plant may enable the permit to be terminated.
Sanitary Dash Manufacturing — This plant was not in compliance at
time of sampling, however, self—monitoring data shows that they are
usually in compliance. Further, state or EPA sampling should be performed
along with split samples with the company to determine whether self—
monitoring data is accurate. The State of Connecticut is following up
this violation. No further action recommended.
-------
APPENDICES
-------
TABLE I
COMPLIANCE MONITORING
Field Judgment vs. Data
Municipalities Field Judgment Compliance Data
Sturbridge WWTP In In
Southbridge WWTP In In
Dudley WWFP Out Out
Webster WWTP Out Out
Oxford - Rochdale WWTP Marginally Out In
Putnam WWTP Out In
Thompson WWTP Marginally In In
Jewett City WWTP Marginally In In
Killingly WWTP In In
Plainfield — North WWTP Out In
Plainfield - Village WWTP In In
Leftester WWTP In In
Charlton Out In
No. of Correct Judgment - 9
No. of Incorrect Judgment - 4
Percentage of Correct - 69
-------
TABLE II
COMPLIANCE MONITORING
Field Judgment vs. Data
Industrials Field Judgment Compliance Data
Chariton Woolen In Out
Worcester Tool & Stamping Marginally Out Out
National Chromium Out Out
American Optical In In
Sanitary Dash Manufacturing In Out
Boise-Cascade Out In
No. of Correct Judgment - 3
No. of Incorrect Judgment - 3
Percentage of Correct - 50
Average Percentage of Municipalities & Industrials — 63
-------
TABLE IV
Parameter
BOD 5 Daily Max.
TSS Daily Max.
Oil & Crease Daily Max.
Permit
Limitation
50 mg/i
30 mg/l
15 mg/i
Compliance
Existing Data* Status
4 In
19
0.92
American Optical (012)
In
Chariton Woolen Co.
BOD Daily Max.
TSS Daily Max.
Phenol Daily Max.
90 11/day
110 1//day
1.6 11/day
52 1//day
149 11/day
0.008 11/day
Out
National Chromium Co.
TSS
Cyanide
Chromium
Chromium +6
Cadmium
Nickel
Copper
Zinc
Iron
20 mg/l
0.1 mg/l
1,0 mg/i
0.1 mg/i
1.0 mg/i
2.0 mg/i
1.5 mg/i
2.0 mg/i
2.0 mg/i
J.004 mg/i
K0.05 mg/i
0.03 mg/i
0.07 Dissolved mg/i
4.22 Dissolved mg/i
K0.05 mg/i
KO.05 Dissolved mg/i
K0.05 mg/i
Out
Sus. Solids
Cr
Cr +6
Cu
Fe
Ni
Zn
25 mg/i
1.0 mg/i
.1 mg/i
1.5 mg/i
1.0 mg/i
2.0 mg/i
2.0 mg/i
20 mg/i
0.025 mg/i
2.7 mg/i
0.09 mg/i
1.26 mg/i
1.43 mg/i
Industrials
American Optical (001)
TSS Daily Max.
30
mg/i
2
Cyanide Daily Max.
0.i
mg/i
J0.05
Cyanide (Cl 2 ) Daiiy
Max.
1.0
mg/i
J0.O Oi
Copper Daily Max.
1.0
mg/i
0.13 Dissolved
Iron Daily Max.
2.0
mg/i
0.29 Dissolved
Nickel Daily Max.
2.0
mg/i
0.45 Dissolved
Zinc Daily Max.
1.0
mg/i
0.29 Dissolved
Sanitary Dash Nfg. Co.
Out
p.
-------
—2—
Indus trials
Parameter
Permit
Limitation
Existing Data*
Compliance
Status
West Dudley Paper
(Boise—Cascade)
BOD Daily Max.
TSS Daily Max.
260 mg/i
240 mg/i
18 mg/i In
38 mg/i
Worcester Tool
& Stamping Co.
Sus. Solids
Nickel
Copper
Cyanide
Cyanide (Cl 2 )
Cadmium
30 mg/i
2.0 mg/i
1.0 mg/i
1.0 mg/i
1.0 mg/i
0.2 mg/i
5 mg/i
1.33 Dissoived mg/i
0.39 Dissoived mg/i
J1.2 mg/i
Jl.2 mg/i
.08 Dissolved mg/i
*Existing data consists of 24 hr. composite.
J = Vaiue not accurate (estimated)
K Actual value is known to be iess than value given
Out
-------
TABLE III
Permit Existing Compliance
Municipalities Parameter Limitations Data* Status
(mg/i) (mg/i) (mg/i)
Chariton BOD 5 80 36 In
TSS 80 23
Killingly WWTP BOD 5 7—day 45 12 In
TSS 30—day 30 10
Dudley WWTP BOD 5 30—day conc. 30 74 Out
TSS 30—day conc. 30 5
Jewett City WWTP BOD 5 7—day cone. 45 20 In
TSS 7—day conc. 45 33
Leicester WWTP BOD daily max. 50 11 In
TSS daily max. 50 12
Oxford—Rochdale WWTP BOD daily max. 50 4 In
TSS daily max. 50 9
Plainfield—North WWTP BOD 30—day 30 13 In
TSS 30—day 30 8
Plainfield—Viilage WWTP BOD 30—day 20 3 In
TSS 30—day 20 4
Putnam WWTP BOD 30—day 30 38 In
TSS 30—day 30 14
Southbridge WWTP BOD 7—day 45 19 In
TSS 7—day 45 28
Sturbridge WWTP BOD 7—day 45 12 In
TSS 7—day 45 13
Thompson WWTP BOD 30—day 30 18 In
TSS 30—day 30 11
*Existing data consists of 24 hr. composite.
-------
TABLE V
SAMPLING FOR TOXIC SUBSTANCES
ugh ugh ugh ugh ugh ugh ugh ugh ugh
Cadmium Chromium Copper Cyanide Lead Nickel Phenol Silver Zinc
American Optical
FRROO3 (upstream) 1(50 1(100 1(50
A-O-O01 130* J49 450* 290*
FRROO4 (downstream) 1(50 1(100 1(50
Worcester Tool &
Stamping
F RO01 (upstream) 1(50 1(50 K100 1(50
WSDOO1 80* 390* J1200 1300* 110*
FRROO2 Kdownstream) 1(50 1(50 1(100 1(50
* indicates Dissolved as opposed to Total
-------
I
GRAPH I
AVERAGE DISSOLVED OXYGEN
CADY BROOK
10.0’
9.0
C
o 0
8.0-
. .C
C.) C.. — — _ — — — — — — — — — — — •i
———
7.0— • — — — — — — — — —
Di . .
— —
E
— — — — — -.
6.0- \ —— — —
— — —
Lii I
> CIassBI
5.0-
L ii
4.0
0
\
C,)
3.0
2.0 \
I
1.0 I
I—
I
4 4 4 4 2 I 0
CBOJ CBO2 CBO3 CBO4
RIVER MILES
-------
GRAPH TI
MINIMUM DISSOLVED OXYGEN
CADY BROOK
a
10.0- a
a:
•
9.0’
o o
4- 4-
8.0 Z
C
. .C
C.) C ..
-‘1976
7.0 - —
E . ..-
6.0’ - — — -
LU
CD
50 Class B % . - —
\ - -. -. . -. -.
LU
4.0’
0
U)
U)
a 3.0 \ Class C
2.0 \
1.0 \ ____ —
I 4 I 0
CBOI CR02 CBO3 CR04
F-
RIVER MILES
-------
1.7
GRAPH m
I .6 ____________________
CADY BROOK
I.... TOTAL PHOSPHORUS
• 5
1.4 / Class B and C Limits:
.3 Not greater than 0.05 mg/I
1.2 / N
/ N
: 1.0
E
N
0.9
C l )
N
0.8
=
0.7
=
a-
/
-J 0.6
0.5
I N
/
0.4 I
/
I
I /
0.3 i /
I /
I
02’ I
I
Il
0.1 II ‘ç.I976
0.05 ‘1974
I I
I I I 4 3
CBOI CBO2 C503 CBO4
RIVER MILES
-------
C
C
m
—
— — — — —I — —
St
‘4
>1
54
GRAPH
AVERAGE DISSOLVED OXYGEN
FRENCH RIVER
.0•
‘4
6.0
12.0
II.O
lO.O
9.0
E
(LI
>-
0
0
I ii
>
-J
0
a)
C l)
0
972,
1976
— ‘ —S
PRO?
5.0.
FRI
RIVER MILES
-------
— — — — — — — — —
Ct cR C
0
V.
I .
I -u
•0
4-.-
0
I ’
I
.1
a
a
GRAPH
MINIMUM DISSOLVED OXYGEN
FRENCH RIVER
E
‘U
>-
8.0
7.0
6.0
5.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
I.0
0
LU
>
-J
0
C ’)
C,)
a
I97
/
__ 6
5
FRI3
RIVER MILES
-------
GRAPH
TOTAL PHOSPHORUS
FRENCH RIVER
0 Class B and C Limits:
0
L Not greater than 0.05 mg/i
00
4-u,
- 2c5
— 0
E ,, ,,‘ 1974
U,
1.0
5 0.9
0
0.8
O.7
o.6•
0.5-
04-
0.3-
0.2-
0.I-
0.05-
113.0
FR 07
ii.o iLo id.o j 9:0 8.0 i 7:0 6.’O 5.01
FRIb FRII FRI2 FRI3
V
V
,
‘7-
1972
1976
——.——-——-— -— - — - —I
RIVER MILES
------- |