The Distribution of Heavy Metals in the Mill RiverTHE DISTRIBUTION OF HEAVY
METALS I1V THE MILL RIVER -
NORTHAIUIPTON, NIASSACHUSETTS
By
Dennis J. Coyle
November 22, 1977
y
a
/'-~~
` 3. AC K1~0'NLEDGiti~ENTS
The author is especially grateful to Dr. 0. T. Za~icek
if the University of ic~assachusetts Chemistry Department for
his assistance in the planning of this study, the interpretation
of the data., and for making available the laboratoryfacili:ties
needed for the cl~?emical analyses of the samples.
Sincere thanks are also due to Dr. John H. ~;~itchell of
the University of ~~assachusetts English Department for his
guidance in the writing, of this report.
The author would also like to thank i~lr. John V~ilder,
Plant ~,ngineer, for his ccoperation in providing a sample of
tY:e i~ortha:npton iv~ar~LZfacturing dorp. effluent.
~_.~
1
~~.~,
4
4. r,~STRACT
The objectives of this study were to assess the nature,
exi:ent, and possible sources of any heavy-metal pollution in
the Mill River in Northampton, Massachusetts. Samples ot~
effluent from storm sewers and the Northampton P+ianufacturing
Corn., as well as benthic macroi.nvertebrates and bottom
sediment over a 20 km stretch of the river, were analyzed for
]_ead, chromium, cadmium, copper, nickel, and iron using atomic
absorption spectrophotometric techniques.
Concen~t;r~tior~s of le=ad, chromium, copper. , and cadmium
were very high a.n the sediments ar:d benthic macroinvertebra.tes
--
in the Northampton R9anufacturin~ Corp.MParadise on areaV
~..
~~~-% Evaluation of find inns lead to the conclusion that tY?.e North-
amnt.on Nariufact"taring Corp. is significantly increasing the
concentration of lead and chromium in the sediment. A sam"ple of
t?1is company's effluent violated their N.P.DeE®S, permit
sne"ci.fic?tions with resr;ect 't;o lead end chromium, the
concentr. =~tions of which i. r. tY:e pediment incre<~sed to very hi h
levels over ~~ .2 km stretch of the river into which this
co~r~nany discharges. It was =also found that storm sewer
effluent mi~-'~t r. epres.ent a signi.fic3nt source of lead, copper,
and zinc. It was recommended that further investigations be
conducted concerning the heavy-metal pollution situation, and
its causes, in the orthampton iuianuf.acturing Corp. - Paradise
Pond area; with the ultimate objective of finding a viable
solution to the problerri.
,s
~~
~~' ~ ~ 5. TABLE OF CONTENTS ~ ~,
. I
~~
1. COVE:i 3~-iEET . • • ° 1
2 . TITLE :PAGE « . . « . 2
3 . ACKNO'+'i Z.,EDGEiV1EN TS . « 3
4. ABSTRACT . « « « « 4
5. TABLE OF CONTEi~TS . ~ 5
6 • Tr~X.T e . e e « . « u s . . . .
6.1 INTHODUCTICN . . • ^ ~
6.1.1 Objectives « . . . « « 6
6.1.2 Background Information on Heavy lvietals 6
6.1._3 _ Scope « « « . . 8
- _ _ ~- -
,-~. •
~.
6.2 RESULTS A1vD DISCUSSION • • • » • 1~~
6.2.1 iVortha.mpton ~Vianufacturin~ Corp. Effluent. 14
6.2.2 Storm Sewer Effluent . « . « « ^ 14
6.2.3 Benthic ~,lacroinvertebrates . . « 14
& . 2 . ~+ Bottom Sediment . « « . 15
7. COIdCLUSIUNS . . . . • . • • 20
8, RECOi~+;4iE~DATIONS . .~ • • • • 22
9 . APPENDIX . . . 9 . 23
g.l TABLES OF DATA . « « . « « « ^ 23
g . 2 GH.APHS OF DATA . . . . ^ « . 26
g.3 BIBLIOGRAPHY « . . . ^ 2g
~~ \?
~~~
a
6
~~
b. TEXT
6.1 INTRODUCTIQIV
In October, 1977, a study concerning heavy metals in the
1VIi11 River was conducted under the supervision of Dr. 0. T.
Zajicek, University of lulassachusetts Chemistry Dept. The
following i s the f ina"1 report of the results of this study .
b.l.l Objectives '
(1) ~~o collect d~+ta wl•~ich would give an overall picture
of the nature rand extent of an,y he~:vy-metal pollu-ti.on in the
~~„ill River in Pvor~thampi:ona _ _ - - - - _ I
~~
(2) To investi~;ai;e ~>ossible sources of heavy--metal
pollution. In particul.r+r., to assess the relative importance
of discharges into the river from storm sewers and from the
Northampton P~°anufacturinr~, Corp. wire-manufacturing plant a.t
122 Federal St., Northampton.
6.1.2. backr~;rouncl Information on Heavy iYet-als
6,1,2.1 basis for measurement
It Ylas been noted th~~t "...the two groups of chemicals
that appear to offer the greatest dan;:rers through promiscuous
release to the enviror~rnent a.re the heavy met~+ls and
h.=+lor~;enated hydr_ ocarbons. "2 A major cause f. or concern over
the heavy met~~ls is th~:t even in small amounts, they, can be
(~
'~
~ ..
a
highly toxic to aquatic lire, and to man as well, Several
of these metals are very dangerous cumulative poisons.
The heavy metals men-~sured in this study were
Lead - A major hea]_th hazard, it is cumulative and
very toxic to man as well ~s aquatic life. Ma.jar sources of
lead are industrial effluents, pesticides, and "leaded"
~asol.inea In th.e ].otter case, lewd can be derosited an
r.oad~,vays and subsequently washed into storm sewers by rain.2'6
Cadmium - Cumulative and extremely toxic to both ma.n
anc] %~~~ur~tic life, it is used mainly in the electroplating;
industry, though small amounts may be present in other
--_ _ _ _
--
industrial effluents. °
Chromium - Poisonous but non-cumulative, it is commonly
uses as a rust inhibitor in industrial cooling; water. It is
also used in electroplating and other industries.2~6
Corer - Thounh it is non-cumulative, copper is taxis
to fish, a1m'e, and bacteria (copper sulfate is commonly used,
~s ='n ala,icide) . It occurs natu.r. a11y in only tr. ~~ce amounts,
the r.efore its presence is usually due to pollution. Major
source's ire the corrosion of copper and brass tubing, as
wel_]. •~s rnany industrial effltaentse2°b
7 ins -- Consistently ~ r.~pearin~; in the L~resence of
industrialization, zinc exhihit;s its greatest toxicity
to~~~~rd~; :~qu=?tic 1ife.2,6
Mickel - somewhat less toxic to aquatic life than capper.
and zinc, nickel can came from sources that include corrosion
___,~
a
8
of stainless steels and the electroplating industryo2,6
Iron. - A major product of general corrosion as well as
be inn' a fairly abundant soil component, iron is objectionable
mainly bec~use of i.ts taste, color, and staining/deposi-tion
char.?cteristics.2'b
6.1,2,2 Distribution in aquatic environments
Heavy metals are usually found only in trace quantities
in solution in natural waters, since the metals are quickly
and efficiently removed from solution via adsorption tv the
suspended solids, which. in turn are eventually deoosi_~ted on
the ~iottom.2 This su~7~?emits that heav~,r .metal- pollution of -a
~\ river. could he better evaluated by analysis of. the sediment
rather than the water
Presently there is sore doubt a.s to ~vhether or not
heavy metals ire cor.centr~ted on st.ic'cessive tronhir.. levels
i.n aqu^tic ecosystemsn Since organisms inhabiting the mud or
mud/w?ter interf^ce appear to be the major concentrators of
a ~nride variety of heavy metals, these or~;ani_sms might serve
-s =~n indicator of the bi.o].o:~icral impact of heavy-~meta]_
t~ol1 utants e
601.3 Scope
In view of the information sur~marized in section 6~1m2.,
any'' - 1.i~~~itation on tine and manpower, a limited study tivas
undert=ken coverinFT a 20 km stretch of the P~till River. ]Cn a
,a .
~ ~'~
~r-..
variety of locations, t'ne following were taken:
(a) four benthi.c rna.croi.nvertebrate samples (bottom
dwelling insect la.rva~ and nymphs)
(b) nine bottom sediment simples
(c) three storm sewer effluent samples
(d) one Northampton Manufacturing Corp. effluent sample
All samples were ana7.yzed far lead, cadmium, chromium,
copper, nickel, zinr,, and iron«
6.1.x+ Methods
6.1.x+.1 Sampling locations
. All sampling locations are labeled- on. the map of the dill
~ -~~
~_ River. (Figure 1, page 10)«
6,1«~«1«1 lVarthampton Manufacturing Corp.
effluent
The Northampton P~anufac~turing Corp., a subsidiary of
the Delaware-based Howrnet Corp«, operates a. wire-manufacturing
plant at 1?.2 Federal Street, Nord;hampton. It has a. N«P«D.F„S,
permit to discharge its treated rinse water into the Mi11
River, This effluent has been monitored by the Mass«
Division of Water Pollution Control in Amherst.
6,1.4«102 Storm sewer effluent
\~~ Three storm sewer drains, one in each of~the more
~:
.p ~ 23.8
a lO
r
_, ~
°
F I G U R E 1.
~l
°
e ~ ~~ ~
0 ~,4
s
°
• a
°
e
e
•
°
o
9
a
°
e
e
~ •
o •
° !' i ~
° ° /
. ,17.0 ~ /
A ~
•
i ~ - 1 6.5 ° Beaver
~ e
~ Brook
i
,~
i
°
q
ON ~
~
p
,
~Mp~
~R
~
N
~ ater
® LEED S °
\ °
St °
---- _ _
-
•
- -
1 5.0' ° e ° °
i
~,~ •
~ e
°
0
e
°
°
FLORENCE
°
®
6
Meadow _ e e
e
9
Street
•
° e a
•
0
e e
° e •
e •
• NORTHAMPTON
10.0 ° ° o e ° MAN'UF~CTURING
°
C:O R P
e
7.3e ° •
8.0 °°°\ u
~ e°e
fff
°
I
® 7.1 4 e
°
~ Paradise
° 6
3 ~
. 5.0
Pond
4.0 -
0
p°West
° St.
• °Q
1 Mile
a
i ~ °
o e
o I Kilometer ° e
~
s °
a
°
• e e
~ e ° e
,~ ° e ^
e °
e 0.0
° Connecticut
I e
' River Oxbow ~
e
o
,a
11
,•-.1
~' densely populated areas in Northampton, were chosen in an
attempt to obtain an indication of the x•elative impartance
of the urban run-off as a source of heavy metals. The drains
sampled ~r~ere located under bridges crossing the river at
(1) '~hlater Street (1Leeds) , (2) Meadow Street (Florence) ,
(3) '~~~est Street (Northampton),
6.1.4.1,3 I~enthic ma.croinvertebrates
Benthic macroinvertebrate s=~mples were originally
collected for the pur~?ose of diversity calculations in an
earlier study. ThOUah the stration locations were not a.11 the
same as those for bottom sediments, the data obtained is
~~ still usefu7_ as an indicator ;~f the biological imba.ct of the
` heavy-metal pollution. The s~~mples were collected at
st~ti.ons: 23.8 - unstre~m of ~h'i.17 iamsburg, 16.5 -- at the
~,^lil]_iamsbur~-l~'ortham~~ton town line, 6.3 - between Northampton
M:=nufacturin~ =+nd Paradise Fond, and 4.0 - downstream of
P=~r'~d1~P, Pond.
6.1.4.1..4 Bottom sediments
'~ottom-sediment s?mples were t<~ken from various points
alon7 the river to yet a general indication of the nature
and ex~t;ent of any heavy-metal po7.lution, In an attempt to
evaluate tY:P impacts of suspected heavy-met~1 sources, some
stations were located immediately upstream a.nd downstream
of densely pOT~L11=~te!'1 or industrial =areas. 'Ihe sampling
,0
_ 12
( ~1
locations were the following:
Station ?~ 8, which served as a control, wa.s located
ut~stream of the center of '~lilliamsburg.
S_ta-tion 17.0, loc~?ted =above tre darn at the ~ir:ydenville
~r.ass tdorks, served as an indicator of the inputs from
~rJil l i a^~sbur;.
Station 1~.0, upstream of the dams in the center of
Leeds, was ir. a thickly settled area with a:;proximately 10
storm sewer drains e:r.ptying into a fairly lar:je impoundment
created by these dams.
Station 1~.8, had the s~+me conditions as ].5.0, except
- that- z -fine r_ sediment--was- sampled. __
,` Station 10,0, which ha.d a fine sediment i.n an eddy,
~, ~ ,.
wa;, looted downstream of t~.e rro Brush factory in Florence.
Station ~.4, =above a dam downstream of the Cutlery, had
a very fine sediment. It served as a indicator of the
conditions upstream of Northampton Manufacturing.
Station 7.~, immediately upstream of Iorthampton
N!anufacturi.n~ had a. coarse sediment sand a fairly strong
current.
Station 7,1, was located immediately downstream of
Northampton ;+;anufacturing in a pool with very fine sediment.
No storm sewers discY:arge into the river between this station
and 7.3•
Station 5.0, was located at the upstream end of
Paradise Pond. The flow rate was very slow with a very fine
6
13
,,. ~1
bottom se~iim~nt.
F,1o4~2 Analytical methodsl'3
X11 water and sediment s~~mp]_es were collected in acid
washed polyethylene bottles. ~entY~ic macroinvertebrates
were collected using' Hester-Lendy artificial substra.tesl
over a 3-week colonization period in July Since the mass of
these insects was so smal.l® they were grouped and analyzed
only according; to sample location, with no distinction
between each. s.cecies at each station.
The effluents from t~~e storm sewers and from Northampton
`~~antzf:~cturn~ .sere ,~cic~ified -to pH-2-a~t the time of co-llection®
For t!~e sediments and t~enthic macroinvertebra.tes, a. nown
~ ~l
dry wei:~ht was di~;este;l in 1+l nitric acid until the solution
became clear. The resultant liquid was filtered and diluted
to a 'known volume .
The concentration of lead, cadmium, chromium, coppery
nic}cele zinc and iron in each of the solutions was measured
usinm a Perkin-El.me r, model ~03~Atomic Absorption Spectro-
nhotometere
,A
14 i
(,_._,,l 6.2 i~ESULT:S 11~~D DISCUS~:IOPv
6.?_.1 Northampton lu:anufacturing Corp. Effluent
Table 2 (sec . 9.1) lists results of ar~aly.sis of effluent
from the Northampton iv,anufacturing Corp. on October 23, 1977.
It also shovas previous measurements along with maximum
concentrations set by the company's 1v>P<D.E.S. discharge
permit.
Lead was 12 times tre allor~iable concer.tra,t'ion, while
chromium and iron were 1.4 ar~d 4.8 times the allowable
concentrations, respectively. The data from previous samples
-- -have--also shown-vi-olations__ of__~the__c~~rmt_with respect_to
~ these metals.
6.2.E Storm Sewer Effluent
The results of the analysis of storm server effluent are
presented ire Table 3 (sec. 90l). The storm sewers tested
contained large au~ounts of lead a:~d iron, with smaller amounts
of co~poer at.d z~.nc . Concentrations of cadmium, chromium, and
nickel were very low.
6.2.3 Aenthic ~~iacroinvertebrates
'1~he concentrations of heavy metals in berithic macro-
invertebrates (Table 5, sec. 9.1) ~;ener•ally reflected the
concentrations in the .bottom se~~la~er,t (sec. 6.2.4), indicating
teat the excessive amounts of these metals in the sediment
4
15
~~_
~, ~ I
is affecting', the aquatic life. :Samples taken at station 6.3,
between Northamton ,~anufacturirrg and Paradise Panc1; had.higher i,
i
concentrations of lead., chro:niwn, and iron than the sarriples
from the other lacations. In contrast, the largest amount
of copper was found in the sample from station 16.5, at the
;~;~illiamsbure'-Northampton town line. Concentrations of all
' metals decreased from station 6.3 to 4.0, indicating that
the :net~~ls are building un in Para.d ise Pond . Concentrations
of all metals increase~~ from station 23.E to 17.0, implying
that there are si~'nificant inputs from ~°dilliamsburg..
6 .2.4 Bottom Sediments
~~~ b .2.4 .1 General results
`.
The results of the analysis of bottom sediment samples
are compiled in Table 1 (sec. 9,1). Table 4 (sec. 9.1)
shows the average concentrations of the heavy metals measured
in tY:e i~t.ill ffiive.r. Corr~pared with a similar study conducted
in Illinois,5 sediment in the r~iill t~tiver has.. very high
concentrations of lean, chromium, and copper.
In general, the bottom sediment data showed that a
heavy-metal pollution problem exists in the ~uii11 itiver.
id~a~or causes for concern are the concentrations of lead
(500 fag/g), chromium (300 ~g/g}, copper (150 }~g/g), and
cadmium (1.3 }~g/g) in the Northampton :Jlanufacturing - Paradise
Pond area. This, a1on~~ with other trends in the data, can
be seen more clearly in figures 2 through 7 (sec. g.2).
a
16 `
^~
6.2.4„2 '~Yilliamsburg
All heavy metals except chromium were present in much
greater quantities at station 17.0 than a~t station 23.8,
indicating that there a.re significant inputs of these from
the tcwn cf '~"dillia:nsburg,.
6 .2 .4.3 Leeds to i~ orthampton i~,:anuf acturing
From station 1&.5 (Leeds) to station 7.3 (irnmediate~ly
upstream of Northampton ia~ianufacturing) , the concentrations
of heavy metals were generally lcwer than at station 17.0
(Haydenville), Two exceptions vrere cooper (Figure 4) and
zinc (C'igure 5), which had high concentrations at stations
,~
~--~ 15<0 and 14.8 (Leeds) .
6.2.4..4 Paradise Pond
A very irri~oortant find ing vas that the concentrations of
lead and. chromium at staticri 5.0 were very high. This, along
with the results from the benthic macroinvertebrates
(sec. 6.2.3), indicates that these two metals; and, to a
lesser extent, copper and cad:nitun; are building up in the
sediments of Paradise Pond,
6.2.4.5 Vicinity of i~orthampton ~~~lanufacturing
By far the most significant trend is the extremely sharp
-~ increase in lead and chromium concentrations between stations
,}
\~ 7.3 and 7.1, immediately upstream grid downstream of Northampton
g
(~
.4
17
manufacturing. Together, all of the data collected in this
study imply that the discharge from rtiorthampton. Manufacturing
is resr~onsible .for a lame portion of these increases. This
conclusion is reinforced by the following arguments.
There are two ot'ner possible explanations for these
increases . Cr~e involves tY:e type of sediment sampled , and
the other involves the possible effects of inputs from storm
sewers.
A sediment which is very finely divided and high in
organic material ciight be expected to ccntain greater
qu:.ntities of heavy metals than would a coarser sediment,
- Taus the increase -in-_lead_acid _chro:ium_ might be attributed
r~ ~ to the fact that the sediment at station 7.1 eras much finer
i
~~/ ~~rith the presence of lvorthampton
than that at staticn i.3,
r~~.anufacturin~; being; :Here coincidence. But this reasoning
leads to two contradictions: (1~ at station ~'.U, located
only a snort distance upstream and having a very fire
sec]in~ent, the concentrations of lead and chromium were not
a great deal higher than in the coarse sediment cf station 7.3.
(2) tv~ro sa:nnles were taken from the carne area in Leeds, and
again the concentrations of lead and chromium were not higher
in the finer sediment. This strongly implies that the 'I
i
increase in these concentrations was not a result of the
sed invent type sampled .
The second possible explanation is that the source of ~
1
'~ ' the metals is street run--off carried to the river via storm
~ ,_
e
18
~ \1
sewers. These heavy metals, adsorbed to suspended solids,
are naturally deposited at Paradise Pond, which ,just happens
to be downstream of Northampton Ivianufacturing. But this
explanatieri too has its flaws. The samples taken at stations
15.0 and 14.E had r.uch lower lead and chromium concentrations,
altrou~.h there are many storm sewer drains in this area,
which is a heavily-silted impoundment of considerable. size.
Station ~.U is another heavily-silted impoundment with many
upstream storm sevrer drains, ,yet it too has re--latively low
levels of these t~vo heavy metals.
Lead and chromium were the only two metals to have a
- - sharp- incre-a-se -in concentration _ in the_ vicinity of i~ orthampton
r~~~ ~~lanufacturing, which vras found to discharge a. large amount of
~ / botl.. The other metals, which vrere present in the company's
effluent in much lesser amounts, did not exhibit this ,jump in
concentration. (Iren is a common lea.chate from the soil, so
its increase in this area may have little to do with urban ,
or industrial bclluticn.) uahile lead arras present in storm
sewer effluent, chromium was almost completely absent. If
storru sewer effluent. were the major factor responsible
for the high concentrations of these metals in the sediments
downstream of \orthampton P;Ianufacturing, then chromium should
be present iri the storm sewer effluent in relatively hi~,h
I
i concentrations, not extremely low ones.
Therefore, the data seem to indicate that inputs-of
lead and chromium from the lvorthampton ivianufacturing Corp.
19
~~ are responsible for much of the observed increase in
concentration of trese metals in tY,c downstream sediments.
There is no doubt that storcxi sewer effluent can be a major
source of heavy-metal pollutants in aquatic environments9 but
the data imply that the role of such effluents in this
particular case is a minor one compared with the long-time,
steady input from Northampton ~nlanufacturing.
~~
'~.,
,a
20
% _ `\1
7. CQNCLUCIONS
(1) A problem with heavy-metal pollution exists in the
i~orthampton Iu:anufac~turing Corp. - Paradise Pond area,
involving lead, chromium, copper, and cadmium.
(2) Effluent from the lvorthampton Manufacturing Corp., vahich
exceeded the maximum concentrations of lead, chromium,
and iron specified in the company's Iv .P .D.E.~. permit,
has markedly increased the concentrations of lead and
chromium in the bottom sediment.
(3) A11 heavy -metals measur-sd an this. study_ are_ accu_niu__ating
___
~~~, in tre bottom sediment of Paradise Pond, with lead,
'~_,
c'romium, copper, and cadmium being the major causes
for concern.
(~ j The excessive a~aounts of these heavy metals are affecting
the aquatic or~anisrr,s, a,s indicated by high concentrations,
compared with sa.r~ples from other locations, of lead,
chromium, copper, and cad~.rium in the tissues of benthic
macroinvertebrates in the i~orthamptcn Manufacturing
Paradise Pond area.
(5) lffluent from storm sewers could represent a significant
source of lead, cooper, and zinc.
--~, (6) The increases in heavy-metal concentrations in the bottom
sedi:rient attributable to sources within +fJilliamsbizrg
a
21
~~
vrere signi.f scant, though they were smaller than those
ori~;inatin~. in ticrthampton,
(7) The Needs area ;night also constitute a problem area,
with hi~.h concentrations of copper and zinc in both
bcttom sediment and benthic macroinvertebrates.
~'
-.
~~~~--_
s
22 i~
~~ ~~
B » RECO,aa~i;ElvD ~1T ION S I
(1) Heavy metal pollution in the li~iill River be further
investigated.
(2) Future investigations center on lead, chromium, copper,
and cadmium in the vicinity of 1'Jorthampton ivlanufacturing
and Paradise Pond .
(3) Future investigations focus on clarification and
documentation of the pollution problem and its causes,
with the ultimate objective of finding a viable solution.
~.
~~__%
~a
9 » APPEi`uDTX
9.1 TABLES OF DATA
Table 1. Concentration of .heavy metals in ~Jlill diver
sediment, 10/11/(7• ~~.~/~=Ppm)
23
i~/,ETAL~~
STATTO ~d TYPE
I`IU.~~Bii:i-t Pb Cd Cr Cu IVi , Zn Fe
23.8 fine 37 •~ 77 40 2LE 18 6100
17.0 v.fine 151 1.60 43 66 39 118 --
15.0 fine 97 .0 111 172 19 140 7400
14.8 v.fine 100 .73 20 112 18 143 --
10 »-0 fine - 60 .0 _ 62- __ 68 -- - 37- - 81- 5000-
8.0 v.fine 107 .76 114 91 32 138 --
7.3 coarse 6~+ .41 96 56 19 11 5500
7.1 v .fine 503 1.26 2f5 109 38 141 8500
5.0 v.fine 369 1»33 301 158 36 217 8500
of Pb - lead PJ i - nickel
Cd - cadmium Zn - zinc
Cr - chromiu m Fe - iron
Cu - copper
r'
,a 2~+
{~ ~l Tab 7_e 2. Concentration of heavy metals in effluent from
N ortha,rnptori iULanufacturin~. Corp . (rn~/1= ppm)
i~.;ETAL
DATE
Pb Cr Cd Cu lvi Zn b'e
10/22/72 •95~` •03 .ol .40 .75 .l0 .25
~6/26/73~ .23 .0~ •75 .20
5/24/77 .25j' 2.GOi` .UO .10 1.30 .Og 10.0;'
i~.Y.T?.L.S.
ner~iii~t ~ .10 .5U .20 .50 2.U .50 1.0
1G/13/77~~ 1.2~' ,71i~ .U2 .26 .5~ .04 4.8iF
__
~ data ba4e~?
on reference
_ - _
-- _ _
_
'~~" data collected by T~.J.Coyle
-_.
~
,
~,~~' ~¢ violation of permit
Tab7_e 3. Concentration of heavy ~~~etals in storm sewer
effluent, 10/14/77 (m~/1).
~oiETAL
LOCATI01~
Pb Cr Cd Cu Ni Zn Fe
'~"dater Wit. .5 .00 .00 .14 .OU .05 7.1
i~iead ow ~t . 1.0 .00 .00 . l~-+ .00 .11 9 0
~oVest at. .7 .2 .UO .32 .00 »16 13.3
r ~~ ~~
,A
25
-,
~,' 1 Table ~+. Average concentration of heavy metals in bottom
sediment (µ~/~)
=..~., -~- r~__.__- _- -
:dIF TAL
LOCATIOiv
Pb Cr Cd Cu Ni Zn r e
_ I
non-industrial 17 6 .4 7.7 16 30 14500
use streacns~'
Illinois R.af 28 l7 2.0 19.1 27 81 12000
i~~.ill Riverif~f 165 123 •7 97 2g 112 6800
~f data based on reference 5
ih3f data based. on Table 1 ~
I
r
!,
'~~
~~`~` Table 5.
Concentration of
heavy
metals in
iviill
River i
bentl~ic macroinvertebrates (µg/g dry wt.).
~
-- -- ;'
i~~~ETAL -
STATIGN
1~Ui~,;!3ER pb Cr Cd Cu Ni Zn ~Fe
23.8 121 0 .0 147 35 295 500
16.5 100 28 .8 214 lg 2g4 1200
6.3 180 50 2.g 12g 27 300 2700
4.G
I g4 20 1.6
-- 9U 18 238
-- 2200 i
I
_
I
,,~,,
i
I
_,¢ -
~6
~ ~1
- 9.2 GRAPHS OF BOTTO,bI SEDIi~iE\T ?BATA
500
~ 400
0 300
.r+
~ 200
U
O
~ loo
300
_.
.~
~ 200
0
+~
c~
~~
a~ l0 U
U
O
U
26
20 15 10 5
Location (km upstream of Conn. River)
Figure 2. Lead in iviill River sediment.
Location (km upstream of Conn. River)
Figure 3. Chromium in iv~ill River sediment.
,@
~~ ~
200
.,
,~ 150
U
100
ni
S-~
U
0 5C
20 15 l0 5
Location (km upstream of Conn. River)
Figure 4. Copper in lUiill River sediment.
200
.-~
150
0
.r.,
~ 100
-a
0
0 50
U
Location (km upstrearn of Conn. giver)
Figure 5. Zinc in i~,:ill fiver sediments
_ -,~ _. _
,B
~,
~`~~
2 C.i
40
~ 30
0
20
s~,
-a
U
~i
~ 10
20 15 l0 5
Location {km upstream of Conn. River)
r figure 6 . N ickel in t~,ill River sediment .
U
•'~ 2.0
+~
~ ~~
~ ~
-a
~o
m
c~ v 1.0
c~
0
U
Figure 7. Cadmium in Iti1111 River sediment.
Location (km upstream of Conn. River)
R
` , 9.3 B IBLIOGi~.A:PHY
29
1« American Pub]_ic Health Association, American Water tiVorks
Association, '+Vater Pollution Control Federation. STANDARD
i~~,ETHODS for the Examination of JVater and `Wastewater. flew
York: APHA, 15th Edition, 1975.
2. Burrell, David C. Atomic Spectrometric Analysis of Heav.y-
a~fetal Pollutants in 1~~later. Ann firbor Science Publishers,
1974.
3. Environmental c,'~onitoring and Support Laboratory. itilethods
for Chemical Ana~sis of 'i9ater and ~~iJastes. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 1974.
~~
4. i~,`_assachusetts, Commonwealth of, Division of ~i~iater
Pollution Control, Draper Hall, University of iv~ass.,
Amherst, :Mass. Documents filed under '~Idorthampton."
5 . ;Mathis, B . J . , and Cummings, `I' « F . Distribution of Selected
;aletals in Bottom Sed imen'ts A 'Water, Clams,__Tubificid ` ',
Annelids, and Fishes ofthe i~J':iddle Illinois River.
University of Illinois v'~iater resources Center, Urbana,
Kesearch i3eport No. 41, iJiarch, 1971.
6. i~.cKee, J. E., and ~~'Volf, H. 'iV. Water duality Criteria.
California Mate ~;uater Resources Control Board, 1963.
i
I ~~
I '~
~;f'.
;~. ,
.~
j"
• ~~~~
t ati rn A: - ~-~ `-r
ra ,' ~^ ~ ~ Ca~ 9
s1 ii ~ t ~q
~ ~~ 's~ [:1 '" -•~ 4+ ~ ~?f~ ~~ ~ k`~ ~ L, .~ t~ 1 ~ ~' .
k~ A . 3 ~ ,. ~! ~ ~ , s
.:,
~,~
~~~~~~~~~~~ s ~.~~,
Mt~~~~~~~~~~ ~
~~'-~
i
,~
~, ---- ~ _
cc~r~vuc-r~~ ~~r
~~.~rN~s J. ~;~3d~.E
J~F6?~! ~. L~1fER~2lERL
J~1viES ~ QCC~E,~itii~i
~t~.~lVl~~i-"19 #Y t
~` ~,/g,/ t,Y
~ 13 ~iG~ Gi E~ ~ ~ ~ ~i~
~~ M~
~~ -
~. ~
- ~ ,,.,~
~,..~
~`~
WATEP. QUALITY ANALYSIS OF TH~~ i~iILL RIVER
Williamsburg and Northampton,
I~~assachusetts
Summer 1977
SUA~I`4AR`i
~:-~, Conducted Uy .
,~~~
Dennis J. Coyle
Sohn R. Lafer~'iere
James. F. Dcchialini
m. m eStation t
i ~ ° ° .23.6 km
o .
°
° v
m
o I
n
o
9
0
0
°
o
o
• o • o o Statian 2
° 16.5 km ,~~
o ° ~i
,~
•
a
~ , ! ~ a Beaver i
y. ° Brook
A i
SevRl~
° • °
0
® _- _
- __ _ _ __ _
°
~ 9
/~ / ° °
~i Roberts o r~ I
• '~~ ~% Meadow °
o
Brook
0
Country ~ °
Club ~ o
°
~ °
e
•
0
. - Meadow ° o °
Street o° ° ° a _
e
• ~ e °
m ° °
Station 3 / ~ ° ° ° ••° ® Federal ~~
° ° Street ~
td.t km ° o ~ Tributary i
° o
Maine's o ° a °
Field e o
• ~ + Tributary ' U °° _
• ~ Paradise
• Station 3A Pond
.Station 4 ---
4.0 km o •
®•
e
° ° 10
0 1 Mile °
r --4 _ ®® °
o °
0 1 Kilometer ~ °
0
o °
O
/~ ° ~ °
° ~ °
0
°
°
°
• e
e
°
~~1 ~. ...
TALLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction . ° • . , ° . . 1. ~'
Definition of Class B ~daters ° _ ~ .•~ °
Temperature ° ° . . ° . ~ . • ^ . ° ° . ; ° 2
Dissolved Oxygen . . • ° ° •. ° <. ° . 3 -
Biochemical Oxygen Demand • • ~• ~ 3
slitrate ° ° ° . :. . . ° 3
Ammonia o i. a s.. s o 4 it
t
Orthophosphate a ~. ° . • • . . ... • ~
_ Total.'Phosphate _. ...• .e . - . o .. ._ s. ,:.~. _. _;•_ ° -., .-- -. _.S
~i
Fecal Colifonn . .. ° . . . ... ~.~ . ~,~~ . .. . •~ 5 ~ ~~
,~
Appendix 1' . . . .. . . . . a o . . 13
Literature C1teC . . . r . e . ° s e e a . a a e . ., 15
~. ~ I
.. :. it
i
I
i
i
~ ~~
'~ 1
INTRODUCTION
This report is intended as a brief summary of the res~clts of the
chemical and biological analysis of. ,the Mill River ConducQ-,ed by Dennis
i
J. Coyle, John R. Laferriere, and James F. pcchialini,during the. summer
of 1977.
I
The text consists of a brief discussion of the basic trends in the
data far each parameters The large mass of data collected over. the
summer is compiled into .two tables for relatively easy comparison of
the conditions aL- each station during the different sampling periods.
.Table 1 lists the average concentrations measured, and Table 2~presents ~,
_ ~!
-thaealeulat•ed loads-of each.-chemical c.o_nstituent. Tn-a~l~ition,.~lppendix
I
I presents the results. of grab samples .taken to :investigate several..
.suspected point sources of pollution, III
As previously indicated, this report. is by no-.means a comprehensive -
analysis of the summer data`. Amore detailed evaluation of this data,. ~'
I
attempt3rig to correlate the water quality of the rill Rivex with patterns
. - ..
. of land use in the watershed, is forthcoming.
'~__,
2
~`~
DEFINITION OF CLA5a B 4~IATERS~
i
~~These waters are suitable.for bathing and recreatios^~al purposes,
water contact activities, are acceptable for public water supply with
treatment and disinfection, axe an excellent fish and wildlife habitat,
have excellent aesthetic values, and are suitable for certain agricultural
and industrial uses." The Mill River is designated as a class:!B water. - i
TFi~IPERATURr
Klass. Standard:~~ Not to exceed 68°F (20°C) in cold water fisheries or
. ..
-- - - - _
--~-.. 83oF (28.3°C} in warm water fisheries.
i
`'~ .
Results: All data showed a general increase in temperature downstream, i
but with no unusually large jumps between adjacent stations. Though
midsunmier highs were often greater than 25°C at the lower stations, mean
temperatures were rarely above 23°C. _ .. ',
pH ~ ,'
4
Niass. Standard: Between 6.5 and 8.0 pH units.
Results: Measured pH values t~~ere all satifactory, ranging between 7.0
and 7.5, with no significant differences between stations..
1. ( .,
i~:,
k'
_ _
l
. ~~~
DISSOLVED OXYGEN
Klass. Standard:~~ Not less than 75% saturation duxing 16 'nouns of a 24
hour sampling period, and not less than C~.O,mg/1.
Resultsi The dissolved oxygen was. maintained at safe lra~~~ls at all
i
s•-measured concentrations Caere at least above 7 mo/l, with
station ,
percentage saturation generally greater. than 90%. There ,aas a consistant _ ~,
decxease in both concentration and percent saturation aczoss Paradise
Pond, with the D.O. just above the dam being about 7 mg/l.
BIOCIii`'fICAL OXYGEN DN~IAND
~`~ rlass.'Standard:~` No concentrations which would be harmful to aquatic
- life or to any water use specifically assigned to this class.
Results: B.O.D. values were generally under 2 mg/l, with the greatest
jump usually occuring between stations 3A and ~a. B.O.D. loads shave a -
consistant large increase between stations 1 and 2, and betcaeen 3A a~.id:49
with these two increases being of comparable magnitude. This data also
shows that inputs from Williamsburg tend to triple the B,O.D. load -
carried by the river.
NITRATE
'L Mass. Standard: No concentrations which would be harmful to aquatic.
'i' l life or to any water use specifically assigned to this class.
3
~~
' I
• Results: Nitrate concentrations were generally quite. high (>.3 m1?/11
downstream of station 3. The loads increased. downstream to station 3A,.
with the largest consistent increase'occuring between stations 3 and 3A.
i
• Ati1MONIA .
Mass. Standard: No concentrations which would be harmful to aquatic life
or to any water use specifically assigned to this class.
Additi.oral Criteria: >.1 ng/1 - suspicion of pollution
2
>.3 mg/1 -can. lead to eutrophication
}1.0 mg/1 -toxic to fish
.. i
,--~ Results: Anrnonia concentrations were found to be in the range of .1 -
__ .25 mg/i. The only dangerously high concentration was ?_.;6 mg/1 iii t:he ICII
h
Federal Street Tributary after rainfall.
O~RTHOPFI~CS'~ BATE
.~ which would be harmful to aquatic.. I
Mass. Standard. No concentrations
• life or to any water use specifically assigned to this class.
Additional Criteria:2 > 10 µg/1 can lead to eutrophi.cation ~~
Results:. Orthophosphate concentrations showed a consistent large
increase from station 1 to 2, with.midsurmroer concentrations of about
__
25 ug/1 at station 2. Orthophosphate loads at station 2 were
approximately 10 times those of station 1. Downstream, concentrations ~
maintained fairly stable, but lower, lever , ~ I!,
I, .
I~
i __
~~
.
TQTAL P11CSPliATE .
Mass. Standaxd:~' No concentrations which would be harmful to aquatic
life or to any water use specifically assigned to this class..
Additional Criteria:3 In order to limit nuisance growths of algae,
total phosphorus concentrations should maintained below I00 }.Tg/1 in
fddwing streams and less than 50 }ag/1 where streams enter lakes.
l.esults: Total phosphate data showed large increases in both concentrations
and loads across 6di11i.amsburg, and both continued. to increase downstream.
From station 3A to 4, there was a..consistent_~jump~in concentration
of comparable magnitude to that across t.,~ill.iarnsburg.
_ \I ~ ~
FECAL CC7L IFJiZ'~.
Mass. Standard: Total. Coliform - not to exceed an average value or~
1000 /100 ml nor greater than 1000 /1.00 ml~in 20°I of the samples. It
should be noted that the results, presented`~in'tliis~report are for the
fecal coliform test, which tends to' give sornewhat locaer values than
the totol coli,forrn procedure.l
Additional Criteria :3 For waters designated for recreation use other
than primary contact recreation, .the fecal colifoi-m content should not
exceed a mean of 1000 /100 ml, nor exceed 2.000 /100 ml in more than
10°!° of the samples. For waters designated for primary contact recreation,
the National Technical Ad•~isory Committee has set criteria for mandatory
~ l factors: "... the fecal coloform content of primary contact recreation
I' ~ waters shall not exceed a log mean of 200/100 m1, nor shall more than
.. 6'
-~
~.
10% of total samples during any 30 day period exceed 400/100 ml ." ~~
Results: Fecal colif_orm counts increased .greatly acrass ;dilliamsburg;
with station 2 counts consistently in the range of 2000-3+~00/l00 m1. ~~
Levels generally decreased downstream to station 4, where they were
. about 300/100 ml. Arl:er rainfall, coliform levels showed.anycahere from
I
a~two to seven fold increase. Station 2 had a content of 25,000/100 ml
after a heavy,~downpour, while the entire length of the ry~'er clbwnstream;,
of~.•.stationl2;`liadlevels •ei:ceedd~-g ~1000/100.~iri1~ during this wet period.
The fecal coliform content of .the Mill River downstream of Williamsburg'
consistently exceeded the limits for primary contact recx•eation, and
ction of the river from station 2 Lo MaineQS Field exceecled the
the .se __ ~
__
'~ limits for other recreational purposes as well,
~~~~
I'~
.. ~ _ 'p
.. - ~ ~ ~ .~
i
. ~ ~ ~ r ~ it
,N.a
Oi r~
M ~
~
H
N O
~: O l
G~ O `p
•
~
Q M
M N
~
.-+
~ .~'
N
•.t
.-+
(~ tf7 ~
° _ .. N
~ O ~,
h
. ~q O
• ~
.-I
N
`• ,
~F
y .-+
~ ~
ul .--t
O F
N G'~
rv CA ~ ~ try N
ClJ ~
v7 ~'
O N
~` 3a
"''
~ c0
't't ~ _
to
may'
M
lY~
!`~
~
Imo-
O
I~
O ~
~p
~
y -~
'~
•
~
•
N
•
.-+
o O
cd ~'
N O
N e
.-a
.-+ s
.~+
rC ~ `~ i
p . rn' N
•~ L N cti
~ / ~ ~
C`1 ~
cl'1
~U
~'
I~
•
•
e
~
G
~'
~ r ~ CJ • t
~
~
N ~. ~ -
~
F
Cp
p~
~~:
00
F
E ~ N
~t
aS
a
U
N
r"
~,~
•
~
O
'-,
o~
~
N U ,~
N s
.-a •
~ I
~.
{~
N Lp
CO - tI~
t N
N 1`~ '
v : ~
~ '~'
• •
' s N t'~1 00 CO ~I
e
N
•
.--+
•
.-+
o
~'
r+
~
.-+
C"
1
N
61
•-t
•
.-t
e
+-+ • •
~-+
}-1
O
w
~
.-t .-~
rn .-a
to O
~ O
N v
.-~ F
.. rn N ~ ~'
rn .-+
M rn
v~ ~
n
~ rt ~-+ N .~ ~ .--t
.~
N
r7 ~; ''..
Qy ~ ~' u'i O O G~ O O G O U
, to I'~ !'~- t~ CC tf1 1`- I~ ' ~ (YJ 1~- (~ CJ CO
N ~
G
~
~
~ ~ .
•
• r-i ~
u n
U. ~ I
/ ,.. ~
,_.,
~
~
3
PJ
~
~~
iz',
w ^
U .
Q~
Q
~
''~
0
m ~~ a . : v ~ ~ .~ ~
. H p, ~,,
5~
a..,
~\
1
H
CJ7
W
G4
P=1
T
1-+
bJ
o M
rs
f-i
.N Lz1
-0J
~ \ JJ
I '. cA
~~;
• M
~ .
U
U
` N
,--~
'L5
'~
~ ro
~ ca
0
U
u
~
.u
.-1 N
8
~ cJ
r-+ }-i
.f]
- RS
c0 W
H
o
•
O
N
tf1 `^
~" •-.+
t(1
~ p Cl CO ~ e s
O
• O
•
O
n G p i
N
P~ ...r • °
_ ~
.-i N ~ ,
I
O M
• ~ n O ~ i
tt1 t!1 - N .'-+
N
O O
,-r
t~ ~
N '~
M
~ v1 M t~ ° •
N N
n n !~. ~
• t1'1
•
tf1 ~
~ H
~'
(~ ~~'
%d b
M ~
N N
M CT
C7 i
G~ N O M C5~ N M ~fl ~ .~' ° ' °
ir1 ~
• o O
• O
e
Q1 CO
.-t
~ rn
~' ~
M ~s1
M O
tS1 i
M (` ~
~D
M
~ I
M ...
~ '_ N... _ '_ N ' _ th d °
N
N . ~,;,~
~p °
~
O ('~l .`^t
~-+ O~
M tf1
N
.o a ~ ..~ M .o ° °
r-~ N
I
O ~ N N
~ fem.
- "'~
..
i - 00 O M i~
~. N
tft ~' u1 0~ M ~ ~ G~ cT~ I'^ i~ O
t~ O 0~ to ~ N M t!1 ~-+ CO e •
N N N ~'
I
u'1
s
Cr O~
• •
~'
•
O
•
M
.-1 to
N
~'
~
O
.~
""~
r-t
"~
~
~ I
O
'-'~
N ~' ~ tr1 ~O ~ N M • . • •
rn O O
+ ~O
~
~ Q~
-i O
Imo- N O "O ~ ~ ~1 .O-a r~ i
.-+
- I~ N
n .-
00 .
-
~ .
~ r` ~ ~ oo ~ ~ r x c:,
u
~ r`
~~ W
H
~ ^ ~ H ~
~'
~ ~-a ~ '
~
~ ~ 0
v ~
H ~
LL ~ O `
9
~,~
E-+
W
w'
W
L~
W
~-+
N
a-1
a
~~
M
H
.
a
>r
O'
^~
~
/~
~ M
H
U
U
N
~~
"-Si
G ~
•rt :.)
:t~ N
~ Q
Q
U
.-+ 7..1
.-1 Q}
.n ~
m ~
[-+ Gi
,,,
~
e r~
~
o ~n
~
• ~
~
e
1
1
N fi0 V~
O
• M
e .-''
o O
• 1
1
p~ CO
O
• ~
o ~ M ~
G\
>` n
u1
N
• O~
C'1
• CO
M .
• ~O
1'~
•
O
O~
~ t`
i
CO ~
N
• N
N
o .-~
.-r
• ~i
.-1
o ~'
N
• If1
u1
• ~
M
e l!1
~O
• ~
6~ ~
V1
•'
u1
6~
to
G\
~1'
~
~"~
~
i
O~ CO I`~ ~ ice`
~O
o O
• O
O
e ~'
M
• u1
R
• O
O
• ~O
ul ~
O
o
00
~
O
O
~1
4'~ '
I
c0 q a0 ct;, •-+
N
.-a M
N ~'
Vr1 ~
d~
i'~
W
A ~ .
N tf1 •-+ GO 90 v1
• m o • o G~ - C3~ ~
O~ 00 CQ ~ k
.-~ e-1 ~ rl ~ ~ .-i .
• • • o Q~
' ~ ~ ~ N
'
.~-I
~
~
- M
lf1 CO
Cl
~
00
-
I • • .. • . s
~ ~ .
i
e
•
•
•
•
•
~ •
o
e
~
G~
f31
CJ i
'.
~ 00 UJ O~ CO .-~
I
M
N
e ~
N
e t~
O
e .-+
CV
• •-+
N
o M
(~
• N
Crl ~
CO
i O
~f1
• M
~'
• ~
C1
~
.-+
C
.-i
G~
M
C~
~'.
~ 00' t~ 0~ CO
G~ `O O D ~ O O ~O O~ O. O ,r
u1 t~ i~ GO CO u1 i'~ t~ ~ CO u1 1~ 1~ CO
~ ~ •
N '..4 ~ ~
O ~'
v •
a \,
~
O
•
A ~ ~
1_
1_~
~~
~
~ 1 i
~, co t
r,
E-+ O O i
~
~ t
Gq ~ c~1 O
~ ~ ~
~+ 7
m. ~ ~
• ~ I
o +~ ~
• 0 0 ~ ~
0
O H
+-~
'y7 'ty ~
cq r-+ 41
O O O O O ~ ~ ~
~ O M CO O u1
r
`~
..~
~.~
i
.-+ .a Cl M tf1 ~ T=+ CI1
?,
~ N Y
to
ri
~
~ O O O O A ~ 'mo I
M
M ~'
.~'
N
0 .
a d
s
C4 ~ f
. ~ 1 t 1
_ i
' ~
O O O ~1 H H
1
RO Crl
~~~
~
~i ~
•
O O O
M O ~ O I
N ~~
.-~ .-~ f
.Q
• ~
O O . •-~
~
~ CA
N O
~-+ CJ
N
I
~ ~, bD
/'~
~
'U I
O O O ~ ..f]
U ~ . t~1 1J V ~ 'C7
U ~ fll ~ O
~
~ 1-! 1J ~+ ~ ~ I
a o 0 0 o a ~ m'
N O O p ~
~ ~ w ~ ~
~ >
~
z ~ ~
'~ u~i °o co° ~ ~ ~ 1 1 t t
,,~ .~ a
~
~ v ~
cn
w
as
'~} v U ~ ,s p
cu
~
~
~
~ O O O
..
l.r N ~
•~ Ca ~ t` r a~ co o I
o
~
~ .~,
~
r-+
~ ~ •
H ~
_ ~ N d
~ I
~ i
, ~ ~ H Sa 4-i tq
w a ~
~ ~ ~ .
'i
y
11
~'~ .
~
E-+ ~ u'1
cn .
W
H ~ N N
~ ~a
~ ~ ~ t`
"' ~ ..a
~q '`h O cA
p .N N
~
n
~
.~
C
CO
'
.-~
.-a
~O
~ .-t
u'1
CO I
N
~
~ ~ .-~ .-+~ M C
1 ~ .-~
T '.'+
~ ~
RJ
M N ~ ~ C N
~
~ CO M N ~ ~
~
H I
~ -
• p I
!_,
lO pp N
I
.. _ _ .e-~
~ _. _ _ .. _ \~
I
. -- ~ ~ ,
ice:
~
,.
'~ ~ .
..
M C;1
(~ ~' rl N
r-•+ ~ ^°~
. . ~ ~ ~
r ~
c.,
G .-i
• ~ ~`
f~ }
`~ I
,~
' v N .•+ ~ CO ~fl c^i ~' C•1 V eft
Cpl r
~O .-•+
M
N M VY .-t ,-~ .
N
/
• ~
Q
rt
ro
0
J~
G~ O Q G~ O O O O
- O i`~ i'` 00
--- ~ Q tf'1 F~ ~ 00 to i~ 1~ ~
d?
~+
' . N
~ ~ ~ ~ O
~ ~
i
~ ~
~ ~ O
O
A
- H
~ ~ ~ ~
~'
~, Q' ~ ~
12
H Q om-,
•
•
H nt
~ a
O
[:,
~ p M
• ~ •
,-~ .V1
~ ° N
fA
N
v1 N C1 q O q ~U ~D
o
•
~. e •
N N a •
N e •
~ W N
~'+ ~
N
(~ N
~ .~ i~ q ~ O r
e o r'
e
rry
.'i M • •
.-a C"l • u1 '~'
}.~
H
~ C'1
O ~+ ~ ~
~~\ ~
~ ~
- ! .~' ~ q C7 q N
~ •
~+'1 • e
.-1 .--i •
G~ •
M ~'
~
~ ..-a
~
. ~
i0 N
V
U •
N - •
~
r
q N ~' C N tf1 ~U 6f't
~y
,,.~ e
N ~ e
.-a o
u1 o e
M N
M
N N .-r .-~ .-t q ~ O
„~,~ • • a • o
~--1 • o
/^\ `
.~
~ ~ ~
_ _.. ~ Q ~ r ~ ~ t!1 f ~ 1~ q
U
..~
q q
W : .
N ~
~ 1
`
~ ~ ro ~w H
~ a
i
i H ~ o ~
C -
~`
~l
APPENDIX I
13
Results of Grab Samples Taken on 8/19/77
Grab samples were taken from several ,regular sam~lin~~,.stations as
well as nine pipes discharging into the Mill River between Meadow Street
and Maine's Field (Table 3). Six of these pipes were cooling water
discharges from Pro Brushe These were found to have total phosphate and
ammonia concentrations that were approximately the same as the river
itself, and fecal coliform counts which were much lower, and thus seem
to pose no particu3.ar problem.
, Analysis of the other samples showed large increases in
_. -- - -
,~.~ orthophosphate, total phosphate, anti ammonia concentrations from Meadow
`'~I Street to Mair_e's Field.. Pipe ~k2, of undetermined origin, appeared to'
be discharging ~un'Ytreated domestic sewage, and the chemical analysss
seems to back up this conclusion, The meadow Street storm drain (Pipe r~1)
also shows efaremely high phosphate., ammonia,. attd fecal coliform content:
The Maine's Field storRi drain (Pipe. ~~3) Baas not nearly as bad ,in these ' .'
respects.
It should be noted that there ~~as no appreciable rainfall for
several days prior to the taking of these samples, and all other storrn ,'
drains observed on this day had dried up. In contrast, the two
aforementioned storm drains both had appreciable flow rates, with the
---
one at Nleadow Street having the greater of the two.
14
~ ! - -Table 3. Results of grab samples fatten at 10 amy 8/19/77.~~
Location
Station 1' ipe Pipe Pipe
Parameter 2 CC MS - Mr ~rl 9r2 ,r3
-- I
URTHQPHUSPHATE 1A.7 26.7 ~~3.3 35.7 155G 3900 22.3
TOTAL P1tuSPtiATE 25.0 34.3 26.3 62.0 2650 4675 45.7
(ug/1) - ~ j
. ANiMUNIA -- -- .14 .22 2.69 ~ i2:~~'- .26 I
(mg/1) : i
FECAL COLIFORi~i -- -- -- -- 1500 8000 --
(per 100 ml)
--
~;
-- -all values significantly different at 9S% level --
-, - a...
' `~~ ~~~. Pipe .,'~l~ - under P~Ieadaw St. bridge -storm drain °
'',
-- - ~
Pipe ~~2 -.under old footbridge between Meadow St. and Pine St,
bridges w undetermined origin
Pipe ik3 -approx. l00 meters upstream of Mainees Field sampling
station -storm drain
. . .G
.. ~ - ~ ~ -
° ~, 5
~\\
LITERATURE CITED
1. American Public Health Association, Standard ivi,ethods for the
Examination of Water and WasteGrater, 14th Edition, i~75,
. 2. i~icl~ee, Jack E. and Harold W. Wolf, ,later C~i~ality Criteria,
California State Resources Control Board, 19530. •
3. National Technical Advisory Committee,~Water Quality Criteria, -
Federal Water Pollution Control Administration, Washington, D<Co,
196$. •
4.~ Water iesources Commission, Division of Water Pollution Control,
Rules and Regulations for the Establishment of ~iinimam Water Qualit
•_ _ . _
jr i I
~._- Standards and for the Protection of the Quality and al.ue of dater
-' ~ Resources, Commoncaealth of )viassachusetts, i`•Say, 19748 Publication
k
2M-9-74-105946.
;,