SHENANDOAH RIVER WATER QUALITY ASSESSMENT STUDY · SHENANDOAH RIVER WATER QUALITY ASSESSMENT STUDY July 1990 United States Environmental Protection Agency Environmental Services Division

V, SDMS DocID 2104479

SHENANDOAH RIVER

WATER QUALITY ASSESSMENT STUDY

July 1990

United States Environmental Protection Agency Environmental Services Division

" Philadelphia, PA 19107

Project Manager Charles A. Kanetsky Technical Support Margaret E. Passmore

AR300002AR300002

«

SOUTH FORK SHENANDOAH RIVER

©

NPDES #

VA0002178 VA0023825 VA0026433 VA0031259 VA0O50911 VA0056766 VA006il548 VA0026395 VA0064394 VA0001741 VA0002208 VA0002399 VA0025704 VA0050857 VA0062812 VA0064556

Facility

Merck & Co Inc. Town of Shenandoah Town of Elkton Tyrolia Farms Inc. Town of Shenandoah VTP Adolph Coors Co Rockingham County DPW Town of Luray Town of Stanley Old Virginia Inc. Avtez Fibers Inc. Allied Chemical Corp. Town of Fort Royal Front Royal Water Treat Town of Front Royal STP Virginia Dept. of Hwys.

SIC CODE

2833 4952 4952 4952 4941 2082 4952 4952 4952 2033 2823 2819 4952 4941 4952

SHENANDOAH RIVER

VA0001937 VA0002542 VA0020273 VA0020553 VA0026450 VVOO22349 VV0005622 WV0005517 WV0027162 WVOO39136

Potomac Ed Doubleday Fredrick C Town of Be Stephens S Charles To U.S. Steel Halltown P Town of Ha Harpers Fe

ison Rlverton 4911 & Co Inc. 2732 ounty Sanitation 4952 rryvllle 4952 ewage treatment 4952 wn Sewer Dept. 4952 - Holer Plant 3281

aperboard Co. 2631 rpers Ferry 4952 rry Bolivar Pub 4952

* Discharges to tributary of South Fork or Shenandoah River

AR300003AR300003

TABLE OF CONTENTS

page no,

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY i

A. INTRODUCTION A - 1

B. BACKGROUND B - 1

C. BASIN GEOGRAPHY AND STREAM HYDROLOGY C - 1

D. ASSESSMENT OF AVAILABLE DATA D - 1 D.l. Chemical Water Quality Data D.l - 1 D.2. Sediment Data D.2 - 1 D.3. Biological Data D.3 - 1 D.4. Fish Tissue Data D.4 - 1

E. PCB INVESTIGATION E - 1

REFERENCES

APPENDIX A. DRINKING WATER INTAKES AND MAJOR DISCHARGERS

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Locations of Water Quality Monitoring Stations on the North Fork, South Fork and Shenandoah Rivers . D.l - 3

Figure 2. Locations of Biological Monitoring Stations on the North Fork, South Fork and Shenandoah Rivers . . . D.3 - 3

LIST OF TT^LES

Table 1. Locations of Water Quality Monitoring stations . . D.l - 4

Table 2. Water Quality Parameters with Associated EPA Acute Criteria D.l - 7

Table 3. Detection Limits for Metals in the Water column . . D.l - 8

Table 4. Summary of Available Zinc Data D.l - 10

AR300004AR300004

LIST OF TABLES cont.

Table 5. Summary of Available Copper Data D.l - 23

T a b l e 6 . Summary of AvaileUQle Cadmiiun Data D. l - 34

Table 7. Summary of Available Lead Data D.l - 46

Table 8. Summary of Available Chromium Data D.l - 46

Table 9. Summary of Available Silver Data . . . . . . . . . D.l - 47

Table 10. Summary of Available pH Data . . . .. D.l - 57

Table 11., . Trends in pH D.l -_59

Table 12. Summary of Available Dissolved Oxygen Data' Criteria =5.0 mg/L . . . . . . . . . . D.l - 62

Table 13. ' ' " ' Summary of Available Dissolved Oxygen Criteria Criteria = 4.0 mg/L . . . . . . . . . . D . l - 6 3

Table d4., ^-.^vri^ .t,,.sO::;.a..;-'.....:' t>ri& ;•:" •• ••^^^''i •:••"•-• '-" Trends in Dissolved Oxygen Concentrations . .. . . D . l - 6 5

Table 15. Summary of Available Fecal Coliform Data Criteria = 1000 /lOO ml • ...•;;:-^v -.v. . . . . . . . D.l - 67

Table 16. Summary of Available Fecal Coliform Data Criteria «= 400/100 ml D.l - 68

Table 17. Trends in Fecal Coliform Concentrations D.l - 75

Table 18. Sediment Criteria . . . '. D.2 - 1

Table 19. Violations of Sediment Criteria in the North Fork South Fork and Shenandoah Rivers D.2 - 4

Table 20. Metals Concentrations in Sediments in the North Fork, South Fork and Shenandoah Rivers D . 2 - 5

AR300005AR300005

LIST OF TABLES cont. page no.

Table 21. Locations of Biological Monitoring Stations . . . . D.3 - l

Table 22. Locations of Fish Tissue Monitoring stations . . . D.4 - l

Table 23. Parameters Measured in Fish Tissue D.4-2

Table 24. Detected Contaminants in Fish Tissue D.4 - 3

Table 25. Virginia Water Control Board Core Monitoring Data . E - 2

Table 26. West Virginia Department of Natural Resources Fish Tissue Monitoring Data E - 3

Table 27. Fish Sampling Stations . . . . . E - 4

Table 28.

PCB Study Results E - 6

LIST OF GRAPHS

Graph 1. Shenandoah River Basin: Percentage of Zinc Observations Exceeding the EPA Acute Water Quality Criteria . . D.l - 11 Graph 2. Shenandoah River Basin: Average Concentration of Zinc Observations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D.l - 12

Graph 3. Shenandoah River Basin: Average Concentration of Zinc Violations D.l - 13

Graph 4. Station 12: Linear Regression of Zinc Concentration D.l - 14



AR300006AR300006

LIST OF GRAPHS cont. page no,




Graph 10. station 11: Linear Regression of Zinc Concentration D.l - 20

, Graph 11. Station 7: Linear Regression of Zinc Concentration D.l - 21

Graph 12. Shenandoah River Basin: Percentage of Copper Observations Exceeding the EPA Acute Water Quality Criteria D.l - 24

Graph 13. Shenandoah River Basin: Average Concentration of Copper Observations D.l - 25

Graph 14. Shenandoah River Basin: Average Concentration of Copper Violations . . . . . , . . D.l - 26

Graph 15. , Station 16: Linear Regression on Copper Concentration D.l - 27

Graph 16. Station 17: Linear Regression on Copper Concentration D.l - 28




AR300007AR300007

LIST OF GRAPHS cont. page no.


Graph 21. Shenandoah River Basin: Percentage of Cadmium Observations Exceeding EPA Acute Water Quality Criteria . . . . D.l - 35

Graph 22. Shenandoah River Basin: Average Concentration of Copper Observations D.l - 36

Graph 23. Shenaindoah River Basin: Average Concentration of Cadmium Violations . . . . . . . . . . . D.l - 37

Graph 24. Station 12: Linear Regression on Cadmium Concentration . . . . . D.l - 38

Graph 25. Station 7: Linear Regression on Cadmium Concentration D.l - 39

Graph 26. Station 13: Linear Regression on Cadmium Concentration . . . . . . . , . . . D.l - 40

Graph 27. . -Station 14: Linear: Regression on Cadmium Concentration D.l - 41

Graph 28. Station 15: Linear Regression on Cadmium Concentration . D.l - 42

Graph 29. Station 16: Linear Regression on Cadmium Concentration D.l - 43 .

Graph 30. Station 17: Linear Regression on Cadmium Concentration D.l - 44

Graph 31. Station 16: Linear Regression on Lead Concentration D.l - 48

Graph 32. Station 16: Linear Regression on Chromium Concentration D.l - 49

AR300008AR300008


Graph 33. Station 17: Linear Regression on Chromixim Concentration D.l - 50

Graph 34. Station 16: Linear Regression on silver Concentration D.1-51

Graph 35. Station 17: Linear Regression on Silver Concentration D.l - 52

Graph 36. Shenandoah River Basin: Percentage of pH Observations Outside the Range 6 - 9 su D.l - 54

Graph 37. Shenandoah River Basin: Average pH Observations . D.l - 55

Graph 38. Shenandoah River Basin: Average Value of pH Violations . . . . .. . . . . ' . . . . . D.l - 56

Graph 39. Shenandoah River Basin: Average Dissolved Oxygen Observations . ... . . . . D.l - 61

Graph 40. Shenandoah River Basin: Percentage of Fecal Coliform Observations Exceeding the 400/100 ml criteria . . D.l - 69

Graph 41. Shenandoah River Basin: Percentage of Fecal Coliform Observations Exceeding the 1000/100 ml Criteria . .. D.l - 70

Graph 42. Shenandoah River Basin: Average Concentrations of Fecal Coliform Observations . . . . D.l - 71

Graph 43. Shenandoah River Basin: Average Concentration of Fecal Coliform Violations (400/100 ml Criteria) . . D.l - 72

Graph 44. Shenandoah River BAsin: Average Concentrations of Fecal Coliform Violations (1000/100 ml Criteria) . D.l - 73

Graph 45. Chromixim Concentration^ in Sediment Along the North Fork D.2 - 8

AR300009AR300009

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Introduction

This assessment has considered all avaiieible ambient water quality monitoring data, sediment data, biological monitoring data, fish tissue data, cind special studies to determine if the North Fork, South Fork cuid Sheneindoah Rivers are meeting standards and Clean Water Act goals. The following discussion summarizes the significant findings of this study.

South Fork

T mbient water quality monitoring data indicate no significant, recent water quality criteria violations on the South Fork. Zinc concentrations at Front Royal, Virginia, have historically been very high, but there have been no recent violations of the criteria. The lower South Fork in the vicinity of Front Royal is not meeting the standards for pH. However, the cause of the highly alkaline conditions is probably natural limestone formations.

Sediment data indicates some potential areas of contamination in the lower South Fork in Front Royal. The data show that the EPA threshold levels, which indicate contamination, for chromiiim, zinc, mercury and nickel have been exceeded. Zinc concentrations in the most recently collected sediment sample at this location exceeded the EPA threshold concentration. Avtex Fibers, Inc., located in Front Royal, Virginia, used zinc sulfate in its manufacturing process and is the probable source of the high levels of zinc. Avtex is now closed. Although the primary discharge of zinc hats been removed, the contaminated sediments may become a secondary source of zinc contamination in the water column. Further sampling in the Front Royal area is warranted.

Biological data supports the findings of the assessment of ambient water quality and sediment monitoring data. Biosurvey results indicated severely degraded conditions on the South Fork in the vicinity of Front Royal, downstream from the Avtex Fibers site.

North Fork

Ambient water quality monitoring data indicate very good water quality in the North Fork. However, the water quality criteria for fecal coliform has been exceeded as recently as 1989 at station 2 on the North Fork. Fecal coliform levels are elevated in the area downstream of Timberville, Virginia. Generally, metals concentrations in the water and in sediment are much lower in the North Fork than in the South Fork or Shenandoah River. Nickel threshold concentrations in sediment were exceeded at stations 2 and 7. Biosurvey results indicate slightly degraded conditions downstream of Timberville on the North Fork. There are several food processing plants in this area which may be responsible for

AR300010AR300010


Graph 46. Chromium Concentrations in Sediment in the South Fork and Shenandoah Rivers D.2-9

Graph 47. Mercury Concentrations in Sediment in the North Fork D.2 - 10

Graph 48. Mercury Concentrations in Sediments in the South Fork and Sheneuidoah Rivers D.2 - 11

Graph 49. Zinc concentrations in Sediment in the North Fork . D.2 - 12

Graph 50. Zinc Concentrations in Sediment in the South Fork and Shenandoah Rivers . . . . . . . D.2 - 13

Graph 51. ' Nickel Concentrations"^ in Sediment on the North Fork . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D.2 -14

.( _* Graph 52. Nickel Concentrations in Sediment in the south Fork and Shenandoah Rivers. . . . ... . . . • • • • • • • D«2 - 15

Graph 53. ; '--'• Shenandoah River at Harper's Ferry, West Virginia The EPT Index: A Measure of Pollution Sensitive Species ,:,.. • - • • - • • • . . . • • • D.3 - 7

AR300011AR300011

the water quality degradation.

Shenandoah River

Available ambient water quality monitoring data in the Shenandoah River indicate good water quality. Fecal coliform concentrations are generally low in the Shenandoah River, although there have been recent violations at the station at Harper's Ferry, West Virginia. Metals have caused water quality problems In the Shenandoah, but the available data indicates that metals concentrations are currently decreasing in the river. Zinc concentrations in sediments at one location seem to be elevated, but are still beneath EPA threshold levels. The allowable range for pH has been exceeded in the lower portion of the Shenandoah River. Biosurvey results indicate slightly degraded conditions at the mouth of the Shenandoah at Harper's Ferry.

Fishing Advisory In Effect on the South Fork, North Fork and Shenandoah

A Virginia Health Department fishing advisory on all fish due to PCB contamination is currently In effect, extending from the mouth of the South Fork at Front Royal upstream 3.56 miles to the Route 619 bridge; the area downstream from the point where Passage Creek meets the North Fork to the Shenandoah River headwaters; and from the headwaters of the Shenandoah to the Virginia/West Virginia state borders. West Virginia has issued an advisory on bottom-feeding fish di e to PCB contamination from the Virginia/West Virginia state line to the mouth of the Shenandoah at Harper's Ferry.

Avtex Fibers, Inc., located in Front Royal, Virginia, is the source of the PCB contamination. A transformer on the Avtex site exploded, releasing PCBs to the South Fork directly through the outfall pipes on site.

Effects on Drinking Water Supplies

The available data indicates no obvious threats to drinking water supplies. The only primary surface water intake for drinking water Is In Front Royal, on the South Fork upstream of the Avtex facility. Although high levels of contaminants, most notably PCBs, have been found In the fish and sediment in this area, the water is not contaminated. (PCBs are not water soluble and concentrate in organic matter in sediments and lipids In fish.) There is documented ground water contamination due to high levels of carbon disulfide at Front Royal, around the Avtex facility, which has contaminated domestic wells in the area.

Conclusions

This assessment concludes that the portion of the North Fork downstream from Timberville is not meeting standards because of

11

AR300012AR300012

violations of the fecal coliform criteria, and possible nickel contamination of the sediment; the lower portion of the South Fork in the vicinity of Front Royal is not meeting standards due to high concentrations of PCBs in fish and sediment, degraded biological conditions, and possible zinc, nickel, chromium and mercury contamination of the sediments; and the Shenandoah River is not meeting standards because of the high concentrations of PCBs in fish. Overall, the areas of major concern are the degraded biological conditions on the South Fork below Front Royal and the concentration of PCBs in fish and sediment in the South Fork and mainstem Shenandoah River.

.••••••'• V ' j i ! s l - s ' i : ; ^ a B - '•'•'

•• „ c-

•v .;-o •'i f-'•'!<"• :•

1X1

AR300013AR300013

A. INTRODUCTION

The Virginia Department of Health in consultation with the Virginia State Water Control Board (VWCB) issued a public health advisory on May 17, 1989 recommending that fish taken from the Shenandoah River from cibove Front Royal, Virginia to the statelines not be consumed due to PCB contamination. The West Virginia Department of Natural Resources issued a similar advisory on fish taken from the Shenamdoah River from the Virginia-West Virginia stateline to its confluence with the Potomac River in September 1989. These events brought national attention to the Shenandoah River.

After an intense investigation by the VWCB, it was determined that the Avtex Fibers, Inc. facility at Front Royal, Virginia was the source of PCB contamination. On November 9, 1989, the VWCB revoked Avtex's NPDES permit to discharge into the Shenandoah River. On November 10, 1989 the Avtex facility ceased operations.

In response to these events. Congress requested that EPA conduct a study to determine the environmental damage to the Shenandoah River that has resulted, or may be resulting, from activities of any company under contract with the Department of Defense and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

The Defense Department Authorization bill for fiscal 1990 (P.L. 101-189), section 360, requires EPA to determine the degree of pollution in the Shenemdoah River and any other environmental effect on the river. Also, it requires that EPA estimate the amount of funds and the length of time needed to assure attainment of Water Quality Standards which includes protection of public water supplies and protection and propagation of a balanced, indigenous population of fish and wildlife.

EPA will address these requirements in a two phase approach. This report. Phase I, provides an environmental assessment of the current conditions in the Shenandoah River from the Front Royal area to its confluence with the Potomac River. Phase I will focus on determining compliance with applicable water quality standards and national ambient water quality criteria. Phase II will be the Remedial Investigation /Feasibility Study (RI/FS) as required under the ongoing Super fund Remedial Investigation. Since the Avtex site has been abandoned in November 1989, the Region III Superfund Emergency Response program has imdertaken emergency action to stabilize the threat of releases posed by the hazardous substances at the site. Under the auspices of the Superfund program,, an RI/FS will be performed to determine the nature and extent of the threat presented by releases and to evaluate proposed remedies. However, it should be noted that due to the site size and complexity, the RI/FS may take years to complete.

The report that follows win fulfill the requirements of the Phase I report on the water quality assessment required under the bill. Water quality information from the EPA water quality database (STORET), VWCB files, the 1990 Virginia Water Quality Assessment Report (1990 Clean Water Act Section 305(b) Report) and EPA

A - 1

AR300014AR300014

National Pollution Discharge Elimination System files were utilized for this assessment. No new data was collected. The area included in the assessment extends from approximately Timberville, Virginia on the North Fork of the Shenandoah, Waynesboro Virginia on the South Fork of the Shenandoah to the confluence of the Shenandoah River with the Potomac River at Harper's Ferry, West Virginia- The assessment was performed on data from the mainstem of the North Fork, South Fork and SheneindOcLh River only.

Tne overall objective of this report is to determine if water quality stsindards are being met in the Shenandoah River. Four different types of data were reviewed including water column, sediment, ecological and fish tissue monitoring data. An additional section was included to discuss the findings of the VWCB report, A Summary of Studies of PCB Contamination in the North Fork. South Fork and Mainstem Shenandoah River and Its Relation to the Water Quality Standards.

A - 2

AR300015AR300015

manufacturing plant at Front Royal. FMC continued to operate the plant until it was sold to the Avtex Fibers, Inc. in 1976. During this period spills, illegal discharges and legal discharges continued to degrade the South Fork and the Shenandoah. In 1976, the VWCB, having been delegated primary authority for the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit program by the EPA, issued a NPDES permit (NO.VA0002208) to Avtex Fibers, Inc. This permit authorized the discharge of certain pollutants to the South Fork of the Shenandoah from specific outfalls and imposed specific effluent limitations and monitoring requirements. Since April 1, 1980, Avtex Fibers, Inc. has violated these permit requirements 1,968 times. The violations include exceeding the effluent limitations for zinc, total suspended solids, pH and biochemical oxygen demand. The Virginia Water Control Board alleged, that in addition to these violations, Avtex Fibers, Inc. had repeatedly discharged untreated rayon process wastewater, fly ash, and process materials directly to the South Fork of the Shenandoah River and to the ground water at the plant site.

The NPDES violations are only an indicator of the problems that could affect the ecosystem in the South Fork and the Shenandoah River. Fish tissue samples were collected by VWCB in 1987 at the CORE monitoring station in Front Royal. Three fish samples contained Polychlorinated Biphenyl (PCBs) in excess of 2.0 ppm which is the Food and Drug Administration Action Level.

Based on these results,, the Virginia Department of Health issued a fish advisory warning individuals against consumption of fish from the Shenandoah River between upstream of Front Royal downstream to tiie Route 7 bridge. The West Virginia Department of Natural Resources also issued an advisory not to consume any fish caught from the Shenandoah River. This was later revised to limit consumption of only bottomfeeders.

The VWCB initiated a series of environmental studies on fish and river sediments from the South Fork, North Fork and the mainstem of the Shenandoah River. The data collected indicated that PCB concentrations sharply increased in the fish and sediments in the Front Royal area on the , South Fork and continue in the mainstream of the Shenandoah downstream to the Route 7 bridge. Soil samples were also teiken from the Avtex plant site. The results indicate the source of the PCB contamination was Avtex Fibers, Inc., in the vicinity of outfalls 003 and 004, which discharge to the South Fork.

In addition to the surface water problems, ground water contamination was discovered by the Virginia Water Control Board. High concentrations of sulfate, total dissolved solids and sodium were found in domestic wells on the opposite bank of the South Fork of the Shenamdoah River. In 1982, carbon disulfide, a constituent of the viscose waste, was identified in ground water samples from residential wells (RiVermont Acres) located across the South Fork of the Shenandoah River from the Avtex Facility. As a result of this discovery, the Virginia State Water Control Board requested that Avtex perform a ground water investigation.

Avtex implemented interim remedial measures based on the

B - 2

AR300016AR300016

B. BACKGROUND

The Shenandoah River prior to 1940 was well-known as an outstanding recreational river with an exceptional smallmouth bass fishery. In 1940, the American Viscose Corporation began operations at Front Royal, Virginia on the South Fork approximately 2.5 miles above the confluence with the Shenandoah. This company subsequently owned by the FMC Corporation in 1963 and later purchased by Avtex Fibers, Incorporated in 1976 would come to play a significant role in the ecological health of the South Fork and Shenandoah River.

By 1942 numerous fish kills were occurring. In response to the public outcry, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service examined benthic organisms above and below the American Viscose Plant and the findings were obvious. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife service found a decrease of nearly 100% in the number of taxa below the American viscose Plant when compared to sampling stations located upstream of the plant. By the summer of 1945, it was reported that nearly all of the sportfishing on the Shenemdoah River had ceased to exist. In 1946, biologists had determined that the river below Front Royal was virtually lifeless.

In 1948, the Virginia State Water Control Board (VWCB) issued a directive to the American Viscose company to install pollution control devices at its American Viscose plant in Front Royal. The river began to recover in the 1950's, however, there were still occasional f ish\kills as a result of discharges of toxic siibstances from American Viscose. O n December 28, 1958, millions of fish were reported killed on the Shenandoah River from Front Royal, to the confluence with the Potomac River almost 60 miles downstream. The American Viscose Company was found to be responsible and paid a fine to replace the fish that had been killed.

In 1963, the VWCB began a series of biological and chemical studies. Heavy metals were identified as a major cause in many of the fish kills. The objectives of the proposed studies were to identify the sources of heavy metals, determine the amount of discharge, and determine the effect on the biological community. Zinc was identified as the main contaminant with its source being the American Viscose plant. Follow-up studies throughout the 1960's indicated that this trend of limited biological activity below Front Royal continued. Also, the previous discharges of toxic siibstances were no longer the sole source of stream degradation. Excessive organic enrichment was evident. Several sources were identified including American Viscose, now the FMC Corporation, the Town of Front Royal and a discharge from a fruit processing plant in Front Royal.

In the 1970's and 1980's, the Shenandoah River made a recovery from the previous transgressions. However, the area in the immediate vicinity of Front Royal continued to be in a state of degradation. Again, the major pollution source was the viscose rayon manufacturing plant at Front Royal.

In 1963, the FMC Corporation purchased the viscose rayon

B - 1

AR300017AR300017

initial field investigation. In 1983 and 1984, the company began a ground water recovery, program to contain the plume or contamination. In addition, Avtex purchased 23 properties affected by the ground water contamination and supplied water to tne remaining property owners.

The Avtex Fibers site was proposed for inclusion on tne National Priorities List (NPL) in October 1984. In August 1986, Avtex Fibers and EPA entered into a Consent Order to conduct a Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study (RI/FS). The purpose of this study was to investigate the magnitude and extent of ground water contamination which resulted from the viscose waste disposal. The RI/FS reports were released to the public on August 27, 1988. The principal findings of the first RI/FS were that viscose basins 9, 10, and 11 are a source of ground water contamination with respect to elevated levels of carbon disulfide, hydrogen disulfide, arsenic, cadmium and lead.

The beginning of the end,of Avtex's history of noncompliance with its NPDES permit was initiated on July 1, 1987 with VWCB's revised Enforcement/Compliance Programs. The Virginia Water Control Board's 1990 305(b) Report describes the sequence of events that lead to the withdraw of the NPDES permit and the closure of the facility. An excerpt from this report is presented below.

. "Avtex received its initial Notice of Violation (NOV) for July 1987 violations and accumulated a sufficient niimber of enforcement points to be referred to the Office of Enforcement and subsequently to the Virginia Water Control Board. At its March 1988 meeting the Board voted to refer Avtex to the Office of the Attorney General to seek penalties for NPDES discharge noncompliance. In July 1988 the Attorney General advised Avtex that civil action would be initiated if a consent decree could not be developed which would fully address VWCB concerns on the impact of plant operations on the environment. On December 2, iil988 following a temporary plant shutdown during November 1988, a consent decree was entered with the Richmond Circuit Court.

The consent decree required the following: 1. Immediate.and full compliance with the NPDES

permit,

2. Submission of an acceptable remedial program, the execution of which would result in consistent compliance with the NPDES permit.

Penalties were also stipulated for failure to comply with the decree. Following three hearings in May and June 1989 the Circuit Court of Richmond found Avtex to be in contempt of the consent decree due to numerous NPDES limitation violations since December 2, 1988. However, payment of the stipulated penalties was waived pending demonstration of future compliance. Two additional hearings were held in Richmond Circuit Court on September 27, 1989 and October 11, 1989 for discharges of PCBs from outfalls 003 and 004. The September 27;1989 hearing resulted in the following findings:

B - 3

AR300018AR300018

1. Avtex must cease dry weather flow from the 003 storm sewer system,

2, Avtex must remove PCB contaminated solids from the 003 storm sewer system.

The Court ordered additional actions to be taken by Avtex during the October 11 hearing:

1. Cease discharge of PCBs from the process waste water plant (outfall 004) or post a bond of $150,000 by October 18, 1989,

2. Begin daily monitoring of the discharge for PCBs,

3. Pay a stipulated penalty of $5,000 per day for each day that PCBs are discharged at a detectable level.

On October 30 & 31, 1989 the VWCB held a formal hearing in Richmond for Avtex to show cause why the company's NPDES permit should not be revoked. On November 9, 1989 the VWCB revoked Avtex's NPDES permit. The plant abruptly shut down operations late in the afternoon of November 10, 1989. On November 15, 1989 the Circuit Court heard proceedings concerning discharge of PCBs. The court found Avtex guilty of all charges related to the consent decree and rendered the following.

Avtex is to pay the stipulated penalty of $2,000,000 to the Town of Front Royal. Avtex is to pay $990,000 to the State for violations of the NPDES permit following their entry. An additional $50,000 for contempt of Court resulting from their violation of the decree and the Court's subsequent order of July 27,, 1989. - "

The Court also foimd Avtex guilty of discharging PCBs without a permit. The Court ordered Avtex to forfeit to the Commonwealth $110,000 of the $150,000 bond posted on October 18, 1989 and the Court held the balance. Additional civil penalties were levied against Avtex in the cunount of $3,000,000 for the PCB discharges. (The Court enjoined Avtex from any further discharge of PCBs and ordered a feasibility study addressing removal of PCBs from the South Fork and mainstem of the Shenandoah River. ) A separate criminal investigation by the Virginia State Police concerning the discharge of PCBs is ongoing." Avtex was to have filed a report on this study by Jiine l, 1990. The court also stated that Avtex was responsible for the removal or other remediation if feasible (Personal Communication with Tom Felvey of the Virginia Water Control Board).

Currently, the FMC Corporation, under order by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, is operating the treatment facilities at the Avtex site to stabilize the threat of releases posed the hazardous substances at the abandoned site. A Remedial

B - 4

AR300019AR300019

Investigation/Feasibility Study will be performed to determine remedial action alternatives for the site. This study will be Phase II of this initial report in response to the information recjuested by congress in Section 360 of the Department of Defense Authorization Bill (P.L. 101-189).

B - 5

AR300020AR300020

C. BASIN GEOGRAPHY AND STREAM HYDROLOGY

The Shenandoah River Basin is characterized by rolling hills and valleys changing to more elevated and rugged terrain along the Appalachian and Blue Ridge Crests. The Basin lies mainly in the Valley and Ridge Provinces to the Northwest with a small portion in the Blue Ridge Province to the Southeast. Limestone and carbonate formations are common in the Valley and Ridge Provinces.

The Shenandoah River has its headwaters in the mountains of northern Virginia. The North Fork forms in the Allegheny Mountains in Rockingham County and flows northeastward through Shenandoah and Warren Coiinties. The South Fork is formed by the confluence of three streams in Augusta County: South River, North River and Middle River. The South Fork flows northeastward through Rockingham, Page and Warren counties until it meets the North Fork at Front Royal, Virginia, where they form the main stem of the Shenandoah River. The two forks are separated by a ridge of mountains including Massanutten Mountain, Short Mountain and Green Mountain. Each fork flows approximately 150 miles through the Virginia countryside.

From the confluence of the two forks at Front Royal, the main Shenandoah flows about 60 miles along the foot of the Blue Ridge Mountains, meeting the Potomac River at Harper's Ferry, West Virginia. The last 20 miles of the Shenandoah are in West Virginia. ^

C - 1

AR300021AR300021

D. ASSESSMENT OF AVAILABLE DATA

D.l CHEMICAL WATER QUALITY DATA

Introduction

Ambient water quality monitoring stations on the North Fork, South Fork and the Shenandoah Rivers were identified using a STORET retrieval method and other sources, primarily the Virginia 1990 305(b) report. The station locations are shown on the map in figure 1 and described in table 1. There are seven stations on the North Fork, five on the South Fork and five on the Shenandoah. The majority of the stations are in Virginia, with only two in West Virginia. The stations have been given identifying numbers, which will be used throughout the report.

Water quality monitoring at these stations has not been carried out in a consistent manner. The period of record, parameters, sampling frequency and sampling time is different from station to station. Parameters are analyzed for a few years, and then dropped, and then sampled again later. The incomplete nature of the data makes it difficult to perform any trend analysis because there is such variability in the sampling frequencyand analytical methods, other variability due to seasonality, flow, etc. would be difficult to assess. The data can be used to identify hot spots where there have been or are water quality problems, caused by high concentrations of either conventional pollutants or toxics. : It can be used to do some trend analysis using linear regression where adequate data exists. However, because of the incomplete nature of the data, there may be water quality problems on the rivers which will not be identified in this analysis.

There is very limited data on priority organics. There is more data on toxic metals, probably because metals have been recognized contaminants in the ShenandoaOi for years. Available metals data is not generally complete or current. All stations generally monitor parameters such as pH, dissolved oxygen, and fecal coliform on a regular basis.

The STORET program STAND was used to determine the type and niunber of violations of water cjuality criteria. The STORET program BROWSE was used to determine temporal trends at individual stations using simple linear regression.

D.l - 1

AR300022AR300022

Toxics

The STORET STAND program was used to determine the type and number of water quality criteria violations over the entire existing period of record for each parameter at each station. The national EPA acute water quality criteria were used for toxics. The EPA water quality criteria accurately reflect the latest scientific knowledge on the kind emd extent of all identifiable effects on health and welfare of living resources, shorelines, beaches, aesthetics, and recreation; on the concentration and dispersion of pollutants; and the effects of pollutants on biological community diversity, productivity and stability. The criteria present scientific data and guidance of the environmental effects of pollutamts which can be used to derive regulatory requirements based on considerations of water quality impact (Quality Criteria for Water, USEPA, 1986).

The parameters included in the retrieval amd the EPA acute criteria values are shown in table 2. The state of Virginia has adopted the EPA acute criteria. West Virginia currently has only chronic criteria specified in their regulations, but they are expected to adopt the EPA acute criteria in the future, violations of the zinc, cadmium, silver, chromium, and lead, criteria were identified. - ;;

All of the metals criteria are based on a hardness of 100 mg/L as CaC03. Metals toxicity generally decreases with hardness, so in waters with higher hardness, the criteria should be higher. There are limestone formations in many areas in the Shenandoah River Basin which increase the hardness of the water over 100 mg/L as..CaC03. The-criteria used in this amalysis will ..therefore have an added protection factor, and will cover the most sensitive or softest waters in the. Basin. - :'- n- -

- Only samples exceeding the acute criteria which were also above the detection limit were counted as violations; samples which exceed the-criteria; but are at or below the detection limit are accompanied by identifying flags dn the STORET database. Table 4 lists the detection limits for the metals. Ranges are given because generally, detection limits decrease over time as analytical methods improve, and the detection limits vary from agency to agency due to the use of different analytical methods and instruments. Table 4 is only a guide to help interpret the data presented in the graphs and the trend analyses.

Caution should be taken when interpreting the trend analysis. Metals are known to have seasonal concentration variation, and the data was often not collected during the same season or seasons from year to year. The resulting trends should be termed apparent trends.

D.l - 2

AR300023AR300023

/ — -

JEFFERSON

^FREDERICK 7

f \

/CLARKEN

/ /

;N

iz

11

• r

i PAGE

13

16

15

14

17

10

OCKINGHAM

LOCATIONS or HATER QUALITY MONITORING STATIONS ON THE NORTH FORK, SOUTH

FORK AND SHENANDOAH RIVERS.

V V D.l - 3

AR300024AR300024

Table.1 Locations of Water Quality Monitoring Stations

This table describes the locations of ambient water quality monitoring stations on the North Fork, South Fork and the Shenandoah River which have been used in this assessment. The number of the station identifies it on the map of water quality monitoring stations.

NO..

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

River Mile*

.148.53

136.42

125.67 / l'^^-

\

125.64 /

109.75

65.34

55.57

Station Code.

21VASWCB-1BNFS093.53


21VASWCB- -1BNFS070.67 "

'-





Station Location

N.F. Shenando aih Rt. 259 Bridge Rockingham Co. Virginia

N.F. Shenandoah Rt. 728 Bridge Shenandoah Co. Virginia

N.F. Shenandoah Rt. 698 Bridge Shenandoah Co. Virginia

N.F. Shenamdoaih Shenamdoah Co. Virginia

N.F. Shenandoah DGIF Boat Landing Shenandoah Co. Virginia

N.F. Shenando ah Rt. 55 Bridge Shenamdoah Co. Virginia

N.F. Shenandoah DGIF Launch Front Royal Warren Co. Virginia

* The river mile is indexed as miles above the mouth of the Shenandoah River at the Potomac River for both the North Fork and South Fork. The station code gives the river mile number as indexed from the head of the Shenandoah at Front Royal.

D.l - 4

AR300025AR300025

Table 1.

NO.

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

Cont.

River Mile*

155.10

133.2

109.2

58.56 -. . . , . • •_ •_ . P - . . •

55.58

*\

54.22

48.00

22,63

station code

21VASWCB-IBSSFIOO.IO

21VASWCB-1BSSF078.20


21VASWCB-IBSSFOO3. 56


21VASWCB-1BSHN054.22



Station Location

S.F. Shenandoah Rt. 708 Bridge Rockingham Co. Virginia

S.F. Shenandoah At Dam Shenandocih Co. Virginia

S.F. Shenandoah Rt. 211 Bridge Page Co. Virginia

S.F. Shenandoah Rt. 619 Bridge Warren Co. Virginia

S.F. Shenandoah Rt. 340 Bridge Warren Co. Virginia

Shenandoah Opposite Front Royal Country Clnb Warren Co.. Virginia

Shenandoah Rt. 6 24 Bridge Warren Co. Virginia

Shenandoah Rt. 7 Bridge Clarke Co. Virginia

* The river mile is indexed as miles above the mouth of the Shenandoah River at the Potomac River for both the North Fork and South Fork. The station code gives the river mile number as indexed from the head of the Shenandoah at Front Royal.

D.l - 5

AR300026AR300026

Table 1. Cont.

NO. River Mile* Station gpde Station Location

16 18

17 0.2

21WV7IWQ-550472

21WV7IWQ-550471

Shenandocih Meyerstown Jefferson Co. West Virginia

Shenandoah Harper's Ferry Rt. 340 Bridge Jefferson Co. West Virginia

* The river mile is indexed as miles above the mouth of the ShenandoaOi River at the Potomac River for both the North Fork and South Fork. The station code gives the river mile number as indexed from the head of the Shenandoah at Front Royal.

D.l - 6

AR300027AR300027

Table 2. Water Quality Parameters With Associated EPA Acute Criteria

Parameter

Arsenic

Cadmium

Chromium hex-val

Endrin

Lead

Mercury

Silver

Methoxychlor

Toxaphene

Zinc

Copper

Benzene

storet Code

1002

1027

1032

39390

1051

71900

1077

39480

39400

1092

1042

34030

Ariite Criteria (uq/L)

360

3.9

16

0.18

82

2.4

4.1

0.012

0.5

120

18

5300

Note that for many of the priority pollutants, particularly the organics, no data was available, so they were not included in the retrieval.

D.l - 7

AR300028AR300028

Table 3. Detection Limits for Metals In the Water Colxunn

Parameter

Metals

Cadmium

Lead

Mercury

Zinc

Copper

Silver

Chromium

Methoxychlor

Endrin

Toxaphene

Benzene

Detection Limit (ua/L)

4-10

2-40

0.2 - 0.5

10

4-10

4

1

0.1

0.1

o.i

0.1

D.l - 8

AR300029AR300029

Zinc

several samples in the South Fork and the Shenandoah River exceeded the zinc acute water cjuality criteria of 120 ug/L. Zinc data was not available at all stations, nor was the period of record consistent at all stations. Table 3 shows the stations where the water has been tested for zinc, as well as the number of observations, the number of violations, the period of record and the date and value of the latest zinc violation.

Zinc concentrations in the North Fork were generally low. Only 4 out of 146 samples exceeded the criteria on the entire North Fork over the available period of record. Three of these saunples were taken at station 7, in 1977 and 1979, above the confluence of the North and South forks at Front Royal.

There were a total of 30 violations on the South Fork. Station 12 on the South Fork in Front Royal had 27 violations in 72 samples (38%) over the period 1967-1985, the highest percentage of violations in the basin. The most recent violations was in 1981. Generally, the percentage of samples which violated the criteria increased in both the North and South Forks at Front Royal, but there was a much larger increase in the South Fork. After Front Royal, the percentage of samples which exceeded the criteria decreased in the downstream direction in the Shenandoah until station 15 where there was again a marked increase (see graph 1).

The Shenandoah River also showed high zinc values. There were a total of' 28 violations on the Shenandoah. The violations were fairly evenly distributed among the different stations. However, like the percentage of violations, the zinc concentration falls off readily after station ;i2, but begins to increase again at station 15. The average zinc concentrations were 48, 62, and 106 ug/L at stations 15, 16, emd 17 (see graph 2). The average concentration of zinc violations is highest in the Shenandoah at station 17 (see graph 3). However, it appears that this high average is skewed by one sample which was taken at station 17 in 1982 and measured 2250 mg/L zinc.

The high zinc concentrations in the South Fork at Front Royal were caused by the effluent of the Avtex Plant (formerly American Viscose) which used zinc sulfate in the production of viscose rayon fibers. A study by the staff of the Virginia State Water Control Board found that American Viscose contributed 661 of 668 total pounds of zinc (99%) delivered to the Shenandoah Watershed in 1963 in the Front Royal area (Berry, c.R., 1970.). The source of zinc on the lower Shenandoah is unknown.

It is important to note that the most current data recorded at stations 12, 15, 16, and 17 is 1985, 1982, 1984 and 1984. The most current violation at these stations occurred in 19.81, 1978, 1979 and 1982, respectively.

Trend analysis using simple linear regression was performed on the available zinc data at stations 12, 15, 16, and 17 ( See graphs 4-7). Increasing trends in zinc concentration were observed

D.l - 9

AR300030AR300030

at stations 12 and 17. However, the increasing trend at station 17 seems to be caused by one sample which had a zinc concentration of 2250 ug/L. This single value may be erroneous as it is at least ten times higher than the other samples in violation of the zinc criteria. Further sampling is warranted. Decreasing trends were found at stations 15 and 16. Increasing trends were also observed at stations 7, 11, 13, and 14 where the zinc concentrations are generally lower (see graphs 8-11).

Table 4. Summary of Available Zinc Data

Station

1

2

• ••• 3 • • ' - -

6

7

8

10

11 .

12

13

14

15

16

17

Jt # Obs / # viola

8/0

23/0

: "'y'.:. ' }^^ 48/1

- .. 66/3 •

• : ^ - • • ' ^ ' : : ; ' : v "

- 25/0 ;

• "f-',.;:; V5/3V7'''" ' '

":•••• ^ "- ^ ^72/27,/'^r.

• 76/6'

• .' 82/1

82/6

57/7

57/9

Period of Record

10/24/74 - 07/12/82

.04/07/70 - 07/12/82

07/12/82 - 07/12/82

04/07/70 - 07/01/82

04/07/70 - 05/21/85

07/07/82 - 07/07/82

04/07/70 - 07/07/82

06/16/70 - 07/07/82

09/19/67 - 05/29/85

04/07/70 - 03/02/79

02/25/68 - 03/02/79

05/15/69 - 07/01/82

07/25/72 - 09/18/84

07/25/72 - 09/18/84

Last Violation Date/Value (vq/L).

none

none

none

1976/179.9

1979/240

none

none

1978/200

1981/800

1977/179.9

1974/179.9

1978/150

1979/160

1982/2250*

* questionable data

D.l - 10

AR300031AR300031

Graph 1. Shenandoah River Basin Percentage of Zinc Observations Exceeding the EPA Acute Water Quality Criteria

40

cd •c S o

Ui (D C

_o «

I

OL

30 -

20 -

17

12

'

10-

t \ m 0 n

\ ^ 1 6

I * \ 14

N

1

13

r / ^

' • -

7

^

" V : ^ 6

10 3 2

• • ^

1 8

North Folk

South Fork

ShenarxJoah

KipfiMnI iMion loGSliofW M prwiQialy dtflnad.)

100 200

River Mile Above Potomac River

D . l - 11

AR300032AR300032

Graph 2. Shenandoah River Basin Average Concentration of Zinc Observations

I

I o

o s c

& s I

North Fork

South Fork

Sherandoah

200

River MOm Above Potomac River

D . l - 12

AR300033AR300033

Graph 3. Shenandoah River Basin Average Concentration of Zinc Violations

S o

: s S JO

>

c JO

1 c m

ooo -

400-

300 H

200-

100-

A m Q •

, "

\

\

\

16

15

h \

J

V

\

\

U

s

^

• ^

13

1 1

^^

12

1 >

f f

7iTs. NS

\

\ \

l o V

. „ , . . - . - . " - " ' '

V» « ' •

• • — North Folk

» • South Fork

• » — Shenandoah

100 200

River MSe Above Potomac River

D.l - 13

AR300034AR300034

Graph 4. Stat ion 12. Linear regression on zinc concentration

2&VAS«CI iKSFMB.St S FOMC SHBiAMMMH

t§-SHEMtMOOm

VAlM»-XMiS VA1» >% ] • S6 IC.a 97% 11 ]4 .« S11S7 VIRCINIA

W-NOHTH ATLANTIC

1092 ZINC 2N.T0T UC/L

Slope of Reeresstoe Ltae • 3. Units per Year.

rH

I

1967 1999 1971 197S 197S 1977 1979 1981 1993 199S

AR300035AR300035

Graph 5 . S t a t i o n I S . LINEAR REGRESSION ON ZINC CONCENTRATION

21VASMCB l i S I 9 « 2 2 . 9 3 SHENMOCMH RIVER

C l-TOTOMAC-SHENMiMMH

VA1B91-NWS9 VAli6NWS9 39 97 29.4 877 S3 29 .9 S1M3 VIRCINIA

•2-MNITH ATLANTIC

1992 ZINC ZN.TOT UC/L

8D0 * ' * * • .•' • •«* -0.C9 U a l t s per Year.

19C9 1971 1973

I

197S 1977 1979 1981

AR300036AR300036

T a b l e 6 . S t a t i o n 1 6 . LINEAR REGRESSION ON ZINC CONCENTRATION

2i«V7IW) SSe472 S-919 SRewBiidoeli River eear Meyerstomi, W. VA.

J Potc Rtver / Skeaandoah River

1M2 ZINC ZN.TOT

39 19 S2.9 977 SI 29.2 S4937 WEST VIRCINIA

Mid Atlaatlc

UG/L

Year..

i-i

I

1972 1974 1979 1979 1999 1992 1994

AR300037AR300037

Graph 7 . S t a t i o n 1 7 . LINEAR REGRESSION ON ZINC CONCENTRATION

Z t W T i m SS9471 S>a91 M«PAN9«71 39 19 22.6 977 44 33.9 Sbenaedaaii River a t Harper* Ferry, « . Va. S4937 KEST VIRGINIA

J PotoMC River / Skeaaedoali River Mid A t lan t i c

1992 ZINC ZN.TOT UG/L

^^QQ Slope of Regrettloa Line

I

1979 1984

AR300038AR300038

GrAPH 8. Station 13. LINEAR REGRESSION ON ZINC CONCENTRATION

• U ' \ 1, '- J-..

21VAS«Ci lBSI9a54.22 VA199imi99l2 VAliCM9992 SHENMOOAH RIVER

1-POTOHAC-SHENMilMMH

1992 ZINC I ^ ' T ® ^ !

f

) f .• i

39 S7 23.S 979 19 S9.2 S1197 VIRGINIA,

• ^

92-N8RTH ATUMTIC

UG/L , . . } .

400 Slope • )

T—r

• ; > ! > . • ' • • ' ,

2.49 Units;per Year.

- • • 1 . , , •• i - .

199

> ! • : • •

9

H ' n J -.1 W ? » : ? "^ •

ii . I

' » i

1979 1971 1972 1973 1974 197S 1979 1977 1979 1979

00

I

•I ^ f v n , .

AR300039AR300039

Graph 9 . S t a t i o n 1 4 . LINEAR REGRESSION ON ZINC CONCENTRATION

21VASMCB lBSI9a<9.9> VA1991CM9991 VA19iH9991 39 S7 29 .7 979 97 19.4

SH0IMOOMI RIVER SI 197 VIRCINIA

l-POTOMAC-SHENMOOMI 92-NORTH ATLANTIC


1 ^ Slope of Regression Line • j '9 .91 Units per Year..

1S9

^ • " f l

S9

q. u i i t l l ' t ill m -i » 9—i-

t - i

I

1999 1978 1972 1974 1979 1979

AR300040AR300040

Graph 10. S t a i o n l l . LINEAR REGRESSION ON ZINC CONCENTRAION

21VASIIC9 19SSF993.S9 S FORK SHENANDOAH

1-FOTOMAC-SHENANDOAH

VA1982-M9869 VA199M8999 39 S4 49.8 979 12 36.2 S1197 VIRGINIA

92-NORTH ATLANTIC


i t o Slope of Rejpressloo Line - 2.27 Units per Year 1 ! I .. • ', I I ' I ! TT 1S9—^

SO t > :

9 - r 1970 1972 1974 1979 1979 191

>•. . I

1992

o CM

AR300041AR300041

Graph 1 1 . S t a t i o n 7 . LINEAR REGRESSION ON ZINC CONCENTRATION

21VASMCB 19NFS990.S7 N FORK SHENMtXMH

IB-SHEMMKMH

30 S6 $9.9 979 11 S4.8 SI197 VIRCINIA

92-NORTH ATLANTIC


300

108

1.S7 Units per Year.

CM

I

1978 1972 1974 1979 1979 1999 1982 1984

AR300042AR300042

Copper

There were a few samples which violate the acute copper criteria of 18 ug/L in the North Fork, South Fork and the Shenamdoeih River. Table 5 shows the stations where the water has been tested for copper, as well as the number of observations, the number of violations, the period of record, and the date and value of the latest violation.

There were a total of 8 violations in the North Fork, 8 violations in the South Fork, and 9 violations in the Shenandoah. The most recent violation occurred at station 7 in 1978. The copper data does not follow the general trend seen in the zinc data. Higher percentages of the samples exceeded the copper criteria at stations 2, 6, 11 and 14. The copper violations and average copper concentrations both decrease at Front Royal compared to the upstream values in both the North and South Forks (see graphs 12 and 13). Average copper concentrations were higher in the South Fork than the North Fork. Copper concentraions generally decreased in the Shenandoah after a maximum average concentration at Station 14.

The source of the copper upstream on the North Fork at station 2, upstream from Front Royal at stations 11 and 6, and downstream from Front Royal on the Shenandoah at station 14 are unknown.

Trend analysis using simple linear regression at stations 16 and 17, the stations with the most consistent data, showed deceasing trends in copper concentrations at both stations (see graphs 15 and 16). The two graphs for these areas look strikingly similar in both shape and copper concentration. The slope of the regression lines are almost exactly the same.

Trend analysis of the data at stations 7, 12, 14 and 15 all show decreasing trends as well (see graphs 17-20). It would appear that the cause of the higher copper concentrations in the seventies has been controlled or removed.

D.l - 22

AR300043AR300043

Table 5. Summary of Avaiieible Copper Data

1

2

3

6

7

8

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

8/0

22/2

1/0

. 23/3

40/3

1/0

25/1

22/3

37/4

s 23/1

24/4

28/1

49/1 ,

49/2 "

10/24/74 -

04/07/70 -

07/12/82 -

04/07/70 -

04/07/70 -

07/07/82 -

04/17/70 -

11/16/70 -

05/15/69 -

04/07/70 -

05/15/69 -

05/15/69 -

10/19/71 -

10/19/71 -

07/12/82

07/12/82

07/12/82

07/01/82

05/29/85

07/07/82

07/07/82

07/07/82

05/29/85

08/31/78

08/31/78

07/01/82

09/18/84

09/18/84

Pate/V&iue (W/LI

none

1972/19.99

none

1972/19.99

1978/20.0

none

1970/19.99

1972/19.99

1970/19.99

1971/19.99

1971/19.99

1969/29.99

1975/20.0

1977/28.0

D.l - 23

AR300044AR300044

Graph 12. Shenandoah River Basin Percentage of Copper Observations Exceeding the EPA Acute Water Quality Criteria

ja

o

X UJ « c o

2

c

• • — North Fork

- ^ — South Fork

• • — Shenarxloah

100 200

RKfer Mlie Above Potomac River

D.l - 24

AR300045AR300045

Graph 13. Shenandoah River Basin Average Concentration of Copper Observations

f e o ;s

o

s s c

i o O & S

I

l O -

14-

13-

• - - '

12-

- . V '

11 -

<

10-

;

9 -

1

8 -

17

< ,

N

M /

T

7 1

'J

J IS

" / >t„,/ /u .

m * • 7

13

J:: .. f '

...!..-,'./'. i

10

A / \ f

^^w_i'

••

•5 . ' ' " '

.

\

\

a \

i 1

H s

, - • . •

^

V w v^. 1

, , - ^ . • . . • -


- • — South Fork

• Shenarxioah

100 200

River Mle Above Potomac River

D.l - 25

AR300046AR300046

Graph 14. Shenandoah River Basin Average Concentration of Copper Violations

^

JO > •

o IB

I <

North Fork

South Fork

Shenandoah

200


D.l - 26

AR300047AR300047

Graph 15. Stalon 16. LINEAR REGRESSION ON COPPER CONCENTRATION

,. f? 39 18 S2.e 877 SI 29.2 S4837 MEST VIRGINIA

21WV7IW) SS8472 S-819 .; Shenandoah River near Meyerstovn, W. VA. | 'i,\

PotoMc River / Shenandoah River ! Mid Atlantic

1842 COPFER CU.T9T | UG/L .- { • : - .

2Q Slope of Regression Line - \ ;f-8.92 Untts per Year

IS

19

A

^ — I

I

I

4- 4--l

TTTT

1971 1973 197S 1977 1979 1991 1993

CM

I

9

a

ii .-• .;;•;.•.,•: : i V : ' L-:",.

AR300048AR300048

Graph 1 6 . S t a t i o n 1 7 . LINEAR REGRESSION ON COPPER CONCENTRATION

211M7IW) SS8471 S-991 1MiPAN9471 39 19 22.8 877 44 33.8 Shenandoah River a t Harpers.Ferry, « . Va. S4837 WST VIRGINIA

Potoaac River / Shenandoah Rtver

1842 COPFCR CU.TOT

Mid A t lan t i c

UG/L

2Q Slope of Regression Line - -8.98 Units per Year.

28

18

8-+

1971 1973 197S 1977 1979 1991 1993

00 CM

AR300049AR300049

G r a p h 1 7 . S t a t i o n ? . LINEAR REGRESSION ON COPPER CONCENTRATION

21VASWC9 1BNFS998.S7 N FORK SHENMflXMH

W 19-SHENM9XMH

39 59 S9.8 879 11 S4.8 SI187 VIRGINIA

92-NORTH ATLMITIC

1842 COPPCR CU.TOT UC/L

20 Slope of Regression Line - -8.14 Units per Year.

IS

18 • i " " "• - - - - I - ± T S T

— o

1979 1972 1974 1976 1979 1998 1992 1994

a* CM

I

L

AR300050AR300050

Graph 1 8 . S t a t i o n 1 2 . LINEAR REGRESSION ON COPPER CONCENTRATION

21VASIK:R 1RSSF998.S9 S FORK SHENANDOAH

W 19-SHENAMKMH

VA1982-)(886S VA196}CB96S 39 S9 36.8 879 11 34.8 S1197 VIRGINIA

' 82-NORTH ATLANTIC

1842 COPPER CU.TOT UG/L

OA Slope of Regression Line - ,-8.S3 Units oer Year.

25 ' ] '

J

tc

c

o.

1

!

1 1 I 1 1

1

. J • •

• : '

i 1

I

1

!

1

'. 1 1

i 1 1

-*. -->

j

!

,..

^ •*

^ * . »

^^

— ,

1 j

• ..

•

^ •* "*

'

*-•» * "^

o

1969 1971 1973 1975 1977 1979 1991 1993 199S

AR300051AR300051

Graph 1 9 . S t a t i o n 1 4 . LINEAR REGRESSION ON COPPER CONCENTKATION

21VASW:9 19SNN849.98 SHENANDOAH RIVER W

1-POTOMAC-SHENANDOAH

VA1R81CXR891 VA196X9861 39 57 29.7 879 87 19 .4 51197 VIRGINIA

82-NORTH ATLANTIC

1842 COPPER CU.TOT UG/L

jp Slope of Regression Line > r8.99 Units per Year

2S

28

15

18 H •-£>

1969 1978 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1979

en I

AR300052AR300052

G r a p h 2 0 . S t a t i o n 1 5 . LINEAR REGRESSION ON COPPER CONCENTRATION

21VASW:9 19SI9022.63 SHENAMNMH RIVER

C 1-POT0MAC-SHENM4KMH

VA1R81-N9859 VA199K9859 39 87 29.4 877 53 29 .9 S1843 VIRGINIA

82-NORTH ATUWriC

1851 LEAD P9.T0T UG/L

2Q Slope of Regression Line • -1.98 Units per Year

] ^ 15

18

I :;4-.

k I T-*

I < t i - ^

I

-I -I

8 - t -

.-t -• r—f

T^^r i—

-LJ ! \U 11 I ! • , . • • ; - ^| J ' ' • K ^ ! • 1 — r

1969 1971 1973 1975 . 1977 1979

CM

AR300053AR300053

Cadmium

Cadmixim concentrations in the Shenandoah River Basin are generally low. Table 6 shows the stations where the water has been tested for cadmium, as well as the number of observations, the number of violations, the period of record, and the date cind value of the latest violation.

A small percentage of the existing water quality data exceed the acute cadmiiim criteria of 3.9 ug/L. There were four violations in the South Fork, only 2 violations in the North Fork, and 19 violations at stations on the Shenandoah. Both violations on the North Fork occurred at station 7, which is located in Front Royal, Virginia. In the South Fork, there was one violation at Station 10 in 1972, and three violations at Station 12, which is located in Front Royal, Virginia.

Every station on the Shenandoah had at least one sample that violated the acute cadmium criteria. Station 15 had the highest percentage (12%) of samples which exceeded the criteria. The percentage of samples which exceed the criteria increase at Front Royal in both the North and South Forks, and then continue to increase along the to Station 15 (see graph 21). The average cadmium concentrations increase at Front Royal in both the North and South Forks, then the average cadmium concentration levels off, and decreases in the Shenandoah after station 15 (see graph 22).

Trend analysis using simple linear regression shows decreasing trends in cadmium concentrations at stations 12 and 7(see graphs 24 aoid 25) in Front Royal, very slight increasing trends at stations 13 and 14 on the Shenandoah, and decreasing trends at stations 15, 16, and 17 (see graphs 26-30).

D.l - 33

AR300054AR300054

Table 6. Summary of Available Cadmium Data

§tatiOh.JE i_

1

2

3

6

7

8

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

V0§ / t VHOIS

6/10

13/0

1/0

15/0

32/2

1/0

16/1 ,

16/0;

30/3

V 16/1

14/1

17/2

126/9

126/6

peri<?e of Recprd

10/24/74 - 07/12/82

04/14/71 - 07/12/82

07/12/82 - 07/12/82

04/14/71 - 07/01/82

04/13/71 - 05/29/85

07/07/82 - 07/07/82

04/14/71 - 07/07/82

04/13/71 - 07/07/82

08/09/71 - 05/29/85

04/13/71 - 08/31/78

c 04/13/71 - 08/31/78

04/13/71 - 07/01/82

02/02/71 - 10/02/84

02/02/71 - 10/02/84

La$t Viplatipn D^te/Valu? (uq/Li

none

none

none

none

1980/10.0

none

1972/9.99

none

1980/10.0

1972/9.99

1972/9.99

1975/5.0

1981/4.0

1981/6.0

D.l - 34

AR300055AR300055

Graph 21. Shenandoah River Basin Percentage of Cadmium Observations Exceeding EPA Acute Water Quaiity Criteria

1 K

Ui

S JO

cS

I I


- • — North Fork

• Shenandoah

100 200


D . l - 35

AR300056AR300056

Graph 22. Shenandoah River Basin Average Concentration of Cadmium Observations

i c

JO

JS o

I 8

s

South Fork

North Foifc

Shenandoah

200

River Mie Above Potomac River

D.l - 36

AR300057AR300057

Graph 23. Shenandoah River Basin Average Concentration of Cadmium Violations

i

3 > E E

"D Cd O & S

I


- • — North Folk

- • — Shenandoah

200

River MHe Above the Potomac nver

D.l - 37

AR300058AR300058

Graph 2 4 . S t a t i o n 1 2 . LINEAR REGRESSION ON CADHIUH CONCENTRATION

21VASIN:9 19SSF999.59 S FORK SHENAMNMH

19-SHENANMMH

VA1982-)(886S VA196M9965 39 56 36.8 879 11 34.8 51197 VIRCINIA

82-NORTH ATLANTIC

1827 CADMIUM CD, TOT UC/L

r . ; 40 *»•*• off Regression Line -

"• 1

JO —

28 —1

-

18 —

8 —

1

1 ^4. — -(

t i 1

-8.84 Units per Year.

: i : : ' •'

1 i ! 1 ! 1

• ! '

f

"•••

—J"

"

'

1

t V ^

i . • : 1

i • , 1 :

ys.

1 " • V ' ; ' !

i 1 1971 1973 1975 1977 1979 1991 1993 1995

AR300059AR300059

Graph 25. S t a t i o n 7 . LINEAR REGRESSION ON CADHIUH CONCENTRATION

21VAStM:9 lRNFS8e8.S7 N FORK SHENAMXMH

W IR-SHCNAMMMH

1827 CADMIUM CD. TOT

39 56 59.8 879 11 54.8 51197 VIRCINIA

82-NORTH ATLANTIC T

UG/L

i n n Slope off Regression Line - T8.19 Units per Year.

7.S

S.8

2.5

8.8

ne - T8.19 Units per Year.

: ;'rH-\---i :v .1

Sfe.-! , ;

£L

1971 1973 197S 1977 1979 1991 1993 .1995

AR300060AR300060

Graph 2 6 . S t a t i o n 1 3 . LINEAR REGRESIION ON CADHIUH CONCENTRATION

2 1 V A S « K : 9 19SHN9S4.22 SHENANDOAH RIVER

W 1-POTOMAC-SHENANDOAH

VA1981DX8862 VA196K9962 39 57 23.5 879 18 59.2 51197 VIRCINIA

82-NORTH ATUWTIC

1827 CADMIUM CD,TOT UC/L

f . Slope off Regression Line - 8.82 Units per Year..

0--

7.5

5.8

2.5

8.8

V.VC '. w

U r^

'i 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1979

o

AR300061AR300061

Graph 27. S ta lon 14. LINEAR REGRESSION ON CADHIUH CONCENTRATIN

21VASW:9 1RSHN949.88 SHENANDOAH RIVER W

i-POT0MAC-SHENM«MMH

VA1R810(8961 VA196)(8861 39 57 29.7 879 87 19.4 51197 VIRCINIA

82-NOIITH ATLANTIC

1827 CADMIUM CD. TOT UC/L

IQ 0 Slope off Regression Line - 8.18 Units per Year

7.5

s.e

2.S

8.8

-V-

-t

-t

• •'•' t

I

1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1979

AR300062AR300062

Graph 28. S t a t i o n 15 . LINEAR REGRESSION ON CADHIUH CONCENTRATION

21VASMC9 19SI9«22.63 SHENAMMMH RIVER

C 1-POTOMAC-SHENAMMMH

VAlR81-)(8859 VA196)(9859 39 87 29.4 877 53 29.6 51843 VIRCINIA

82-NORTH ATLANTIC

10.0

1827 CADMIiai CD. TOT UC/L

Slope off Regression L i n e - - 8 . 3 9 U n i t s per Year

7.5

5.8

2.5

8.8

-©

CM

1971 1973 1975 1977 1979 1991

AR300063AR300063

Graph 2 9 . S t a t i o n 1 6 . LINEAR REGRESSION ON CADHIUH CONCENTRATION

21IAr7IMQ 558472 S-819 Shenandoah River near Meyerstown, W. VA.

J Potoaac River / Shenandoah River

1927 CADMIUM CD. TOT

39 18 52.8 877 51 29.2 54937 tICST VIRCINIA

Mid A t lan t i c

UC/L

10 Slope off Regression Line 8.87 Units per Year.

1971 1973 1975 1977 1979 1991 1993

AR300064AR300064

Graph 30. S t a t i o n 17. LINEAR REGRESSION ON CADHIUH CONCENTRATION

21IM7IMQ 5S8471 S-881 MVEPAN8471 39 19 22.8 877 44 33.8 Shenandoah River at Harpers Ferry. W. Va. 54837 Iff ST VIRCINIA

J Potoaac River / Shenandoah River Mid A t l an t i c

1827 CADMIUM CD.TOT UC/L

20 Slope off Regression Line • -8.86 Units per Year._

IS

18

1971 1973 1975

MHni

1977

• • ! . )

r r ^ r r h r

1979 1991

I I

1993

AR300065AR300065

Ot.her Metals

There was one lead violation over the entire period of record at only one station. A sample taken at station 16 in 1971 exceeded the acute lead criteria of 82 ug/L. The available lead data is summarized in table 7. Linear regression of the data shows a deceasing trend in lead concentration at this station (see graph 31).

There were only two hexavalent chromium violations of the 16 ug/L criteria over the entire period, and both occurred at station 16. However, unlike the other metals, this parameter was only analyzed in samples from stations 16 and 17, on the Shenandoah in West Virginia. The North Fork and South Fork are not represented by the available data. The available hexavalent chromium data is summarized in table 8. Linear regression of the data shows decreasing trends in chromium concentration at both stations (see graphs 32 and 33).

Similarly, silver was only analyzed in samples taken from stations 16 and 17. There were 11 total violations of the 4.1 ug/L criteria, and these occurred at both stations 16 and 17. The available silver data is summarized in table 9. Linear regression of the data shows slight decreasing trends in silver concentrations at both stations (See graphs 34 and 35).

D.l - 45

AR300066AR300066

Table 7. Summary of Available Lead Data

1

2

3

6

7

8

10

•-11"

12

13

14

15

16

17

8/0

20/0

1/0

21/0

38/0

1/0

23/0

-• I 23/0/; /

36/0

20/0

22/0

28/0

132/1

132

10/24/74 -

06/28/70 -

07/12/82 -

06/28/70 -

11/16/70 -

07/07/82 -

06/28/70 -

\ ' 08/18/70 -

05/15/69 -

11/16/70 -

05/15/69 -

05/15/69 -

02/02/71 -

02/02/71 -

07/12/82

07/12/82

07/12/82

07/01/82

05/29/85

07/07/82

07/07/82

07/07/82

05/29/85

08/31/78

08/31/78

07/01 82

10/02/84

10/02/84

Date/Value (ua/L)

none

none

none

none

none

none

none

none

none

none

none

none

1971/152

none

Table 8. Summary of Available Chromium Data

Station » # QbS / # VJlPJ.S period of Record Last Violation Date/Value (UQ/T.\

16

17

146/2

153/0

09/10/68 - 10/02/84

09/10/68 - 10/02/84

1970/100.0

none

D.l - 46

AR300067AR300067

Tcible 9. Summary of Ava i l ab l e S i l v e r Data

Station » # Qbg / # viols period of Pgcord Lagt violation

Date/value (ug/L)

16 42/5 02/02/71 - 09/18/84 1977/8.0

17 43/6 02/02/71 - 09/18/84 1978/8.0

D.l - 47

AR300068AR300068

G r a p h 3 1 . S t a t i o n 1 6 . LINEAR RBGRESSIGN ON LEAD OONCEMTRATIGN

21IM7IMQ 558472 S-819 Shenandoah River near Meyerstovn. «. VA. J

Potoaac River / Shenandoah River

1851 LEAD P9.T0T

200

39 19 52.8 877 51 29.2 54937 HEST VIRCINIA

Mid Atlantic

UC/L

158

188

58

Sloi

-

- ; 1

-

le of R<

rm

igres

;

J

slon

ZJ

Line -

• 7 ' -

- 8 .

1 -i

78 1

•

QTi

un t t i

t-HI

P*r Year •

d

i !

1 - o

00

1971 1973 1975 1977 1979 1991 1993

AR300069AR300069

Graph 3 2 . S t a t i o n 1 6 . LINEAR REGRESSION ON CHROHIIM OGNCENIRATION

21«Ar7IMQ 558472 S-819 Shenandoah River near Meyerstown. V. VA. J


1832 CHROMIUM HEX-VAL

39 18 52 .8 877 51 29.2 54837 MEST VIRCINIA

Mid A t l a n t i c

UC/L

75 — —

58

, - <i»*!4lLi

1

J

!

• 1

1 • j : . — - , '.

1 J ' ' ! i ' 1 ' M 1 1 i ^ ^ " T —

1 i i |, ! • ! ' ! : : • ; : 1 i. •

= =4-HM-H 1

' ! ' ^ 1 i ' •

1 1 1 1 n 1969 1978 1972 1974 1976 1979 1998 1992 1994

AR300070AR300070

Graph 3 3 . S t a t i o n 1 7 . LINEAR GBGRESSICN ON CHROMIUM OGNCENIRATIGN

21WV7I«Q 558471 S-881 l[WEPAN8471 39 19 22.8 877 44 33.8 Shenandoah River at Harpers Ferry. «. Va. 54837 HEST VIRCINIA

Potoaac River / Shenandoah River Mid A t l an t i c

1832 CHROMIUM HEX-VAL UC/L

J 9 c Slope off Regression Line - , -8.89 Units per Year.

18.8

o

1969 1978 1972 1974 1979 1979 1998 1992 1994

AR300071AR300071

Graph 34. S t a t i o n 16 . LINEAR REGRESSION ON SILVER OQNCENTRATION

21IM7IMQ SS8472 S-819 Shenandoah River near Meyerstovn. W. VA. J


39 19 52.8 877 51 29.2 S4837 MEST VIRCINIA

Mid A t lan t i c

1877 SILVER AC,TOT UC/L

3^ Slope off Regression Line - -8.84 Units per Year I

1971 1973 1975 1977 1979 1991 1993

AR300072AR300072

Graph 3 5 . S t a t i o n 1 7 . LINEAR RBGRESSIGN ON SILVER CCNCENIRATIGN

21«M7I«N) 558471 S-881 IMEPMM471 39 19 22.8 877 44 33.8 Shenandoah River at Harpers Ferry. «. Va. 54837 HEST VIRCINIA

Potoaac River / Shenandoah River Mid A t lan t i c

1877 SILVER \ AG.TOT

1

UC/L;

12 5 Slope off Regression Line - (- -8.82 Units per Year

18.8

1971 1973 1975 1977 1979 1991 1993

CM in

AR300073AR300073

Conventional Pollutants

Dissolved oxygen, fecal coliform and pH are often used as more convenient and common indicators of water quality. Generally, there is more data available on these inorganic parameters than on organic toxics or metals. Water quality standards differ from state to state for these parameters. In certain instances, a balance was struck between the state criteria, using both of the state's standards in separate analyses.

EH

Aquatic life can only survive over a limited range of pH values. The water can be neither too acidic nor too alkaline. A pH range of 6.0 - 9.0 standard units (su) is deemed protective of aquatic life in West Virginia. Virginia has issued a special standard of 6.5 - 9.5 su in the Shenandoah River Basin due to the natural limestone formations in the area. These criteria was used in the STORET STAND retrieval to determine the numbers of samples outside this allowable range. The available data is summarized in table 10.

A total of 74 samples, or 3.4% of the total 2193 taken over the entire period, were outside the ranges of 6.0 - 9.0 in West Virginia and 6.5 - 9.5 in Virginia. There are a total of 28 violations in Virginia and 46 violations in West Virginia. This large difference in violations reflects only the change in criteria, and not real differences in water quality. The majority of the violations were due to pH values exceeding the maximum allowed value although there were a few low end violtions. This data is presented in graph 36 as the percentage of observations outside the range at each station on the three rivers. Generally, the South Fork and the Shenandoah waters have higher pH values than the North Fork. Graph 37 compares the average pH of the samples at each station on all three rivers. Generally, the actual values of the pH violations do not differ greatly.

The North Fork, South Fork and Shenandoah Rivers lie primarily in the Valley and Ridge physiographic province. This geographic region is underlain largely by carbonate rocks (limestone and dolomite). These rocks dissolve quite readily so that water flowing under or around them becomes both hard amd alkaline. However, it is not clear that the causes of the elevated pH measurements in these areas are completely natural.

D.l - 53

AR300074AR300074

Graph 36. Shenandoah River Basin Percentage of pH Observations Outside the Range of 6-9.

12


• a — North Fork

- 9 — Shenandoah

200

River Miles Above Potomac River

D 1 - 54

AR300075AR300075

Graph 37. Shenandoah River Basin Average pH Observations

3

I S

^

" • — South Fork


- • — Shenandoah

200


D.l - 55

AR300076AR300076

Graph 38. Shenandoah River Basin Average Value of pH Violations

3 «»

JO

JO

>

<

- e — South Folk

North Fork

H Shenandoah

200


D . l - 56

AR300077AR300077

Table 10. Summary of Available pH Criteria = 6.0 - 9.0

Data

Station ft jL

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

0b5 / * viola

153/0

206/0

69/1

35/1

13/0

201/1

208/0

108/1

11/0

196/3

• 190/7

196/9

86/1

105/0

197/4

82/22

137/24

Period of

05/14/74 -

07/16/68 -

04/23/79 -

01/14/85 -

08/10/88 -

07/18/68 -

03/04/70 -

04/24/79 -

02/08/88 -

03/03/70 -

03/03/70 -

09/19/67 -

03/04/70 -

02/25/68 -

07/16/68 -

09/30/75 -

03/16/76 -

Record Last Violation Date/Value (SU)

02/07/90

02/07/90

02/07/90 1980/0.9

07/06/88 1987/0.10

02/07/90

03/19/90 1977/10.0

07/10/89

02/21/90 1980/10.0

07/08/89

07/08/89 1981/10.0

07/10/89 1988/9.63

08/02/88 1981/10.0

03/02/79 1977/9.699

03/19/90

07/10/89 1981/10.5

07/03/84 1980/9.4

12/18/89 1981/9.5

D.l - 57

AR300078AR300078

Two separate regression analyses were performed on the data to determine trends in pH. The first analysis considered all of the available data, including samples taken as early as 1967. This analysis represents a long term trend over more than 20 years. The second analysis includes only samples taken after 01/01/80.

The slopes of these trends are presented in table 11. A negative slope indicates decreasing pH over time, which can be interpreted two ways. Either the water is being acidified, which can be harmful, or the water is becoming less alkaline, which can be beneficial. Since most of the violations are on the high end of the allowable range, a negative trend will be considered am improvement. (The causes of the alkaline conditions may not be totally natural as discussed later.)

When all of the data was included in the analysis, four stations showed positive trends, eight stations showed negative trends, and one stations showed no overall change. When only more recent data was included, six stations showed negative trends, three stations showed positive trends and two stations showed no overall change. Positive trends are occurring at stations 3, 11, and 12. Again, it is important to consider the small magnitude of these trends.

The highly alkaline conditions found in the Shenandoah River basin are probably caused by a combination of natural and anthropogenic factors. The limestone formations in the area naturally increase the pH of the water and make the water more alkaline. The area is characterized by widespread agricultural activities. Nonpoint source runoff from farms, fields and feedlots contributes nuttients to the rivers, which can accelerate the natural process of eutrophication. Eutrophication tends to increase the pH of water during the day due to the uptake of acidic carbon dioxide by aquatic plants during photosynthetic respiration.

D.l - 58

AR300079AR300079

Table 11. Trends in pH Slopes are in units of su/year.

Station *

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

••: 8

9

10 "

' 11

12 ^^

14

15

16

17

Entire Period

+0.02

-0.01

+0.03

- 0 .02

-0 .02

-0 .03

, ; - 0 . 0 2

n- 0 . 0 0 c

^r - 0 . 0 1

/ . : : >»-0.01

+ 0 . 0 2

- 0 . 1 8

- 0 . 0 7

1980 - Prpsprn-

+0 .04

0 . 0 0

+ 0 . 0 5

- 0

0

- 0 ,

- 0 .

+ 0 .

+ 0 .

. 0 1

. 0 0

. 0 1

, 0 3

02

0 1

- 0 . 0 9

- 0 . 2 5

- 0 . 0 1

D . l - 59

AR300080AR300080

Dissolved Oxvaen

Dissolved oxygen is widely used as an indicator of water quality. Adequate concentrations of dissolved oxygen are essential to the health of aquatic organisms, particularly fish. Organic contaminants such as improperly treated sewage exert an oxygen demand on water and oxygen levels will decrease as the orgcinic waste degrades. Water bodies which have been depleted of dissolved oxygen are termed anoxic or anaerobic and can be the source of noxious odors.

West Virginia and Virginia have specified different state standards for dissolved oxygen levels. West Virginia requires a 5.0 mg/L minimum while Virginia supports a slightly less stringent 4.0 mg/L minimum. Oxygen levels of 8 - 10 mg/L are common in clean, healthy streams and rivers. Both of these criteria were used to determine the number of violations of the dissolved oxygen standards. Tcibles 12 and 13 summarize the two separate analyses where both criteria are applied to the data taken in both Virginia and West Virginia.

Generally dissolved oxygen levels seem to be quite high in the North Fork, South Fork and Shenandoah Rivers. Graph 39 shows average values of dissolved oxygen along the three rivers. These concentrations are indicative of good water quality. Dissolved oxygen concentrations are higher in the North Fork and lower Shenemdoah than in the South Fork. Dissolved oxygen concentrations reach a minimum dn all three rivers arotind Front Royal. Using the 4.0 mg/L criteria, only 6 of the total 2269 samples taken over the entire period of record, on all three rivers, were less than this minimum criteria. Even the more stringent criteria, 5 0 mg/L, was only violated a total of 10 times. Fewer than 1% of the samples document areas where dissolved oxygen has been depleted. The most current violation occurred in 1986.

D.l - 60

AR300081AR300081

Graph 39. Shenandoah River Basin Average Dissolved Oxygen Observations

I 9



• • " " Shenandoah

200

River M le Above Potomac River

D.l - 61

AR300082AR300082

Table 12. Summary of Available Dissolved Oxygen Data Criteria = 5.0 mg/L

Station tt * Obs / # viols Period of Record

05/14/74 - 02/07/90

07/18/68 - 02/07/90

04/23/79 - 02/07/90

01/14/85 - 07/06/88

08/10/88 - 02/07/90

07/18/68 - 03/19/90

03/04/70 - 07/10/89

04/24/79 - 02/21/90

02/08/88 - 07/08/89

03/03/70 - 07/08/89

03/03/70 - 07/10/89

09/19/67 - 08/02/88

03/04/70 -_ 03/02/79

02/25/68 - 03/19/90

07/16/68 - 07/10/89

07/17/67 - 02/01/83

07/17/67 - 02/01/83

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

155/2

206/0

70/0

34/0

14/0

200/2

215/1

110/1

11/0

198/0

198/0

204/1

88/1

- 108/1

201/1

125/0

132/0

Last Violation Date/Value (mg/L)

1981/0.21

1986/3.30

1986/4.2

1981/2.0

1969/0.6

1970/4.20

1968/2.5

1973/4.0

D.l - 62

AR300083AR300083

Table 13. Summary of Available Dissolved Oxygen Data Criteria = 4.0 mg/L

Station » * Obs / » vlols Period of Record

05/14/74 - 02/07/90

07/18/68 - 02/07/90

04/23/79 - 02/07/90

01/14/85 - 07/06/88

08/10/88 - 02/07/90

07/18/68 - 03/13/90

03/04/70 - 07/10/89

04/24/79 - 02/21/90

02/08/88 - 07/08/89

03/03/70 - 07/08/89

03/03/70 - 07/10/89

09/19/67 - 08/02/88

03/04/70 - 03/02/79

02/25/68 - 03/19/90

07/16/68 - 07/10/89

07/17/67 - 02/01/83

07/17/67 - 02/01/83

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

•9 ' '

10

11

12

13 ;

14

15

16

17

155/2

206/0

70/0

34/0

14/0

200/1

215/0

110/1

11/0

198/0

198/0

• ,204/1

88/0

108/1

201/0

125/0

132/0

Last Violation Date/vaiug (mq/L)

1981/0.21

1986/3.30

1981/2.0

1969/0.6

1968/2.5

D.l - 63

AR300084AR300084

Two separate regression analyses were performed on the data to determine trends in dissolved oxygen concentrations. The first analysis included all of the available data, including samples taken as early as 1967. This analysis represents a long term trend over more than 20 years. The second amalysis includes only samples taken after 01/01/80. This analysis represents a more recent trend, and is probably more representative of current conditions due to water quality controls introduced in the seventies.

The results of these two analyses are presented in table 14. The slopes of the regression lines are given at each station, for both bodies of data. A positive slope indicates an increase in dissolved oxygen concentrations over time, and therefore reflects an improvement in water quality. Similarly, a negative slope indicates a decrease in dissolved oxygen concentrations over time, and reflects degradation of water quality.

Considering the entire period of record, six stations showed improvement, five stations showed evidence of degradation, and three stations showed no change. However, the more recent trends indicate that all of the stations have decreasing dissolved oxygen concentrations. There were improvements in water quality over the entire period due to the construction of sewage treatment plants, and the control of point sources. However, there has been no improvement during the 1980's as evidenced by the decrease in dissolved oxygen levels in the entire area.

It is important to keep in mind both the magnitude of these trends and the high dissolved oxygen concentrations currently in the rivers. For example, the largest change over the 1980's was 0.62 mg/L/year at Station 16 from 1980 to 1983. Considering the average dissolved oxygen at this station is 10.861 mg/L, the data does not indicate an immediate water quality problem. However, it •does indicate that the current trend is toward decreasing water quality. . .i

D.l - 64

AR300085AR300085

TsLble 14. Trends in Dissolved Oxygen Concentrations Slopes are in units of mg/L/year.

Station * Entire Period 1980 - Present

1 0.00 -0.09

2 +0.03 -0.12

3 -0.08 -0.09

4*

5*

6 +0.01 -0.20

7 . 0.00 -0.24

,.8 -0.05 -0.08

• • ' 9 * . . ' : ' • . . .

10 : :• -0.05 -0.08

11 ' \ -0.01 -0.04

12 . -• - I +0.07 -0.01

- 13 '^• \ ' ' +0.19 **

14 / ^ 3 •. +0.07 -0.01

, 15-v - 0.00 -0.30

16 -0.02 -0.62***

17 +0.03 -0.30***

* The data at these stations either do not cover the range of time which is covered by data at other stations or the data is not as consistent at these stations to determine a trend. The data was not collected regularly so there are large gaps in the data. This inadequacy is based on professional judgement, and is not defined statistically.

** There is no data for the period 1980 - present.

*** The data covers the period 1980 - 1983.

D.l - 65

AR300086AR300086

Fgral Coliform

Fecal coliform limits are designed to protect human health. The fecal coliform is an indicator of potential pathogen contamination caused by the presence of improperly treated sewage.

West Virginia and Virginia specify different standards for fecal coliform. Virginia sets a maximum standard of 1000 fecal coliform /lOO ml of water which can not be exceeded at any time. West Virginia's standard is a little more complicated and state that the fecal coliform level cannot exceed 400/100 ml in more than 10% of the samples taken during one month. Generally, not more than one sample was taken per month at any of the stations, so the criteria cam be interpreted as saying that if that single sample exceeds the criteria, 100% of the samples have exceeded the criteria for that month, and a violation has occurred. Therefore, two maximum criteria were used to run two separate STAND retrievals. The data for fecal coliform is svuranarized in tables 15 and 16.

The less stringent criteria of 1000/100 ml was exceeded a total of 169 times or in 8% of the samples taken from all three rivers. The more stringent criteria increased the number of violations to 330, or 15.5% of the samples.

Generally, a higher percentage of samples taken at the stations located on the North Fork exceeded the fecal coliform criteria. The data presented in graphs 40 and 41 show that stations 2,3, and 4 had a large percentage of the samples exceed the 400/100 ml criteria, and stations 2 and 3 had the largest percentage of samples exceed the 1000/100 ml criteria. Both of these stations are located on the North Fork, downstream of Timberville. These graphs also show the general decrease in percentage of observations exceeding the criteria downstream in the Shenandoah, showing a general recovery from the relatively high percentages of violations below Front Royal. ;t.e-

Graph 42 shows that the average concentration of fecal coliform was much higher at stations 2 and 3 than anywhere else on the North Fork, South Fork or Shenandoah Rivers. The average concentration of the violations was also highest at these stations as shown in graphs 44 and 45.

D.l - 66

AR300087AR300087

Table 15. Summary of Available Fecal Coliform Data Criteria = 1000/100 ml

<=;tation * » ons / * viols Period Of R^Cprd

05/14/74 - 02/07/90

11/17/70 - 02/07/90

04/23/79 - 02/07/90

01/14/85 - 07/06/88

08/10/88 - 02/07/90

11/17/70 - 07/06/89

11/16/70 - 07/10/89

04/24/79 - 02/21/90

08/02/88 - 07/06/89

11/17/70 - 07/06/89

11/16/70 - 07/10/89

11/16/70 - 08/02/88

11/16/70 - 03/02/79

11/16/70 - 07/06/89

11/18/70 - 07/10/89

12/03/68 - 10/02/84

12/03/68 - 12/18/89

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

143/5

184/29

64/12

34/3

8/0

177/16

193/16

105/15

8/0

186/12

^ 185/10

179/16

77/9 V

84/7

178/10

136/6

193/3

Last Violation Date/Value (/100ml)

1987/8000

1989/1100

1984/1200

1987/2000

1989/1100

1987/4600

1990/3800

1987/8000

1987/1200

1987/1400

1978/3500

1978/5300

1987/1300

1983/1220

1989/2000

D.l - 67

AR300088AR300088

Table 16. Summary of Available Fecal Coliform Data Criteria = 400/100 ml

Stat j. on % » Obs / t vAolS Period of Record

05/14/74 - 02/07/90

11/17/70 - 02/07/90

04/23/79 - 02/07/90

01/14/85 - 07/06/88

08/10/88 - 02/07/90

11/17/70 - 07/06/89

11/16/70 - 07/10/89

04/24/79 - 02/21/90

08/02/88 - 07/06/89

11/17/70 - 07/06/89

11/16/70 - 07/10/89

11/16/70 - 08/02/88

11/16/70 - 03/02/79

11/16/70 - 07/06/89

11/18/70 - 07/10/89

12/03/68 - 10/02/84

12/02/68 - 12/18/89

1

2

3

4

5

6

7 '

8

9

10

11

12

13 '

14 '

15

16

17

143/13

184/50

64/21

34/11

8/1

177/29

193/28

105/26

8/1

186/28

^ 185/19

179/25

77/17

84/17.

178/24

136/8

193/12

Last Violation Date/Value (/100ml)

1987/8000

1989/1100

1988/500

1988/800

1988/700

1989/1100

1987/900

1990/3800

1989/700

1987/8000

1987/1200

1987/1400

1978/3500

1978/5300

1987/1300

1983/1220

1989/2000

D.l - 68

AR300089AR300089

Graph 40. Shenandoah River Basin Percentage of Fecal Coliform Observations Exceeding the 400/100 ml Criteria

m •tz

S, -c O

?

UJ

i 2

sr

a.

<»U "

30-

20 -

.

10-

n . O 1

17

Y 1 16

13

' / /

'C 11

. . . • -

/ /

^ ^

-

4 3

A y

10

, a

\ > '

f \ I.

- • •

100

River lUDIe Above Potomac River

South Fork

North Fork

Sharwndoah

200

D.l - 69

AR300090AR300090

m S *w

o

Graph 41. Shenandoah River Basin Percentage of Fecal Coliform Observations Exceeding the 1000/100 ml Criteria

X UJ

S JO

7a

I i



• • Shenandoah

200

River Mle Above Potomac fVver

D.l - 70

AR300091AR300091

o o

c jO

a

t <

Graph 42. Shenandoah River Basin Average Concentration of Fecal Coliform Observations

2000

1000-

SouthFork

North Fork

Shenandoah

200


D . l - 71

AR300092AR300092

Graph 43. Shenandoah River Basin Average Concentration of Fecal Coliform Violations (400/100 ml CrHerIa)

o o

c

ii JO

>. "5

J

&

I <

5000

4000

3000-

2000

1000

South Fork

North Foifc

Shenandoah

200

RKrar Mle Above Potomac River

D.l - 72

AR300093AR300093

Graph 44. Shenandoah River Basin Average Concentration of Fecal Coliform Violations (1000/100 ml Criteria)

I JS >

JS

I i 8 & m I

UUMJ -

8000-

6000-

4000-

2000-

0-

17

/ 4 16

14 • »

7 6 ^ ^

10

3

N

2

A A

/

p

4

I I-1

South Fork

North Foifc

Shenandoah

100 200

River Mle Above Potomac River

D.l - 73

AR300094AR300094

Two separate regression analyses were performed on the data to determine trends in fecal coliform concentrations. The first analysis included all of the available data, including samples taken as early as 1967. This analysis represents a long term trend over more than 20 years. The second analysis includes only samples taken after 01/01/80.

Table 17 shows the results of the trend analyses. Using all availcQ le data, two stations had increasing trends in fecal coliform concentrations, and 11 stations had decreasing trends in fecal coliform concentrations. Using only the more recent data, two stations had increasing trends and ten stations had decreasing trends. Stations 1 emd 16 had increasing trends in fecal coliform concentrations. These two stations had relatively low average fecal coliform concentrations (see graph 43) and low percentages of observations exceeding the criteria. Stations 2 and 3, which showed the highest average coliform concentrations on the three rivers both show evidence of decreasing fecal coliform concentrations. This data reflects, in part, the construction of sewage treatment plants on the rivers.

D.l - 74

AR300095AR300095

Table 17. Trends in Fecal Coliform concentrations Slopes are in units of #/100 ml/year

^station » Entire Period 1980 - Prggent

1 +14.23 +30.34

2 -255.51 -40.21

3 -86.95 -94.81

4*

5*

6 -3.29 -30.19

7 -28.21 -8.00

8 -15.27 -44.08

9 * . • . . " • •

10 ; - ' -9.89 -50.91

11 s , -15.24 -10.95

1 2 ; '^ - 2 9 . 0 6 - 6 4 . 5 5

••'vis ".'" ::•...-. • :-^ • _'•• , •••"-51.18 ** •

1 4 * • ' , . . , • •

15 ; ' -18.50 -1.03

16 +1.49 +75.38***

17 : -1.78 -7.20

* Not enough data available to perform the analysis.

** No data in 1980's at this station.

*** Data from 1980 - 1984.

D.l - 75

AR300096AR300096

Summary The available water quality data indicates degraded conditions

on the upper North Fork and lower South Fork, and in the lower Shenandoah River. Heavy metals, pH and fecal coliform have been found outside the allowable water quality criteria. Dissolved oxygen levels on the three rivers seemed to be consistently high.

Water samples collected at Station 12 on the South Fork in the vicinity of Front Royal have in the past repeatedly exceeded the acute water quality criteria for zinc. Furthermore, the avaiieible data indicates increasing trends in zinc concentration in the water column over the period 1967-1985. The last actual violation of the water quality criteria occurred in 1981 at this location. Sampling from 1981 to 1985 did not indicate zinc concentrations exceeding the water quality criteria.

Due to the evidence of serious zinc contamination around the Front Royal area, and the increasing trends in zinc concentrations in this area, it is recommended that the state monitoring program continue to collect zinc data at this location.

Water samples collected on the three rivers in the past have also exceeded the criteria for copper, cadmium, chromium, lead and silver, but these violations occurred in the 1970's or early 1980's and there is no current evidence of contamination available.

Values of pH outside the allowable range have been documented in the lower South Fork and the lower Shenandoah. The majority of the violations exceed the range, and are greater than 9 su. Violations of the criteria have occurred as recently as 1989 and 1988 at stations 11 amd 12 on the South Fork. The most recent violations of the criteria at stations 15, 16 and 17 occurred in 1982, 1980 and 1981. The cause of these alkaline conditions are not completely clear, but may be at least in part due to natural geological conditions.

Fecal Coliform concentrations are very high on the North Fork, downstream of Timberville, Virginia. Violations of the water quality criteria have occurred as recently as 1989 at station 2 on the North Fork. However, trend analysis shows that the fecal coliform concentrations are decreasing at station 2, as well as at most other stations on the three rivers. Increasing trends in fecal coliform concentrations occurred only at station 1 on the North Fork and at station 16 on the Shenandoah.

D.l - 76

AR300097AR300097

D.2 SEDIMENT DATA

Introduction

Locations on the North Fork, South Fork and Shenandoah Rivers where the sediment has been sampled and analyzed for toxics were identified using a general Informational retrieval from the STORET data base. All of these locations have also been sampled for water quality information, but all of the locations with water quality information do not also Include sediment sampling. There are five stations on the North Fork, four stations on the South Fork, and one on the Shenandoah River.

Sediment criteria have not been developed or promulgated into law as water criteria have. Therefore, there is still debate on what levels of toxics represent uncontamlnated sediment, and what levels should be set as criteria to designate contaminated sediments. Threshold contamination concentrations developed by the EPA were used as sediment criteria In this study (see table 18) (Battelle, 1985). The STORET STAND program was used to Identify the type and number of violations of these criteria at the ten stations.

Table 18. Sediment Criteria Threshold Contamination Concentrations (On a Dry Weight Basis)

Metals

Parameter

Arsenic

Cadmium

Chromium

Copper

Lead

Mercury

Zinc

Nickel

VWCB Criteria

STORET Code

1003

1028

1029

1043

1052

71921

1093

1068

Th: reshold (mg/kg)

33

31

25

136

132

0.5»

0.8

20

D.2 - 1 AR300098AR300098

Table 18. Cont. Sediment Criteria Threshold Contamination Concentrations (On a Dry Weight Basis)

QrqahiCS

Parameter STORET Code Threshold (mo/kg)

Lindane 39343 0.012

DDD 39363 13

DDE 39368 28

Aldrin 39333 0.021

DDT 39373 0.006

. . . - Chlordane 1 .- 39351 0.020

Toxaphene 39403 0.020

PCBS • 39519 0.28

Data Analvs'is

Most Of the stations which had sediment quality data do not have more than 2 samples taken, one in 1979 and one in 1983. A few stations have been sampled a third time in 1985. A total. of nine samples were taken on the North Fork, nine samples were taken on the South Fork, and two samples were taken on the Shenamdoah. Five stations on the North Fork, four stations on the South Fork, and one station on the Shenandoaih have been sampled to determine sediment cjuality.

All toxic parameters listed in TadDle 18 were analyzed using the STORET STAND program. Only chromium, mercury, nickel and zinc criteria were exceeded. The number and location of the violations are summarized in table 19.

Table 19 shows the number of violations and the average concentration in mg metal/kg sediment of each parameter at each station. The stations have been organized into the three river

D.2 - 2

AR300099AR300099

sections, depending on where the stations are located. The violations for the four metals are presented as a total for each metal at each station, and also as a total number of violations for each river.

The chromium criteria were exceeded a total of six times, with one violation on the North Fork, five violations on the South Fork in the vicinity of Front Royal, amd none on the Shenandoah below Front Royal. In other words, 14% of the samples exceeded the criteria on the North Fork amd 56% exceeded the criteria on the South Fork The highest average concentration was found at Station 11 (see Table 19).

The mercury criteria was exceeded a total of five times with one violation on the North Fork (14%), four on the South Fork (44%), amd none on the Shenamdoah, downstream from Front Royal. Two of the four violations on the South Fork occurred at stations 11 and 12 in Front Royal. The highest average concentration of mercury was found at station 11.

The zinc criteria was exceeded a total of two times. Both violations occurred on the South Fork at Stations 11 and 12 in the vicinity of Front Royal. The highest average concentration was found at station 12, where the average of three samples was 505.5 mg zinc/kg sediment. This concentration is seven times greater than the concentrations at eleven other stations, except for station 15 where the average zinc concentration was elevated to 198.4 mg zinc/ kg sediment.

The nickel criteria was exceeded a total of six times. Four of these violations occurred in the North Fork, one at station 12 in the South Fork, and one at station 15 in the Shenandoah. Nickel is the only parameter where more violations occurred in the North Fork tham the South Fork. Forty -four percent of the samples taken from the North Fork exceeded the nickel criteria.

D.2 - 3

AR300100AR300100

Table 19. Violations of Sediment Criteria on the North Fork, South Fork and Shenandoah Rivers. (The number of violations is given, followed by the average metal concentration in mg metal/ kg sediment)

Station » Chromium * / avQ

North Fork

- 1

• •• .2 . / _ . '

3

;.; 6'

' 7 . • . . " ' • ' : ' ^ ,

Total Vio.

South fork

8 • '••• - ; ; •

•• ^-lo.'-^^^^^ - • • -

11

12

Total Vio.

0/15.10

0/16.15

0/12.1

0/19.05

1/21.47

• - . • , l . ' . v '

:!:;

0/19.50

1/19.90

2/38.55

2/26.83

5

Mercury » / avq

Zinc »/ avg

Nickel * / avq

0/0.15

0/0.20

1/0.15

0/0.195

0/0.180

•• ^ ' ' ' ' ' " ,

1/0.490

l/0:450

1/0.925

1/0.397

4

0/59.80

0/65.3

0/39.5

0/65.3

0/70.5

0

0/35.7

0/60.3

1/92.0

1/505.5

2

0/18.3

1/14.90

0/13.7

0/13.7

2/25.37

3

0/11.50

0/10.05

0/14.48

1/14.90

1

-—>5

>13

Shenandoah

15

Tota; VAo.

0/19.20

0

0/0.245

0

0/198.4

0

1/16.45

1 >1

D.2 - 4

AR300101AR300101

Graphs 45-52 plot these four metal concentrations versus river mile on the three rivers. The data is presented in table 20. All numbers accompanied by a K in table 20 denote that the actual concentration is thought to be less than the value recorded.

The North Fork is presented in one graph, amd the South Fork and Shenandoah are presented on another graph for each metal. The data show that the concentration of chromium, mercury and zinc are generally higher in the South Fork sediments than either the North Fork or Shenamdoah sediments.There is an increase of chromium and mercury in the sediment at station 11 approximately 3 miles upstream from Front Royal on the South Fork, and a large contribution of zinc upstream from station 12 on the South Fork. The nickel concentration peaks in the lower portion of the North Fork at Station 7, about 0.5 miles above the confluence of the North amd South Forks.

Teible 20. Metals Concentrations in Sediments on the North Fork, South Fork amd Shenamdoah Rivers

Stat iOld #

North JQXK

1

2

3

6

7

Cftromivm vr/conc

1983/15.10

1979/13.0 1983/19.30

1983/12.10

1979/18.50 1983/19.60

1979/17.70 1983/25.10 1985/21.60

Mercurv

vr/conc

1983/0.1

1979/0.3K 1983/0.1

1983/0.15

1979/0.2K 1983/0.2K

1979/0.IK 1983/0.2K 1985/0.2K

?inc vr/conc

1983/59.8

1979/42.80 1983/82.50

1983/39.5

1979/59.90 1983/70.70

1979/55.10 1983/81.40 1985/75.00

Nickel yr/conc

1983/18.3

1979/9.6 1983/20.2

1983/13.7

1979/20.0 1983/25.10

1979/11.80 1983/33.40 1985/30.90

D.2 - 5

AR300102AR300102

Table 20. Cont. Metals Concentrations in Sediments on the North Fork, South Fork and Shenamdoah Rivers

Station t

South Fork

8

10

11

12

Shenandoah

15

Chromium yr/conc

1979/21.10 1983/17.90

1979/9.40 1983/30.40

1979/31.3 1983/45.80

1979/15.7 1983/28.90 1985/35.90

•

1979/15.50 1983/22.90

Mercury vr/conc

1979/0.7 1983/0.3

1979/0.08* 1983/0.8

1979/0.IK 1983/1.7

1979/0.IK 1983/0.3 1985/0.8

1979/0.3K 1983/0.2

Zinc yr/conc

1979/43.90 1983/27.60

: 1979/27.90 1983/92.80

1979/50.10 1983/134.0

1979/220.2 1983/434 1985/862.2

• • - • - - • - •

1979/149.90 1983/247.00

Nickel yr/conc

1979/13.20 1983/9.80

1979/4.30 1983/15.80

1979/0.36 1983/28.60

1979/4.90K 1983/16.90 1985/22.90

1979/10.0 1983/22.90

The data is also separated into the two or three separate sampling events by year of collection. Generally, there seems to be an increasing trend in metals concentration in sediments. It is important to keep in mind that these trends are based on only two or three samples at each site. The lack of data requires that the trends be viewed with some caution and reservation.

Chromium concentrations in sediment were highest in the South Fork. The levels of chromium found in the North Fork in 1983 were larger than those found in 1979 at all three stations which were sampled both times (stations 2,6, and 7). Chromium seemed to decrease at station 7 from 1983 to 1985 (see graph 45).. In the South Fork, levels of chromium increased at stations 10, 11 and 12, and decreased at station 8 from 1979 to 1983. Chromium concentrations also increased at the single station 15 on the Shenandoah. Chromium levels at Station 12, the only station with

D.2 - 6

AR300103AR300103

a sample taken during 1985 also showed an increase from 1983 (see graph 46).

Mercury concentrations were highest in the South Fork. The levels of mercury found in sediment in the North Fork decreased at station 2, remained constant at station 6 and increased at station 7 from 1979 to 1983. There was no change in mercury concentration at station 7 from 1983 to 1985 (see graph 47). Mercury levels in the South Fork increased at three of the four stations, with a decrease documented only at station 8 from 1979 to 1983. Mercury concentrations also increased at station 12 from 1983 to 1985. The single station on the Shenandoah showed a decrease in mercury in the sediments from 1979 to 1983 (see graph 48).

Zinc concentrations in sediments was substantially higher at Station 12 on the South Fork than anywhere else. Generally, zinc concentrations were low in the North Fork, but increases in sediment concentrations were documented at stations 2, 6 amd 7 from 1979 to 1983. Zinc concentrations at station 7 decreased slightly at station 7 from 1983 to 1985 (see graph 49). As with the chromium and mercury, increases in zinc concentrations in sediment were found at stations 10, 11, and 12 from 1979 to 1983. A small decrease was found at Station 8. A very large increase in zinc levels was foxind at station 12 from 1983 to 1985. 7m increase was also found at station 15 on the Shenandoah from 1979 to 1983.

Nickel concentrations in sediment were found to be higher in the North Fork than the South Fork or Shenamdoah Rivers in both 1979 and 1983 (see graphs 50 and 51). Nickel concentrations in sediment increased at stations 2, 6 and 7 on the North Fork from 1979 to 1983. Nickel was found to decrease at Station 7 from 1983 to 1985. In the South Fork, nickel concentrations in sediment increased at stations 10, 11 and 12, but decreased at station 8 from 1979 to 1983. Nickel concentrations in sediment at station 12 also increased from 1983 to 1985. An increase in nickel levels was also observed at station 15 on the ShenandoaOi River from 1979 to 1983.

D.2 - 7

AR300104AR300104

Graph 45. Chromium Concentrations in Sediment along the North Fork.

50

40 -

E c o

c

s c o O E _2 E p

30 -

2 0 -

10-7 6 3 2 1

0 I I I I I I I 0 50 100 150

- • — 1979

- • — 1983

- a — 1985

(SnwN nuvnbMv on ^raph

IB pfwôiNly dsfinod)

200


D.2 - 8

AR300105AR300105

Graph 46. Chromium Concentrations in Sediment in the South Foric and Shenandoah Rivers

E C o

a o c o O E _2 E g O

1979

• 1983

• 1985

( S m l nuraftwra on ^ f tph rapfOMnl i tMion lodrtton flk piWnoiMqf ooonoo)

200


D.2 - 9

AR300106AR300106

Graph 47. Mercury Concentrations in Sediment on the North Foric

e»

E,

• a » C

JO

I c

8 c o O

- • — 1979

- » — 1983

- • — 1985

200

River Mile Alx>ve Potomac River

D.2 - 10

AR300107AR300107

Graph 48. Mercury Concentration in Sediments on the South Foric and Shenandoah Rivers

c JO

c • u c o U

3

2

1979

1983

1985

200


D.2 - 11

AR300108AR300108

Graph 49. Zinc Concentrations in Sediment the North Foric

E

m « O ' O

8

1

800-

700 •]

600-

i

500-

400-

300-^

200-

1

100-

0 • ~ ^ ^

l '

\ . -

~ "S .

. . . - ^ ' ê J ! .

S 2

* ^

1

->.

K . > •

1979

1983

1985

150 200


D.2 - 12

AR300109AR300109

Graph 50. Zinc Concentrations in Sediment on the South Fork and Shenandoah Rivers

900

o» O)

E

JO

c

i o U o JC N

800-

700

6 0 0 -

500-

400-

300-

200

100

IS 12 11 10

1979

1983

1985


D.2 - 13

AR300110AR300110

Graph 51. Nickel Concentrations in Sediment on the North Fork

40

I c JO

c

8 c o O "5 IS

30

20

10 -

7 6

• ^ — ^ » — T — " ^ r — ^ T ~ — T — r — ~ T — ^ r

3 2 1

50 100 • ' I

ISO

• 1979

1983

- 1985

200

River IMIe Above Potomac River

D.2 - 14

AR300111AR300111

Graph 52. Nickel Concentraion in Sediments in South Fork and Shenandoah Rivers

40

3 0 -

O)

E, c JO

' c • u c o O

1 u

2 0 -

10-

15 12 11 10

0-1—r-

- • — 1979

• • — 1983

• • — 19B5


D.2 - 15

AR300112AR300112

Summary

According to the available data on sediment quality, only chromium, mercury, nickel and zinc have been found at levels determined by the EPA to represent contaminated sediments. Chromium, mercury, amd zinc are higher in the South Fork than in the North Fork or in the Shenamdoah River. Nickel concentrations in sediment were higher on the North Fork tham in the South Fork or on the Shenandoah.

Generally, the concentration of metals seems to increase from 1979 to 1983 at several stations. However, it is difficult to have much confidence in this apparent trend, even though it seems persistent, because it is based on only two or three samples at each location.

D.2 - 16

AR300113AR300113

D.3 BIOLOGICAL MONITORING DATA

Tnt-roduction

Biosurvey techniques are one of the best monitoring methods for detecting aquatic life impairments amd assessing relative severity. The study of biological communities provides a direct assessment of the impacts of physical, chemical and biological contaminants in water bodies.

A field survey of the diversity and number of benthic macroinvertebrates at a location have long been used as a cheap, quick alternative to chemical monitoring. Generally, the more diverse the collection of life forms, the healthier the ecosystem, indicating good water quality. As water quality degrades, the diversity of the biological community decreases as sensitive organisms disappear and more hardy, pollution tolerant species dominate the habitat.

The Virginia Water Control Board has maintained a Fixed Station Biological Monitoring Network on the North Fork, South Fork and Shenandoah River for many years. West Virginia has one biological monitoring station on the Shenandoah. These stations are shown on the map in figure 2 and the locations are described in more detail in table 21.

Table 21. Locations of Biological Monitoring Stations

StatJLOn t Station cofle Locat ion W a t e r Q u a l i t y C l a s s i f i c a t i o n *

Bl 21VASWCB-lBNrS088.77

North Fork Broadway Rockingham Co. Virginia

Good

B2 21VASWCB-1BNFS086.54

North Fork Timberville Rockingham Co. Virginia

Fair

B3 21VASWCB-1BNFS081.61

North Fork Rt. 728 Bridge Shenandoah Co. Virginia

Fair-Good

D.3 - 1

AR300114AR300114

Table 21. Cont. Locations of Biological Monitoring Stations

Station * Station Code Location w a t e r O u a l i t v C las s i f i ca t ion *

B4

B5

B6

B7

B8

B9





21VASWCB- . 1BSHN023.02

21WV7IWQ-550472

North Fork Private Campground off Route 55 Shenamdoah Co. Virginia

South Fork, East Bank Luray Avenue Warren Co., VA

South Fork,^ West Bank Rt. 340 Bridge Warren Co., VA

South Fork At Three Islands Warren Co. Virginia

Shenandoah Upstream from Rt. 7 Clarke Co. Virginia

Harper's Ferry West Virginia

Good

Good

Poor

Fair

Good

fair-good**

* Water quality classifications are taken from the 1990 Virginia 305(b) Report to Congress. The classifications are based on a S"??''';^^^ rating system. The designations are based on data from ^ , ^ ^ ^ . ^ ? ^ ^ through Spring 1989. These stations are part of the Virginia Fixed Station Biological Network and are examined semiannually during Spring and Fall. «"iiiieu

** see the discussion in the text of the limitations on this classification.

D.3 - 2

AR300115AR300115

B4

FREDERICK

JEFFERSON

/CLARKEV />

7

f

/

B7

:N fie

B5

B9

a«

LOCATIONS or BIOLOGICAL MONITORING STATIONS ON THE NORTH FORK, SOUTH

FORK AND SHENANDOAH RIVERS.

D.3 - 3

AR300116AR300116

p^ta Analysis

The Virginia Water Control Board developed a qualitative biological evaluation technique which considers pecies diversity relative abundance and pollution tolerance. After tne macroinvertebrate community is evaluated by the J ^ stigator, an overall water quality rating is assigned to fach station. The ciMsificatlons of good, fair, and poor, and the intermediate classifications of fair-good and fair-poor are also shown in taoie 21.

The VWCB Staff biologists were consulted to determine if the data collected at the West Virginia station could be evaluated using Virginia's classification scheme. The goal was to provide some consistency in the classification of the water quality over the state lines. With reservations, a classification of fair-good was assigned to station B9 at Harper's Ferry.

The Board's staff were reluctant to endorse this classification because of basic differences in sampling methods used by the states of Virginia amd West Virginia, Virginia used a kick net and actively searched tê stream bed for specific species, spending up to an hour at each location. The West Virginia data was collected in a more passive manner, using a Hester-Dendy sampler. The Hester-Dendy is am artificial substrate which is left in the stream and collected after a specific period of time, to be analyzed for insects and other macroinvertebrates which have entered or attached to it. The Hester-Dendy sampler can effectively limit the collection of certain species, including some that are used as indicators of good water quality, because of differences in feeding habits and habitat preferences. Certain macroinvertebrates may be present in the stream, but will not be collected in the sampler. Nevertheless, the classification of fair-good will be used in an effort to maintain some consistency between the Virginia and West Virginia stations.

In the North Fork, the biological assessment indicated a decline in the water quality at station B2, at the town of Timberville. The closest water quality monitoring station collecting chemical water quality data is station 2, which is approximately at the same location as B3.

The chemical water quality data at this station show elevated levels of fecal coliform. Sediments collected at Station 2 in 1983 exceeded the nickel criteria of 20 mg nickel/kg sediment. All other water quality parameters seemed to be in acceptable concentrations at this station.

In the South Fork, the biological assessment indicated a poor classification at Station B6. station B6 is located in the same place as water quality monitoring station 12. These stations are directly downstream of the Avtex Viscose Rayon plant. A cursory benthic survey conducted by the Virginia Water Control Board on September 25, 1986 on the South Fork in Front Royal illustrates the degradation of the river by "point and nonpoint discharges by the Avtex Fibers, Inc. plant". The benthic community approximately 3

D.3 - 4

AR300117AR300117

km downstream from the Avtex plant was characterized by low diversity and density scores among the sensitive 9^°^? ^ ^ community structure was found to be unbalanced. ^Bp^î^p* 198/)

Chemical water quality data shows very degraded conditions in this area. Available data indicates the presence of zinc, copper, chromium, cadmium, pH, dissolved oxygen, and fecal '=ol /° "' J unacceptable levels at this station in the water column. Sef ")ent data indicates the presence of zinc, chromium, nickel and mercury at levels exceeding the threshold contamination concentrations. The sediment data also indicates increasing trends in the concentrations of these metals. These trends must be treated with extreme caution since there is very little data available to determine trends.

Water quality seems to improve downstream at Station B7. At station B8, approximately 20 miles below Front Royal, Virginia, on the Shenandoah, the water quality has been classified as good.

There seems to be some degradation of water quality at Station B9, at Harper's Ferry, West Virginia. The limitations of this particular classification has been discussed above. This station is located in the same place as water quality monitoring station 17. The water quality data at station 17 indicates an vmusually high zinc concentration in one sample. There have been violations of the copper criteria at station 17, but the most recent violation occurred in 1977, amd copper concentrations have decreased since that time. The cadmium water criteria has also been violated at station 17, but the last violation occurred in 1981 and the data indicates decreasing and persistently low cadmium concentrations since 1981. Similarly, the silver criteria was violated at station 17, but the latest violation occurred in ,1978 and the silver concentration in the water column has been persistently low since 1978.

The allowed range of pH has been exceeded several times at station 17, but the latest violation occurred in 1981 and pH levels have been improving since then. There were no violations of the dissolved oxygen criteria, and a few violations of the fecal coliform criteria.

Unfortunately, there is no sediment quality criteria availaOale at station 17. It is unclear what is causing the fair-good biological quality classification at station 17.

The data from the West Virginia station B9 has been entered into the STORET BIOS system. There are several metrics available in the BIOS system which are quantitative indicators of biological diversity and abundance.

One of the metrics is the EPT Index. This index is the number of distinct taxa within the insect orders Ephemeroptera (mayflies) , Plecoptera (stoneflies) amd Trichoptera (caddisflies). The EPT index value summarizes the taxa richness within these insect groups that are generally considered pollution sensitive. The EPT index generally increases with increasing water quality.

These index values can be used in two ways. The value of the index at a specific location cam be compared to the value representative of an identical, healthy habitat with excellent

D.3 - 5

AR300118AR300118

water quality, called a reference station. Unfortunately, we have no reference biological criteria to compare with the value of the EPT index at station 17. The value of the index can also be compared over time at the same location to document trends in water quality.

The EPT index was calculated using the STORET BIOS system for all data collected at station B9. Samples were taken from 1978 to 1987, generally with one or two replicates. This data is plotted in graph 53. The EPT value has generally decreased at station B9, indicating degrading water quality. The EPT index value reached a high of 12 in July of 1980 and has decreased to a low of 3 in 1987. Looking at the available water quality data, the possible cause of this degradation is not obvious.

D.3 - 6

AR300119AR300119

Graph 53. Shenandoah River at Harpers Ferry, West Virginia. The EPT Index: A Measure of Pollution Sensitive Species

14

III

12-

10 -

8 -

6 -

'X'-

' I • 1 ' I ' I ' 1 » - ~ 1976 1078 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988

Drte

Dr3 - 7

AR300120AR300120

D.U Fish Tissue

Introduction

A total of six stations in the study area have been sampled for contaminants In fish tissue (see table 22). Four of these stations have been discussed earlier In the chemical water quality section. Two of the stations have not be discussed previously and are labelled stations 12a and 7a in table 22, because of their close proximity to stations 12 and 7. Fish tissue data has been collected at two stations on the North Fork, two stations on the South Fork and two stations on the Shenandoah. The area around Front Royal has been sampled in both the north and South Forks.

Table 22. Locations of Fish Tissue Monitoring Stations

No.

7

7 a

12

12a

15

16

R i v e r H i l e »

5 5 . 5 7

5 5 . 6 9

5 5 . 5 8

• 5 5 . 1 9

2 2 . 6 3

18

S t a t i o n Code



21VASWCB-1 B S S F 0 0 0 . 5 8

21VASWC6-1 B S S F 0 0 0 . 1 9


21WV7IWQ-550i»72

Station Location

North Fork CGIF Launch Front Royal, Va.

North Fork Front Royal, Va.

South Fork Rt. 340 Bridge Front Royal, Va.

South Fork Front Royal, Va.

Shenandoah Rt. 7 Bridge Clarke Co., Va.

Shenandoah Meyerstovn, VVa.

River Mile is Indexed as miles above the Potomac River.

D.4 - 1

AR300121AR300121

The Food and Drug Administration has set action levels for contaminants In fish tissue. If contaminant concentrations In the edible tissue meet or exceed the FDA action level, the fish should not be eaten. All fish tissue data for the area which has been entered into STORET was retrieved from the database. (A large body of fish tissue information which is not in STORET appears in Section E of this report) The FDA action levels and the stations where the different parameters were measured in fish tissue are given in table 23.

Table 23. Parameters Measured In Fish Tissue

FDA Action Levels and Corresponding Locations

Parameter FA Action Level (ppm) Stations

Aldrin and Dleldrln 0.3 7, 12, 12a, 15, 16

Benzene Bexaohlorlde 0.3 7, 12, 12a, 15, 16

Chlordane* 0.3 . 7, 12, 12a, 15, 16

DDT, DDD, TDE»» 5.0 7, 12, 12a, 15, 16 Endrin 0.3 7, 12, 12a, 15, 16 Heptachlor and

Heptaohlor Epoxide 0.3 7, 15, 16

Mercury 1.0 7, 7a, 12, 15, 16,

Toxaphene 5«0 7, 12a, 1, 16

PCBs 2.0 7, 12, 12a, 15, 16, * Total Chlordane: Heptaohlor, cis and trans chlordane, ols and

trans nonaohlor, oxychlordane (octachlor epoxide), alpha, beta and gama ohlordene and chlordene. Individual components must be 0.02 ppm or more to be added to the total.

** Individually or in oomblnatlon. Do not count any of these found below 0.2 ppm.

D.4 - 2 AR300122AR300122

Table 24 lists all of the parameters from the list in table 23 which were actually detected at quantifiable levels in fish tissue. Considering the parameters listed in table 23, only mercury, chlordane, PCBs, DDT, DDE and toxaphene have been detected in fish tissue. The data is separated by station, amd by year the data was collected. Table 24 lists all quantifiable levels, not only the violations. Fish tissue can be analyzed in several different ways. It can be analyzed as the whole organism, as a skinned filet or as a plain filet. Only samples analyzed as skinned or plain filets can be compared to FDA action levels, because the action levels apply to the edible portion.

Violations of the FDA action levels for PCBs occurred at stations 12a and 15 in 1988 and 1987. These samples are part of a larger study of PCB contamination in the South Fork and Shenandoah River (see section E of this report).

Table 24. - Detected Contaminants in Fish Tissue.

STATION 7

• ' i •

Year '

1979 ^

1983

1985

STATION 7A

no detects

..-, '• J

. Mercurv (ma/ka)

•'•• • • •

0.11 0.07

0.13

0.17 0.18 0.17

- • _ • • , _ • :

Fish Species ,•' : •

carp rock bass

'

carp carp rock bass

£aiD£l£.

whole whole

whole

whole whole whole

: ' •

Type

D.4 - 3

AR300123AR300123

Table 24. cont. Detected Contaminants in Fish Tissue.

STATION

Year

1979

1983

1985

1988-

STATION

1988

12

12A

Mercurv (ma/ka)

\

FCBS (mq/Kq).

12.0

0.06 0.06 0.15

0.04

0.10 0.11

0.20

0.11

0.23 0.15

Imq/kq)

2.4

fish Species

•

carp carp

. small mouth bass northern hog sucker

carp sunfish

small mouth bass northern hog sucker

carp rock bass

Samole Tvce

whole whole whole

whole

whole whole

whole

whole

whole skinned filet

PCB1260 Fisn Sample (ma/ka> Soecies Tvue

9.3 sunfish skinned filet

STATION 15

Mercury (mq/Xq)

1987 .38

.04

.17

PCBS (mq/Kq)

5.2

2.3

2.0

nsh Species

Samp 3-e Type

white sucker rock bass

yellow bullhead

whole

skinned filet skinned filet

D.4 - 4

AR300124AR300124

Table 24. cont. Detected Contaminants in Fish Tissue.

STATION

1982

1983

16

Ctiôrdane g jsopiejT iuq/g)

nd .150

Chlordane T Isomer (uq/q)

nd .130

P.P»DDD Imq/Xq).

.02 nd

P,P'DDT tug/kg)

10.00 nd

STATION 16 CONT.

1982

1983

STATION ..

1982

1983

(mq/kq)

"" ' \

.49

.32

16 CONT.

^SSXZ&Q.

.250

.250

O.P'DDE Mercury tuq/q) (mq/Kq)

.18

.13

.02 .18 nd .06

Fish Species Sample Tvoe

white whole sucker bass whole (unknown species)

small mouth whole bass redhorse whole sucker

Tojcapnene (ug/kg)

nd 230.

D.4 - 5

AR300125AR300125

E. PCB INVESTIGATION

In 1987 routine fish tissue monitoring at the CORE stations near Front Royal in the Shenandoah River indicated the presence of PCB contamination in excess of the FDA Action Level of 2.0 ppm. Previous monitoring in 1979, 1983 and 1985 at this location did not indicate the presence of PCB in fish tissue. Therefore it was determined that the contamination was a result of a recent incident. Follow-up monitoring in 1988 confirmed the results found in 1987. Based on these findings the Virginia Department of Health Issued an advisory against the consumption of fish caught from the lower portions of the North and South Fork Shenandoah and the mainstem Shenandoah River from the Front Royal area downstream to the Vest Virginia stateline. The West Virginia Department of Natural Resources issued a similar advisory based on the information received from the VWCB and their own sampling data. This advisory was later restricted to bottomfeeders and extended from the Virginia-Vest Virginia stateline to the confluence of the Shenandoah River with the Potomac River. Tables 25 and 26 lists the PCB fish tissue data for VWCB AND WVDNR.

A special environmental study was conducted by the VWCB to determine the extent and source(s) of the contamination In fish-tissue sediment-, and the water column In late spring 1989. Nine stations were selected on the North Fork, South Fork and mainstem of the Shenandoah River In the vicinity of Front Royal. Table 27 lists the station number, description and sample type. All samples were analyzed for PCB's.

E - 1

AR300126AR300126

Table 25. VWCB Core Monitoring Data

STATION

South Fork Shenandoah at Route 340/522 bridge

North Fork Shenandoah at Route 34/522 bridge

Shenandoah River at Route 7 bridge

EISH PCB>s

Bluegill (FS) 10.5* Rock bass (FS) 14.9* River Carp (W) 92.0 Smallmouth bass (FS) <1.0

Rock bass (FS) <1.0 River Carp (W) 4.2

Redbreast Sunfish (FS) 2.3* Yellow Bullhead (F) 2.0* White Sucker (W) 5.2

F - Fillet FS = Fillet with Skin-on W = Whole fish

*Exceeds FDA Action Level of 2.0 ppwi for edible portions

E - 2

AR300127AR300127

Table 26. WVDNR Fish Tissue Monitoring Data

Sample Date

6/21/89

10/11/89

Fisn i

Shenau

Stations

idoah River Meyerstown PCBs

Smallmouth Bass Redhorse Suckers Channel Catfish

Smallmouth Bass Bluegill Redbreast Sunfish Pumpkinseed Sunfish Redhorse Sucker Channel Catfish

in ppm

2.52* 0.30

0.93 0.29 0.78 0.56 11.80* 5.40*

Shenandoah River Millville PCBs in ppm

0.86 6.96* 1.02

0.56 0.41 0.46 0.46 3.80* 4.30*

Note: Al fish tissue samples are fillet.

* exceeds'FDA Action Level

E - 3

AR300128AR300128

Table 27. Fish Tissue Sampling Stations

Station

1

Station Description

South Fork Shenandoah at Bentonville

Sample Type

fish

South Fork Shenandoah at Luray

South Fork Shenandoah at Rt. 340/522

fish sediment water

fish sediment

Shenandoah River in power pool at Shenandoah Estates

fish sediment

Shenandoah River at Morgan Ford fish sediment

Shenandoah River at Rt. 17/50

Shenandoah River at Rt. 7

fish sediment water

fish sediment

8 North Fork Shenandoah above Strasburg *(above Winchester intake)

North Fork Shenandoah Above Rt. 340/522

fish sediment* water*

fish

E - 4

AR300129AR300129

The results, listed in table 28, confirmed the previous findings and verified the need for a consumption advisory on the Shenandoah River. PCB contamination existed at levels above the FDA Action Level of 2.0 ppm In fish tissue (fillets) at all stations except Stations 8 and 9 on the North Fork. Station 1, the background station for the South Fork, had one fish sample that exceeded the Action Level. This sample, a carp, had a PCB concentration of 2.1 ppm. Similarly, bottomfeeders on the North Fork also contained low level PCB concentrations. VWCB concluded that these bottomfeeders were migratory and could have accumulated the PCBs from the areas downstream. The PCB concentrations increased at station 2, peaked at station 3 and then demonstrated a slightly decreasing trend downstream to the stateline. Exceedances of the FDA Action Level were obvious at all stations between 2 and 7 In both gameflsh and bottom feeders. It should be noted that Avtex is the only permitted discharger between stations 2 and 3 where the highest levels were found.

(According to the VWCB, the sediment results revealed a strong correlation to the pattern noted In the fish tissue. The sediment data showed a similar pattern of .results with the highest value occurring at station 3 and decreasing downstream.)

This study recommended continued fish tissue monitoring to track the level of contaminants and assist the Virginia Department of Health In determining future modifications to the consumption advisory. Additional sediment sampling was also recommended to determine more Information on transport patterns and sources.

E - 5

AR300130AR300130

Table 28. Study Results

Station (stream mile)

• •; - 1 - ^ - -

(SFS-19.30) '

(SFS-3.50)

(SFS-0.58) "

4 (SHN-53.20)

(SHN-48.00)

(SHN-38.48)

Fish

smallmouth bass Tock bass carp

smallmouth bass bluegill" carp

smallmouth ' baas''" bluegill^; ^carp '"""

largemouth bass bluegill oarp

smallmouth bass bluegill shorthead redhorse

smallmouth bass redbreasted sunfish northern hogsucker

Total PCB (ppm)

<1 .0 <1.0 2.1»

1-9,. 0.94 12.0»

16.0» 1.9

11 .0«

3.4» 2.5« 10.0»

Sediment/ Water

Total PCB (ppm)

3.5* 1.6

14.6»

4.8»

2.0

4.0*

s(rt bank) <0.50 s(lf bank) <0.50 water <0.0001

s(rt bank) 5.92 s(If bank) . 1 ..30

sediment 0.19

8(rt bank) <0.50 s(lf bank) 1.20

sediment 0.80

water <0.0001

exceeds FDA Action Levels

E - 6

AR300131AR300131

Table 28 cont.

Station Fish (stream mile)

Total PCB (ppm)

Sediment/ Water

Total PCB (ppm)

(SHN-22.63)

8 (NFS-17.54)

smallmouth bass 2.6» redbreasted sunfish 2.0 silver " redhorse" - 12 .i3«

smallmouth "'•----bass <i.0 rock bass <1.0 fallfish : 0.85

sediment

sediment water

0.53

0.50 <0.0001

(NFS-0.69) smallmouth bass \ ' - • rock bass carp

<1.0 V <i .0 :: 0.75

* exceeds FDA Action Level

E - 7 AR300132AR300132

oft' Since significant PCB contamination was identified near^ the

Avtex facility, the VWCB initiated a second investigation at the Avtex plant. Also, the D.S. EPA had previously Inspected the Avtex facility under the Toxic Substance Control Act (TSCA) and identified several violations concerning the storage of equipment contaminated with PCB.

The VWCB and the Commonwealth of Virginia Department of Waste Management met with Avtex officials and selected nine locations for soil sampling to confirm the existence of PCB contaminated soil at the site. The nine locations were chosen based on the likelihood of contamination and/or could be Involved in the transport of contaminated sediments.

Of the nine samples analyzed, only one sample indicated a high level of contamination. The sample located near the loading dock contained 78 ppm of PCBs. The study concluded that a further Investigation should be undertaken.

A third study was initiated by the VCWB. This study, Riverbank Sediment Survey of South Fork Shenandoah River between River Miles SSF 003.56 and SSF 000.00 near Front Royal. Virginia. collected and analyzed 51 sediment and bank soil samples in the Front Royal area. The results showed that the contamination exceeded detect.ion levels Immediately downstream of Avtex's outfall 003* The concentrations of PCBs peaked within the next 2000 feet, which is downstream of Avtex outfall 004. The detectable levels on the bank opposite of Avtex were not observed until after a mixing zone in the river about 6000 feet downstream of Avtex Outfall 004. No PCBs were found upstream of Avtex or In any tributaries In the area. The VWCB concluded that "these results rule out the discharge of PCBs from all sources other than those on the Avtex Fibers, Inc. plant site In the vicinity of discharges 003 and 004".

Further investigations at the Avtex site by the VWCB identified several highly contaminated areas. The most likely source of contamination were several leaking electrical transformers. In fact, in a personnel communication with Mr. Tom Felvey of the VWCB, it was Indicated that a transformer on the roof of one of the Avtex building actually exploded in 1986 causing widespread contamination.

E - 8

AR300133AR300133

REFERENCES

Action Levels for Poisonous or Deleterious Substances in Human Food and Animal Feed, Food and Drug Administration, 1987.

A New Life for the Shenandoah, c. Henderson, United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Kearneysvilie, West Virginia.

National Perspective on Sediment Ouality. H.S. Bolton, R.J. Breteler, B.W. Vigon, J.A. Scanlon and S.L. Clark, Battelle, 1985.

Qualitative Benthic Survey. South Fork Shenandoah River. Virginia Water Control Board, 1987.

Ouality Criteria for Water. United States Environmental Protection Agency, 1986.

Rapid Bioassessment Protocols for Use in Streams and Rivers. Benthic Macroinvertebrates and Fish. United States Environmental Protection Agency, 1989.

Shenandoah River Basin Biological Assessment of Water Quality. Virginia State Water Control Board, Richmond, Va., 1963.

Shenandoah River Study. 1969-1970. A Preview of Maior Results. C.R. Berry, Virginia State Water Control Board, 1971.

A Summary of Studies of PCB Contamination in the North Fork. South Fork and Mainstem Shenandoah River. Virginia State Water Control Board, 1989.

Virginia Water Quality Assessment. 305(b) Report to Congress. Virginia State Water Control Board, 1990.

AR300134AR300134

APPENDIX A

AR300135AR300135

DRINKING VATER INTAKES

NORTH FORK SHENANDOAH

, I

Permit # Facility Source*

VA2171850

VA2171750

VA2840500

VA2139825

VA2187406

Town of Voodstock

Town of Strasburg

City of Vlnchester

SOUTH FORK SHENANDOAH

Town of Shenandoah

Town of Front Royal

SHENANDOAH RIVER

Ground Vater Little Stoney Creek

Ground Vater North Fork

Ground Vater North Fork

Ground Vater South Fork

South Fork Happy Creek Sloan Creek

VA2043125

VA2043634

WV3301905

WV3301912

Town of Berryvllle

Fed. Preparedness Ag

Charles Town

Harpers Ferry

Ground Water Berryvllle Moun.

Ground Water Shenandoah

Ground Water Evitts Run

Spring

•Primary and Secondary Sources

AR300136AR300136

DISCHARGERS

NPDES #

North Fork - Shenandoah River

Facility SIC Code

VA0001791 VA0002011 VAOOO2143 VA0002623 VA0022853 VAOO27III VA0002551 VAOOOI902 VA0001864 VA0026468 VA0026662 VA0052817 VA0002291 VAOO203II VAOO5133I VA0052621 VAOO6I549 VA0065528 VA0002631 VA0020982

Shen Valley Meat Packers 2011 Rockingham Poultry 2016 National Fruit Prod. Co. 2033 Food Processors Water Coop. 4941 Town of New Market 4952 Town of Timberville 4952 J-S Enterprises 7542 Rocoo Farms Food, Edlnburg 2016 Alleen Inc, Edlnburg 2231 Town of Woodstock 4952 John Manvllle Products Corp. 4952 Shenandoah County Sanitation 4941 Bowman Apple Products Co 2033 Strasburg Sewage Treatment 4952 Strasburg Water Treatment 4941 Valley Milk Products 2023 Toms Brook - Maurertown Serv 4952 Suss Industrial Park 4952 Winchester Mlddletown 4941 Town of Middletown 4952

* Discharges to tributary of Shenandoah River, North fork

AR300137AR300137

Documents

SHENANDOAH RIVER WATER QUALITY ASSESSMENT STUDY · SHENANDOAH RIVER WATER QUALITY ASSESSMENT STUDY July 1990 United States Environmental Protection Agency Environmental Services Division