I 62.8Jfe ^ Un36^<^ o LIBRARY * OF THE UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOi SOURCES OF POLLUTION QUINEBAUG RIVER VALLEY .1 the library of the OCT 2 9 1940 tllWBWTV OF ILUKog W.P.A. POLLUTION STUDIES SPONSORED BY MASSACHUSETTS DEPT OF PUBUC HEALTH MARCH 1940 THE UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS LIBRARY 62Q. 16 LJ n 3& y ^ iW Uu * REPORT UN SOURCES OF POLLUTION QUINEBAUG RIVER VALLEY MASSACHUSETTS »hf Library of thl OCT 2 9 1940 UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS U.S__vVork projects a.dvr\\riTstra.tir/i J se rfcs • PUBLISHED BY WORK PROJECTS ADMINISTRATION POLLUTION STUDIES PROJECT $18120 SPONSORED BY MASSACHUSETTS DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH BO STD N, MASSACHUSETTS MARCH 1940 W.P.A. POLLUTION STUDIES Room 507, 115 Federal Street Boston, Massachusetts 6 2 8.1 6 Un 36 r^. Sponsored By Massachusetts Department of Public Health March 10, 1940 Department of Public Health State House, Boston, Massachusetts Gentlemen: We are transmitting herewith a report covering sources of pollution of the Quincbaug River within the Commonwealth of Massa¬ chusetts in the counties of Worcester and Hampden. This report and the field work necessary thereto, has boon prepared and con¬ ducted by the Work Projects Administration, Project $18120 spon¬ sored by the Massachusetts Department of Public Health under the direction of John H. Harding, and technical supervision of Lawrence A. Hansen. It will be found that numerous towns are divided by the watershed line of the river. In such cases only that area con¬ tained within the Quinebaug River Watershed is covered herein. It is only intended to indicate the sources of domestic sew¬ age pollution and the sources, volumes and types of industrial wastes being discharged into the streams of this watershed area with a brief reviow of each municipality’s situation to the end that careful consideration might bo given to a comprehensive pro¬ gram for their regulation and with the view of focusing public at¬ tention on the need for such action. Very truly yours, James H. McFarland, Acting Supervisor WPA POLLUTION PROJECT #18120 TABLE OF- CONTENTS Page Foreword PART I, General Introduction, Quinebaug River Q,uinebaug River Watershed .. 1 Flow Data.*..... 2 Population . 6 Agriculture .• 6 Forestry.... 9 Recreation... 9 Industry ... 10 Transportation. 10 PART II, Detail Considerations of Cities and Towns Within the Massachusetts Area of the Quinebaug River Watershed Brimfield . 13 Brookfield •. 16 Charlton ..... 18 Dudley. 26 East Brookfield . 31 Holland. 33 Southbridge ....„... 35 Spencer... 43 Sturbridge . 45 Wales . 54 Warren. 58 West Brookfield... 60 I Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2018 with funding from University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign Alternates https://archive.org/details/reportonsourcesoOOunit TABLE OE CONTENTS Page PART III, Chemical Analyses of Quinebaug River .. 63 Summary . 91 II TABLES Page Important Tributaries of Quinebaug River in Massachusetts ... 2 Drainage Areas in Cities and Towns of the Quinebaug River Watershed in Massachusetts .. 3 Flow Data of the Quinebaug River (Average Flow) . 4 Population Statistics of Towns within the Watershed Area of Quinebaug River Watershed . 7 Population Densit3^ of Cities and Towns in Quinebaug River Watershed ... 8 Waste Outlets in Brimfield ... 14 Waste Outlets in Charlton . 19 Wastes Discharged to the Quinebaug River and its Tributaries by Industries of Charlton... 24 Waste Outlets in Dudley. 28 Wastes Discharged to the Quinebaug River and its Tributaries by Industries of Dudley . 29 Waste Outlets in Southbridge .... 37 Wastes Discharged to the Quinebaug River and its Tributaries by Industries of Southbridge .. 40 Waste Outlets in Sturbridge .. 47 Wastes Discharged to the Quinebaug River and its Tributaries by Industries of Sturbridge . 52 Waste Outlets in Wales . 55 Wastes Discharged to the Quinebaug River and its Tributaries by Industries of Wales .. 56 Chemical Analyses of Quinebaug River, (Test Taken June 7, 1938) ... 65 Chemical Analyses of Quinebaug River, (Test Taken July 19, 1938) . 66 Chemical Analyses of Quinebaug River, (Test Taken Aug. 23, 1938) . 67 III ■ . TABLES (Continued) Page Chemical Analyses of Quinebaug River, (Test Taken Oct. 27, 1938) ... 68 Chemical Analyses of Quinebaug River, (Test Taken Nov. 21, 1938) .... 69 Chemical Analyses of Quinebaug River, (Average of Tests Taken June 7 - Nov. 21, 1938) . 70 Sources of Pollution in Quinebaug River Valley . 92 Industrial Wastes Discharged into the Quinebaug River ....... 93 IV MAPS AND CHARTS Page Watershed Map Sources of Pollution — Brimfield . 12 Watershed Map — Brookfield . ...» 15 Sources of Pollution — Charlton .. 17 Sources of Pollution — Dudley .. 25 Watershed Map — East Brookfield. 30 Watershed Map — Holland .. 32 Sources of Pollution — Southbridge . 34 Watershed Map — Spencer. 42 Sources of Pollution — Sturbridge .. 44 Sources of Pollution — Wales ....» 53 Watershed Map —- Warren .. 57 'Watershed Map — West Brookfield .•••••••••• . 59 Total Residue — Quinebaug River .... 73 Free Ammonia — Quinebaug River ..... 75 Albuminoid Ammonia — Quinebaug River.. 77 Nitrates & Nitrites — Quinebaug River.... 79 Chlorides — Quinebaug River.... 81 Oxygen Consumed — Quinebaug River .... 0 .... 83 Biochemical Oxygen Demand — Quinebaug River ... 85 Dissolved Oicygen — Quinebaug River.... 87 V - - • > . ■ FOREWORD This report covers, in concise form, informational data ob¬ tained from pollution surveys of those communities within the Quinebaug River Valley. It deals primarily with the sources of industrial and domestic wastes which pollute or tend to pollute the waters of the Quinebaug River, chemical analyses of water samples showing the extent of pollution in the river waters, and those means which cities and towns have adopted in their effort to correct unsatisfactory conditions. In most cases basic technical data and computations arc not included, as those are primarily of interest to the Sanitary En¬ gineer in his plaining of corrective measures, such as treatment plant design, intercepting sowers, etc., rather than necessary to a general review of existing conditions. Such supporting data has therefore boon placed on file with the Massachusetts Department of Public Health end is available as the need requires. It will be found in reviewing this treatise that specific reference is made to House Document No. 2050, a report of the Massachusetts Department of Public Health, ’'Sanitary Condition of Certain Rivers of the Commonwealth". This document, authorized under Chapter 49 of the Resolves of 1936, Chapter 66 of the Re¬ solves of 1937, and Chapter 25 of the Resolves of 1938, has al¬ ready summarized the results of this study. This report, there¬ fore, is to a large degree, a detail presentation of supporting data to that section covering the Quinebaug River except where supplementary studios have furnished additional data. Acknowledgement is gratefully made to the valuable leader¬ ship, guidance and council given the werk by Arthur D. Weston, Chief Engineer of the Department of Public Health, Messrs. Edward Wright and Joseph C. Knox of his staff, as well as to the person¬ nel of the Worcester Sewage Treatment Laboratory and the many city and town officials within the study area who by their close co¬ operation in matters dealing with their particular community made the task much lighter than would have been otherwise possible. Grateful acknowledgement is also given to the splendid co¬ operation and personal effort of the project’s personnel. - ■ ' ■ ■ ■ . PART I GENERAL INTRODUCTION QUINERA.UG RIVER library OF THE UNIVERSITY of ILLINOIS THE QUmEBAUG- RIVER WATERSHED Quinebaug River, one of the principal tributaries to the Thames River Basin originates in the Town of Sturbridge at the confluence of Mill Brook and the outlet from Long Pond. This wa¬ tershed, an important part of the upper Thames Basin, includes the watershed area of the Quinebaug’s source tributary, Mill Brook, and embraces an area in Massachusetts approximately 15 miles in length and 10 miles in width, a total of 143 square miles within the counties of Worcester and Hampden. The general course of the Quinebaug is southeasterly, flowing through the Towns of Brimfiold, Sturbridge, Southbridge and Dud¬ ley, and entering the State of Connecticut at a point on the south central border of the latter town. Along this course of approximately 15 miles, the river 1 s flow, with a total recorded fall of 250 feet is interrupted many times by numerous dams which serve to create a number of reser¬ voirs employed largely as storage basins for industrial uses. An¬ alysing the river’s fall, it is found that from Long Pond in Stur¬ bridge at an elevation of 800 feet to the Town of Southbridge, a distance of 8 miles, the fall approximates 140 feet followed by a two and one-half mile flow with a fall of 100 feet. In the final distance of four and one-half miles, where the river flows through fairly flat country, the fall is only about 10 feet. The average fall is estimated at about 15,5 feet per mile. The topography of the shed is hilly with average elevations ranging from 700 to 1,000 feet above sea level with a maximum ele¬ vation of 1,200 feet along the western divide. Rock formation is predominately granite although intermittent areas of sedimentary schist is to bo found. The soil, principally composed of glacial deposits, is for the most part light sand and gravel. Land cover is mainly hardwood with scattered growths of coniferous trees. Annual precipitation from limited observation^ shows a total precipitation of approximately 42 inches, with an average yearly snowfall of 52 inches from which there is a 21 inch run-off. Yearly temperature averages about 24 degrees in the winter and 68 degrees in the suminer. Principal tributaries to the Quinebaug River are: from the north, Hobbs, Globe and Walker Ponds, from the south, Wales, Mill, Breakneck, Hatchet, Cohasse and Lebanon Brooks. These rivers and brooks are detailed in the following table, Table I, "Important Tributaries of Quinebaug River in Massachusetts". 1 s With the exception of Cady, Lebanon and Cohasse Brooks, these tributaries contribute little pollution to the Quinebaug River. TABLE I IMPORTANT TRIBUTARIES Of QUINEBAUG RIVER In MASSACHUSETTS Brooks Course (Direction of Flow) Length (Miles) Point of Entry (Miles Above Mouth) Hobbs Southerly 6.5 I 1 w • i —1 •—1 Globe Southerly 8.0 7.2 Cady Southerly 9.0 ■ 5.8 Mill Easterly 3.0 16.0 Wales Northerly 5.5 — Breakneck Northerly 4.5 9.9 Hatchet Northerly ‘3.5 8.6 Cohasse Northerly 6.5 5.5 Lebanon Northerly t 3 • 6 \ 4.0 Communities in Massachusetts drained by the Quinebaug River are shown in Table II, Page 3, "Drainage Areas in Cities and Towns of the Quinebaug River Watershed in Massachusetts". Of the twelve towns, it will be noted that only seven have any appreciable pro¬ portion of their area within the Quinebaug-Watorshed. PLOW DATA Flow data for the Quinebaug River, insofar as pertains to that area within Massachusetts through which it flows, is not as complete as in the case of other rivers in the State. However, records of the United States Geological Survey indicate that gag¬ ing stations are now being constructed so that more adequate data in the future will be available. It has boon necessary, there¬ fore, to employ the data recorded in 1933-34 from a gaging sta¬ tion a short distance below the Connecticut State Line in the town of Quinebaug. These readings arc recorded in Table III. 3 TABLE II DRAINAGE AREAS IN CITIES AND TOWNS Of The QUINEBAUG RIVER WATERSHED In MASSACHUSETTS Town Total Area (Sq.Miles) Area in Water¬ shed (Sq.Miles) Percent of Area in Water¬ shed HAMPDEN COUNTY Brimfield 35.52 22.60 63.62 Holland 12.92 12.92 100.00 Wales 16.23 8.02 49.41 WORCESTER COUNTY Brookfield 16.83 2.24 13.31 Charlton 43.96 23.76 54.05 Dudley 21.75 11.15 51.26 East Brookfield 10.32 .02 * Southbridge 20.80 20.80 100.00 Spencer 34.02 .61 * Sturbridge 38.96 35.93 92,22 Warren 27.80 4.54 16.33 West Brookfield 21.21 .21 * TOTAL 300.32 142.82 47.55 * Negligible * FLOW DATA. Of Tho QTJINEBAUG RIVER 4 fa o w d P O P o o Pi 1—1 tD CD oi tD 02 • •rH LO LO O to CO rH CO to CO CO 00 rH w 00 03 rH 02 1—1 CO Ol to o LO co 02 IN • c • • 0 • • a • • 0 • 0 , fa a' O l —1 02 02 CO CO to 1—1 rH 0 CO o P oi O d 02 CO L 0 o> H H P o Pi o H 02 Ol ai CO CO tD CO rH to rH 8 LO , •rH LO o o CO o i—1 LO «—1 <£> IP O Ol 02 CO i—i • a • • • • 0 • • 0 0 0 0 • « rH1 02 co 02 02 (X* i—1 rH rH 02 P O c\3 CO IN • •H CO oi oi O o- LO o cn o- rH CO co te-t 1 -1 LO tD Ol rH tD EN tD CO CO » , • 0 • • • • , • • 0 0 0 0 fa cr 1 o i — 1 i — 1 i — 1 CO 02 rH rH 0 CO o P tO O- d 02 02 o Cl Ol rH H - fH o o p i —l to 00 02 o CO £N , •pH CO CO 02 02 co o i—l CO CO CO o CO co to rH LO CO C\2 o tD tD O • e • • • • a 0 0 • • o 0 0 0 cr 1 o 02 02 rH i—1 H • CO o P LO tD O d C\2 02 M o cr> Ol d i—! i—1 P o p p p >> o * P 0 o >> P ,Q * O s ,o P d d -P P ,P O a a S3 i—1 >1 CO 0 •P o 0 s P •rH o p •P P -p !> o p P P P i — 1 OD Ph o 0 o o d o d P cJ p d P O fe— < f=^i o F=H p P L—H krH f—H Ha Hs < co * 1925-1930 Readings taken at Jewett City, Conn, C.F.S. - Cubic Feet per Second Drainage Area, 711 Sq. Miles ** Climatological Yearly Average 5 H t—I M ft s ft ft * ft © & 8 ft o I § ft ft CD © -H M -P © Pi © O W> © © • © ft © 0) 0 © © Pr ft o ft 03 X) © o • •H O 05 o- 05 CO CO to co i—1 CO to 03 co © •H o CO 03 05 03 CO 00 CO 05 rH 03 CO o 5, 1 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • o a* • m ft Cd 1-1 1-1 03 CO CO 03 rH 1-1 1-1 © ra © • CO cn •p w rH o © © •H © S fcrft © © ft © • © CO M D cd cd to CO •p © r—1 CO © c© 05 © P> © rH ft © ft £> ft co to M © i—1 o © H © ft ft •H © © © ft c© s © Pr H CO 1 —1 CO © © • h • ft 05 CO 05 1 —\ cO 00 C>- CO 1—1 rH ft CO O © © CQ «--4 f=5 03 o CO 1—1 to cO 03 o r—f 05 ft \ © • • • • • • • • • • • • « ■ • 1 rH *H © Pi cd rH CO r—1 rH C\2 CO in 1—1 03 1—1 ft! • CO • CO © o CO 1 • © © • CO © -P •H FH CO 3 © © • 05 O +5 © o 1—1 O 00 Q © 03 CO cd CO CO * © cr> 05 b H c—1 © © © Pi H 03 to H 1 CO ft- 05 00 03 ft • ft CO rH in 03 CO ft 03 CO CO 00 • CO V.—< rA CO CO co CO DO 05 o 05 LO CO CO ft 05 © • ■ ** • • • • • • • • • • • • • © ft a 1 o r—1 1 —1 1 -1 CO c • CO o o 1 X) © © © rH 03 -p OD CO CO T—f r— ' © :© 05 05 ft © © b l—1 r—1 ft -P © m © © © © © © •H i—1 © CD .a © ft ft Pr rH rH co o rH CO H* 03 1-1 o © o’ F—-i < • rd 05 05 05 i—1 o H CO O- CO r—1 o ft CO ft r —\ 03 CO CO CO cO 05 CO co CO co 03 03 CO © ft • b • • • » * • • • • • • • • • • •P c Cj 1 i—1 Pi Cd O 1—1 1-1 1—1 rH CO 3 • CO w • © o W -P 1—1 .© © o co b •H H) CO © XS • rH © o 1—1 M © '£ © © © © to CO © © o p © o © 05 05 © ft rH © h ■H b 1—1 1—I © © r> ■ft taD i> 03 ft -H o CO ft © H 05 ra t»0 O © * ft © ft © -P © © b © jr. 1 ft O © © © © © b © ft o •H © •rH S © ft ft © © 0 co a © cd •H .© ft e © © ft H w © 05 © © i—1 -P o © © © © O •rH © b © -P i—i CO ft pi o © +5 !> o © © © © i—1 m ft c o c © © © © ft cd © 3 ©. © * kH F-ft o 1 —zr n ft ft ftft Fi< * Holland 12.92 201 201 16 Southbridge 20.80 15,786 15,786 759 Spencer .61 6,487 * * Sturbridge 35.93 1,918 1,878 52 Wales 8.02 382 344 43 Warren 4.54 3,662 50 11 W.Brookfield .23 1,258 * * TOTAL 142.82 39,774 22,978 * Negligible 9 FORESTRY As previously described, land cover in this area is mainly in woodlands consisting of second and third growth hardwoods with scattered.stands of white pine. In many localities good stands of coniferous trees are to be found particularly on ±he steep banks of the main stream. However, these stands do not appear of suffi¬ cient importance to make lumbering either economically or commer¬ cially profitable at present. Some State Forests are located in the western section of the watershed in Hampden County. However, throughout the remaining part of the area the depleted woodlands appear to be receiving little attention, either from the standpoint of conservation or as future sources of lumber supply. Here, as in so many sections of Massachusetts it would appear a program of reforestation might well prove practicable and beneficial not only for the protection such a development would afford the area’s water resources, but also from the standpoint of the potential lumber the area might yield. Such a program would also be particularly valuable in in¬ creasing natural advantages to recreation in general. Thus the establishment of natural game preserves, camping and picnic sites, and other forms of recreational activities, the goal of hundreds of tourists and vacationists .visiting this area annually, might well become a profitable source of income to a people so situated in rural and predominantly agricultural communities, as to pre¬ clude any large scale industrial development outside of those towns in which industries have already located. RECREATION The close proximity of communities within the Quinebaug area to many large centers of population in central Massachusetts, northern Rhode Island and Connecticut, creates a natural demand for the fullest use of natural recreational opportunities. How¬ ever, these opportunities do not appear to have been developed to the fullest. In the eastern part of Hampden County, a limited number of State and Town Forests, wild life preserves, parks, etc., have been set aside, while in some sections, in the vicinity of lakes and ponds, some land has been set aside for summer vacation cot¬ tages, picnic sites and the like. At present, however, industrial and domestic wastes do create unsightly and unsatisfactory condi¬ tions in the immediate vicinity of the outlets concerned, suffi¬ cient to discourage fishing, bathing. and boating along parts of the Quinebaug and some of the smaller streams. Thus any movement to clear the many streams, ponds and lakes, and the Quinebaug River itself from the harmful effects of polluting wastes will be particularly advantageous to the recreational industry of the area. 10 INDUSTRY Industries of the (Quinebaug Watershed cover a wide range of manufacture, with cotton and woolen goods, optical instruments and lenses, textile shuttles and cutlery tools the more important. These industrj.es are located principally in Southbridge, Stur- bridge, Charlton and Dudley, the four principal industrial towns of the area. Many of these plants take advantage of the natural water power afforded, a power, however, that has not as yet reached its fullest development. This presents a potential advantage for fur¬ ther industrial locations and development of those industries now operating. However, any development of this type is important and must be closely observed, as many industries must depend on water from the river for process water, and wastes discharged to the stream may prove to be a detriment to the extension of present plants or the establishment of new ones. The discharge of process waters, such as those resulting from steel and metal manufacture, textile and paper, if discharged raw with no treatment or control whatsoever, might well create a con¬ dition that prohibits aquatic and game life and definitely retard development of what otherwise are natural resources for recreation as well as creating objectionable and unsightly conditions, par¬ ticularly in those areas in which waste outlets are located. Thus it may be seen that industrial development without regulation or control of wastes discharged might well prove a handicap in the Quinebaug area to the orderly development of the area’s natural resources. TRANSPORTATION As to transportation the Quinebaug area depends primarily up¬ on overland trucking for its movement of raw materials and manu¬ factured products. In this regard, the area is fortunate as main highways and secondary roads traverse the watershed and afford ready accessibility to all nearby centers. Rail transportation is limited. The Southbridge branch of the Now York, New Haven and Hartford Railroad, a freight branch that dead ends at Southbridge is the only rail connection in the section, and affords no facilities for passenger travel. Worcester, Springfield, Providence, Hartford and Boston, large metropolitan centers on well established air routes are but 15 to 4-2,miles distant. The proximity of such largo air terminals provide the towns of the Quinebaug Watershed with the advantages for air transport, placing those towns in fully as favorable a position as many of the large cities in adjacent watershed areas. PART II DETAIL CONSIDERATIONS Of CITIES and TOWNS Within The MASSACHUSETTS AREA Of The QUINEBAUG RIVER WATERSHED library OF THE UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS brimfield Area - 35.52 Sq. Miles Area in Watershed - 22.60 Sq. Mi. Population 1935 - 892 Est. Pop. in Watershed - 714 The Town of Brimfield, sparsely populated and essentially ag¬ ricultural in character, is situated in the extreme eastern sec¬ tion of Hampden County, bordered on the north by Warren, on the northeast by Brookfield, on the east by Sturbridge, on the south by the Towns of Holland and Wales * and on the west by Monson and Palmer t The area is drained largely by Mill Brook, a source stream of the Qqinebaug River. This brook, augmented by the flow of several minor streams, including those outlets from Little Alum and Great Ponds, flows in a general southeasterly direction through the Town of Brimfield to the border of the Town of Holland, forming what is known as Great Swamp. From this point its course is northeastward to the border of the Town of Sturbridge. As is true with most such rural communities, driven or dug wells are the only moans of water supply. However, a quasi munic¬ ipal water supply serving the Public Buildings of the Town is ob¬ tained by gravity flow from local springs. The Brimfield Aqueduct Company serves a small portion of the village with water. Sewage disposal is likewise that of individual arrangement, i.c., privies, cesspools and septic tanks, contributing little, if any, pollution to the streams of the area other than is usual to a natural drainage of the land. However, during the summer months that area abutting Great Pond is used as camping sites where the location of 3 privies and 4 cesspools serving the camps is such that seepage to the Pond is more than probable. Any industrial wastes are considered negligible. 13 ' WASTE OUTLETS 14 •H \ \ LEGEND WATERSHED LINE ODINEBAUG RIVER NOTE-NO POLLUTION NO INDUSTRIAL WASTE WATERSHED MAP TOWN OF BROOKFIELD W. PA. POLLUTION STUDIES SPONSORED BY MASS. DEPT. OF PUBLIC HEALTH BASE MAP PREPARED BY MASS STATE PLANNING BOARD UNDER W.P.A. PROJECT NO.I3684 SCALE 1/4 0 MILES JULY 1939. LIBRARY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS BROOKFIELD Area - 16.83 Sq. Miles Area in Watershed - 2.-.24 Sq. Mi. Population 1935 - 1,309 Est. Pop. in Watershed - 65 The Town of Brookfield, situated in the southwestern section of Worcester County, is bounded on the north by North Brookfield, on the east by East Brookfield, on the south by Sturbridge and Brimfield, on the southwest by Warren and on the west and north¬ west by the Town of West Brookfield. Only a small, sparsely populated section of the township lies within the Quinebaug River Watershed. In this area there appears little evidence of pollution other than is usual to a natural drainage of the land. Sewage is disposed of by privately owned privies, cesspools and septic tanks. The municipal water supply, is obtained from Cooley Hill Res¬ ervoir and untreated flows by gravity to a total of 400 unmetered services, of which, at the present time only 250 are in use. An auxiliary supply, used only in cases of emergency, is obtained from dug and tubular wells, and chlorinated whenever necessary, pumped into the distribution system, the excess being stored in a standpipe. 16 LEICESTER LIBRARY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS CHARLTON Area - 43.96 Sq. Miles Area in Watershed - 23.76 Sq. Miles Population 1935 - 2,366 Established Pop. in Watershed - 1,656 The Town of Charlton, situated in the southern part of Wor¬ cester County, is bounded on the north by Spencer and Leicester, on the east by the Town of Oxford, on the south by Southbridge and Dudley, and on the west by the Town of Sturbridge. Of the town’s total area, approximately 54$ (23.76 Sq. Miles) lies within the Quinebaug River Watershed, the drainage of which is effected mainly by Hicks Pond, Sandersdale and Cady Brooks. Water supply is obtained from individually owned dug or driv¬ en wells. Sewage disposal is by means of privies, cesspools and septic tanks. As may be seen from the following table, ’Waste Outlets in Charlton", there are 6 private outlets, 21 privies and 2 cesspools discharging raw sewage in close proximity or directly to the streams of the area. The greater number of these outlets dis¬ charge to Cady Brook. In addition there is one private outlet, discharging effluent from the sewage treatment plant of the "Mas¬ onic Home". This treatment plant, however, appears to be in ex¬ cellent condition, the effluent is clear and the filter beds rela¬ tively free from objectionable odors. Primarily an agricultural community, industrial wastes play a minor part as a source of pollution, though there are two tex¬ tile plants discharging daily approximately 50,000 gallons of in¬ dustrial wastes directly to Cady Brook. 13 ' . WASTE OUTLETS 19 WASTE OUTLETS 20 i—i -p Eh O o WASTE OUTLETS 21 -p 6 O o WASTE OUTLETS 22 a-i H -P o o PH O CHAJ3LT0N (Cont 23 24 CD & -P o -P SOUTH BRIDGE OXFORD D-CESSPOOL-P-SEWER E-CESSPOOL-P-SEWER F- CESSPOOL-P-SEWER G-CESSPOOL- P-SE WER H-CESS POOL-P-S EWER J-CESSPOOL- P-SE WER FT LEGEND PLANT DISCHARGING BOTH INDUSTRIAL AND SANITARY WASTES PRIVATE SEWER WATERSHED LINE QUINEBAUG RIVER SOURCES OF POLLUTION TOWN OF DUDLEY W. P. A. POLLUTION STUDIES SPONSORED BY MASS. DEPT. OF PUBLIC HEALTH BASE MAP PREPARED BY MASS STATE PLANNING BOARD UNDER W.P.A. PROJECT NO. 13684 SCALE IN MILES 1/2 I M 0 AUG. I9J9, WE B S T E R library OF THF ymiVEKSirv oi i mois DUDLEY Area - 21.75 Sq. Miles Area in Watershed - 11.15 Sq. Mi. Population 1935 - 4,568 Est. Pop. in Watershed - 2,284 The Town of Dudley is situated in the extreme southern sec¬ tion of Worcester County, bordered by Charlton on the north, Ox¬ ford on the northeast, Webster on the east, the State of Connecti¬ cut on the south and the Town of Southbridge on the west. Only the western and south central sections of the toxvn lie within the Quinebaug River Watershed, the remainder lying within the French River Watershed. The Quinebaug River enters Dudley in that section of the town known as West Dudley and flows in a general southeasterly direc¬ tion for a distance of approximately 2 1/2 miles to the border of the State of Connecticut. Dudley’s water supply, municipally owned and operated, is ob¬ tained from tubular wells and is distributed, untreated, to 451 services, all of which are metered. A greater part of the town’s area in this watershed is rural in character and sewage disposal is taken care of by privies, cesspools and septic tanks, which, widely located as most of them are, contribute little, if any, pollution to the streams of the area. However, in the immediate vicinity of the river itself, ex¬ tending from West Dudley to a point approximately 1/2 mile above the Massachusetts*'Connecticut state line, are found 10 sources of pollution, namely, 2 privies and 2 industrial plant outlets dis¬ charging directly to the river as well as 6 cesspools so situated that seepage to the river is more than probable 0 One of the two industrial plants concerned discharges approximately one million gallons of industrial wastes daily to the river. Although this particular report pertains only to the pollu¬ tion situation in that area of the town lying within the Quinebaug River Watershed, it is well to consider it also in its relation to the unfavorable condition existing in the more thickly settled eastern section of the town lying within the Watershed of the French River, as this latter river is a tributary of the Quine¬ baug ; although its confluence is a few miles below the Connecticut state line. 26 ■ . Reviewing this condition with reference to the area lying within the French River Watershed, the Massachusetts Department of Public Health in its report, "Sanitary Condition of Certain Rivers in the Commonwealth" (House Document No« 1755 of 1938) comments as follows: "on,..’The most serious source of pollution of the French River is the domestic sewage discharged from the towns of Webster and Dudley, and the Department has for many years recommended that this condition be remedied by the collection and disposal of sew¬ age from those two municipalities through suitable disposal works .. In 1925 local appropriations were made in these two towns for comprehensive sewerage surveys, the towns engaged engineers, and proposed plans for joint works were approved by the Department during that year. However, these works were not constructed, and in the simmer of 1936 complaints were made by the authorities of the State of Connecticut to this Department relative to the pollu¬ tion of this stream as it entered Connecticut. After various con¬ ferences appropriations were made in both Dudley and Webster in 1937 for further engineering studies, and under date of December 20, 1937, a plan was approved by the Department for the treatment of the domestic sewage from the town of Dudley. It is to be as¬ sumed that the engineers of the town of Webster will shortly pre¬ sent their plans for approval. 1 ...." Up to the present time, how¬ ever, no action has been taken by either town in the construction of the recommended disposal works. I WASTE OUTLETS 28 P R Recorded subsequent to House Document #2050 WASTES DISCHARGED To The QUINEBAUG RIVER AND ITS TRIBUTARIES 29 LEGEND WATERSHED LINE QUINEBAUG RIVER WATERSHED MAP TOWN OF EAST BROOKFIELD W P A POLLUTION STUDIES SPONSORED BY MASS DEPT OP PUBLIC HEALTH SCALE IN MILES JOTE-NO POLLUTION •JO INDUSTRIAL WASTE BASE MAP DATA FURNISHED BY MASS. STATE PLANNING BOARD UNDER W. R A. PROJECT NO. 13684 AUti 193 9 LIBRARY Or THE UNIVERSITY OE ILLINOIS EAST BROOKFIELD Area - 10.32 Sq. Miles Area in Watershed 0.02 Sq. Mi. Population 1935 - 945 Est. Pop, in Watershed - None The Town of East Brookfield, situated in the southwestern section of Worcester County, is bounded on the north by the Town of North Brookfield, on the east by Spencer, on the southeast by Charlton, on the south by Sturbridge, and on the west by the Town of Brookfield. Because of the extremely small portion of East Brookfield (0.02 square miles) lying within the Quinebaug River Watershed, the area has relatively little bearing on the general pollution situation covered by this report. The greater portion of the town lies within the Chicopee River Watershed. 31 . . . t :a\ - •... ' * , • ■ . • LIBRARY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS HOLLAND Area - 12,92 Sq. Miles Population 1935 - 201 Area in Watershed - 12,92 Sq. Mi, Est, Pop, in Watershed - 201 Holland, a sparsely populated, agricultural township, is sit¬ uated in the extreme southeastern section of Hampden County, It is bordered on the north by Erimfield, on the east by Sturbridge, on the south by the State of Connecticut and on the west by the Town of Wales, Water supply is obtained from individually owned dug or driv¬ en wells though there is a small town-owned supply which takes care of a few houses and buildings in the village. Sewage dispos¬ al is taken care of by individual privies, cesspools and septic tanks, contributing little, if any, pollution to tho streams of the area other than is usual to the natural drainage of the land. 33 . < .. ■ ' •" jao . ' * ■ LEGEND SOURCES OF POLLUTION ♦ PLANT DISCHARGING BOTH INDUSTRIAL AND SANITARY WASTES 9 PLANT DISCHARGING SANITARY WASTES ONLY M MUNICIPAL SEWER P PRIVATE SEWER TOWN OF SOUTHBRIDGE W. P.A. POLLUTION STUDIES SPONSORED BY MASS. DEPT. OF PUBLIC HEALTH SEWERAGE SYSTEM PARTIAL TREATMENT NOTE-ENTIRE TOWN WITHIN QUINEBAUG RIVER WATERSHED BASE MAP PRERARED BY MASS. STATE PLANNING BOARD UNDER W. R A. PROJECT NO.I36 84 SCALE Aye. IN MILES ^__I ~ l»3« LIBRARY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF ILLINQI SOUTHBRIDGE Area - 20.80 Sq. Miles Area in Watershed - 2C.,80 Sq. Hi. Population 1935 - 15,786 Est. Pop. in Watershed - 15,786 Southbridgo, the most densely populated, and, from the stand¬ point of industrial activity the most important town in the Quine- baug River Watershed, is situated in the southwestern section of Worcester County. The town is bounded on the north and northeast by Charlton, on the east by Dudley, on the south by the State of Connecticut and on the west by the Town of Sturbridge. The entire area of the township lies within the Quinebaug River Watershed, the river forming a small natural part of the town’s western boundary, thence flowing in a general southeasterly direction through the town for a distance of slightly more than four miles. Of the several tributary streams of the Quinebaug in this area, the most important are Cady, Lebanon, and Nuisance Brooks. The public water supply is obtained by gravity flow from throe reservoirs on Hatchet Brook. This supply is continually chlorinated and scasonly treated by aeration and slow sand filtra¬ tion, and is owned and operated by the Southbridgo Water Supply ' Company. The municipality maintains and operates its own sewerage sys¬ tem. This system comprises over 25 miles of sewers, with somewhat over 1,800 sewer connections and a sewage treatment plant consist¬ ing of sedimentation tanks and slow sand filters having a total aggregate area of about 10.95 acres. The effluent from the fil¬ ters is discharged to Trout Brook near its confluence with the Quinobaug River. Though portions of the sewage filters were reconstructed in 1934 and 1935, they appear still inadequate for the town’s needs. The Massachusetts Department of Public Health gives particular em¬ phasis to this situation in its Special Report, "Sanitary Condi¬ tion of Certain Rivers in the Commonwealth," (House Document No. 2050). Quoting this report, ".’The Department (referring to the Massachusetts Department of Public Health) has recommended, in recent annual reports and communications, to the town that consid¬ eration be given to the construction of more modern treatment works, the cost of operation of which might bo loss than that of the present sand filters. In a series of dry years, should there 35 ' ■ 36 be any considerable overflow of sewage and discharge of poorly purified sewage, it might become necessary for the Department to take action against the town of Southbridge, under the provisions of G-eneral Laws, Chapter 83, requiring the enlargement or improve¬ ment of the works In addition to the outlet from this municipal sewage treat¬ ment plant, there are 17 private outlets discharging untreated wastes either direct or to the immediate vicinity of the Quinebaug River or its tributary streams. Though a lesser source of pollu¬ tion, there is one cesspool, the location of which is such that seepage to one of the streams is more than probable. Industrial wastes discharged directly to the river or tribu¬ tary streams by the town f s manufacturing plants are considerable, (7,752,000 gallons per day). These wastes are tabulated in the following table, "Wastes Discharged to the Quinebaug River and its Tributaries by Industries of Southbridge." A review of this table discloses that the more important sources of industrial wastes are textile mills and plants engaged in the manufacture of optical goods and allied articles. The wastes from the latter plants are in the form of finely ground glass and so-called rouge. This rouge is a special type of abrasive used in grinding lenses, and, as its name suggests, is responsible for the markedly reddish col¬ or of the river below Southbridge at times. u WASTE OUTTETS 37 SOUTHBRIDCrE (Cont'd.) 38 39 co M ^Industries discharging wastes to river and recorded subsequent to House Document #2050 40 0) EH O EH 41 co g EH I * Recorded, subsequent to House Document #2050 LEGEND WATERSHED LINE QUINEBAUG RIVER WATERSHED MAP TOWN or SPENCER W. PA. POLLUTION STUDIES SPONSORED BY MASS. DEPT. OF PUBLIC HEALTH NOTE-NO POLLUTION NO INDUSTRIAL WASTE BASE MAP PREPARED BY MASS STATE PLANNING BOARO UNDER W P A PROJECT NO i 3664 SCALE * IN MILES r* ^ ? ■■■. JULY l«S«. 4 LIBRARY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS SPENCER Area - 34.02 Sq_. Miles Area in Watershed - 0.61 S'q. Mi. Population 1935 - 6,487 Est. Pop. in Watershed - None The Town of Spencer, situated in the southwestern section of Worcester County, is bordered on the north by Oakham, on the northeast by Paxton, on the east by Leicester, on the south by Charlton and on the west by the Towns of East Brookfield and North Brookfield. The area of Spencer within the Quinebaug Watershed is very small (0.61 Sq. Mi.) with no population located in this part of the town. 43 . • • • • .... taej EAST BROOKFIELD V/ LEGEND PLANT DISCHARGING BOTH INDUSTRIAL AND SANITARY WASTES £ PLANT DISCHARGING SANITARY WASTES ONLY SOURCES OF POLLUTION TOWN OF STURB RIDGE FT WATERSHED LINE OUINEBAUG RIVER W. P.A. POLLUTION STUDIES SPONSORED BY MASS. DEPT. OF PUBLIC HEALTH SCALE IN MILES PRIVATE SEWER BASE MAP PREPARED BY MASS STATE PLANNING BOARD UNDER W P A PROJECT NO 136*4 mi« <«»« LIBRARY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS STURBRIDGE Area - 38,96 Sq, Miles Area in Watershed - 35,93 Sq, Mi, Population 1935 - 1,918 Est, Pop, in Watershed - 1,878 The Town of Sturbridge is sit\iated in the extreme southwest¬ ern section of Worcester County, bordered on the north by the Towns of Brookfield and East Brookfield, on the east by Charlton and Southbridge, on the south by the State of Connecticut, and on the west by the Towns of Holland and Brimfiold, In the extreme western section of Sturbridge, at the conflu¬ ence of Mill Brook and an outlet stream from Long Pond, lies the source of the Quinebaug River which flows through the township in a general southeasterly direction until it roaches the central eastern border. At this point the course of the river changes to northeast and for a distance of approximately 11/2 miles, forms a part of the town’s boundary with Southbridgo. Of the numerous bodies of water contributing to tho Q,uinobaug in this area, those of importance as sources of pollution are Alum and Walker Ponds. Alum Pond, in the northwestern part of the town, used as a water supply for one of the industrial plants, is a popular summer camping site and several cesspools arc in such closo proximity to the pond that seepage is more than probable. Walker Pond, in tho northeastern section of the town, also a camping site, receives a certain amount of pollution during the summer months in the form of seepage from a cesspool and the effluent from a septic tank. A municipally owned and operated water supply system which takes water from tubular wells supplies both tho villages of Fiskdalo and Sturbridge. Tho water is pumped into the distribu¬ tion system, the excess wator being stored in two standpipes, Sowago disposal is taken earc of by cesspools, septic tanks and privies, which, in tho more rural sections of the town, are widely located and contribute little, if any, pollution to the streams of the area. But in the Eiskdale section of the town a far different situation prevails. This section is relatively thickly settled along the main highway (Route No. 20) — which closely parallels tho Quincbaug River, Here, and around Alum Pond are concentrated 32 private sewer outlets and 3 privies discharg¬ ing raw sewage directly to the river, pond, or to tho canal. This canal serves 2 industrial plants, receiving its water from tho river and subsequently discharging into it below tho downstream 45 . 46 end of the Fiskdale section. One of the industrial plants dis¬ charges approximately 5,500,000 gallons of industrial wastes daily directly to the river. Another private sewer outlet is located in the section known as Westville. This outlet discharges sewage a short distance from the river. Official attention is given to the situation in Sturbridge by the Massachusetts Department of Public Health in its Special Re¬ port, "Sanitary Condition of Certain Rivers in the Commonwealth", (House Document No t 2C50)This town (referring to Stur¬ bridge) has been provided with a water supply for six years, and the question of the proper collection and treatment of sewage from the thickly settled portions of the town must bo given considera¬ tion at no far distant date’..." - . ' ■■■ ; . VSJA.STE OUTLETS 47 WASTE OUTLETS 48 WASTE OUTLETS 49 M WASTE OUTLETS 5C a H a -p 0 o o CO CO w 0 0 0 0 w 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 © 0 © 0 CO to 0 m 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 pi *H 0 0 0 0 0 0 r—V r—' 0 o c 5 o O C o o O O O a a W a a a a a a a a § i —1 ti pH Cd cd i —1 cd i—1 cd d i—1 cd rH cd i—I cd d pi 0 0 0 0 0 rd 0 0 PH r d id id a id id a id a id a a •pH •pH •rH •pH •rH •H •rH •H •H •H •H > f> > > t> > t> > > > > •rH •rH •rH •rH •rH •rH •rH •rH •pH •rH •rH a a a id id id Id a id a r cd 0 0 Pi 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 M H M M H M H H H H H W CD 0 0 0 0 0 0 © 0 0 0 CO B? BP BP B? b? B? BP B? SO cd B? £ £ £ s & £ & 0 0 0 © 0 © © © © © 0 a CO CO CO CO CO CO co a CO CO r R R R R R R R R R R 0 0 0 0 © 0 0 © 0 © 0 > t> > !» > > > !> > > > •pH •rH •rH •rH •pH •pH •rH •pH •pH •rH •rH M a a a a a a a a a a ' BP BP BP M 0 BP £P BP W) <—V BP «3 0 g 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 p rQ a a 03 rO a a a a a o 0 0 0 0 0 0 © © 0 © © fa 0 Pi 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 •pH •rH •rH •rH •H •H •H •rH •rH •H •rH o 0 0 0 0 0 £ 0 0 o' O* o' o' a? o' c? o’ G? o' f-'H o fa <+H £,! . . PART III CHEMICAL ANALYSES OF QXJINEBAUG RIVER CHEMICAL ANALYSES OF QUINEBAUG RIVER This survey has been confined to the location and identifica¬ tion of waste disposal outlets together with a study of the vol¬ umes and types of industrial wastes which enter the Q,uinebaug River and which affect the recreational and economic development of those communities located within the drainage area of the river. Such an analysis presents only existing or potential sources of pollution and must be accompanied by careful analyses of river waters if a full and comprehensive picture of the effects of such wastes is to be obtained. Such analyses are primarily chemical in scope. Ry the meas¬ ure of "Biochemical Oxygen Demand" (B.O.D.), "Dissolved Oxygen" (D.O.), "Total Residue", "Free Ammonia", "Albuminoid Ammonia", "Nitrates and Nitrites" (N0 3 &Nqj , "Chlorides", and "Alkalinity" is determined the character and extent of pollution present. How¬ ever, these analyses cannot be considered as conclusive, as other factors have a definite bearing on any final determinations. If samples of river water to which such chemical tests arc to be applied are taken during or directly after a heavy rainstorm and the outlets to the river arc those of a combined sewer system, an abnormal amount of solids in the sewage might bo present. On the other hand, an increased volume of water might well have the effect of dilution. Likewise, while wastes discharged along a given tributary or section of the main stream may bo definitely harmful to the immediate waters in that area adjacent thereto, such polluting wastes might well become disseminated through dilu¬ tion and natural chemical action of the river itself as it contin¬ ues its flow. This is particularly true in those situations where no appreciable amount of additional wastes enter the r iver there¬ after. Thus it may be seen that the effect of pollution in any river varies as the river itself is affected by meteorological conditions and natural characteristics of the river f s course. In obtaining the chemical analyses referred to, the Massachu¬ setts Department of Public Health conducted tests of the Q,uinc- baug’s waters over the period June 7 to November 21, 1938, in an effort to detormino the extent of pollution indicated by the a- mount of domestic and industrial sewage discharged daily by some of the communities along the Quincbaug’s course in Massachusetts. Three stations were selected at which test samples were taken. Station 1 was located just above the Southbridgo sewer beds; Sta¬ tion 2, below the beds and Station 3 at the West Dudley paper 63 64 mills in West Dudley. At each of those three stations catch samples were taken dur¬ ing the six months June to November, 1938 inclusive. In each ease the oxygen was fixed in the field and the samples then sent to the laboratory for analysis. As will bo noted on review of the Quinebaug Watershed map at the beginning of this report, Mill River, as it joins the outlet from Long Pond in Southbridge, forms the source of the Quinebaug River. At this point the Quinebaug widens appreciably and flows in a southeasterly direction through the toms of Sturbridgo, Southbridge and Dudley. In Sturbridgo alone, approximately 5,500,000 gallons of industrial wastes are discharged to the Quinebaug daily while sanitary and domestic wastes are also con¬ siderable. These wastes, though disseminated somewhat as the river continues its flow through Southbridge, are, however, aug¬ mented by large amounts of industrial and domestic wastes in Southbridge, particularly in that area just south of the junction of Cady Brook. Water samples taken at Station 1, just south of this conflu¬ ence with the Quinebaug, indicate considerable pollution at this point, though not to the extent indicated by a review of the wastes discharged to the river above Cady Brook. As shown in the following tables, Biochemical Oxygen Demand averaged 3.1 parts per million for the tests taken June 7, July 19, August 23, October 27, and November 21. The average for the same dates for Total Residue was 67 p.p.m., Total Free Ammonia, .051 p.p.m., Dissolved Oxygen, 84.5 percent. Though those determinations do not indicate a generally offensive condition, the river is often discolored with industrial wastes, (7,752,0C0 gallons per day). The river water is most offensive in the immediate area of the waste'outlets. At Station 2, located immediately south of the entry of the Trout Brook, determinations are oven less favorable than at Station 1, indicating an increased discharge of polluting wastes from the in¬ tervening area. It will be noted on reference to the "Sources of Pollution" map for the Town of Southbridge on Pago 34, that the town’s treatment works discharges its effluent to the Trout Brook, a factor undoubtedly influencing the unfavorable conditions of the river’s waters at this point. Canparing determinations at Sta¬ tion 1, with those of this latter Station (2), it will be noted that the average Biochemical Oxygen Demand for the test dates in¬ dicated increased .7 p.p.m., Total Residue 11 p.p.m., and Nitrates and Nitrites 8 p.p.m. On the other hand, Dissolved Oxygen de¬ creased .2 percent. While these increases in unfavorable factors are slight, and the decreases in Dissolved Oxygen also of little consequences, such findings do indicate a continued unfavorable condition of the Quinebaug’s waters. These conditions appear still existent as the river continues its course to Station 3 located just south of the junction of SaSQVNV TVOIiEHO 65 b & TA.BLE VII 66 % 67 H M H i> a 9 Eh CO W O a o (H cs* CO CO (T> i —I •» co 02 W) d d © Eh -P w © Eh Dis- s olved Oxygen $ Sat¬ uration cr> o- 75 O CO Tur¬ bid¬ ity 02 02 X 3 © Ph T© rCj © d 02 i—1 O H EtO © • • 1 o co >> a CO *H o W © pq •H O O Ph o 02 CO 02 a • • • H 1-( 1—I 1-1 1 'd © A w © © 1 1 1 W Pi p| © * d g CT> o 02 M o 3 rH 1-1 o o ra 1 ra O 0 00 00 i—l tJ • • « Eh & *H CO CO CO 3 O Pi O M 0 © g © © l w -p O •H © -H o- c- o- r*H A 3 P A H 1—1 1—I PQ -P © -p • « • •rH © A -H S2J o © p s M 1 d i—1ST© o CO H © P -H CO cn 1—1 © P P o CO 02 CO P=H •rH A C r-J PI Eh <1 -H • • • Ah o M g 1-1 Ah g © © o CO 02 +j © co o> 1-1 CO O A o o 02 E~j Eh Ph • • • rv. -- - - © An • r d PA -H © rH 1 1 1 © o CO CO Pi T© O © •rH 00 CO 1-1 p •H o CO cd Ph ?H o & d © d o J> O -rH w P CO 00 o> © -H 02 1—1 02 Ph w d o C CiD id HH © r— 1 "C* 1-1 •H © to 1—1 O ra P o o CO © o A4 Eh © P 1 —1 02 CO CO 68 X H Ph H B Wo sample taken at this station CHEMICAL ANALYSES 69 M & B TABLE XI 70 71 Bloody Brook. Such determinations as Biochemical Oxygen Demand, Total Residue, and Nitrates and Nitrites do decrease slightly though insufficiently to indicate any marked change of the water’s condition. It is true, however, that Dissolved Oxygen decreases appreciably (14$) and such factors as Biochemical Oxygen Demand, Total Residue, Nitrates and Nitrites decrease in much less ratio. However, on reviewing the "Sources of Pollution" map for the Town of Dudley in which town this latter station is located, it will bo noted that an industry is located practically adjacent to the sta¬ tion from which river samples wore taken, Further review of the table "Wastes Discharged to the Quinobaug River and its Tributar¬ ies by Industries of Dudley" shows this industry as discharging approximately 1,000,000 gallons of waste waters daily. These wastes arc spent dyes, acids, bleach and sizing waters, which, in themselves, account for the sizable decrease in Dissolved Oxygen. From Station 3 the Quinebaug continues southeasterly through the Town of Dudley to the State of Connecticut. However, very little adverse change takes place between Station 3 and the Con¬ necticut State Line. Those changes that do take place are partic¬ ularly localized in their effect and arc due almost entirely to seepage from cesspools and privies and to concentration of indus¬ trial wastes. Thus it may bo seen that, viewing the Quinobaug River as a whole, it cannot be said to present a serious problem as to pollu¬ tion, except in certain portions of its course. Such towns as Sturbridgo and Southbridge require individual attention for bet¬ terment in their waste disposal problem, particularly so if the communities arc to enjoy the fullest advantage of recreational and economic growth naturally inherent to the area in which they lie. . . . . ■ • • . . • . . • ■ 73 N N CO noi ~n i kM a]d S'j.avd S 311 l/\j IN I 30NV1SIO LIBRARY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOiS 75 < z o < LU U Ol Ll NNOD «/) Ui _i 5 2 Id u 2 < h to o no mm a 3d sxavd « library OF THE M1VEKSITY OF ILLINOIS 77 < Z o z < g o D CD < NNO 0 ul fO < H cc o D < CD U Z D O u I I I I 1C r\i; in 0 . 2 < 00 u. O u k < Q cO co m rf) \ V co co _ o O) o 00 c/> Q N NOO V) (jj Z DISTANCE LIBRARY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS SUMMARY A review of the preceding text in which existing conditions of the towns in the Quinebaug River Watershed area are detailed discloses only a few serious problems as to the pollution of the Quinebaug River. With the exception of such comniunities as South- bridge, Sturbridge and Charlton, none of the towns in the water¬ shed area contribute any great amount of wastes to the river, since for the most part the towns are rural in character, and their wastes are discharged to either cesspools, privies or septic tanks. However, these are generally of such a distance from the river's banks as to result in only slight seepage to the river's waters and have little effect on the waters generally, resulting only in unsightly conditions and pollution of the streams in the immediate area involved. However, quite a different situation exists in the towns of Southbridge, Sturbridge and Charlton. As may be seen from the accompanying tables "Sources of Pollution in the Quinebaug River Valley" (Table XII), and "Industrial ’Wastes Discharged to the Quinebaug River", these towns have a total of 46 private outlets, and one municipal outlet carrying effluent and overfloxv directly to the river. These outlets are located principally in the towns of Sturbridge and Southbridge. In addition, these towns have a total of 15 cesspools and septic tanks, and 26 privies, so situa¬ ted closely to the Quinebaug's banks that substantial wastes are discharged to the river's waters direct or by seepage. In addi¬ tion, industries of these towns discharge approximately 14,302,000 gallons of industrial wastes daily to the Quinebaug. These wastes containing starch, spent acids, caustics, etc., resulting from the manufacture of textile products, steel, paper, and optical goods, however, are particularly concentrated in these waters flowing through the towns of Southbridge and Sturbridge, the former dis¬ charging 7,752,000 gallons a day and the latter, 5,500,000 gallons. In this regard, it will be particularly noted in that part of the text relative to Southbridge that reference is made to the unsat¬ isfactory conditions of the present treatment works. At these works considerable overflow of raw sewage occurs at times, becom¬ ing sufficiently serious for the Massachusetts Department- of Pub¬ lic Health to recommend construction of more modern treatment works, expressing the belief that operating costs of more modern works might be even less than the present sand filters. The De¬ partment, in House Document #2050 of the Acts of 1938, "Sanitary Condition of Certain Rivers in the Commonwealth" further comments as follows: ".' In a series of dry years, should there be any considerable overflow of sewage and discharge of poorly purified sewage, it might become necessary for the Department to take 91 92 TABLE XII SOURCES OF POLLUTION IN QUINEBAUG RIVER VALLEY CITY OR TOWN MUNICIPAL SEWER OUTLETS PRIVATE SEWER OUTLETS CESSPOOLS AND SEPTIC TANKS NEAR OR OVER¬ FLOWING TO STREAM PRIVIES OVER OR NEAR STREAM Briraf ield 0 0 4 3 Brookfield 0 0 0 0 Charlton 0 6 2 21 Dudley 0 2 6 2 East Brookfield 0 0 0 0 Holland 0 0 0 0 Southbridgc 1 17 1 0 Spencer 0 0 0 0 Sturbridgc 0 33 12 3 Wales 0 2 2 4 Warren 0 0 0 0 West Brookfield 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 1 60 27 33 93 TABLE XIII INDUSTRIAL WASTES DISCHARGED INTO THE QUINEBAUG RIVER QUANTITY CITY KIND OF MANUFACTURED PRODUCT OF WASTE OR PROCESS OR WASTE (GALLONS TOWN ' PER DAY) Brimfield Lumber None Brookfield Charlton Dudley East Brookfield Holland None in drainage area Wash and dye waste v Wash water, dyes, acids, bleach, and sizings None in watershed None None 50,000 1,000,000 None None Southbridge Rouge, starches, peroxides, soap 7,752,000 wastes, caustic, worsted cloth, cotton print cloth, lenses, op¬ tical instruments, etchings, dye¬ ing, bleaching, color, spent acid Spencer None in watershed None Sturbridge Wales « Warren Cotton print cloth, printing, bleach, color, spent acid, soap and starch wastes, caustics Dye washing wastes, ladies woOl- en dress goods, carbonizing None in watershed 5,500,000 Not oper¬ ating % None West Brookfield None in watershed None 14,302,000 TOTAL 94 action against the Town of Southbridge under the provision of Gen¬ eral Laws, Chapter 83, requiring the enlargement or improvement of the works.’." In the Town of Sturbridge there are several local conditions that require corrective action. Alum Pond in the northwestern part of the town, used as an industrial water supply and serving as a popular summer camping site, has numerous cesspools and priv¬ ies closely adjacent to its shores, the discharge from which re¬ sults in unfavorable conditions in their immediate vicinity. In the Fiskdale section of the town, a relatively thickly settled area, are concentrated 32 private outlets discharging wastes to waters that feed the Quinebaug. These conditions are such as to require correction and treatment of the sewage, and, as the Mass¬ achusetts Department of Public Health states in Legislative Docu¬ ment #2050 of 1939, "Sanitary Condition of Certain Rivers in the Commonwealth", t must be given consideration at no far dis¬ tant date* Thus it may be seen that any adverse conditions pertaining to the v pollution of the Quinebaug River are particularly local in character, subject to ready and economical correction and not re¬ quiring any longer or costly program of construction. (HF LIBRARY OF THfc OCT 2 9 1940 UNIVERSITY OF IILINOIS