Al FY BOARD
\\ RONIUI ION AGENCY
-------
PROGRESS REPORT
ON
RECOMMENDATIONS
OF THE
GALVESTON
BAY ENFORCEMENT
CONFERENCE
BY
GALVESTON BAY TECHNICAL COMMITTEE
TEXAS WATER QUALITY BOARD
AND
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
October 1972
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Description Page
LIST OF FIGURES ii
LIST OF TABLES ii
LIST OF ATTACHMENTS iii
I INTRODUCTION 1
I I SUMMARY OF CONFERENCE 6
III SHELLFISH RECOMMENDATIONS 16
IV A. DISINFECTION OF WASTE SOURCES 20
B. CENTRALIZATION OF TREATMENT FACILITIES 24
V GALVESTON BAY WASTE SOURCE SURVEY 25
VI OIL AND GREASE REMOVAL 26
VII WASTE LOAD REDUCTION PROGRAM 31
VIM ORGANIC SLUDGE DEPOSITS - DISPOSAL OF
DREDGING SPOIL 33
IX COLOR REMOVAL 39
X BOD ALLOCATIONS TO HOUSTON SHIP CHANNEL 46
REFERENCES - COLOR REMOVAL 44
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure No. Title Follows Page
VI1-1 Houston Ship Channel B.O.D. Loading 32
VI I-2 Total B.O.D. Contributed by the Four
Major Texas City Industries 33
VI11-1 Volatile Solids Profile of Bottom Sludges 35
VI11-2 Volatile Solids (%) Profile of Bottom
Sludges 36
VI 11-3 B.O.D^ Profile of Bottom Sludges 36
VI 11-1* COD Profile of Bottom Sludges 36
VI11-5 Percent Oil and Grease Profile of
Bottom Sludges 36
LIST OF TABLES
Table No. Title Page
I I 1-1 Chemistry Task Force 18
IV-1 Municipal Waste Discharges into Houston
Ship Channel and Galveston Bay 21
VI1-1 Major Texas City Dischargers 33
VII 1-1 Observations 35
VI I I-2 Side Bay Analytical Data Summary 38
IX-1 Background Color Survey - Upper Galveston
Bay and Tributaries k2
X-l B.O.D. Allocations to Houston Ship Channel kS
-------
LIST OF ATTACHMENTS
Attachment Title Pages
Texas Water Quality Board Order No. Al-1 to 8
71-0819-1 and Addendum
Texas Water Quality Board Order No. A2-1 to 7
69-9A
Houston - Calves ton Area Council A'3-l to 8
Proposed Regionalization Program for
Waste Abatement
Public Hearing Notice on Proposed B.O.D. A^-l to 13
Allocations for Houston Ship Channel
i 11
-------
I
INTRODUCTION
The Calveston Bay Technical Committee was formed by the Conferees'
of the Galveston Bay Enforcement Conference at the conclusion of the
first session in June 1971. The Technical Committee summarized testi-
mony offered at the first session and the Conferees adopted recom-
mendations at the second session in November 1971. Many of these
recommendations require periodic submittal of progress reports prior to
the time of full implementation. In accordance with these recommendations,
the Galveston Bay Technical Committee submits this first progress report.
Recommendations Number 4, 5 and 11 concerned adequate criteria and
sampling of shellfish harvesting areas to insure acceptability of the
product for consumption. The Food and Drug Administration has initiated
a nationwide sampling and analysis program to determine the toxicological
significance of oil and hydrocarbon residues in oysters. Preliminary data
from this survey are not yet available for general distribution. The
Texas State Board of Health and the Food and Drug Administration have
amended the sampling schedule in Galveston Bay to include, as far as
possible, data collection under the most unfavorable hydrographic and
pollution conditions. Alert levels proposed for heavy metal concentrations
in shellfish at the Food and Drug Administration Seventh National Shell-
fish Sanitation Workshop were not adopted. A committee has been formed
to study the problem and review available data at yearly intervals.
Recommendation No. 6 concerned effective disinfection of municipal
effluents and the centralization of sewage treatment plants. Grab
-------
samples of efffluents from 50 major municipal waste plants collected by
the Texas Water Quality Board in March 1972, indicated that a large
number of the plants were meeting the Texas Water Quality Board chlorine
residual requirements. However, total and fecal coliform concentrations
in the effluents of many plants were still excessive. Total and fecal
coliform are indicators of the possible presence of pathogenic organisms.
In general, those plants with larger contact times discharged effluent
with satisfactory bacteriological quality. In general, the unsatis-
factory bacteriological densities are related to either excessive solids
concentrations in the effluent, or short circuiting in the chlorine
contact tank, or both. Correction of the problem is being pursued on
a case by case basis by the Texas Water Quality Board. The Sims Bayou
plant of the City of Houston is the only major municipal waste source
without chlorination facilities. These facilities will be constructed
and in operation by December 1972.
With respect to the centralization of sewage treatment plants and
the elimination of small facilities, the Texas Water Quality Board has
Issued an order to the City of Houston requiring the abandonment of a
number of obsolete plants and the diversion of these wastes to regional
and sub-regional systems. The Clear Lake area has also received a Texas
Water Quality Board order with the same objective. Compliance with these
Texas Water Quality Board orders is mandated before December 31, 1974.
Recommendation No. 7 called for a joint waste source survey of the
Galveston Bay area by the Environmental Protection Agency and the Texas
Water Quality Board, in addition to other ongoing studies. This survey
-------
commenced during April 1972. It is presently anticipated that approxi-
mately one-half the waste effluent flow to the Houston Ship Channel will
have been analyzed by October 1972. Results will be provided to tiie
Conferees as soon as they become available.
Recommendation No. 8 called for the requirement of best reasonable
available treatment to minimize discharges of oil and grease. Texas
Water Quality Board permits are being amended to require oil and grease
concentrations in waste effluent to be not greater than 10 ppm.
Recommendation No. 9 called for a continuing reduction of waste
loads and amendment of Texas Water Quality Board permits to reflect these
reductions. Under present abatement schedules, the waste load to the
Houston Ship Channel will be reduced to about 60,000 pounds per day of
biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) by December 1973, from the present
100,000 pounds per day. The major waste sources In the Texas City area
will be reduced from the present 78,000 pounds per day to 13,800 pounds
per day in 1974 to 11,800 pounds per day in 1976.
Recommendation No. 10 called for an evaluation of the organic sludge
problem in the Houston Ship Channel with specific emphasis on the develop-
ment of suitable dredged spoil disposal areas. Examination of bottom
deposits by Texas A&M University showed highly organic material and
represents an important pollutional source. Some analyses indicate that
the Channel deposits contain material toxic or inhibitory to micro-
organisms. EPA and the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers have proposed the
construction of a ringed diked spoil area on Atkinson Island. Further
studies of the environmental impact of this proposal are advisable.
-------
Recommendation No. 12 required an assessment of feasible processes
to accomplish color removal from waste sources. The Committee decided
that, although several ongoing research studies on color removal indicated
promising results, the technology was still not sufficiently developed
to require color removal processes be Installed at the present time.
The Texas Water Quality Board permits do specify that such processes
will be installed when technological feasibility for general use is
demonstrated.
Recommendation No. 13 states that: "To meet present official
State-Federal' water quality standards established for dissolved oxygen
in the Houston Ship Channel, it is expected that the maximum waste load
discharged from all sources will be about 35,000 pounds per day of five-
day BOD, including projected future development. The Texas Water Quality
Board in cooperation with technical personnel of the EPA shall review
existing waste discharge orders with the objective of allocating
allowable five-day BOD waste loads for sources discharging to the
Houston Ship Channel such that the probable 35,000 pounds per day maximum
shall not be exceeded." Such an allocation was made by the Technical
Committee and presented in a public hearing by the Texas Water Quality
Board in Bay town, Texas in February 1972. Major opposition to these
allocations was voiced at this hearing. The Texas Water Quality Board
is conducting an abatement program that will attain a total B.O.D.
effluent level of approximately 60,000 pounds per day by December 1973.
During this period, consultations will be held between the Texas Water
Quality Board and the Environmental Protection Agency with individual
waste dischargers to determine specific Implementation dates by these
-------
waste sources for meeting Federal-State water quality standards for the
Houston Ship Channel. The present program of limiting effluents to
60,000 pounds per day is an interim step and may not meet presently
approved State-Federal water quality standards for dissolved oxygen in
the Houston Ship Channel.
Recommendation No. 14 directs an allocation of allowable waste
loads to Galveston Bay and all other tributary areas. The Clear Lake
area has received a Texas Water Quality Board order requiring the abandon-
ment of obsolete plants and the diversion of these wastes to regional and
sub-regional systems. The major waste sources in the Texas City area
will be reduced from the present 78,000 pounds per day to 13,800 pounds
per day in 1974 to 11,800 pounds per day in 1976. The City of Galveston
has been directed by a Texas Water Quality Board order to make extensive
improvements in the collection system and to provide expanded treatment
facilities by December 31, 1974.
Representatives of the Galveston Bay Technical Committee are:
Texas Water Quality Board:
*
Joe Teller - Formerly Deputy Director
Dick Whittington - Director, Field Operations
Robert Fleming - Director, Central Operations
Environmental Protection Agency:
Thomas Harrison - Region VI, Dallas, Texas
Malcolm Kallus - Region VI, Dallas, Texas
Thomas P. Gallagher - National Field Investigations
Center-Denver, Colorado
* - Mr. Tellers' position on the Technical Committee has been assumed by
Mr. Tim Morris Chief, Field Support Section, Field Operations Division
of the Texas Water Quality Board.
-------
II
SUMMARY OF CONFERENCE
(FIRST SESSION)
POLLUTION OF THE NAVIGABLE WATERS
OF
GALVESTON BAY AND ITS TRIBUTARIES
June 7-12 and November 2-3, 1971
The Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, in
accordance with section 10 of the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act, as amended (33 U.S.C. 1160), and his finding that substantial
economic injury results from the inability to market shellfish or
shellfish products in interstate commerce because of pollution, and
the action of Federal, State, or local authorities, on April 13, 1971,
called a conference in the matter of pollution of the navigable waters
of Galveston Bay and its tributaries (Texas). The conference was held
June 7-12, 1971, at the Rice Hotel, Houston, Texas, and reconvened on
November 2-3, 1971, at the Shamrock Hilton Hotel, Houston, Texas.
Galveston Bay is located in southeastern Texas on the Gulf of
Mexico about 25 miles southeast of Houston, the largest city in the
State. The Galveston Bay estuarine system, consisting of four large
bays, Galveston, Trinity, East, and West Bays, and numerous smaller
bays, creeks and bayous, has a total surface area of about 533 square
-------
miles and is the largest estuary on the Texas coast. The combined
shoreline totals 245 miles.
The following conferees representing the State water pollution
control agency and the Environmental Protection Agency participated
in the conference:
TEXAS
Hugh C. Yantis, Jr.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Richard A. Vanderhoof
Murray Stein, Chairman
Executive Director
Texas Water Quality Board
Austin, Texas
Director, Enforcement Division
Region VI
Environmental Protection Agency
Dallas, Texas
Chief Enforcement Officer - Water
Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D. C.
The Chairman of the conference pointed out that:
1. Under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended
(33 U.S.C. 1160), pollution of interstate or navigable waters which
endangers the health or welfare of any persons is subject to abate-
ment under procedures described in section 10 of the Federal Act.
-------
8
2. Under the provisions of section 10 of the Act, the Admin-
istrator of the Environmental Protection Agency is authorized to
initiate enforcement procedures when he finds that substantial economic
injury results from the inability to market shellfish or shellfish
products in interstate commerce because of pollution subject to abate-
ment under the Act, and action of Federal, State, or local authorities.
3. The first step of these procedures is the calling of a
conference.
4. The purpose of this conference is to bring together represen-
tatives of the State water pollution control agency and the Environmental
Protection Agency to review the existing situation and the progress which
has been made, to lay a basis for future action by all parties concerned,
and to give the State, localities, and industries an opportunity to take
any indicated remedial action under State and local law.
In light of conference discussions, the following conclusions and
recommendations were reached by the conferees:
1. The Federal conferee concluded that there is occurrence of pol-
lution of interstate or navigable waters due to discharges from municipal
and industrial sources subject to abatement under the Federal Act.
The State conferee took the position that the conference was
called under the shellfish provisions of the Act and that while there is
pollution occurring in the waters covered by the conference, it has not
been demonstrated that substantial economic injury results from the
inability to market shellfish products in interstate commerce.
-------
2. While measures have been taken to reduce such pollution, they
are not yet adequate.
3. Delays encountered in abating the pollution have been caused
by the enormity and complexity of the problem.
4. The Food and Drug Administration, in cooperation with appro-
priate State regulatory agencies, will continue its recently initiated
national study of oil and hydrocarbon residues in oysters, including
those taken from Galveston Bay, with the objective of determining
toxicological effects, if any, of such concentrations. These data, and
any evaluations, will be made available to the conferees of the Galveston
Bay enforcement conference.
5. To insure that approved shellfish harvesting areas are properly
classified at all times, sampling for determining bacteriological
acceptability of areas for shellfish harvesting in Galveston Bay shall
continue to emphasize the most unfavorable hydrographlc and pollution
conditions. The most unfavorable hydrographic and pollution conditions
will be determined by technical personnel of the Texas State Health
Department, in cooperation with the Food and Drug Administration and
other Federal and State and local agencies.
6. Effective disinfection of all waste sources contributing
bacteriological pollution to the Galveston Bay system will be provided.
The Texas Water Quality Board policy to this effect shall continue to
be implemented. Where effective disinfection is not presently being
accomplished, it is recognized that adequate measures are underway
-------
10
to secure that disinfection. These measures shall be effective by
December 31, 1971.
The Texas Water Quality Board will continue to Implement Its
policy requiring the elimination of small plants. The centralization
of facilities, wherever possible, and the halt of proliferation of
small plants will continue, consistent with existing appropriate pro-
cedures. The implementation schedule for this program, as initiated
by the Texas Water Quality Board, will be made available to the conferees
of the Galveston Bay enforcement conference not later than April 1, 1972.
7. The Environmental Protection Agency and the Texas Water Quality
Board will cooperate in a study of Galveston Bay. This study is presently
being conducted by the Texas Water Quality Board on all sources of muni-
cipal and industrial wastes permitted by the Texas Water Quality Board
to discharge effluent to Galveston Bay and its tributaries. These
examinations shall emphasize determination of complex organic compounds,
heavy metals and other potentially toxic substances, as well as oil and
grease, from each waste source. Recommendations and scheduling of
necessary abatement will be provided to the conferees as soon as they
become available. The Texas Water Quality Board permits and self-
reporting data system will be amended, as necessary, to reflect the
recommendations of this waste source survey. A progress report on
results of this study will be made to the conferees within six months
of the date of the reconvened session of the Galveston Bay enforcement
conference.
8. The Texas Water Quality Board will continue its review of each
,"
* ..• •
waste source discharging to Galveston Bay and its tributaries, and will
-------
11
amend those permits as necessary to insure that the best reasonable
available treatment is provided relative to discharges of oil and grease.
The Texas Water Quality Board will cooperate with EPA and local govern-
ments in determining what treatment is the best reasonable available
treatment. It is recognized that improvements in technology will be
incorporated into future permit revisions. A progress report will be
made to the conferees within six months of the date of the reconvened
session of the Galveston Bay enforcement conference.
9. The ongoing review and amendment by the Texas Water Quality
Board of existing permits recognizes that greater reductions of waste
will be required of waste dischargers to the Galveston Bay system to
meet water quality standards. The conferees note that in the past
three years the organic waste load being discharged into the Houston
Ship Channel has been lowered from about 430,000 pounds per day of BOD
to 103,000 pounds per day of BOD. Any amendments to existing or new
Texas Water Quality Board waste control orders as a result of this
program will prohibit dilution as a substitute for treatment. A progress
report on continuing reduction of waste loads will be provided to the
conferees within six months of the date of the reconvened session of the
Galveston Bay enforcement conference.
10. A characterization and evaluation of the water quality signi-
ficance of materials from pollution sources contained in the organic
sludge dredged from the Houston Ship Channel shall be conducted. Based
on the results of this evaluation and examination of present spoil
disposal areas, recommendations will be made by the Texas Water Quality
-------
12
Board and the Environmental Protection Agency on location of suitable
spoil disposal areas and other appropriate action to minimize or eliminate
deleterious effects on water quality.
11. If alert levels for acute and chronically toxic or growth
inhibiting factors are developed by the Food and Drug Administration for
shellfish from all approved national growing waters, including Calveston
Bay, the appropriate Texas agencies and the Environmental Protection
Agency, in cooperation with the Food and Drug Administration and other
appropriate Federal agencies will work to develop requirements for the
same characteristics in waters approved for shellfish harvesting.
12. Chemical constituents causing color in waste effluents, such
as those from pulp and paper mills, shall be reduced to natural background
in area waters as soon as practicable as stated in existing Texas Water
Quality Board waste control orders. A report on feasible processes to
accomplish this recommendation shall be submitted to the conferees
within six months of the reconvened session of the Galveston Bay enforce-
ment conference.
13. [To meet present official State-Federal water quality standards
established for dissolved oxygen in the Houston Ship Channel, it is
expected that the maximum waste load discharged from all sources will be
about 35,000 pounds per day of five-day BOD, including projected future
development. The Texas Water Quality Board in cooperation with technical
personnel of the EPA shall review existing waste discharge orders with
the objective of allocating allowable five-day BOD waste loads for sources
-------
13
discharging to the Houston Ship Channel such that the probable 35,000
pounds per day maximum shall not be exceeded.] A report will be made
to the conferees on the results of this review by April 1, 1972. The
allocation for each waste source as determined by the Texas Water Quality
Board, in cooperation with the EPA, shall be attained by December 31, 1974.
Interim dates to determine progress toward compliance of the assigned
allocation shall be established for each waste source by May 1, 1972.
The conferees also recognize that discharge of other waste
constituents shall as, but not limited to, chemcial oxygen demand,
suspended solids, complex organics, and other toxic materials also con-
tribute to the pollution of Calveston Bay and its tributaries. An
allocation of allowable waste discharges for these pertinent parameters
from each waste source will be established by technical personnel of the
Texas Water Quality Board and the EPA consistent with best available
treatment practices and such allocation will be reported to the conferees
by September 1, 1972.
The conferees recognize that technical considerations may
require a reassessment of this schedule in the case of some of the muni-
cipal and industrial waste sources to be considered. These necessary
reassessments will be determined by technical personnel of the Texas
Water Quality Board and the EPA, and recommendations concerning schedule
changes will be made to the conferees at six month intervals.
The foregoing recommendations shall not be construed as in any
way foreclosing or interfering with Federal, State or local statutory
proceedings relating to the authorization, amendment, or revocation of
-------
14
Federal or State waste discharge permits or orders, nor shall such
recommendations operate to delay or prevent the creation or operation
of regional waste disposal systems such as the contemplated Gulf Coast
Waste Disposal Authority.
14. All waste sources which discharge directly to Galveston Bay
and other tributary areas, including Clear Lake, shall have allowable
waste loads allocated by June 30, 1972, consistent with best available
treatment practices. This allocation shall include interim dates for
accomplishment of required waste treatment and/or waste treatment
facilities which will be in operation by December 31, 1974. The Texas
Water Quality Board will cooperate with EPA and local governments in
determining what treatment is the best reasonable available treatment.
15. The following recommendation was not susceptible to joint
agreement by the conferees:
Re: Houston Lighting and Power Cedar Bayou Power Plant
(a) The Texas conferee's recommendation— the once through
cooling system, with discharge to Trinity Bay, proposed
for the Cedar Bayou plant shall be carefully monitored
to determine whether damage to aquatic life is occurring
and/or water quality is being deleteriously affected.
If such effects are shown, Houston Lighting and Power
Company will take immediate steps to correct the situation,
(b) The Federal conferee's recommendation—no discharge of
cooling water from the Cedar Bayou plant to Trinity Bay
-------
15
shall be permitted. The Houston Lighting and Power
Company shall be required to abate the waste heat load
by incorporation of a system utilizing recirculation
and reuse of cooling water to Tabbs Bay and adjacent
waters or location of additional units at suitable
alternative sites.
-------
16
III
SHELLFISH RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Recommendations
The Food and Drug Administration, in cooperation with appropriate
State regulatory agencies, will continue its recently initiated national
study of oil and hydrocarbon residues in oysters, including those taken
from Galveston Bay, with the objective of determining toxicological
effects, if any, of such concentrations. These data, and any evalu-
ations, will be made available to the Conferees of the Galveston Bay
Enforcement Conference.
To insure that approved shellfish harvesting areas are properly
classified at all times, sampling for determining bacteriological
acceptability of areas for shellfish harvesting in Galveston Bay shall
continue to emphasize the most unfavorable hydrographic and pollution
conditions. The most unfavorable hydrographic and pollution conditions
will be determined by technical personnel of the Texas State Health
Department, in cooperation with the Food and Drug Administration and
other Federal and State and local agencies.
If alert levels for acute and chronically toxic or growth inhibiting
factors are developed by the Food and Drug Administration for shellfish
from all approved national growing waters, including Galveston Bay, the
appropriate Texas agencies and the Environmental Protection Agency, in
cooperation with the Food and Drug Administration and other appropriate
Federal agencies will work to develop requirements for the same character-
istics in waters approved for shellfish harvesting.
-------
17
2. Discussion
During the summer of 1971, the Food and Drug Administration
initiated a nationwide survey of oil and hydrocarbon residues in oysters
to determine possible toxicological significance of these concentrations.
The Texas State Department of Health has collected oyster meat samples
from Calveston Bay for analysis by the FDA laboratory in Dallas, Texas.
Plans are underway to establish two permanent sampling stations in
Galveston Bay for quarterly analysis of oil and hydrocarbon residues.
Preliminary results of the initial sampling have not yet been made
available by the FDA for general distribution. The study is continuing.
After reviewing available historical sampling data, the FDA, in
cooperation with the Texas State Department of Health has placed increased
emphasis on regulating shellfish and water sampling under the most
unfavorable hydrographic and pollution conditions to insure that shell-
fish harvesting areas are properly classified from a bacteriological
standpoint. The sample collection schedule has been adjusted to more
clearly reflect these conditions. To carry out these new procedures,
additional personnel have been hired.
At the Seventh National Shellfish Sanitation Workshop conducted by
FDA in Washington, D. C., on October 20-22, 1971, the consensus of opinion
was, that while there is a need for some form of alert levels for heavy
metals, it would not be practical to publish any official numerical levels
for metals in shellfish at this time. The proposed levels which were
rejected are shown in Table III-l.
The National Shellfish Sanitation Program acting upon the decision
of the Workshop to establish a permanent Chemistry Task Force, has
-------
18
CHEMISTRY TASK FORCE
TABLE III-l
1. Proposed Alert Levels be Established for the Following Metals
in the Species and Areas Indicated:
Metal
Cadmium
Cadmium
Cadmium
Cadmium
Species
Oyster
Oyster
Hard Clam
Soft Clam
Area
Northeast
Southern
Northern & Southern
Northern & Southern
Interim t
Alert Level
3.5 ppm
1.5 ppm
0.5 ppm
0.5 ppm
Lead
Lead
Lead
Oyster
Hard Clam
Soft Clam
Northern & Southern
2.0 ppm
4.0 ppm
5.0 ppm
Chromium
Chromium
Chromium
Oysters
Hard Clam
Soft Clam
2.0 ppm
1.0 ppm
5.0 ppm
Zinc
Zinc
Zinc
Zinc
Zinc
Oys ters
Oysters
Hard Clam
Soft Clam
Surf Clam
Northeast
Southern
Northern & Southern
2,000 ppm
1,000 ppm
65 ppm
30 ppm
20 ppm
Copper
Copper
Copper
Copper
Copper
Oysters
Oys ters
Hard Clam
Soft Clam
Surf Clam
Northeast
Southern
Northern & Southern
175 ppm
42 ppm
10 ppm
25 ppm
5 ppm
Mercury
Mercury
Mercury
Oys ters
Hard Clam
Soft Clams
n
n
0.2 ppm
0.2 ppm
0.2 ppm
* Drained Wet Meats
Workshop Action
After much discussion on the proposal, the consensus of opinion was
that while there is a need for some form of levels for heavy metals,
it would not be practical from an industrial viewpoint, to publish
any official numerical levels for metals in shellfish at this time.
(This statement is taken verbatim from the FDA Synopsis of Workshop •
Seventh National Shellfish Sanitation Workshop.)
-------
19
appointed a tentative committee consisting of members of FDA, EPA,
Virginia Institute of Marine Sciences, the States, the industry and the
academic community. This group will have authority to set such alert
levels for heavy metals, pesticides, oil and hydrocarbons, etc., as
additional data and information collected indicate.
-------
20
IV
A. DISINFECTION OF WASTE SOURCES
1. Recommendation
Effective disinfection of all waste sources contributing bacterio-
logical pollution to the Galveston Bay system will be provided. The
Texas Water Quality Board policy to this effect shall continue to be
implemented. Where effective disinfection is not presently being
accomplished, it is recognized that adequate measures are underway to
secure that disinfection. These measures shall be in effect by December
31, 1971.
2. Discussion
A review of the chlorine residual data obtained from the Texas
Water Quality Board self-reporting system showed most plants to be in
compliance with the disinfection criterion of 1.0 ppm chlorine residual
after a 20-minute contact time. Those plants not meeting this criterion
were sent a letter requiring compliance by December 31, 1971. In
addition, total and fecal coliform results were not satisfactory at some
sources where the chlorine residual criterion is being met. See Table
IV-1. If a facility was unable to meet the December deadline due to
inoperative or inadequate equipment, the Texas Water Quality Board was
to be notified by letter of the reason for not complying, the corrective
procedures proposed, and the time schedule for placing disinfection facili-
ties into operation.
Because major construction was required, some plants were unable to
meet the December 31 deadline. One large plant operated by the City of
-------
TABLE IV-1
MUNICIPAL WASTE DISCHARGES INTO HOUSTON SHIP CHANNEL AND GALVESTON BAY
SOURCE
of
Alvin, City
Bad iff MUD
Baytown - West Main
Baytown - Bayway
Baytown - East District
Bellaire, City of
Cleveland, City of
Conroe, City of
Dayton - Northeast
Plant
Dayton - Southeast
Plant
Friendswood - Plant
No. 1
Galveston
Galveston
Galveston
Galveston
Galveston
Harris Co.
Houston,
Ai rport
Main Plant
Teichman
Co. WCID #1
Co. WCID #12
WCID #55
City of
Northside
Sims Bayou
Chocolate Bayou
Clinton Park Plant
FWSD #23
West District
Southwest
WCID #47
WCID #51
Northwest
FLOW
MGD
1.9
0.25
0.864
0.612
1.1
2.3
0.2
1.9
CONTACT
TIME
MIN
15.7
25.8
44
65
22.8
13.2
67.6
19.3
0.2
0.24
52.1
37.4
0.2
0.9
8.5
0.033
0.5
0.23
0.95
65
37
1.5
0.38
1.1
9.0
24.0
1.6
1.5
4.5
10.8
29.8
15.6
100
41.7
8.4
30.6
7.5
0
0
37.4
28.3
15.9
30.7
57.4
20.6
26.0
CHLORINE
RESIDUAL
MG/L
1.1
1.3
3.0+
0.4
1.3
3.0+
0.0
0.9
3.0+
2.8
1.3
1.5
1.?
1.2
3.0+
0
1.2
0
0
0
2.3
1.5
1.0
0.9
2.4
3.0
1.0
COLI FORM (MPN)
TOTAL
28,000
460,000
11,000
460,000
11,000
95
460,000
460,000
123
1,100
1,100
23
?2.4 x 106
23
750
46 x 106
24,000
110 x 106
2.4 x 106
11 x 106
1,100
1 1 ,000
640,000
90
0
240,000
460,000
FECAL
^2,400
460,000
2,400
460,000
11,000
15
460,000
460,000
123
460
1,100
4
12.4 x 106
23
750
24 x 106
24,000
46 x 106
2.4 x 10 6
11 x 106
460
4,000
640,000
90
0
240,000
150,000
REMARKS
Two baffles
No baffles
Air mixing
Clarifier
Air mixing
26 baffles
Out of order
One baffle
Air mixing
Three baffles
Two baffles
Two baffles
Two baffles
One baffle
Clarifier
Out of order
Four baffles
No facilities
No chamber
No baffles
Three baffles
One baffle
One baffle
Three baffles
Three baffles
t>0
-------
TABLE IV-1 (Cont'd)
SOURCE
La Marque, City of
League City
Main Plant
Glen Cove
Liberty - Main
- Treetop
Mount Bel view
Montgomery Co.
FWSD #2
New Caney ISO
- Porter Elementary
Pasadena
Northside West 1A
Deepwater
Plant #3
Northside East IB
Saconas, George
South Houston
Stuckey, Doyle
Texas City - Main Plant
- Plant #2
West University
FLOW
MGD
1.5
1.4
1.98
0.03
0.15
0.023
2.6
0.8
1.08
CONTACT
TIME
MIN
10.3
0.6
0.105
0.35
0.022
0.079
0.1
0.024
0.014
1.98
1.8
17.8
27.6
36.2
unknown
36.2
672
82
563
242
393
108
6.2
814
4.5
65
22.6
62
CHLORINE
RESIDUAL
MG/L
1.7
COLI FORM (MPN)
2.0
2.1
0.1
0.0
0.5
3.0+
2.8
3.0+
TOTAL
225,000
3.0+
2.8
1.4
0
0.6
0
0
0
0.5
1.6
93
9
110,000,
11 x 106
^240,000
240,000
93,000
11 x 106
150
1,500
460,000
240
460,000C
46 x 10°
2.4 x 106
150
15
23
FECAL
150,000
93
4
110,000,
11 x 106
46,000
240,000
93,000
4.6 x 106
150
1,500
460,000
240
240,000C
46 x 10°
2.4 x 106
43
9
23
REMARKS
One baffle
No baffles
One baffle
Out of order
Four baffles
Four baffles
One baffle
Clarifier
Clarifier
Clarifier +
contact
chamber
2 mile 36-in.
line past
sample
point
Clarifier
No baffles
One baffle
One baffle
Ten baffles
13 baffles
Six baffles
ISJ
-------
23
Houston, Sims Bayou, was known to have no chlorination facilities. The
Texas Water Quality Board, in participating in the development of the
Conference recommendations, agreed that all plants would have adequate
disinfection equipment in operation by December 31, 1971, with the
exception of the City of Houston Sims Bayou plant.
The schedule for completing the new facility at the Sims Bayou
plant along with improvements at other Houston plants, is given in
Board Order 71-0819-1 and the addendum to that Order. Refer to Attach-
ment No. 1
Grab samples were collected and analyzed by Texas Water Quality Board
personnel at 50 major municipal plants in the Conference area. This study
was conducted to determine the reliability of existing chlorination
facilities and the effect of chlorination on the municipal effluents. The
survey took place from March 27 through March 29, 1972. Only those plants
discharging directly into Galveston Bay or into the Bay's tributaries were
sampled. Sampling and testing were done in accordance with Standard Methods.
The chlorine residual was measured by the orthotolidine method utilizing
the Hach Chlorine Test Kit. Four samples were lost during transoortation
or analysis.
The results of the survey are as follows:
1. Forty-nine of the fifty plants sampled have chlorination facilities.
2. One chlorinator was out of order.
3. The chlorination facility at the Sims Bayou plant, City of Houston,
is under construction and will be in operation by December 31, 1972.
-------
2k
4. The Texas Water Quality Board will continue to enforce regu-
lations for effective disinfection and where disinfection is
found to be ineffective, the problem will be pursued until it
is adequate. In support of the program, the City of Houston
Health Department will expand its bacteriological surveillance
of waters within its territorial jurisdiction. These data will
be forwarded to the Texas Water Quality Board and the City of
Houston sewer department for appropriate action.
B. CENTRALIZATION OF TREATMENT FACILITIES
1. Re commendation
The Texas Water Quality Board will continue to implement its policy
requiring the elimination of small plants. The centralization of
facilities, wherever possible, and the halt of proliferation of small
plants will continue, consistent with existing appropriate procedures.
The implementation schedule for this program, as initiated by the Texas
Water Quality Board, will be made available to the Conferees of the
Galveston Bay Enforcement Conference not later than April 1, 1972.
2. Discussion
This policy calls for the development of regional systems and the
abandonment of outdated facilities where and whenever practical. Appli-
cations for new plants have been denied when the possibility of a tie-in
to an existing system exists. This will continue to be a State-wide
policy of the Texas Water Quality Board.
In accordance with this approach, Board Order 71-0819-1 (Attachment
I ) requires the City of Houston to abandon a number of obsolete plants
and to divert these wastes to regional and subregional plants. The
-------
25
implementation dates for these diversions are included in Attachment
1 ). Completion dates will fall before December 31, 1974. Firm
commitments for the abandonment of obsolete or unnecessary plants and
i
for the development of regional plants have been established as a result
of the Clear Lake Board Order, 69-9A. (Attachment 2)
Attachment No. 3 is a tabulation of sewage plants affected by
the proposed Houston-Galveston area regional plan. This plan was pre-
pared for the Houston-Galveston Area Council as a long range concept to
be modified as population growth dictates. The tabulation includes those
plants whose roles in regionalization are firmly established by Board
Order Nos. 69-9A and 71-0819-1.
V
GALVESTON BAY WASTE SOURCE SURVEY
1. Recommendation
The EPA and the Texas Water Quality Board will cooperate in a study
of Galveston Bay. This study is presently being conducted by the
Texas Water Quality Board on all sources of municipal and industrial
wastes permitted by the Texas Water Quality Board to discharge effluent
to Galveston Bay and its tributaries. These examinations shall emphasize
determination of complex organic compounds, heavy metals and other po-
tentially toxic substances, as well as oil and grease, from each waste
source. Recommendations and scheduling of necessary abatement will be
provided to the Conferees as soon as they become available. The Texas
Water Quality Board permits and self-reporting data system will be
amended, as necessary, to reflect the recommendations of this waste
source survey. A progress report on results of this study will be made
-------
26
to the Conferees within six months of the date of the reconvened session
of the Calveston Bay Enforcement Conference.
2. Discussion
The joint EPA-Texas Water Quality Board waste source survey commenced
on April 17, 1972. The purpose of the survey is to develop information
on waste constituents other than biochemical oxygen demand such that an
allocation of the constituents among individual waste dischargers con-
sistent with best available treatment practices as detailed in Recom-
mendation 13. It is presently estimated that approximately one-half the
effluent waste flow to the Houston Ship Channel will have been sampled
and analyzed by October 1972. Results of these evaluations will be
provided to the Conferees as soon as they become available.
VI
OIL AND GREASE REMOVAL
1. Recommendation
The Texas Water Quality Board will continue its review of each waste
source discharging to Galveston Bay and its tributaries, and will amend
those permits as necessary to insure that the best reasonable available
treatment is provided relative to discharges of oil and grease. The
Texas Water Quality Board will cooperate with EPA and local governments
in determining what treatment is the best reasonable available treatment.
It is recognized that improvements in technology will be incorporated
into future permit revisions. A progress report will be made to the
Conferees within six months of the date of the reconvened session of
the Galveston Bay Enforcement Conference.
-------
27
2. Discussion
The most effective process for the removal of oil and grease from
an aqueous waste is gravity separation followed by biological treatment.
Efficiencies of removal greater than 99 percent can be expected. Re-
moval by gravity separation alone is much less effective.
Based upon a review of the literature, the best reasonable available
treatment for continuous flows of oily waste is gravity separation
followed by aerobic biological treatment. This procedure will normally
produce an effluent containing less than 10 mg/1 of oil and grease as
measured by the Soxhlet extraction method.
The traditional method of treatment of oil and grease wastewaters
from industrial, business, and domestic sources has been gravity separation.
This process gained popularity for a number of reasons, among which are
recovery of valuable product or resource, ease of maintenance, and low
capital and operating costs. However, the efficiency of the process is
limited by the settling velocity of the oil globules and the degree of
emulsification. Although the standard API separator is designed for
15 micron diameter globules, the literature indicates this design will
remove only 84 percent of 120 to 150 micron diameter globules and con-
siderably poorer performance is attained on oil particles smaller than
this.
An improvement on the basic gravity separator which has proven
effective is the installation of parallel plate baffles set at a 45°
angle to the vertical. These may be upflow or downflow baffles or a
combination of both. The principle involved which improves performance
-------
28
is reduction of the required settling distance of the globules. Experi-
mental results on this type unit have demonstrated removal of all globules
larger than 90 microns, 93 percent of 60 to 90 microns and 80 percent of
30 to 60 microns.
Another process which has proven effective in a number of industrial
applications is that of dissolved air floatation. This is fundamentally
a secondary treatment process and should be preceded by a gravity
separation unit to remove the easily separable solids. The process
utilizes the formation of very small air bubbles caused by rapid decom-
pression of the water and dissolution of the dissolved gases in the water.
This process may involve drawing a vacuum on water saturated with air at
atmospheric pressure or, the method commonly used, saturation of the water
with air at several atmospheres pressure with bubble formation occurring
on release to atmospheric pressure. Bubble formation occurs on par-
ticulate surfaces and additional suspended matter may be adsorbed on
the air-water interface as the bubble rises to the surface. Coagulants
may be introduced to the waste stream prior to air floatation to enhance
the efficiency of the process. Reported effluent levels for dissolved
air floatation plus chemical aids for coagulation are in the range of
5 to 25 mg/1 while those for the floatation process alone are 25 to
100 mg/1.
Other candidate physical-chemical processes are chemical coagulation-
flocculation, filtration, and heating. Although these processes are
generally very effective in oil and grease removal, they are rarely if
ever utilized exclusively for this purpose due to the comparatively high
capital and operating costs.
-------
29
Biological treatment of oily wastes has proven to be an effective
means of treatment under certain conditions. Typically the concen-
trated oily waste streams are pretreated by gravity separation and the
effluent blended with other waste streams prior to biological treatment.
Although investigators have demonstrated biological decomposition of
hydrocarbons by aerobic systems, the primary mechanism of removal in an
activated sludge system is believed to be adsorption of the oil onto
the biological floe and subsequent removal by sedimentation and excess
sludge wasting. However, if the oil loading is excessive, the settling
characteristics of the sludge may be impaired, resulting in solids loss
out of the sedimentation basin and plant upset. The limiting concen-
tration for activated sludge processes is believed to be between 25 and
50 mg/1.
Trickling filters, while not as susceptible to upset, are also con-
centration limited and rely on the same basic principles as activated
sludge for oil removal. The limiting concentration is that which is
sufficient to coat the biological slime on the filter media thereby
blocking oxygen transfer and substrate removal.
The magnitude of the oil and grease waste problem in Texas is indi-
cated by a survey taken by the Texas Water Quality Board in 1971 on the
industries located on the Houston Ship Channel and in the Baytown area.
"Grab" or individual samples were taken from 18 industries comprising
approximately 70 percent of the total oil and grease discharges authorized
by the Texas Water Quality Board. The total computed daily oil and grease
discharge for these 18 industries was 20,200 pounds; extrapolated for the
-------
30
remainder of the authorized discharges, an estimate of 28,800 pounds
per day was derived. The average concentration of the discharges varied
between 16 and 25 ppm oil and grease.
The effects of oil and grease on estuarine systems has been the
subject of a great deal of controversy and investigation in recent years.
The issues were brought into focus by the wreck of the "Torrey Canyon"
off the coast of England and more recently by the spill off the coast
of California at Santa Barbara. Both of these incidents occurred near
heavily populated beaches and resulted in bird and fish kills.
Studies of oily wastes discharges on receiving streams have indi-
cated that a definite sequence of events follow introduction of oil
emulsions into the stream. Oil globules from the emulsions were trapped
in the biological material which agglomerated into a settleable floe and
carried the oil down with it. The settled solids quickly became anaerobic
after deposition during warm weather. The net result was a fairly rapid
physical separation of the emulsified oil from the flowing water. Most
of the oil was stored in sludge banks during low flow conditions.
It has been determined that mineral oil emulsions will degrade
aerobically, at typical summer temperatures with 50 to 80 percent reduc-
tion per week. However, laboratory studies indicate little, if any,
decomposition under anaerobic conditions.
In summary, it appears that gravity separation followed by bio-
logical treatment equivalent to activated sludge affords the best treat-
ment for oily wastes with the least capital investment if a biological
plant is required for other waste streams and the oil concentrations can
be kept to acceptable levels for the biological system. Systems of this
-------
31
type have been demonstrated to be 99+ percent effective in oil and
grease removal.
Although effluent levels of below 5 ppm oil and grease have been
reported with biological systems, the treatment efficiency fluctuations
of biological systems with varying climate conditions and hydraulic
loadings and the accuracy of the Soxhlet extraction method would indi-
cate that 10 ppm may be a more reasonable goal. It is recommended
that abatement facilities for process wastes containing oil and grease
be installed and maintained such that the effluent will contain the
minimum amount of oil and grease but in no case to exceed 10 ppm.
All new waste control orders for process discharges issued for
industries discharging into the Houston Ship Channel will reflect this oil
and grease policy. Existing waste control orders for process discharges
will be amended to the new level wnen they are reviewed as the result of
information obtained during the intensive waste source survey.
VII.
WASTE LOAD REDUCTION PROGRAM
1. Recommendation
The ongoing review and amendment by the Texas Water Quality Board
of existing permits recognizes that greater reductions of waste will be
required of waste dischargers to the Galveston Bay system to meet water
quality standards. The Conferees note that in the past three years the
organic waste load being discharged into the Houston Ship Channel has
been lowered from about 430,000 pounds per day of BOD to 103,000 pounds
per day of BOD. Any amendments to existing or new Texas Water Quality Board
waste control orders as a result of this program will prohibit dilution as
a substitute for treatment. A progress report on continuing reduction of
-------
HOUSTON SHIP CHANriEL
B. Q. D. LOADING
500
Measured Load
400
— — — — Predicted Load
300
I
g
(O
200
100
§
L
1968
1969 1970
1971
1972
1973
TIME
FIGURE VI1-1
-------
32
waste loads will be provided to the Conferees within six months of the
date of the reconvened session of the Calveston Bay Enforcement Con-
ference.
All waste sources which discharge directly to Galveston Bay and
other tributary areas, including Clear Lake, shall have allowable waste
loads allocated by June 30, 1972, consistent with best available treat-
ment practices. This allocation shall include interim dates for accom-
plishment of required waste treatment and/or waste treatment facilities
which will be in operation by December 31, 1974. The Texas Water Quality
Board will cooperate with EPA and local governments in determining what
treatment is the best reasonable available treatment.
2. Discussion
The major sources of pollution entering Galveston Bay are those
industries and municipalities located along the Houston Ship Channel
and in the Texas City area. Significant reductions of wastes dis-
charging to the Houston Ship Channel have been accomplished since 1968.
Approximately 430,000 pounds of B-O.D. were being discharged daily
into the Channel in 1968. This load had been reduced to approximately
100,000 pounds per day by the summer of 1971. Figure VII-1 represents the
reduction of waste discharges to the Houston Ship Channel with respect
to time. The figure indicates a slight increase in the load for November
and December 1971, reflecting seasonal^fluctuations as reflected by the
Texas Water Quality Board self-reporting system.
A further reduction of approximately 6,000 pounds per day is expected
with the projected completion of a communal treatment facility for five
industries on the Channel. This planned facility will treat effluent
-------
TOTAL B. 0. D. CONTRIBUTED BY TIIE FOUR MAJOR
TEXAS CITY INDUSTRIES
Implementation
Date
Present
Jul> 1, 1973
DJC. 31. 1973
Sept. 1, 1974
July 1, 1976
53,970
42,663
13,765
j 11,765
New Treatment Facility
78,073
1I I I I I I
1234567
BOD, Pounds x 104
I I I
8 9 10
Union Carbide
Phase I
American Oil
Monsanto
Union Carbide
Phase II
FIGURE VI1-2
-------
33
from Atlantic Richfield Company, Crown Central Petroleum Company, Petro
Tex, Goodyear and U. S. Plywood - Champion Paper Company.
If all planned abatement facilities remain on schedule, B.O.D. dis-
charges to the Houston Ship Channel will be reduced to approximately
60,000 pounds per day by December 1973.
Less progress has been made in reducing waste loads from the Texas
City area. Four industries account for most of the B.O.D. discharged
from the area. Table 1 lists the four major industries and their present
discharge.
Table 1
Major Texas City Dischargers
Discharger
Monsanto
Monsanto
Uniqn Carbide
Union Carbide
Texas City Refinery
American Oil
TOTAL
Flow (MGD)
56.0
19.5
9.02
0.90
1.34
15.44
BOD5
(ppd)
24,428
2,487
31,144
5,817
290
13,907
78,073
Figure VII-2 illustrates the scheduled implementation of improved
treatment at the four major plants.
VIII
ORGANIC SLUDGE DEPOSITS
DISPOSAL OF DREDGING SPOIL
1. Recommendation
A characterization and evaluation of the water quality significance
of materials from pollution sources contained in the organic sludge
dredged from the Houston Ship Channel shall be conducted. Based on the
-------
results of this evaluation and examination of present spoil disposal
areas, recommendations will be made by the Texas Water Quality Board
and the Environmental Protection Agency on location of suitable spoil
disposal areas and other appropriate action to minimize or eliminate
deleterious effects on water quality.
2. Discussion
This report summarizes the analytical findings presented in Technical
Report #8 - Estuarine Systems Project, Environmental Engineering Division,
Texas A&M University. The study was funded by the following State and
Federal agencies: Federal Water Pollution Control Administration,
National Science Foundation, Texas Engineering Experiment Station, and
Texas A&M University.
During the Spring of 1970, Texas A&M University conducted extensive
field investigations of the quantity and quality of the benthal deposits
contained in the Houston Ship Channel and its tributary bays. Analyses
conducted on the sludge samples include volatile solids, BOD5, COD, oil
and grease. Samples were obtained from stations located along the entire
channel length and from various points within the channel cross section.
Core samples were also taken in three of the side bays.
Main Channel
Table VIII-1 gives a physical description of the sludge core samples
taken at stations along the channel. The physical characteristics vary
considerably. An interest trend is the increase in deposit thickness
and the visible oil content above mile point 14.
Figure VIII-1 is a volatile solids profile of the deposits. The scatter-
ing of the data points at each station indicates the variation in volatile
-------
200,000
I 50,000
a
a.
~ too.ooo
50,000
1200-I-OO 1000+OO 800*00 60O-I-00 4OO+00
CORPS STATIONS
200+00
0+-00
FIGURE VIII-1
VOLATILE SOLIDS PROFILE OF BOTTOM SLUDGES
-------
TABLE VIII-1 Observations*
35
Sample Depth of Sludge Core
Location (mile) Collected in Sampler (ft.)
3.5
6
8
10
12
16
18
20
22
2k
1.6
No Sludge
1.5
.5
2.5
3.5
3.0
3.5
2.0
3.0
3.0
Description of Sludge
and
Underlying Material
Grayish Sludge Material
on Red Clay Bottom
Black Sludge, No Under-
lying Material Picked
Up by Sampler
Black Sludge on Gray
Clay Bottom
Gray and Red Clay
Black Sludge on Gravel
and Clay Bottom
Dark Gray Sludge and
Clay Material
Black Sludge on Clay
Bottom
Black Sludge on Bed of
Red Clay
Black, Oily Sludge on
Bottom of Red Clay
Black Sludge on Red
Clay Bottom
Black, Oily Sludge on
Red Clay Bottom
Black Sludge on Red
Clay Bottom
Black Sludge on Red
Clay
-------
36
solids content within a given cross section. The quality variation
within a cross section is verified by analyses of the other parameters.
Figure VIII-2 is a longitudinal profile of the percent volatile solids con-
tained in the sludge. This is a steady increase in the percent vola-
tile solids from Morgan's Point, mile point 0 (8%), to the Turning Basin,
mile point 24 (11%).
Profiles of BOD5 and COD, Figures VIII-3 & VIII-4 indicate a significant
variation in the COD and to a lesser extent the BOD^ of the benthal
deposits. The COD of the sludge more than doubles above mile point 12.
This finding should be expected because of the heavy concentration of
municipal and industrial discharges above this point. The BODj data
shows a similar trend.
A very significant finding is the increase in BOD5 values with in-
creased dilution of the samples. Several dilutions were made for each
BOD analysis. As the percent of the sample in the BOD bottle decreased,
i.e., an increase in dilution, the oxygen uptake increased. Not all of
the samples displayed this phenomenon; however, enough did to make the
finding significant. In some analyses, diluting the sample to one-fourth
its initial concentration more than doubled the calculated BOD. The im-
plication is that some of the benthal deposits contain toxic materials
that reduce biological activity.
Figure VIII-5 shows a steady increase in the percent of oil and grease
from Morgan's Point to the Turning Basin. The average oil and grease
content of the sludges appears to be approximately 0.5 percent.
Side Bay Delta
Core samples were taken of the deposits in three side bays tribu-
tary to the Ship Channel. Scott, Burnett, and Upper San Jacinto bays
-------
CO
CO
CD
Cfl
0
o
CD
O
>
24
22 20
18
16 14 12 10 8 6
CHANNEL MILES FROM MORGANS POINT
FIGURE VIII-2
VOLATILE SOLIDS (%) PROFILE OF BOTTOM SLUDGES
-------
200,000
150,000
to
* IOO.OOO
H
a
I
~ 50,000
18 16 14 12 IO 8 6
CHANNEL MILES FROM MORGANS POINT (TAMU)
FIGURE VIII-3
BOD5 PROFILE OF BOTTOM SLUDGES
-------
200,000
150,000
Q
8 100,000
50,000
24 22
20
18 16 14 12 10 8 6
CHANNEL MILES FROM MORGANS POINT (TAMU)
FIGURE VIII-4
COD PROFILE OF BOTTOM SLUDGES
-------
CO
CD
£
CE
O
OT
UJ
cc
Q
Z
<
24
22
18 16 14 12 10 8 6
CHANNEL MILES FROM MORGANS POINT (TAMU)
FIGURE VIII-5
PERCENT OIL AND GREASE PROFILE OF BOTTOM SLUDGES
-------
37
were sampled to determine the effect of sludge deposits on the quality
of the waters in the bays. Table 2 lists the BOD5, COD and volatile
solids for a composite sample of the sediments in each bay. Physical
descriptions of the core samples are included in the tabulation. Only
the sample taken from Scott Bay demonstrates a significant 8005. The
ratios between BOD^, COD and volatile solids values found in Scott Bay
to those found at adjacent sampling stations in the Ship Channel are
1:3, 1:2 and 1:2 respectively. The presence of significant levels of
pollutants in the Scott Bay deposits may be due to the location of
Enjay Chemical Company's waste outfall in the bay.
Conclusions
1. The benthal deposits contained in the Houston Ship Channel and its
tributary bays represent an important pollutional source.
The deposits located above mile point 12 are of considerably worse
quality than those below or of those in the side bays. However, the
effect of the side bay sludges on the water quality of those shallow
waters may be very important.
2. The BOD analyses indicate the Channel deposits contain materials
toxic or inhibitory to microorganisms.
Recommendations
Spoil sites should be located where the dredged material is permanently
removed from the Channel and its tributaries. These sites should be
adequately diked and protected to prevent runoff from the areas.
Representatives of the U. S. Corps of Engineers and the EPA have
proposed the construction of a diked spoil area on Atkinson Island.
As proposed, spoil material will be deposited within the diked area
until the final elevation of the island reaches 12 feet above MSL. The
-------
38
TABLE VII1-2 -Side Bay Analytical Data Summary4
Upper San Jacinto Bay
(ppm) (ppm) (ppm) Volatile
Sample BODj COD Volatile Solids Fraction °/,
Description
C 1,560 25.700 25,150
5.7 2'-0" Grey -
Black Material
on Clay Bottom
2'-2" Grey -
Black Material
on Clay Bottom
2'-0" Grey Sandy
Sludge on Sand
Bottom
Burnett Bay
C 1,710 23,080 2^,030
B
A
6.0 5'-3" Black Anae-
robic Material,
Lighter Color
at Bottom
3'-5" Black at
Top, Grey Near
Bottom
V-2" Anaerobic
Material Black
at Top Grey
Near Bottom
Scott Bay
C 6,2l«0 37,300 29,000
B -
7.3 V-6" Black at .
Top, G.rey Near
Bottom
5'-0" Black at
Top, Grey Near
Bottom
V-5" Black to
Grey With Sand
-------
39
ultimate use of the spoil islands has not been decided, but recreation
and wildlife refuge have been mentioned as possible uses. The EPA
representative suggested the Texas Water Quality Board and EPA conduct
a joint productivity study of the area to determine the environmental impact
of the project.
IX
COLOR REMOVAL
1. Recommendation
Chemical constituents causing color in waste effluents, such as
those from pulp and paper mills, shall be reduced to natural background
in area waters as soon as practicable as stated in existing Texas Water
Quality Board waste control orders. A report on feasible processes to
accomplish this recommendation shall be submitted to the Conferees within
six months of the reconvened session of the Galveston Bay Enforcement
Conference.
2. Discussion
Major contributors of colored waste include paper mills, tanneries,
textile mills, dye manufacturers and electroplating shops (R-8). Of
these, only paper mills are known significant contributors in the geo-
graphical area of interest. The brown color in paper mill effluent is
related to the lignin in the effluent, and lignin resists biological
attack. Only a small part of the BOD of lignin is determined in a five-
day test, but a significant long term BOD is reported (R-l)(R-ll). For
this reason, color in paper mill effluents may be an indicator of oxygen
demand, whereas in most cases it is not.
-------
Current Operation
Values of current effluent quality for municipal plant discharges
are usually not reported in the literature, but two sources cite colors
of 30 and 75 color units (R-10)(R-4). Activated sludge plants can remove
more than 90 percent of the influent color but trickling filters are less
efficient and primary treatment alone is much less efficient (R-9).
File data on chemical plants records one petrochemical plant effluent
as high as 150 color units (R-15). The State of California considers
150 color units as the maximum value for a "good source of domestic water
supply (R-5). Since (1) the data available on color in municipal and
industrial effluents is sparse, and (2) the data collected reveals
relatively low color values, one can conclude that color is usually
not a problem where wastewater is subjected to good secondary treatment.
By contrast, current effluent quality for paper mills is in the range
of 500-1,000 color units (APHA, Pt-Co), while typical raw blended kraft
effluent itself averages about 2,000 (R-16) (R-14) (R-6). Several pro-
cesses are used to make paper, and the type of process has a significant
bearing on the type of waste discharged (R-17). A limited amount of
test data on paper plant effluents in the Houston Ship Channel area
gives values ranging from 100 to 1080 color units (R-15). Activated
sludge secondary treatment units normally remove about 10-15 percent
of the color in these effluents, and this unit process is frequently
used to treat paper mill discharges (R-17). The relative inefficiency
of biological processes in terms of color removal accounts for the high
color remaining in the effluents.
Best Practice
Treatment of municipal waste with activated carbon can reduce the
color from 30 to 3 units, where it is most likely a candidate for reuse
(R-10). Ion exchanging can reduce kraft paper mill bleaching waste from
-------
1500 to 200 Pt-Co units (R-12). Pilot plant data on "massive" lime
treatment processes indicate that greater than 90 percent of the color
can be removed from raw bleached kraft effluent. A color of 200-400
units could be expected. Carbon columns following in series with lime
treatment can further reduce color to less than 30 units. Costs for
these treatment steps are relatively high (R-16) (R-3) (R-14).
Background Color in Galveston Bay and Tributaries
On April 17, 1972 a survey was conducted to determine the background
color of the Houston Ship Channel, Upper Galveston Bay, and the tribu-
tary streams within the estuarine system. Surface to bottom composite
samples were collected at each site with the analyses being made by the
EPA lab in Houston. All sampling and analyzing procedures were per-
formed according to Standard Methods. The attached table includes the
location and color value for each sample. (Table IX-1)
Three samples were obtained in the Houston Ship Channel. The first
sample was taken at the confluence of Sim's Bayou and the Channel,
above the Champion Paper discharge. The next was taken at Green's
Bayou below the Champion discharge. The influence of the Champion
discharge (160 APHA units) is apparent. The remaining sample taken at
the Monument shows the influence of the Southland Paper discharge
(180 APHA units). The average color for Ship Channel water was 42 APHA
units for this particular day.
The average color content of the waters in the side bays is 72
units, slightly higher than the Channel. This increase is expected due
to the relatively large land - water contact area found in the shallow
side bays.
-------
42
TABLE IX-1
BACKGROUND COLOR SURVEY -
UPPER GALVESTON BAY AND TRIBUTARIES
Apparent
Sample Location or Description Color Units (APHA, Pt-Co)
Houston Ship Channel at Sims' Bayou 30
Champion Paper Effluent PI ume 160
Houston Ship Channel at Green's Bayou 46
Southland Paper Effluent Pi ume 180
Houston Ship Channel at Monument 50
San Jacinto River at IH-10 70
Burnett Bay 100
Scott Bay 65
Tabbs Bay 55
Upper Galveston Bay at Barbour's Cut Channel 65
Trinity Bay between Umbrella Point & Smith Point 48
Galveston Bay between Smith Point & Eagle Point 39
Galveston Bay at Ship Channel Marker #65 33
Galveston Bay at Morgan's Point 44
Cedar Bayou at IH-10 47
Green's Bayou at IH-10 60
Buffalo Bayou at N. Main St. Bridge 32
Bray's Bayou at IH-45 42
Hunting Bayou at IH-10 40
Sims' Bayou fit State Highway 225 80
-------
Samples taken in Upper Galveston Bay show an average color of 46 units.
The average color found in the streams tributary to the Houston Ship
Channel was 50 APHA units. The decrease in color of the Channel water
from that found in its tributaries is probably due to dilution by the
relatively colorless municipal effluents and the underflow of bay water.
Conclusions
The background color in natural waters is a highly variable quality
parameter. The color of unpolluted water can vary from clear to almost
black. Color is an aesthetic problem; the extent of the problem is
determined by the individual observer.
The color from most municipal and industrial effluents is minimal.
The color in paper mill effluent is contributed by tannins and lignins
which are found in most naturally colored waters. These compounds
represent an oxygen demand in the stream; however, the biological reaction
rate is so slow that the stream oxygen resource is not appreciably affected.
The very low reaction rate also makes color removal by biological treat-
ment impractical. Physical-chemical methods for removal of color from
paper mill wastes are technically possible but are economically pro-
hibitive at this time.
The background color of the tributary waters of the Galveston Bay
system is higher than that found in the Ship Channel. This is true even
after the discharge of colored effluents from two large paper mills. The
difference between the maximum color found in the Ship Channel and that
in Upper Galveston Bay is statistically insignificant.
Recommendations
In an estuarine system such as Galveston Bay, the increase in color
contributed by waste discharges is small. Requiring extensive color
-------
44
IX. COLOR REMOVAL
REFERENCES
(R-l) Bloodgood, D. E. and Klaggar, A. S. "Decolorizing of Semi-chemical
Bleaching Wastes". Proceedings of 16th Industrial Waste Conference,
Purdue University Engineering Extension Series, Bulletin No. 109,
1961, p. 351.
(R-2) Ford, Davis L., Personal communication, March 24, 1972.
(R-3) Herbet, A.J. and Berger, H.F., "A Kraft Bleach Waste Color Reduction
Process Integrated with the Recovery System". Proceedings of 15th
Industrial Waste Conference, Purdue University, May, 1954, p. 465.
(R-4) Lindstedt, K.D., Bennett, E.R. and Work, S.W., "Quality Considerations
in Successive Water Use", J. of WPCF, V. 43, No. 8, August, 1971,
p. 1681.
(R-5) McKee, J.E. and Wolf, H.W. eds., Water Quality Criteria, The
Resources Agency of California, State Water Quality Control Board,
Publication No. 3A, 1963.
(R-6) Moggio, W.A., "Color Removal from Kraft Paper Waste", Proceedings
of 9th Industrial Waste Conference, Purdue University, May, 1954,
p. 465.
(R-7) Murphy, N.F. and Cregory, D.R., "Removal of Color from Sulfate
Pulp Wash Liquors), Proceedings of 19th Industrial Waste Conference,
Purdue University, May, 1964, p. 59.
(R-8) Nemerow, Nelson L., "Color and Methods for Color Removal",
Proceedings of llth Industrial Waste Conference, Purdue University,
May, 1956, p. 584.
(R-9) Nemerow, N.L. and Doby, T.A., "Color Removal in Waste Water
Treatment Plants", Sewage Ind. Wastes 30, 1958, p. 1160.
(R-10) Parkhurst, J.D., Dryden, F.D., McDermott, C.N., English, John,
"Pomona Activated Carbon Pilot Plant", J. of WPCF, V. 39, No. 10,
Oct., 1967, p. R 70.
(R-ll) Raabe, E.W., "Biochemical Oxygen Demand and Degradation of Lignin
in Natural Waters", J. of WPCF, V. 40, No. 5, May, 1968, P. R145.
(R-12) Rohm and Haas Company Technical Brochure, "Decolorization of Kraft
Pulp Bleaching Effluents Using Amberlite XAD-8 Polymeric Adsorbent",
Rohm and Haas, August, 1971, p. 3.
-------
45
(R-13) Smallwood, C., Jr. and Fortune, D.L., "The Measurement of Color
Pollution in Streams", Proceedings of 14th Industrial Waste
Conference, Purdue University, May 1959, p. 509.
(R-14) Smith, Donald R. and Berger, Herbert F., "A Chemical-Physical
Wastewater Renovation Process for Kraft Pulp and Paper Wastes",
J. of WPCF, V. 40, No. 9, Sept., 1968, p. 1575.
(R-15) Texas Water Quality Board Files
(R-16) Thibodeauz, L.J., Smith, D.R. and Berger, H.F., "Wastewater
Renovation Possibilities in the Pulp and Paper Industry", Chemical
Engineering Progress Symposium Series 90, V. 64, 1968, p. 178.
(R-17) U.S. Department of the Interior, FWPCA, The Cost of Clean Water,
Volume III. Industrial Waste Profiles No. 3 - Paper Mills. U.S.
Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 1967.
(R-18) Wakeley, J.H. and Nemerow, N.L. , "Measurement of Objectionable
Stream Colors Resulting from Wastes", Proceedings of 13th Industrial
Waste Conference, Purdue University, May, 1958, p. 465.
-------
removal in waste effluents using today's technology, will greatly in-
crease treatment costs while resulting in an insignificant improvement
in the Bay. The Texas Water Quality Board will require color reduction
when technology becomes feasible as specified by existing waste control
orders.
X
BOD ALLOCATIONS TO HOUSTON SHIP CHANNEL
1. Recommendation
To meet present official State-Federal water quality standards
established for dissolved oxygen in the Houston Ship Channel, it is
expected that the maximum waste load discharged from all sources will be
about 35,000 pounds per day of five-day BOD, including projected future
development. The Texas Water Quality Board, in cooperation with technical
personnel of the EPA, shall review existing waste discharge orders with
the objective of allocating allowable five-day BOD waste loads for sources
discharging to the Houston Ship Channel such that the probable 35,000
pounds per day maximum shall not be exceeded. A report will be made to the
Conferees on the results of this review by April 1, 1972. The allocation
for each waste source as determined by the Texas Water Quality Board, in
cooperation with the EPA, shall be attained by December 31, 1974. Interim
dates to determine progress toward compliance of the assigned allocation
shall be established for each waste source by May 1, 1972.
The Conferees also recognize that discharge of other waste con-
stituents such as, but not limited to, chemical oxygen demand, suspended
solids, complex organics, and other toxic materials also contribute to the
-------
pollution of Calves ton Bay and its tributaries. An allocation of allowable
waste discharges for these pertinent parameters from each waste source will
be established by technical personnel of the Texas Water Quality Board and
the EPA consistent with best available treatment practices and such
allocation will be reported to the Conferees by September 1, 1972.
The Conferees recognize that technical considerations may require
a reassessment of this schedule in the case of some of the municipal and
industrial waste sources to be considered. These necessary reassessments
will be determined by technical personnel of the Texas Water Quality Board
and the EPA, and recommendations concerning schedule changes will be made
to the Conferees at six month intervals.
The foregoing recommendations shall not be construed as in any way
foreclosing or interfering with Federal, State or local statutory pro-
ceedings relating to the authorization, amendment, or revocation of Federal
or State waste discharge permits or orders, nor shall such recommendations
operate to delay or prevent the creation or operation of regional waste
disposal systems such as the contemplated Gulf Coast Waste Disposal
Authority.
2. Discussion
A program was undertaken in December 1971 to allocate all permitted
BOD discharges into the Houston Ship Channel such that the total load
would not exceed 35,000 pounds per day. In developing the BOD allotment,
no technical conferences were conducted with the affected entities. The
reductions were generally balanced between industrial and municipal dis-
charges. To meet the allowable limits set on BOD and other pollution
-------
48
parameters; advanced treatment is necessary. The proposed allocation
made no allowance for future growth in the area.
Public hearings were held on February 7 and 8, 1972, in Baytown to
discuss the revised requirements for municipal effluent. Similar hearings
were held on February 9, 10 and 11 to discuss the proposed industrial
effluent criteria. The public hearing notices, allocations and related
documents are contained in Attachment 4, and Table X-l.
It is acknowledged that the BOD allocation did not take into account
the record of progress towards abatement by many of the sources or
potential growth in the area and is based upon an equal treatment level
for all sources regardless of present abatement practices. The hearings
were scheduled in the afternoons and evenings to provide the opportunity
for all interested parties to participate. The majority of testimony,
however, was offered by the municipal and industrial sources to which these
*
allocations apply. Very little general public participation was manifest.
The overwhelming impact of the testimony offered was that the allo-
cations proposed were technologically impractical and economically
unfeasible.
As a result of these hearings, Texas Water Quality Board has decided
to pursue a program of abatement consistent with the requirements of best
practicable control technology currently available as determined by the
Texas Water Quality Board and the Environmental Protection Agency. Under
this program, waste discharges to the Houston Ship Channel from both
municipal and industrial sources will be reduced to less than 60,000
pounds per day by December 1973. During this period, consultations will
be held between the Texas Water Quality Board and the Environmental
-------
TABLE X-l
B.O.D. ALLOCATIONS TO HOUSTON SHIP CHANNEL
Industrial Discharges
Name
Anchor Hocking Glass Corp.
Armco Steel Corporation
WCO #
Ashland Chemical Company
Atlantic .Richfield
PAGE 1
Permitted Discharge (Avg.) Present Discharge (Avg.)
Flow BOD BOD Flow BOD
Page MGD ng/l Ibs/day MGD Ibs/day
Proposed Discharge (Avg,)
Flow BOD BOD
MGD mg/1• Ibs/day
01170
00509
00549
00392
01
01
02
04
5 & 6
07
08
91
92
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
01
01
0.028
0.72
no reg.
no reg.
4.80
no reg.
no reg.
35.00
0.72
2.60
2.60
no reg.
no reg.
no reg.
1.08
no reg.
1.38
no reg.
20 < 10
10 60
25 1001
11
100
100 217
100 217
25
50 575
0.062
0.77
no discharge
no discharge
3.47
no discharge
no discharge
16.00
0.48
no discharge
1.50
no discharge
no discharge
no discharge
1.26
no discharge
0.60
0.98
82
32
58
0.028
0.72
*
•
3.47
*
*
100% Cool- 35.00
ing water
16
2888
21
200
427
10
10
10
no
< 10
60
290
net
increase
0.48
no discharge
allowed
injection
*
•
*
1.08
•
0.60
13
or
10
20
52
incineration
90
100
• Process waste to
separated & added
02
03
04
05
06
7.50
no reg.
no reg.
no reg.
0.36
100 6255
no reg.
4.80
0.029
0.08
1.57
0.23
3681
<1
7
681
12
4.8
*
•
1.57
0.23
to
20
20
10
# 2 outfall
800
262
20
vo
-------
TABLE X-l (Cont.)
Industrial Discharges
Name WCO #
Celancse Plastic Company
Charter International Oil
Chemical Exchange Processing Ca 00786
Cook Paint & Varnish Company
Crown Central Petroleum
Diamond Shamrock Corporation
E. I. DuPont de Nemour & Co.
Enjay Chemical Company
Ethyl Corporation
Page
PAGE
Permitted Discharge (Avg.)
Flow BOD BOD
MGD mg/1 Ibs/day
Present Discharge (Avg.)
Flow BOD
MGD Ibs/day
Proposed Discharge (Avg.)
Flow BOD BOD
MGD mg/1 Ibs/day
OOS44
00535
00786
00427
OOS74
00749
0030S
00474
00610
00492
01
01
02
01
01
01
02
03
01
01
02
03
04
05
06
01
01
01
02
03
0.425
2.16
0.72
0.144
0.08
4.00
0.86
0.39
3.80
98.00
42.00
0.6S
4.80
3.0
8.00
0.20
3.68
4.75
B.OO
15
50
50
100
no reg.
125
12S
no reg.
100
20
20
50
30
20
no reg.
50
90
220
no reg.
no reg.
53
900
300
120
4,170
897
325
634
16, 346
17,514
163
801
3,336
150
6,752
0.37
1.45
0.03
0.025
0.25
2.14
0.50
no discharge
0.11
2.90
89.40
28.88
0.003
2.44
no discharge
7.00
0.14
3.32
4.919
6.076
12
1,512
<1
11
95
2,490
261
45
17
373
193
<10
42
3,580
55
2,191
205
286
0.37
1.45
0.03
0.025
0.25
2.14
0.50
*
0.11
3.80
98.00
42.00
0.003
4.80
no disch.
7.00
0.14
3.32
4.75
8.00
10 30
20 242
10 <10
20 8
13 27
20 357
20 83
20 18
no net
increase
no net
increase
no net
increase
20 <10
no net
increase
20 1, 168
20 23
20 554
no net
increase
no net
increase
in
o
-------
TABLE X-l (Cont.)
Industrial Discharges
Name WCO»
Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. OOS20
Heaa Terminals 00671
Houston Lighting & Power 01031
Hughes Tool Company 01046
Humble Oil & Refining 00592
Ideal Cement Company 00456
Lubrizol Corporation 00639
Olin Corporation 00649
Pennwalt Chemical Corporation 00445
Petroleum & Mining Division 00635
Petro Tex Chemical Corporation 00587
Phillips Petroleum Company
Premier Petrochemical
Reichold Chemical Inc.
Rohm end Haas
00815
00975
01061
01045
00662
00458
Page
PAGE 3
Permitted Discharge (Aug.)
Flow BOO BOD
MGD ng/1 Lbs/day
Present Discharge (Avg.) Proposed Discharge (Avg.)
Flow BOD Flow BOD BOD
MGD Ibs/day MGD mg/1 Ibs/dz
01
02
01
01
1.650
2.50
0.1 08
1.12
40
60
100
10
550
1,251
90
93
1.470
2.48
0.057
0.79
131
331
19
132
1.47
2.48
0.057
1.12 no
10
13
20
net
122
269
<10
increase
01
02
03
04
05
01
02
01
02
03
01
02
01
02
03
04
05
06
01
01
01
02
03
02
03
01
01
01
01
01
02
03-
0.104
0.092
0.207
0.587
0.090
no reg.
25.00
0.50
0.075
O.O30
1.00
no reg.
12.700
1.490
7.050
0.034
0.450
to be
assigned
0.20
0.72
1.00
6.25
0.90
1.900
5.000
0.100
0.090
0.15
0.02
1.728
0.072
Beual to
20
20
10
15
no reg.
SO
30
30
20
100
no reg.
no rrg.
no reg.
20
no reg.
no rng.
50
60
25
100
35
50
no reg.
2
2
100
100
100
80
or batfcor
18
15
17
73
no reg.
10,425
125
19
5
834
<10
83
361
209
5,212
263
792
<10
<10
125
17
1,441
48
than Zone
0.104
0.092
0.207
0.50
0.090
no discharge
19.35
0.40
no discharge
no discharge
0.72
12.112
no discharge
2.744
no discharge
5.459
0.168
0.10
1.19
0.98
4.66
0.42
2.443
no report
0.178
0.125
0.17
0.045
2.60
0.13
XX Ron 'a
<10
<10
<10
103
<10
3,228
26
155
23
84
29
3,134
83
115
<10
<10
181
375
8,542
146
0.104
0.092
0.207
0.50
*
*
19.35
0.40
no discharge
no discharge
0.72
*
12.112
1.490
2.744
0.034
0.450
0.10
0.72
1.00
4.66
0.42
1.900
*
0.100
0.090
0.15
0.02
1.728
0.072
10
10
10
13
13
13
20
10
20
13
10
20
20
5
2
2
20
20
20
20
<10
<10
17
54
2,098
43
120
<10
17
78
64
777
70
79
<10
<10
25
3
288
12
-------
FABLE X-l (Cont.)
Industrial Discharges
Name
Shell Chemical Company
Shell Oil Company
Sinclair Hoppers Chemical Co.
Sinclair Petrochemical Co.
Pcith A. 0. Corporation
SMS Industries, Inc.
Southland Paper Mills
Stauffer Chemical Company
Staviffer Chemical Company
Tenneco Chenical, Inc.
Texas Instruments
Ur.ioa Equity Cooperative
Exchange
Upjohn Company, The
United States Gypsum Co.
U.S. Industrial Chemical
U.S. Plywood
• Storm water rvnnoff only.
WCO#
00402
00403
00393
00391
00672
01062
01160
00541
00542
00002
01225
01205
00663
00353
00534
00640
Page
01
02
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
10
11
12
01
01
01
01
01
01
02
01
01
01
01
01
01
03
01
02
01
02
03
PAGE 4
Permitted DJ scharge (Avg.)
Flow UOD BOD
MOD
6.10
no reg.
1.44
0.286
0.144
0.576
no reg.
0.086
0.216
no reg.
0.266
4.752
no reg.
2.664
O.S5
2.66
0.850
0.115
50.00
1.13
0.045
1.00
1.00
0.644
0.0015
0.58
0.50
0.0288
0.90
0.43
44.00
no reg.
no reg.
Present Discharge (Avg.) Proposed Discharge (Avg.)
Flow BOD Flow BOD BOD
KJ/1
100
10
30
20
10
10
20
15
30
50
100
50
50
SO
100
20
20
20
100
20
16
150
100
3
25
40
50
Ibs/day
5,087
120
72
24
48
7
,33
1,189
1,109
459
1,109
354
48
41,700
1B8
8
167
834
107
<1
726
417
188
143
18,348
MOD
5.79
1.47
no discharge
0.044
0.72
0.062
0.049
0.178
4.47
0.55
0.76
1.88
0.267
Oi.114
12.35
0.62
0.019
1.43
0.67
0.433
0.31
0.94
0.28
no reports
1.00
0.17
37.90
Ibs/day
1,076
49
MGD
6.10
*
1.44
mg/1
13
10
Ibs/day
661
120
no discharge
4
36
2
6
11
671
41
1,134
294
51
20
2,678
36
<10
155
133
24
52
347
50
0.044
0.58
*
0.086
0.05
*
0.178
4.47
runoff
tions
0.55
0.55
1.8B
0.267
0.114
12.35
0.62
0.019
1.00
0.67
0.433
0.0015
0.58
0.28
13
10
10
13
13
13
5
48
8
5
19
485
from dredging oper.
13
20
20
10
10
13
13
10
13
20
10
13
20
13
60
92
314
22
-------
53
Protection Agency with individual waste dischargers to determine specific
waste load allocations and implementation dates by these sources for
meeting the recommended 35,000 pounds per day of total five-day BOD
discharged to the Houston Ship Channel. The present program of limiting
effluents to 60,000 pounds per day is an interim step and is not expected
to meet presently approved State-Federal water quality standards in the
Houston Ship Channel nor the Conferees' Recommendation Number 13. This
program of reduction of wastes to less than 60,000 pounds per day of
five-day BOD will represent a reduction of greater than 85 percent from
waste loads discharging to the Houston Ship Channel during 1968.
-------
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
TEXAS WATER QUALITY BOARD
ORDER NO. 71-0819-1
AND
ADDENDUM
-------
Al-l
TKXAS WATKR QUALITY
P. O. Box ]324G
Capitol Station
Austin, TCXKK 7C711
ORDER NO. 73-0819-1
AN ORDER of the Texas Water Quality Board ordering and
establishing dotes for the completion of certain
improvement projects and studies pertaining to
the sewerage facilities owned by the City of
Houston.
PREAMBLE
In order to aErure that tho effluents being released by the City of
Houston, Texas, from its several sewage treatment plants are brought in
an orderly ar.d timely fashion into compliance with applicable vaste con-
trol orders issued by the Texas Water Quality Board and to abate tho
present pollution of waters within arid adjoining the City of Houston, the
Texas Water Quality Board has ordered the City of Houston to undertake
a sanitary sewerage system improvement program.
The purpose of this order is to clearly set forth some portions of
the improvement program which the Texas Water Quality Board has directed
the City of Houston to complete and the timetable for the completion of
various phases or portions of this program.
The completion dates shown in this order are considered by the Board
to be reasonable and proper, and were determined after due consideration
had been given to the dates contained in the City of Houston's Waste
Treatrac-nt Progress Report of August 19, 1971, during a public hearing held
by the Board on August 19, 1971.
It is the intent of the Texas Water Quality Hoard that the City ad:.ere
to the dates o&tablishcci arid unless the particular phase or portion of the
improvement .program due for cor.ipletic:1. is complete:! on cr before the re-
quired data, or unlosr the City has rcqucste''. rr.d the Board approved for
acccptab]e z-nason or rer.sons ar. extension of t'.ic jrcprove.TICpt program; the
-------
Al-2
Board herein places the City of Houston on notice that it intends to seek
such relief as may bo indicated in the courts. Now, therefore,
BE IT ORDEKED KY THE TEXAS V.'ATliR QUALITY BOARD:
I. DEFINITIONS FOR THIS ORDER:
A. "Board" means the Texas Water Quality Board.
B. "City" means the City of Houston, Texas.
C. "Executive Director" means the Executive Director of the
Texas Water Quality Board.
D. "Staff" means the staff of the Texas Water Quality Board.
II. Report Regarding Project Completion Dates
A report outlining completion dates for the following projects v/ill
be submitted to the Board on or before December 1, 1971:
(a) abandonment of the unpermittcd plant at Western Acres and
the sewage treatment plants outlined on pages 8, 14, 21, 22, 25,
41, 45, 46, 47, 49, 55, 58 of the City's Waste Control Order
fto. 10495, (L) the enlargement of sewage handling facilities at
sewage treatment plants covered by pages 15, 16, 30, 43, 44, 65,
and 69 of the City's Waste Control Order No. 10495, (c) provide
sludge handling and chlorination facilities at the Sims Bayou
sewage treatment plant, (d) provide treatment for the waste from
the water treatment plant covered by page 68 of the City's Waste
Control Order No. 10495. After review and concurrence with these
completion dates by the Board, they will becone part of this
Board Order.
III. Bacteriological Study
In order to determine the efficacy, or lack thereof, of the sanitary
scv/erage system in abating the bacteriological pollution of the
various drainageways within the City, and to identify the source
or sources of excessive bacterial pollution; the City Water Pollution
-2-
-------
A]-3
Control Division of the City lion3th Department is directed to con-
tinue and expand its bacteriological water quality sampling program.
The sampling points shall be located so as to determine tha iir.p-'ic.-L
of the various treated effluent discharges and known recurring
overflows, §nd in cooperation with the Texas Water Quality Board's
District 7 stciff. The data generated by this program shall be
forwarded at appropriate regular intervals to the Texas Hater
Quality Hoard and appropriate persons in the City Administration,
including the Sewer Department.
IV. Report Regarding Chlorination and Suspended Solids
A report outlining (a) the reason or reasons for the lapses in
chlorination at the various plants and programmed corrective
action, and (b) the capability of the various permanent sewage
treatment plants as identified in the City's progress rc;x>rt of
August 19, 1971, to comply with suspended solids requirements
when fully loaded will be submitted to the Board on or before
March 1, 1972.
V. Overflow of Raw Sewage, McGregor Park
The City is directed to take positive action to expedite the
project to eliminate the recurring overflow of raw sewage into
Brays Bayou adjacent to McGregor Park. A report on the action
taken will ba submitted on or before I-larch 1, 1972.
VI. Correction of Existing Inadequate Conditions
The City is directed to take immediate action to correct the follow-
ing conditions {the page numbers refer to V7aste Control Order No. 10495)
(1) no flow recorder—Chocolate Bayou plant, p. 9.
(2) inadequate flow measuring device—F.V7. S.D. 17, p. 15.
(3) industrial waste problem—P.W.S.D. 17, p. 15.
(4) improperly handled screening—F.W.S.D. 17, p. 15.
(5) no sludge disposal facilities—New Homestead plant, p. 23.
(6) no flow measuring device—Easthaven, p. 65.
(7) inoperative flow recorder--F.V7.S.D. 34, p. 69.
(8) inoperative sludge collector a:id mechanical aerator—W.C.I.D.
44-1, p. 47.
(9) bypass from aeration tank—Airport, p. 78.
-3-
-------
A report on the corrections accomplished will be submitted on or
before March 1, 1872.
VII. Apply for V.'as'.e Control Orders
The City is directed to file with the Texas Water Quality Board
appropriate applications or other documents and to take such
other actions as may be appropriate to secure valid waste control
orders for the sewage treatment facilities listed below. To
facilitate the securement of such waste control orders, the City
shall consult with the Hearings and Enforcement Division of the
Texas Vtater Quality Board by November 1, 1971 on the documents
required and shall submit in an expeditious manner such documents
as may be determined.
Expire Page Name Expiration Date
8 Chatwood Place 12-31-60
14 Fontaine Place 12-31-66
15 F.W.S.D. 17 6-30-67
21 Gulf Palms 12-31-68
22 Gulfway Terrace 12-31-S3
25 Lake Forest 12-31-68
29 longwoods 6-30-67
44 W.C.I.D. 34 12-31-68
45 W.C.I.D. 39 12-31-6G
46 W.C.I.D. 42 12-31-66
47 W.C.I.D. 44-1 12-31-63
49 W.C.I.D. 44-3 12-31-G8
Western Acres
W.C.I.D. 82
VIII. Sludge Disposal Facilities
The City is directed to submit by December 1, 1971 a report on an
analysis of the adequacy and reliability of the sludge disposal
facilities at the Northside and Sims Bayou plants. The report
should outline alternates available to rectify deficiencies found,
if any.
IX. Infiltration Abatement Program
The City is directed to continue and complete its existing infil-
tration study and abatement program as set forth in the report
dated November 16, 1970. Further, the City is directed to submit
by Kay 1 each year a report on the progress made.
-4-
-------
Al-5
X. Funding Sanitary Sewercige System
Tlic City is directed to provide the funding necessary to effectuate
the recommendations enumerated in this board Order.
XI. Long-Range Sanitary Beverage Planning
The City is directed to keep its long-range sanitary sewerage
plan current.
With respect to implementing the long-range plan, the City is
directed to exercise the provisions of extraterritorial legis-
lation to accomplish the following:
(1) Insure that alterations which may from time to time be required
in the long-range plans of the City and the Houston-Galveston Area
Council are fully coordinated in such a manner that the plans
remain compatible.
(2) Insure that proposed sanitary sewerage facilities or modifi-
cations to such facilities within the extraterritorial jurisdiction
area arc compatible with the City's long-range plan.
(3) insure that, the design and construction of facilities within
the extraterritorial jurisdiction area conform with the minimum
requirements of the City.
In the City's comments on applications to the Texas Water Quality
Board for waste control orders, the City v/ill furnish to the Board:
(1) an analysis showing that the sanitary sewerage facilities
proposed are compatible with the regional plan, (2) the City's
approval or rejection of the plans and specifications, including
arrangements made for construction inspection, for such facilities,
and (3) the City's approval of the plumbing code to be required
in the area served by the particular entity involved.
XII. EXTENSION OR WAIVER: If at any time it becomes evident to the City
that difficulty will be experienced in complying with the completion
dates enumerated in this order, the City shall immediately request
-5-
-------
Al-6
by letter addressed to the Board's Austin Office to be plucci! on
the next Board Mooting agenda to request that Uie completion dciLe
or dates; be extended or waived. The City shall, upon notification
that they have been placed on the agenda, have a representative
or representatives attend the Board Meeting to present their
reason or reasons for requesting an extension or waiver. The
Board will, upon considering the data or evidence presented,
determine the acceptability of the reasons, and notify the City
in v/riting that the request for an extension or vraiver as the
case may be is granted or denied.
XIII. EFFECTIVE DATIS: This order is effective immediately upon its
adoption by the Board.
XIV. NOTIFICATION PROVISION: The Executive Director is directed to
send a copy of this order to the City of Houston, Texas.
XV. SEVERANCE CLAUSE: If any provision, sentence, clause, or phrase
of this order is for any reason held to be invalid, such invalid
portion shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions
of this order. The Board hereby declares that it vould have
passed the valid portions of thi s order irrespective of the fact
that any one or more portions be declared invalid.
Passed and approved this 19th day of August, 1971
/Hugh 'C. 'Yantis. Jr., Executive Director
7 <" /
TEXAS V3.TER QUALITY BOARD
•J.VX-
CHAIRMAN
-------
Al-7
ADDENDUM TO BOARD ORDER NO. 71-0819-1
Article II of this order requires the City of Houston to
submit to the Texas Water Quality Board a report containing
completion dates for a number of projects. This report
has been received and reviewed by the Board. The Board
concurs with the completion dates, which are shown on the
following pages, and hereby incorporates them as require-
ments of this order.
Passed and approved this day of , 1972.
TEXAS WATER QUALITY BOARD
GORDON FULCHER, CHAIRMAN
(Seal)
ATTEST:
Hugh C. Yantis, Jr., Executive Director
-------
Al-8
ADDENDUM TO BOARD ORDER 71-0819-1
Page
8
25
14
45
46
21
22
20
47
49
15
16
30
43
44
65
69
68
68
Name
Western Acres
Chatwood Place
Lake Forrest
Fontaine Place
WCID #39
WCID #42
Gulf Palms
Gulfway Terrace
WCID #20
WCID #44-1
WCID #44-3
FWSD #17
FWSD #23
West District
WCID #32
WCID #34
Easthaven
FWSD #34
Sims Bayou
Sims Bayou
Water Treatment
Plant
Completion
Action Date
Abandon 03-11-72
Abandon 12-15-72
Abandon 12-15-72
Abandon 08-15-73
Abandon 08-15-73
Abandon 08-15-73
Abandon 06-01-74
Abandon 06-01-74
Abandon 12-31-74
Abandon 04-30-73
Abandon 04-30-73
Enlarge 06-30-73
Enlarge 12-01-72
Enlarge 04-30-73
Enlarge or Abandon 12-31-74
Abandon 12-31-74
Enlarge 07-01-74
Enlarge 12-31-72
Chlorination 12-31-72
Provide Sludge Facilities 12-31-72
Provide Treatment 12-30-74
-------
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
TEXAS WATER QUALITY BOARD
ORDER NO. 69-9A
-------
3 JOy L.iv;ic-fi Sire-el
'j'oxus Vo'/dl
.'iniiii ro. co-
AN ORUBK of the- To;:?.:. WciLer Quality tttv.rd dctcr.nininy
that the region?.] plan, con tci.-.plc' Loci in 'J'c-xi-is
Water QiK-l.ii.-y Bcv.nl Order i:o. G9-9, has failed
to Mi-.toricilizc vllhin a reasonable- tir-.c period;
further <3'itcrn'inj'.p.g lh«:c the ira^is-dit-te iinplc-
iv.eiitc'l:ion of Lhe c-clvanced vostc Lrcatr-.er.t a;ncl
other rciquirorionts cor.VsJn?:! in Sec-Lion 3'
(page:, f, ancl 5) of thaL Crdcr is necessary to
prcr.crvc c-p.cl ir.aintniri Lho cjunlity c»f w?.i e-r in
Clnr.r JjuV.c and to previ.iL the conLir.\..cd i>ol-
Jution oi! the lal:e; ordering all dischargors
of dciROsLic wcictowaLers v/JLhin tho Cleor IiElte
Watershed to comply vith tie aforementioned
rcciuircmnnts within such period of ti:.'.e as is
reasonably required but not to exceed two (?.)
years £xoit-. the date of the adoption of this
Order; ordsuir.cr th-it these requirements bo
made a part of the v/a&tc control orders (pc-.vnits)
held by ther.c v;iistc ciischarcjcrs; and establ: z'n-
ing a pro&rfini for cowpliaiics with thesd require-
ments.
£SE?.S, undar the provisions of TCXC-.S Water Quality Ronrd
Order Ko, 69-9, the Hoard cswiouncc-c!:
"That in the event that L'r-e plan for the protection of Clear
Lake, contcnplatcd in this Orcic-r, fails to materialise withii.
reasonable time limitations,, the Board will, of necessity, be
compelled to consider and scc-V. more stringent permit require-
ments for each waste discharger in the watershed. These
requirements will be determined on a c?.ce-by-carc basis but
generally would include the following quality paranoters:
"(a) Five day biochemical o>:y«;en d^itiand and total suspended
f.olids not to exceed 12 irig/l.
" (b) Chlorino rc-sidu.O of 2 rag/I p.ftcr one hour detention
tine aii?, ?.s r.icrisurcd by tho orLhc'tolodine tt>£ ': or other
accept ftf-lc test.
" (c) :vjtrie:ri.s i:i the ef fluent wj 13 "no rcmovod as ffMo-.'s:
shnll r.ot bo regulntod «.r\d r-horpho-ous. in
-------
A2-2
any fori.i, iihr-.l] iiul c::ccv:l 1.0 r-j/1.
" (d) A fully trained and covLifioJ curator will be- iiv.ii.l--
cibJc l.o the pJunt Jit all timcj J-.rtJ a uatisfcc-Lory
operation and Mci.intcno.ncc program will be require:!.
" (c) i:ach disciiargc will bo adequately monitored to in.sin.-c>
permit compliance and detect. Jnadc-Quacics of operation.
Laboratory services will be mads avni.lab.1c, by contrret
or otherwise, to the end that a campling and anr.lyi.ico1.
program is established to monitor effluent quality on
a continuing basis."
WHEREAS, the Board, upon full evaluation of the progress irado
in achieving the rcgionali/cition of sewerage services in the. Clear
Lake area, finds that, in passage of one year from the date of the
adoption of Order 69-9, the planning and the initiation of the con-
struction of the regional waste collection, treatment and disposal
system contemplated in that Order has not been successfully accom-
plished.
WHEREAS, the Board finds that the continued discharge of
wastewaters at the presently authorized levels of treatment is caus-
ing and v/ill continue to cause the water quality degradation of
Clear Lake and jeopardize its further utility as a recreational body
of water; and
WHEREAS, the Board finds that, on a long-range basis, the
preservation of Clear Lake requires the use of a regional sewer
system or systems properly designed according to sound engineering
and scientific practices, and the Board further finds that its long-
standing policy to encourcigc r.nd foster regional systems will require
the following:
(A) Vfhencvcr, in the judgnent of the Board, it appears that
it is technical]y anc! economically i"car.ib3c for rny v.ns.lc
discharging entity within the watershed, be it inii.iicip;J
-------
A2-3
or i wlur.tri.'.l, lo join into a ri;'ji&n:i] r.y.:l.CM.i on an
ov:iic:j-.f;hiij, a contract or o;:iie>: sal iij'iifl-ory Ija^j.'ij
the connection or tic—in with the ^yulciii v/ill be
rt-qoirc-d.
(B) Wile-never, in the judys'icnt of tlio Bor.rcl, it appears
that a local government will construct, operate and
administer a regional system in tin area and the system
is found to be necessary to preserve and maintain the
water:: in the State, the Board v/ill, pursuant to the
provisions of the Texas Water Quality Act, designate
the area in need of the system and designate the appro-
priate local government as the responsible operating
entity.
WHEREAS, the Board finds that until such t.iiie as a regional
sewer system or systems arc developed, the immediate implementa-
tion of advanced waste treatment requirements is necessary; and
WHKRWiS, the Hoard, in Order G3-9, has previously recognizer"!
the fundamentally different nature of industrial wastes as opposed
to domestic wastes and has already determined that, because the spe-
cifics of advanced waste treatment for an industry are not properly
amenable to a general order, it v/ill be necessary to review all
industrial operations within the watershed on a case-by-case basis
and require the equivalent of advanced waste treatment. Now, there-
fore,
BE IT ORDERED BY THE TEXAS WATER QUALITY BOARD;
1. That all waste dischargers within the Clear Lake Watershed
(excluding those discharges that have already been diverted
out of the watershed and excluding those disclutrgors pursu-
ing the acceptable alternatives contained in this Order) ere
hereby ordered to improve end upgrade their war.tc l.re?.tr.'.?ni
fctcilitios and operations in accovt5fir.ee- vitVi SocLic;i 3
-------
A2-4
(:•:.',:. i, ', t:i.l LJ c-I V;-::,,-. IM! c-r Cv.iUl.y ];:•.• id C" «.:••!•
Ko. 60-9.
2. That Uio adviincc-d waste ti cat merit and ether rcouJrci.iontu
contained in Oi:dcr G9--9 lit: arid the sctiiio iirc hereby incor-
porated into and uu;dc i\n operative paiL of the wasLc
conl.rol orders (permits) held by those waste discharcjbi's.
3. That the construction and other work necessary to achieve
satisfactory coinpliance with thcuc nev requirements be
completed as soon as is reasonably possible but not in
excess of two (2) years from the date of the adoption of
this Order.
4. That each waste discharging entity within the watershed
shall, on or before October 1, 1970, provide the Board
with written evidence that it proposes to:
1. Divert its wastes to some other watershed according
to an acceptable plan; or
2. Combine its wastes with that of sono other entity
operating a sewerage system; or
3. Totally contain its wastes so that no discharge will
be made; or
4. Provide tertiary or advanced waste treatment as per
this Order.
5. That, in the case of industrial waste dischargers, a
similar written document shall be submitted within the
same~tiwe limitations but that such written evidence
shall contain the industry's evaluation of the applica-
bility of the general order to their particular wo.stc-
watcrs and their proposals concerning compliance vjth
the purposes of this Order.
6. That bc-cause of the variety of techniques by vhicli ad-
vanced v.'cicle treatment can be achieved, the specific
-------
A2-5
rcrjuirci:K-nl.s; for a joi. l jcu] :rr w.i^lc di i.c:ir.vrjcr ridy be
altered fro.Ti tho:jc- &licr.:n in Ordox G?)-9 upon a positive-
demonstration si'jjjiiiitcd ]jy adequate technical evidence
that the difference iz, nttributciulo to tlic technique
employed and not the result of- an inferior racthorl of
advanced waste treatment and that the technique employed
will adequately protect Clear Lake.
7. V\\n\. all vastc disclizirgovs within the purview of this
Order shall be required to subr.iit written reports and
otherwise comply with the following provisions:
(A) THOSE ELKC7IKG TO UiPLEilEST ADVANCED VJASTP. TRZiXTM^LCT
PRACTICES
1. By December 1, 1970, submit to the Board a written
report containing a description of the additional
treatment facilities proposed along with appropri-
ate documentation r.s to the engineering firm or
person authorized to proceed with the design of
the facilities.
2. By February 1, 197], submit written report dst£il-
ing the proposed fiscal or other programs to be
used in constructing and operating the facilities.
3. By May 1, 1971, submit a complete progress report
on all pluses of compliance! with this Order.
4. By August 1, 1971, construction of the facilities
should commence and a icport should be submitted
containing the date of the start of construction
and the estimated date of completion.
5. After August 1, 3971, quarterly nrogrrss rci.-orts
shall bn submitted and by August 20, 1972, a]l
facilities chal.1. havp been completed and in opera-
tion.
-------
A2-6
(ji) riiO:j;: j;i.!:cv3::'i TO IM::::'..;: j>]Vr:;::;jo:! o;1 V:.-.::T;:.:AT;:!:::
OK O'j'jiL!: ACCij-'T.'.!.'.],]: AJAii::-ii:.'.Ti\li:s
1. By D^cciiibc-r 1, 3ST/U, s-.iijr.iib u writ ten report
coiiliiinimj a doscription of the specific con-
struction nnd other {•.rrcmrfcinontu necessary to
implement the particular alternative choucn.
2. By February 1, 1971, submit a written report
detailing the proposed fiscal or other program
to be fo).1 owed in implementing the alternative.
3. After Kcbruc-.ry 1, 1971, quarterly progress reports
shall be submitted until such time as the: alter-
native is fully implemented.
8. That the reports and other written evidence of compliance
required by this Order shall be sent to the following
address: x
Texas Water Quality Board
1103 Lavac?. Street
Austin, Texas 7S701
ATTK: Field Services
9. That the Field Services Section shall maintain a special
file which shall be a complete record of the compliance
with these vital reporting provisions and that the Field
Services Section shall review each report submitted and
keep the Executive Director apprised as to the statxis
of each entity in meeting the provisions of this Order.
1.0. That the Executive Director be instructed to undertake
a program to insure full compliance wit.h this Order, to
keep the Hoard apprised of the status of coinplieincc with
the Order, and to scol;, in appropriate CPSCS, the Lullc5.it
possible prosecution of any violations of the terras and
-------
A2-7
i-.'i.-.'.c-::.-. o[ t'uis oril-i:'.
11. 'j'lKiL tha i'ro/iuioiis of tliij, Oiclo: Lluil] l>c- cippliunljl-.! Lo
all VMiiLc cJiwchcH-yoa viUiin tlic Clear La):u V.'utcrc'iiC-cI i.n-
cluclintj UIOGC; \.-aslc cliuclKU'ciu;. nuLhoirizcO by 'j'c:-:;:s; v.'oLc:r
i
Qiuility Uo-urd V.':isLc Contro] Qj'de/ H iisuc-d to {.lie
listed iu Kxhjliit A of thifj Order.
Issued this the 2£5Lh day of August, 1970.
TEXAS WATER QUALIFY BOARD
Gordon I'ulclicr,
(Seal)
ATTEST:
Hugh C. Yantis, Jr., Executive Director
-------
ATTACHMENT NO. 3
HOUSTON - GALVESTON AREA COUNCIL
PROPOSED REGIONALIZATION PROGRAM
FOR
WASTE ABATEMENT
-------
GREENS BAYOU AIEA
TW23
WCO #
10962
10876
1C9S2
Owning | Receiving
Agency | Stream
Cypress-
Fairbanks
I.S.D.
White Oak
Bayou
!
I
Harris
County
FWSD #61
Cypress-
Fairbanks
I.S.D.
106GO icity of
] Jersey
10919
Village
White Oak
Dev. Co.
Oak Glen
JBldg. Co.
. Mayflower
j Invest. Co.
:f
10610
Southern
San. Corp.
{
P
•
. White Oak
: Bayou
•
; Greens Bayou
,
•
! White Oak
• Bayou
I
' White Oak
: Bayou
Greens Bayou
I Halls Bayou
;
!
•' Halls
i Bayou
i
•
•
1
t
r
Design | Estimated
Capacity | Current
(Avg. Flow) S Lead
0.025
0.100
0.064
0.066
0.050
0.500
0.500
0.350
o.o;s
0.100
0.060
0.066
0.019
None
0.025
0.350
Role in Proposed Plan
Phase into Regional System between
1975 and 1990.
Phase into Regional System by 1990.
Phase into Regional System between
1975 and 1990.
Phase into Regional System by 1990.
Phase into Regional System by 1990.
Phase into Regional System by 1990.
Phase into Regional (System between
1975 and 1990.
Phase into Regional System between
1975 and 1990.
\Al
1
-------
GREENS BAYCU AREA
TWQ3
WCO #
10648
10518
10756
10809
10825
10419
10694
10453
Owning
Agency
Trailer
Park
Harris Co.
FWSD £45
Northern
Terrace
No. Houston
Ind.
Imperial
Valley
West Road
I.D.
Powell ' s
Nursing
Home
Durkee
Manor
Jetero
Lumber Co.
Galco
Utilities
Receiving
Stream
Greens
Bayou
Greens Bayou
: Halls Bayou
Greens Bayou
; Greens Bayou
; Greens Bayou
•
;.
| Halls Bayou
;
•Halls Bayou
l
! Greens Bayou
Halls Bayou
Design | Estimated
Capacity E Current
(Avg. Flow) | Load
Unknown
0.053
0.. 300
Unknown
0.300
0.550
0.019
0.250
0.012
0.108
Unknown
0.053
0.259
Unknown
1.100
0.100
0.019
0.122
0.013
0.12>
Role in Proposed Plan
Phase into Regional System between
1975 and 1990.
Phase into Regional System between
1975 and 1990.
Phase into Regional System between
1975 and 1990.
None
Phase into Regional System in 1990
or shortly thereafter.
Phase into Regional System in 1990
or shortly thereafter.
Phase into Regional System between
1975 and 1990.
Phase into Regional System between
1975 and 1990.
Phase into Regional System by 1975.
Phase into Regional System in 1975
or shortly thereafter. >
-------
GREENS BAYOU AREA
wco #
10953
10436
10495-
78
10236
10679
10705
10495-
14
10495-
45
10451
Owning
Agency
Aldine ISD
Crest San.
Corp.
Houston
Int.
Airport
Oakv/ilde
V7ater Co.
Chatwood
PI.
Harris Co.
WCID #74
Sequoia
Estates
City of * j
Hous ton j
i
•City of - |
Houston
Harris Co.
WCID #76
j
i Receiving
" Stream
: Greens Bayou
; Greens Bayou
:
i
| Greens Bayou
Halls Bayou
• Greens Bayou
• Greens Bayou
1 Greens Bayou
, Halls Bayou
*
Halls Bayou
i
• Greens Bayou
Design
Capacity
(Avg. Flow)
0.035
0.075
0.200
0.245
1.000
0.250
0.400
0.280
0.522
0.300
t
• Estimated
Current
Lead
0.035
0.144
0.150
0.243
0.500
0.250
0.00rj
0.200
0.522
0.26C
|
Role in Proposed Plan
Phase into Regional System by 1975.
Phase into Regional System by 1975.
None
Phase into Regional System shortly after
1975.
Phase into Regional System by 1990.
An additional 0.65 ragd planned for in
the near future will make the plant
suitable until about 1990.
Use until about 1990.
Phase into Regional System by 1975.
Phase into Regional System by 1975.
Phase into Regional System between
1975 and 1990.
t
-------
GREENS BAYOU AREA
wco #
10737
10336
10495-
23
10495-
71
t*
Owning j Receiving
Agency t Stream
Harris Co.
WCID #69
Eastex
Oaks
City of
Houston
City of
Houston
Greens Bayou
i Greens Bayou
, Halls Bayou
: Greens Bayou
i
i
j
i
i
! 1
Design
Capacity
(Avg. Flow)
0.565
1.000
1.250
0.300
Estimated
i Current
: Load
0.432
0.144
0.8G7
0.1'iB
Role in Proposed Plan
Phase into Regional System in 1975
or shortly thereafter.
Phase into Regional System by 1990.
This plant is being expanded to 5.0 mgd
and will serve as Regional Plant.
Phase into Regional System between
1975 and 1990
UJ
1
r
-------
ANAHUAC-MONT HELVIEU AREA
T-.TQB
wco #
10400
10990
11109
Owning
Agency
City of
Eelvieu
Barbers
Kill ISO
"*
Lincoln
Cedars Sub-
division
HHM Corp.
Cedar Eayov
Mobile Home
Lakliv Inc-.
R. R.
Herrington
Sr.
Dutton &
Gray
Bay Ridge
Subdivisior
| Receiving
\ Stream
|
; Cedar Bayou
' Cotton Bayou
[
I-,
i Cedar Bayou
fe
|
f
{
Horsepen
Bayou
Cotton Bayou
[ Cotton Bayou
• Trinity Bay
Design
Capacity
(Avg. Flow)
i
0.075 mgd
0.015 mgd
0.0025 mgd
0.04 mgd
0.012 mgd
0.012 mgd
! Estimated
1 Current
i
jjO ^^
j
0 . ] mgd
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Role in Proposed Plan
Abandoned by 1990.
None
Phase out upon completion of regional
system.
Phase out upon completion of regional
system.
Phase out upon completion of regional
system.
Phase out upon completion of regional
system.
Phase out upon completion of regional
system.
VI
-------
TEXAS CITY - LA MARQUE ArtEA
T!'TQB
WCO %
10770
10627
10171;-
01
10173-
02
10375-
01
10375-
02
10410
10435
Owning
Agency
Bay View
MUD
Bacliff MUI
Galyeston
Co. WCID
NO. 1
ST? #1
Galveston
Co. WCID
.No. 1
'STP #2
City of
Texas City
STP No. 1
City of
Texas City
STP No. 2
City of
La Marque
Bayou
Vista Sub-j
division j
j Receiving
Stream
i
i
Galveston
Bay
Houston
: Lighting &
Power
; Outfall
Dickinson
Bayou
; Dickinson
i Bayou
Moses Lake
; Moses Lake
Highland
Bayou
Highland
Bayou
Design
Capacity
(Avg. Flow)
0.25
1.00
1.20
0.50
5.00
0.80
1.90
0.05
;
t
Estimated
I Cu Trent
j Load
1
O.OL
0 .12
0.50
0.06
5.00
0.61
1.90
0.04
Role in Proposed Plan
Abandoned by 1990.
Abandoned by 1990.
Expanded to 2.4 mgd before 1980.
Replaced by regional plant A before 1990.
Expanded to 1.0 mgd before 1980. Replaced
by regional plant A before 1990.
Expanded to 14.0 mgd, becomes Regional
Plant B.
Expanded to 1.6 mgd before 1975.
Abandoned by 1990.
Expanded to 3.0 mgd before j.980.
Abandoned by 1990.
>
VjJ
Abandoned by 1990. ^
-------
CLEAR LAKE AREA
TA-QB
WCO #
10495,79
10495,55
10455. 58
'
10522
10539
Zor.c
1
Sor.e
i
Owning
Agency
Receiving
Stream
!
Houston ^ ! Through
(SE Plant) I ditches to
f Clear Creek
Houston * j Through
(Beverly ? ditches to
Hills) j. Clear Creek
Houston
(Eastridge)
Harris Co.
WCID 81
.Clear Lake
City Water
Authority
NASA-MSC
•
Pasadena *
(El Carey)
!
; Through
f ditches to
Clear Creek
•' Turkey Creek,
, Clear Creek
;; Horsepen
'• Bayou, Middle
• Bayou, Mud
' Lake, Clear
'. Lake
. Clear Lake
j Clear Lake
l
i
i
!
Design
Capacity
(Avg. Flow)
3 . 0 mcrd
0.368 mgd
0.28 mgd
0.25 mgd
2.25 mgd
0.31
Unknown
Estimated
Current
Load
N.A.
0.40 mgd
0. 12 mgd
0.25 mgd
1.75 mgd
0.25-.). 50 mgc
.04 iigd
Role in Proposed Plan
Serve as subregional plant; to be completed
1973.
Abandon when Houston SE plant is put in
operation.
Abandon when Houston SE plant is put in
operation.
Abandon when Houston SE plant is put in
operation.
Serve as subregional plant after advanced
treatment modifications completed
(probably early 1973)
Abandon after connection is made to CLCWA
Abandon after connection is made to CLCWA
1 The role for these plants has been
firmly established by Board Orders
69-9A and 71-0819-1.
i
-------
TEXAS CITY - LA MARQUE AREA
TT-7Q3
WCO #
10336-
02
10836-
01
10690
10174
10958
10861
10771
Owning
Agency
Receiving
Stream
I
Flamingo | Basford
Isle Corp. & Bayou Tribu-
| tary Canal
Flamingo
Isle Corp.
City of
Hitchcock
Calves ton
Co. WCID
No. 8
Sun
'Meadows
MUD
Safari
Kobile
Home
Texas City
'Dike
Marina
|
; Basford
I Bayou Tribu-
tary Canal
} Basford
Bayou
; Highland
; Bayou
• Dickinson
; Bayou
' Magnolia
: Bayou (A
; Dickinson
, Tributary)
> Calves ton
| Bay
j
i
i
i
Design
Capacity
(Avg. Flow)
0.20
0.20
0.50
0.04
0.01
0.007
0.0005
Estimated
Current
! Load
None recorder
0.23
0.03
0.005
None recorded
None", record-
ed
Role in Proposed Plan
Not yet constructed; replaced by
regional plant after 1990.
Replaced by regional plant after 1990.
Expanded to 1.2 mgd before 1975.
Replaced by regional plant before 1990.
Expanded to 0.50 mgd before 1975.
Replaced by regional plant before 1990.
Served by Clear Creek Planning Sub.
Served by Clear Creek Planning Sub.
Serves an isolated area.
v*>
OO
-------
ATTACHMENT NO.
PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE
ON
PROPOSED B.O.D. ALLOCATIONS
FOR
HOUSTON SHIP CHANNEL
-------
CORDON FULCHER
CHAIRMAN
LESTER CLARK
VICE-CHAIRMAN
J. DOUG TOOLE
HARRY P OURLEIGH
TEXAS WATER QUALIT
JAMES U CROSS
J C PEAVV. MD
BYRON TUNNCLL
HUGH C. VANTIS. JR
ClICUTlvt DmiCTOH
PH 473-2*31
AC 312
314 WEST IITH STREET\787OI
PO BOX 13249 CAPITOL STATION
AUSTIN TEXAS'
PUBLIC HEARING NO
Pursuant to the recommendations adopted at the recent Galveston
Bay Enforcement Conference the pollutant load on the Houston Ship
Channel will be lowered such that the aggregate biochemical oxygen
demand (BOD) load will not exceed 35,000 Ibs. per day in order
that approved stream standards will be met. Comparable reductions
in other pollutants will also be required.
Therefore, the Texas Water Quality Board will conduct a public
hearing to amend all waste control orders for industrial effluents
discharged into the Houston Ship Channel and its tributaries
(exclusive of the San Jacinto River above the Lake Houston Dam) in
order to achieve the above specified BOD loading. These waste
control order holders are listed in Table I. The Board will also
discuss- altering other quality parameters specified in the individual
waste control orders including but not necessarily limited to
total residue, total suspended solids, volatile suspended solids,
settleable matter, chemical oxygen demand (COD), oil and grease,
color, heavy metals, toxic compounds, free and floating oil, debris,
foaming or frothing material and others. In addition, possible
regionalization or combination of waste treatment facilities of
both domestic and industrial waste dischargers will be discussed
where appropriate.
The public hearings for amending the industrial waste control
orders will be held on February 9, 10 and 11 in the Baytown Civic
Auditorium, 2407 Market Street, Baytown, Texas. These public
hearings will commence at 2:00 p.m. on February 9 and 10 and 8:30 a.m.
on February 11. This time schedule has been selected to enable
any citizens who desire to participate to attend the public hearings.
The Texas Water Quality Board desires that those persons and
entities who will be directly affected by these public hearings
be informed of the levels of waste treatment which will be required
to meet the established goals. In particular, increases in both
capital and operating costs are expected to result from the new
(continued)
-------
A4-2
Public Hearing Notice
Page 2
requirements of the Board. These public hearings will provide an
opportunity for discussion of all aspects of these vital issues.
The public hearings may be continued from time to time and from
place to place as necessary to develop the record.
Issued this 13th day of January 1972.
Hugh C. Yantis, Jr., Executive Director
Texas Water Quality Board
-------
TABLE I
Name
INDUSTRIAL WASTE CONTROL ORDERS TO BE AMENDED
Waste Control
Order Number
Airco Welding Products
Air Products & Chemical, Inc.
Allied Fence Corp.
Anchor Hocking Glass Corp.
Aquaness Chemical Div.
Ashland Chemical Company
Atlantic Richfield
Baroid Div. Nat Lead Co.
•I
Big Three Welding Co.
Brown Oil Tools
Page
00655
01280
01212
01170
00761
00549
00392
00392
00392
00392
00392
00392
01198
01198
00306
00687
00687
00687
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
02
03
04
05
06
01
02
01
01
02
03
-------
Name
Cameron Iron Works
Cargill Inc.
Celanese Plastic Company
Charter International Oil
ii
Chemical Exchange Processing
Cook Paint & Varnish Co.
Crown Central Petroleum
Diamond Shamrock Corp.
Diamond Shamrock Corp.
Dresser Industries, Inc.
Dresser Magcobar
E.I. Dupont de Nemour & Co.
Eddy Refining Co.
Waste Control
Order Number
00357
01247
00544
00535
00535
Co. 00786
00427
00574
00574
00574
01000
00749
00305
00305
00305
00305
00305
00305
01262
01211
00474
01018
Page
01
01
01
01
02
01
01
01
02
03
01
01
01
02
03
04
05
06
02
01
01
01
-------
Name
Enjay Chemical Company
Enjay Chemical Company
Ethyl Corporation
Waste Control
General American Transportation 01308
it
General Portland Cement Co.
Gibraltor Galvanizing Co.
Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.
ii
Grief Bros. Cooperage Corp.
Groendyke Transport Co.
ii
Gulf Coast Portland Cement
Gulf States Asphalt Co., Inc.
He liner ick & Payne Inc.
Hess Terminals
Hooker Chemical Corp.
[er Number
00610
01215
00492
00492
00492
01308
01308
00312
01019
00520
00520
01217
01057
01057
01021
01058
01385
00671
00733
00733
Page
01
01
01
02
03
01
02
01
01
01
02
01
01
02
01
01
01
01
01
02
-------
Name
Morton & Morton, Inc.
Waste Control
Houston Lighting & Power Co.
Houston Lighting & Power Co.
Houston Natural Gas
Hughes Tool Company
Ideal Cement Company
John Mecom & Proler Corp.
ler Number
00683
00684
00839
01026
01027
01031
01032
01032
01033
01033
01033
01286
01046
01046
01046
01046
01046
00456
00456
00456
01017
Page
01
01
01
01
01
01
02
04
01
02
03
01
01
02
03
04
05
01
02
03
01
-------
Name
Kennecott Copper Corp.
Hoppers Co., Inc.
Lead Products Co. Inc.
Lone Star Cement Corp.
n
Lubrizol Corporation
n
Merichem Company
Missouri Kansas Texas RR
Murray Rubber Company
National Biscuit Company
Waste Control
National Supply Division
Olin Corporation
Parker Bros. & Co., Inc.
ler Number
01260
01034
01030
00580
00580
00639
00639
00485
01197
01222
01298
01298
01298
01036
00649
00649
00649
00649
00649
00649
00668
00797
00801
Page
01
01
01
01
02
01
02
01
01
01
01
02
03
01
01
02
03
04
05
06
01
01
01
-------
A4-8
Name
Parker Bros. & Co. Inc.
ii
Pennwalt Chemical Corporation
Petro Tex Chemical Corp.
Waste Control
Petrochemical Investment Corp.
Petroleum & Mining Division
Petrolite Corporation
Philip Capey Mfg. Co.
Phillip Petroleum Company
Phosphate Chemical Inc.
Plastic Applicators, Inc.
PPG Industries Inc.
Premier Petrochemical
Reddy Ice Div.
Reichold Chemical Inc.
Rohm and Haas
ler Number
00806
00809
00587
00587
00587
00587
01301
00635
00347
00660
00815
00815
00975
01061
01194
01194
01150
01224
01224
01045
01279
00662
00458
Page
01
01
01
01
02
03
01
01
01
01
02
03
01
01
01
02
01
01
02
01
01
01
01
-------
A4-9
Name
Waste Control
Order Number
Rohm and Haas
a
Rollins-Pur le Znc
Sand & R Oil Co.
Shell Chemical Company
it
Shell Oil Company
n
n
M
If
a
n
•
•
H
«
II
Sinclair Koppers Chemical Co.
Sinclair Petrochemical Co.
Smith A.O. Corp.
Smith Industries, Inc.
00458
00458
01429
01063
00402
00402
00403
00403
00403
00403
00403
00403
00403
00403
00403
00403
00403
00403
00393
00391
00672
00686
Page
02
03
01
01
01
02
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
10
11
12
01
01
01
01
-------
Name
SMS Industries Inc.
Southern Pacific Co.
N
Southland Paper Mills
Southland Paper Mills, Inc.
Southwest Chem. & Plastic Co.
Stran Steel Corp.
Stauffer Chemical Co.
n
Stauffer Chemical Co.
Superior Oil Company
Swift Agricultural Chem. Corp.
Tenneco Chemical, Inc.
Tenneco Oil Company
Texaco, Inc.
Waste Control
Texas Instruments
Todd Shipyards
ler Number
01062
01180
01181
01160
01161
01229
01259
00541
00541
00542
01232
01421
00002
00440
00413
00413
00413
00413
01172
01225
01159
Page
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
02
01
01
01
01
01
01
02
03
04
02
01
01
-------
.Name
Tube Associates Inc.
Union Carbide & Chemical Co.
Urn on Equity Cooperative
Exchange
United States Gypsum Company
a
Upjohn Company, The
U.S. Industrial Chemical
U.S. Industrial Chemical
U.S. Plywood
Waste Control
Uvalde Rock Asphalt Co.
Zavalla Sand Company
ler Number
01423
01173
01205
00353
00353
00663
00534
00534
00640
00640
00640
00785
00545
Page
01
01
01
01
03
01
01
02
01
02
03
01
01
-------
Alf-12
CORDON FULCHCR
c°™,.TCMeR TEXAS WATER QUALITY BOARD
J. E PEAVV. MD
LESTER CLARK
VlCI-OUIRMAM
J. DOUG TOOLE
BYRON TUNNELL
HUGH C. VANTI8. JR
MARRY f. BURLEICH '••$*&%/ E«eoT,»K O..CCTO*
PM 475-26SI
A.C BU
314 WEST I1TH STREET 7B7OI
P.O BOX 13248 CAPITOL STATION 78711
AUSTIN. TEXAS
January 17, 1972
F:DW
To the Holder of Waste Control Order No.
Gentlemen:
In accord with the enclosed notice, a public hearing will be held
with the objective of lowering the authorized 5-day BOD load on the
Houston Ship Channel to 35,000 Ibs. per day and to also require
reductions in other pollution parameters. It is our intention to
require, insofar as possible, a comparable effort by all of the in-
dustrial waste dischargers in the area covered by the notice. We
have attempted to define the effluent quality for each waste control
order holder on the Houston Ship Channel pursuant to this objective.
It must be recognized that the waste load allotment to the various
individual waste control order holders is as yet imperfect, and
that the individual allotments may and undoubtedly will be altered
as additional data is developed during the course of the hearing
and/or subsequent conferences. Consequently, the attached table
showing the effluent requirements for the various industries is
being furnished to you to indicate the magnitude of the necessary
waste treatment effort, and to assist you in preparing for the
hearing.
You should come to the hearing prepared insofar as possible, to
discuss fully your company's capability to comply with the proposed
effluent quality, and the date by which compliance can be attained—
bearing in mind the December 31, -1974 deadline imposed by the findings
of the EPA Shellfish Enforcement Conference. The testimony relating
to time requirements should be broken into sections with time inter-
vals or interim dates for the accomplishment of engineering, financing,
and construction specified.
-------
It is recognized that minimizing the number, within limit, of waste
treatment facilities by the creation of regional or subregional
waste disposal systems is a desirable goal and this is recognized
in the recommendations of the EPA Shellfish Enforcement Conference.
In view of the necessity of maintaining the BOD load below 35,000
Ibs. per day now and in the future, the treatment levels required
to maintain this requirement dictate that advance waste treatment
practices be employed. This factor lends additional weight to the
desirability of regional or subregional systems. Minimizing the
number of treatment facilities, particularly if owned and operated
by one entity such as the Gulf Coast Waste Disposal Authority, will
enhance the ability to provide for future industrial and municipal
growth and remain with the specified 35,000 Ibs. per day. For these
reasons, we would suggest that you give very serious and immediate
consideration to participation in a regional system.
Very truly yours,
Hugh C. Yantis, Jr.
Executive Director
ccs: W. A. Quebedeaux, Jr., Ph.D., Director
Harris County Pollution Control Department
L. D. Farragut, M.D., Director
Harris County Health Department
The Honorable Jim Clark
Texas House of Representatives
Honorable Bill Elliott
Harris County Judge
Mr. Joe Resweber
Harris County Attorney
Mr. Jamie H. Bray
Commissioner - Precinct 2
Mr. L. Jack Davis, General Manager
Gulf Coast Waste Disposal Authority
Texas Water Quality Board District 7
CPO 848- 370
------- |