PROGRESS REPORT
RECOMMENDATIONS
OF THE
ntckcemeni
ebence
Galveston Bay Technical Committee
TEXAS WATER QUALITY BOARD
AND
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
tLEA
MAY 1972
-------
PROGRESS REPORT
ON
RECOMMENDATIONS
OF THE
GALVESTON
BAY ENFORCEMENT
CONFERENCE
BY
GALVESTON BAY TECHNICAL COMMITTEE
TEXAS WATER QUALITY BOARD
AND
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
MAY 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 2k
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
VI1-1 Houston Ship Channel B.O.D. Loading
VII-2 Total B.O.D. Contributed by the Four
Major Texas City Industries
VI11-1 Volatile Solids Profile of Bottom Sludges
VI11-2 Volatile Solids (%) Profile o* Bottom
Sludges
VI11-3 B.O.D^ Profile of Bottom Sludges
VI11-4 COD Profile of Bottom Sludges
VI11-5 Percent Oil and Grease Profile of
Bottom Sludges
Follows Page
32
33
35
36
36
36
36.
LIST OF TABLES
Table No. Title Page
Ill-l Chemistry Task Force 18
IV-1 Municipal Waste Discharges into Houston
Ship Channel and Calveston Bay 21
VI1-1 Major Texas City Dischargers 33
VI11-1 Observations 35
VI11-2 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 *»9
li
-------
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 - Galveston 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
iii
-------
I
INTRODUCTION
The Galveston 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
-------
2
samples of effluents 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 longer 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
-------
3
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 September 1972. Results will be provided to the
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 effluents 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 197A 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.
-------
4
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 Baytown, 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
-------
5
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. Teller's position on the Technical Committee has been assumed
by Mr. Tim Morris 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,
N -
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 udi^.
-------
7 ~
The following conferees representing the State water
pollution control agency and the Environmental Protection Agency
participated in the conference:
TEXAS
Hugh C. Yantis, Jr. Executive Director
Texas Water Quality Board
Austin, Texas
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Richard A. Vanderhoof Director, Enforcement Division
Region VI
Environmental Protection Agency
Dallas, Texas
Hurray Stein, Chairman 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 abatement tinder procedures described in section 10 of the Federal
Act.
2. Under the provisions of section 10 of the Act, the
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency is authorized
to initiate enforcement procedures when he finds that substantial
economic injury rccuits from the inability to market shellfish or
shellfish products in interstate commerce because of pollution
subject to abatement under the Act, and action of Federal, State,
Oi: local authorities.
-------
8
3. The first step of these procedures is the calling of
a conference.
4. The purpose of this conference is to bring together
representatives of the State water pollution control agency and
the Environmental Protection Agency to review the existing situa-
tion 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 conclu-
sions and recommendations were reached by the conferees:
1. The Federal conferee concluded that there is occurrence
of pollution 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 econoirdc
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 Adnini.. jration, in cooperation with
appropriate State regulatory agenciest 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
hydrographic and pollution conditions. The most unfavorable hydro-
graphic 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 to secure that disinfection. These measures
shall be in effect by December 31, 1971.
-------
10
The Texas Water Quality Board will continue to implement
its policy requiring the elimination of small plants. The central-
ization 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.
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 municipal and industrial wastes permitted by the
Texas Water Quality Board to discharge erfluent 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
Bade 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
°£ each was'i;c source discharging tc Calvcstor. Bey crvd its •tr-'.l'"-i-nr?.cs.
-------
11
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.
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
significance of materials from pollution sources contained in the
organic sludge dredged from the Houston Ship Channel shall be con-
ducted. Bc.sc.cl on th.2 results of t!u.s> c\. alec.', ion and
-------
12
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.
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, includi"} 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 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 enforcement conference.
-------
13
13. To raeet 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 froia
all sources will be about 35,000 po ids 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 sourcas'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, 1S72. 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 such as, but not limited to, chemical oxygen
demand, suspended solids, complex organics, and other toxic materials
also contribute to the pollution of Galveston 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
nay. 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 shull not be construed'as
in any way foreclosing or interfering with Federal/ State or local
statutory procec. lings 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.
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 accomplis~hment 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
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 recoinraendation--no discharge
of cooling water from the Cedar Bayou plant to
Trinity Bay 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 Galveston 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 1.
The National Shellfish Sanitation Program acting upon the decision
of the Workshop to establish a permanent Chemistry Task Force, has
-------
CHEMISTRY TASK FORCE
TABLE I I 1-1
18
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 Clan
Soft Clan
Area
Northeast
Southern
Northern ft Southern
Northern & Southern
Interim
Alert Level*
3.5 ppm
1.5 ppm
0.5 ppm
0.5 ppn
Lead
lead
Lead
Oyster
Hard Clara
Soft Clam
Northern & Southern
ii
ii
it
2.0
4.0
5.0
ppo
Chromium
Chroniura
Chroniuin
Oysters
Hard Clan
Soft Clam
it
ii
f.
ii
2.0 ppm
1.0 ppn
5.0 ppn
Zinc
Zinc
Zinc
Zinc
Zinc
Copper
Copper
Copper
Copper
Copper
Oysters
Oysters
Bard Clan
Soft Clam
Surf Clam
Oysters
Oysters
Hard Clan
Soft Clan
Surf Clan
Northeast
Southern
Northern & Southern
ii
ii
ii
ii
Northeast
Southern
Northern & Southern
ii • ii
2,000 ppm
1,000 ppm
65 ppm
30 ppa
20 ppr,
175 ppn
42 ppn
10
it
it
25 ppm
5 ppa
Mercury
Mercury
Mercury
Oysters
Hard Clan
Soft Clams
it
it
if
ii
it
0.2 ppm
0.2 ppn
0.2
* Drained Vet Keats
Workshop Action
After tpuch discussion on tha proposal, the consensus of opinion vas
that while thore is a need for sor.e fom of levels for heavy ril5C3iSr
it would not be practical frra 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.
In summary, little or no progress has been made on the Conferees'
recommendation concerning establishment of alert levels for acute and
chronically toxic or growth inhibiting factors, nor is it likely that
significant action will be taken in the forseeable future.
-------
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 - Airport
- Main Plant
- Teichman
Co. WCID #1
Co. WCID #12
WCID #55
City of
Galveston
Galveston
Galveston
Galveston
Harris Co
Houston
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
0.2
0.24
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
CONTACT
TIME
MIN
15.7
25.8
44
65
22.8
13.2
67.6
19.3
52.1
37.4
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
COLI FORM (MPN)
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
TOTAL
28,000
460,000
11,000
460,000
11,000
95
460,000
460,000
^23
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
£ 23
460
1,100
4
-2-2.4 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
ro
-------
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
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
1.4
1.98
0.03
0.15
0.023
2.6
0.8
1.08
108
6.2
814
4.5
65
22.6
62
CHLORINE
RESIDUAL
MG/L
1.7
3.0+
2.8
1.4
0
0.6
0
0
0
0.5
1.6
2.0
2.1
0.1
0.0
0.5
3.0+
2.8
3.0+
COLIFORM (MPN)
TOTAL
225,000
93
9
110,000C
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 f
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
ro
-------
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.
-------
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. Recommendation
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
__]__) 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
__]__). Completion dates will fall before December 31, 1974. Firm
commitments for the abandonment of obsolete or unnecessary plants and
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-Calveston area regional plan. This plan was pre-
pared for the Houston-Calveston 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 September 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
-------
32
waste loads will be provided to the Conferees within six months of the
date of the reconvened session of the Galveston 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 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
-------
500
400
HOUSTON SHIP.CHANNEL
B. O. D. LOADING
Measured Load
— Predicted Load
I
I
I
D
s:
I
D
«
H
300
200
100
L
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
TIME
FIGURE Vll-l
1973
-------
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
Union Carbide
Union Carbide
Texas City Refinery
American Oil
TOTAL
Flow (MGD)
56.0
19.5
9.02
0.90
1.34
15.44
BODS
(pp3)
24,428
2,487
31,144
5,817
290
13,907
78.073
Figure 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
-------
TOTAL B.0.D. CONTRIBUTED BY THE FOUR MAJOR
TEXAS CITY INDUSTRIES
Implementation
Date
Present
y,l, 1973
c. 31, 1973
pt. 1, 1974
1, 1976
J 53,970
J 42,663
J 13,765
| 11,765
i—r
New Treatment Facility
78,073
I
4
\
5
I
6
2 3
•BOD, Pounds x 104
i I I
8 9 10
Union Carbide
Phase. I
American Oil
Monsanto
Union Carbide
Phase II
FIGURE VI1-2
-------
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, BODs, COD, oil
and greas'e. 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 1 gives a physical description of the sludge core samples taken
at stations along the channel. The physical characteristics vary con-
siderably. An interest trend is the increase in deposit thickness and
the visible oil content above mile point 14.
Figure 1 is a volatile solids profile of the deposits. The scattering
of the data points at each station indicates the variation in volatile
-------
TABLE VIII-I--Observations *
35
Sample Depth of Sludge Core
Local ton (mile) Collected in Sampler (ft.)
0
2
3.5
4.5
1.6
6
8
10
12
1<*
16
18
20
22
2k
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
-------
200,000
I 50,000
a.
a
to
a
^ 100,000 -
o
CO
w
50,000
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
»*,
-
/
-
-
-
-
—
-
_
-
••*
-
-
-
-
-
—
-
!'
4
•f
V
r
JB
\
S
--
^
-
7
T
7
\
1
-
L
-
-
--
_c
s
—
-
^
<
)v
•
-
D
-
-
£
E
c
C
-
-
i
-
-
-i
-
-
j
-
A
T
-
:L
-
-
r>
:
^
7
Y
-
-
-
5,
-
* j
-;
-
-j
0
-
0
_
-
-
-
-
--
t -
1
p'
_i
-
—
— —
:
-
— «
';
-
-
r
-
.„
^
.
i
i,
_
3
-
-
il
-^-
s«
D
1
•"
—
~
~
i
%.
:
-
.,
I
-
-1
:
$/
|
['
MM
3
l_
I*
j._
— »i
rs
'
U
•J
V-
•j
s:
--
-
O
-
h— -
'il
-
0
•A
-
[3
-
:
v
/
-
-
'£
_
:
^
:
~-
u
--
„ -
_
...
±tj
->
)4—
ip
i3
L-
.._
—
-
-t-
^
-
-
I
—
T
-
.
-4-
-t--
-
-
I
_
-
-
--
-
-
—
ZP
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
—
—
-
I
V-
-
-
•^
"i
^
j
i
—
— -
-
--
i -
~
-
-
-
7
-
-
E
— .
-
D
-
~
-
G
C
-j—
^—
'J'
g
1
j
_
±
H
4-
i
K-
v
j
%-*GjS
\
I
_,
K
--i IT?
U
i
I
-
-
rt
-
-
•-
3
-;
-}--H-
"• ~tl
-
' i
i
1
i
1200 +• 00 IOOO+OO 800-HOO GOO+OO
-------
36
solids content within a given cross section. The quality variation
within a cross section is verified by analyses of the other parameters.
Figure 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 3 and 4, indicate a significant
variation in the COD and to a lesser extent the BODj 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 BOD5 data
shows a similar trend.
A very significant finding is the increase in BODs 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 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
-------
m
I
co
o
o
in
o
22
2O
18
16 14 12 10 8 6.4
CHANNEL MILES. FROM MORGANS POINT
FIGURE VI I I -2
VOLATILE SOLIDS (%) PROFILE OF BOTTOM SLUDGES *
-------
150,000
CO
m 100,000
*
fe
o
0-
50,000
i
•-
-
-
~
_
-
-
r
...
_
-
—
•-
-
••
-
f
-
2
?
_
-
-
-
--
31
T
—
-
5
>•<
-
-
,>•
-
c
—
—
-
-
-
1
-
-
c
1
\7
-
-
-
_
-
f
]
•
-
H
s
-
7-
7
V
-
i
w
JllUD
GTL
-
-
-
1
-
-
**
-
-
-
-
...
-
—•
._
-
-
-
-
••*•
-
1
t
•PI
Kv
k;
r
Cil/
G'E
D|_Y
0
3
--
r— »•
3
-
-
«•»
DOC
L
c
-
-v
-
-
•(•
--
.
-
•*»
-
-
o
\
=
._.
-
x
3
"W
-
-
-
•';
.
-
V
-
-
-
-
wT~
L
-
3
-
-
N
O
-
-
-
-
(
-
,.-,
?-
-.
"N^
-
—
1
I
*
-
-
-
•
•s.
-
1
1
£
^
;c
'
;
-
.
-
»
-•
:-
>
—
_
...
-
^
-
0'
V
FF
fc
.
_
-
-
-.
:
-
-
s.
--
-
1 —
•R.
C
$-
-•
-
-*«.
3
±
¥
-
-
:
-
—
4-
$
-
.UDGE
UCV <
-
—
-
c
^
s
^
--
-
--
-
...
_
;
5C
.
-
-
-
<
^
3
s
-
-
-
-
"•
1
^;
-
-
-
—
-
/-•
,:
-
u
..
'}
-
r.
1
T
-
*«
'
-
-
_
-
3HS
i
—
-
_
v
:
-
.
-
-
-
r
_
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
i
-
-
-
-
-
—
3
-
-
*
-
-
-
--
I
-
-
-
1
-
--
-
tu
—
±
00]
T
i
-
-
-
•-
-
— —
-
T
-
-
-
\
-
1 1
-
^
-
-
-
1
J
.
—
-
-
-J
-
7
I
-
--
<
z6cj
I
-
-
-
-
;
-
...
o:?
-
-
-
77"-
H
'
c
—
C
-
-
-
_
,
3
:
fi
-
-
-
-
-
V^~
tJh
-
-
~
_
V,,
_
ET
J
"
:
_
.r
5
_
i
-
i
^
i
•7
i
• ~
~
.
rj
"
,
j
:
-
I_L.
i i
i i
t 1
i
J
-
!
,
:
—
•:
]
t —
-
-
^
^
3"
"
-
~
-
.
:
—
-
i
f
d
-
c
-
-
d
...
._
:
i
i
H
_
i
|
i
i
_!..
24 22 20 18 16 14 12 !O 8 64 2 O
CHANNEL MILES FROM MORGANS POINT (TAMU)
FIGURE VI. I 1-3
BOD5 PROFILE OF BOTTOM SLUDGES*
-------
•
200,000 i
190,000
o
8 100,000
50,000
-
•
-
-
-
-
/
-
-
-
i
-12
r
-
/
-
K
g
-
•-
*»
-
-
-
-
•F
'
j*
-
-
-
S1
:
hp-
i4
-
T<
-
-
~
-
Vj/1
v7 w
^
-
y
—
-
-
•-
S
:
_
...
-
--
3
D
<
-
40C
-r
T*
« V
1
I
"L
0
r
-
-
"
'C
^
-
-
-
I'D
DY
i
--
••*.
:
-
L
a
-?
-•
r
E
-
>^
-
-
±
•»—
-
-
-
-
-
T
--
—
-
-
'',
<->
v:/
7
—
.3
V.
?
-
-
.-
X
-
-
-
-
_l
-
\
L
I
s
-
-
«
.
sod
"t
4-
.
mi
^r
-
-
S
;
I
-
~
\
0
•
1
C
-
.,
X
_
3-
V
-
-
..
-
-
-
-
S
-
—
F
.-
-
-
^
Sr
'^L
SjTI
-
-
V
-
-
-
:
-
—
«!(
J
i
-
-
**!
i
-
^
j;
-
_.
/;
f~
1
...
T
TT^T
Vj v
-
-
A
f
-
"
r
te^
1
•
-
-
-
-
-
-^
H-
-
'••
"c
-
-
I
:
?-
<
-
....
-
:
--
o
n
>'
....
"-j
I
'-
-
--
M.
7
i
7
-
-
s
_
-
-t"
4
-
-
..
--
-
.7:
5
-
,
-•
-
-
-
-
±
-if!
rW
-
•»
-
o o
GO
1
-
-
-
—
—
_
-
1
1 —
—
-
:
1
I
•V
-
1
--
-
-
-
:
.-4
n
-
tn
1 N
-
-
-
~
-
:
-^
-
-
-
-
-
-
-r
"T
i
--U
1
d
^.
i
T.
n
T
^5C
LV i—
-
-
-
-
:
-
-\
-*
-i-
-4--
--
-
:
-
\
:
-
cit
L'
±
— 1 —
LL
a1
^
-:
—
4-
• i
j
-si
j£
I
4
— :
-
-
I
-4-
-
-
—
— i —
J_i
>*P
-T-
JU
3UT
i
i 1
±
^!Ep
""
--
r
._.
I
•-*-
-J
-
-
-
3-.
ff
3.T
^5
-
_
I-
-
~
—
—
-
i
1
-
Ht
!
-,
8
1
1
H—
-i-
^p
-j-
...
-
—
i
—
-
-
-
i
,
i
— t-
-4
i
4
:i:
-
-l-r
•*•
-
"
:
-f-
T
-4
— t-
-U
B
-^-O^D^-U-
! . 1
24 22 2O 18 16 14 12 IO 8 6 4 2 O
CHANNEL MILES FROM MORGANS POINT (TAMU)
FIGURE V.I I I -4
COD PROFILE Or BOTTOM SLUDGES *
-------
w
<
CD
tr
o
UJ
LJ
-------
37
were sampled to determine the effect of sludge deposits on the quality
of the waters in the bays. Table 2 lists the 5005, 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 BODij, 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.
Re commendat i ons
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 VI11~2 " S'^e BaY Analytical Data Summary
Upper San Jacinto Bay
(ppm) (ppm) (ppm) Volatile
Sample BODj COD Volatile Sol ids 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 Bey
C 1,710 23,080 2^,030
B
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
Kear Bottom
Scott Bay
C 6,2^0 37,300 29,000
B -
7-3 li'-S" Black at
Top, Grey 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 Calveston 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.
-------
40
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 Calveston 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-I)
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.
-------
TABLE IX-I Ly
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 Plume 160
Houston Ship Channel at Green's Bayou 46
Southland Paper Effluent Plume 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 at 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
-------
fX. COLOR REMOVAL ^
REFERENCES
'(R-1) Bloddgood, 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.
1-2) Ford, Davis L. , Personal communication. March 24, 1972.
"-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.
-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. '
( -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 Gregory, 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.
(v.-9) Nemerow, N.L. and Doby, T.A., "Color Removal in Waste Water
Treatment Plants", Sewage Ind. Wastes 30, 1958, p. 1160.
R'-iO) Parkhurst, J.D. , Dryden, F.D. , McDermott, G.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"-\2) 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.
-------
( -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.
(n.-14) Smith, Donald R. and Berger, Herbert P., "A Chemical-Physical
Wastewater Renovation Process for Kraft Pulp and Paper" Wastes",
J. of WPCF, V. 40, No. 9, Sept., 1968, p. 1575.
(~ -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.
( -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.
(.. 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 Digcharqes
WCO #
Anchor Hocking Glass Corp.
Armco Steel Corporation
Ashland Chemical Company
Atlantic .Richfield
PAGE 1
Permitted Discharge (Avg.) Present Discharge (Avg.)
Flow BOD BOD Flow BOD
Page MOD mg/1 Ibs/day MGD Ibs/day
01170
00509
00549
00392
01
01
.Cf2
04
5 & 6
07
08
91
92
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
01
01
02
03
04
05
06
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.
7.50
no reg.
no reg .
no reg.
0.36
20
10
25
11
100
100
100
25
50
100
no reg
< 10
60
1001
217
217
575
6255
•
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
4.80
0.029
0.08
1.57
0.23
82
32
100% Cool-
ing water
16
2888
21
200
427
Proposed Discharge (Avg.)
Flow BOD BOD
MGD mg/1- Ibs/day
0.028
0.72
*
*
3.47
*
*
35.00
0.48
no discharge
allowed
10
10
10
< 10
60
290
no net .
increase
13
52
injection or incineration
*.
1.08
*
0.60
10
90
20 100
Process waste to
separated & addec
to # 2 outfall
681
<1
7
681
12
4.8
*
*
1.57
0.23
20
20
10
800
262
20
-------
TABLE X-l (Cent.)
Industrial Discharges
Name WCO
Celanese Plastic Company
Charter International Oil
Chemical Exchange Processing Co. 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 Ibg/day
Present Discharge (Avg.!
Flow BOD
MGD Ibs/day •
Proposed Discharge (Avg,
Plow BOD - BOD
MGD mg/1 Ibs/d;
00544
00535
00786
00427
00574
00749
00305
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
0.65
4.80
3.0
8.00
0.20
3.68
4.75
8.00
15
50
50
100
no reg.
125
125
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
-------
TABLE X-l (Cont.)
Industrial Discharges
Name WCO#
Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. 00520
Hess 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 and Haas
00815
00975
01061
01045
00662
00458
Page
PAGE 3
Permitted Discharge (Avg.)
Flow BOD BOD
MGD mg/1 Ibs/day
Present Discharge (Avg.) Proposed Discharge (Avg.
Flow BOD Flow BOD BOD
MGD Ibs/day MGD mg/1 Ibs/d
01
02
01
01
1.650
2.50
0.108
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
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
0.104
0.092
0.207
0.587
0.090
no reg.
25.00
0.50
0.075
0.030
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
20
20
10
15
no reg.
50
30
30
20
100
no reg.
no reg.
no reg.
20
no reg.
no reg.
50
60
25
100
35
50
no reg.
2
2
100
100
100
80
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
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
<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
>- 4.V-- 17-.~,
-------
TABLE X-l (Cont.)
InduBtrial Discharges
Name
Shell Chemical Company
Shell Oil Company
PAGE 4
Permitted Discharge (Avg.)
Flow BOD BOD
Present Discharge (Avg.j Proposed Discharge (Avg.)
Flow BOD Flow BOD BOD
Sinclair Koppers Chemical Co.
Sinclair Petrochemical Co.
Smith A. 0. Corporation
SMS Industries, Inc.
Southland Paper wills
Stauffer Chemical Company
Stauffer Chemical Company
Tenneco Chemical/'Inc.
Texas Instruments
Union Bjuity Cooperative
Exchange
Upjohn Company, The
United States Gypsum Co.
U. S. Industrial Chemical
U. S.- Plywood
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
MOD
6.10
no reg.
1.44
0.288
0.144
0/576
no reg.
0.086
0.216
no reg.
0.266
4.752
no reg.
2.664
0.55
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.
iKf/1 Ibs/day MGD Ibs/day
100
10
30
20
10
10
20
15
30
50
100
50
50
50
100
20
20
20
100
20
16
150
100
3
25
40
50
5,087
120
72
24
48
7
33
1,189
1,109
459
1,109
354
48
41,700
188
8
167
834
107
<1
726
417
188
143
18,348
5.79
1.47
no discharge
0.044
0.72
0.062
0.049
0.17S
4.47
0.55
0.76
1.88
0.267
Oill4
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
1,076
49
MGD
6.10
*
1.44
mg/1 lb
13
10
s/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
1.88
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
from dredging
13
20
20
10
10
13 1
13
10
13
20
10
13
20
13
5
48
8
5
19
485
oper
60
92
314
22
<10
,339
67
<10
108
112
36
-------
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
-------
TliXAS WVTF.R OtO.MTY BO.\«*D
P. 0. JJO>: 1321C
Capitol Station
Austin, Toxrts, 7C711
ORDER WO. 73-OS19-1
AN ORDER of the Texas"Water Quality Hoard ordering and
establishing dates for the co1 ipletion .of certain
iraprcvemcnt projects and studies pertaining to
the sewerage facilities owned by the City of
Houston.
PREAMBLE
In order to acsure that the effluents being released by the City OL
Houston, Texas, from its several sewage treatment plants are brought in
an orderly and timely fashion into compliance v/ith applicable waste con-
trol orders issued by the Texas Water Quality Board and to abate th?
present pollution of waters within and adjoining the City of Houston, the
Texas Water Quality Board has ordered the City of Houston to undertake
a sanitary sewerage system irap.ro*«riant 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
Treatment Progress Report of August 19, 1973, during a public hearing held
by the Board on August 19, 1971.
It is the intent of the Texas Water Quality Board that the City ?d:-ero
to the dates established and unless the particular phase or pOL'tior. of the
irproveuent program cue for co&pletion is completed on cr bcfoie the re-
quired date, or unless the City hns leq-.icr.Le'i r:irt the Board approved f-jr
acceptable reason or rof.FO'is ar. extension of tlm jpprove.-aont progrcn-; the
-------
Al-2
Board herein pieces the City of Houston on notice that it intends Lo ccoU
such relief as may be indicated in the courts. Now, therefore,
BE IT ORD'ilJBD JiY TI1B TEXAS UiTliR QUALITY BO?.RO:
I. DEFIHlllOi'lS 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 unpermitted plant at Western Acres and
the sewage treatment plants outlined on pages 3, 14, 21, 72, 25,
41, 45, 46, 47, 49, 55, 58 of the City's Waste Control Order
Ro. 10493, (b) the enlargement of sewage handling facjiiui.cs 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 becope part of this
Board Order.
HI. 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 sourco
or sources of excessive bacterial pollution; the City Water Pollution
-2-
-------
Al-3
Control Division of the City Health DoyorLmont is directed to con-
tinue and expand its bacteriological wa'or quality sampling procu-ara.
The sampling pointi, ihnll be locate;! so as to determine tha ir't--.t:t
of the various treated effluent discharges, and known recurring
overflows, §nd in cooperation with the Texas Water Quality Board's
District 7 staff, The data generated by this program shall be
forwarded at appropriate regular intervals to the Texas Hater
Quality Board and appropriate pcrj.ons 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
chlorinatioii 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 requiremsnts
when fully loaded viill ba submitted to the Boaid on or before
March 1, 1972.
V. Overflow of Raw Sewage, McGregor Park
fho. City is directed to take positive action to expedite the
project to eliminate the recurring overflow of rav; sewage into
Brays Bayou adjacent to McGregor Park. A report on the action
taken will bs submitted on or before t:aich 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 Waste Control Order No. 10*95
(1) no flow recorder-—Chocolate Bayou plant, p. 9.
(2) inadequate flow Measuring device—F.U.S.D- 17, p. 15.
(3) industrial waste problem—P.17.S.D. 17, p. 15.
{4} improperly handled screening—F.W.S.D. 17, p. 15.
(5) no sludge disposal facilities—Kew Homestead plant, p. 23.
(6) no flow measuring device—Easthaven, p. 65.
(7) inoperative flow recorder--F.W.S.D. 34, p. 69.
(8) inoperative sludge collector and mechanical aerator—W.C.l.D.
44-1, p. 47.
(9) bypass from aeration tnnk--Airport, p. 78.
-3-
-------
Al-A
A report on the corrections nccompliuhcd will bo subnittcd on or
before March 1, IS72.
VII. Apply for YFaste Control Orders
The City is directed to file with the Texas Hater 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 securcment of such waste control orders, the CJ ty
shall consult with the Hearings and Enforcement Division of the
Texas Water 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 12-31-68
14 Fontaine Place 12-31-66
15 F.W.S.D. 17 6-30-67
21 Gulf PaLTS 12-31-68
22 Gulfway Terrace 12-31-G3
25 Lake Forest 12-31-68
29 Longvoods 6-30-67
44 W.C.I.D. 34 12-31-68
45 W.C.I.D. 39 12-31-66
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 12-31-68
Western Acres
—- W.C.I.D. 82
VIII. Sludcje 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 Sins 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 Hay 1 each year a report on the progress made.
-4-
-------
A1-5
X. Funcliug Sanitary Sowcriirje System
Tlic City is directed lo provide the funding'^noccsiary to effectuate
the recommendations enumerated in this board Order.
XI. Long-Range Sr.nitary Sc.xracjo Planning
The City is directed to keep its long-range sanitary sewerage
plan current*
With respect to implementing the long-range plan, tne 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-Galve&ton 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 are 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 will 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 WAIVES: 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 placcJ on
the ntxL Eoard Mcp.tiur; agenda to request, that the completion ddLo
or dates be extended or waived. The City shall, upon notification
that they hsivc been placed on the c-.geadn, 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, c.r.d notify the City
in writing that the request for an extension or waiver as the
case may be is granted or denied.
XIII. EFFECTIVE DATE; 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. SEVliFANCE Cl&USE: If any provision, sentence, clause, or phrass
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 would have
passed the valid portions of this order irrespactive of the fact
that any one or more portions be declared invalid.
Passed and approved this 19th day of August, 1971
Hugh C. 'Yc-intis, Jr., Executive Director
"TEXAS VSTER QUALITY BOARD
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
Completion
ige
•<*•••
8
!5
4
45
16
1
22
!0
n
49
5
6
^.0
43
;4
.5
69
.8
8
Name
Western Acres
Chatwood Place
Lake Forrest
Fontaine Place
WCID #39
WCID #42
Gulf Palms
Gulf way 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
Action
Abandon
Abandon
Abandon
Abandon
Abandon
Abandon
Abandon
Abandon
Abandon
Abandon
Abandon
Enlarge
Enlarge
Enlarge
Enlarge or Abandon
Abandon
Enlarge
Enlarge
Chlorination
Provide Sludge Facilities
Date
03-11-72
12-15-72
12-15-72
08-15-73
08-15-73
08-15-73
06-01-74
06-01-74
12-31-74
04-30-73
04-30-73
06-30-73
12-01-72
04-30-73
12-31-74
12-31-74
07-01-74
12-31-72
12-31-72
12-31-72
Water Treatment
Plant
Provide Treatment
12-30-74
-------
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
TEXAS WATER QUALITY BOARD
ORDER NO. 69-9A
-------
::: oi'-'.s.i'J'j' KO.VI'J A2-1
iVwic-a Street
Tcx.is VU701
AN ORi;E!'. of the To::-n& W«.tcr QualHy tto£.i d dot;r.jiining
that the rt'oionr.] plan, roptcr-.plPtcd 5.'i Texas
Hater Qu.-ljiy Bcv.vu C/dcr i:o. G9-9, has fcilcc!
to iiT.tcridlixc vithin R reasonable- tine period;
furthci- dctcrn'JnJr.cj Iheit the jra^icdic'te in pic-
ineui'c'tion of the ptivasiced w&tc trcatr-.ent c.ncl
otlicr rc-q'.'ircnonts, con'. .-J nod .in Scc-tJon 3
(pc.geL- //c-pcl 5) or that Crdor is ncces^ry +;c
prc:.orvp c-nd n-nii-.taj'ri the- ca'fility of %-ate-r in
Clear Uu.c"cind to prc"i^t lh- contii:'..ec: pol-
Jution o^: the l£l:c; ordc-rirg all di-cl-argoi-s
of domestic wcirtcwatcrs within the Cluar I.rAe
Watershed to co?yly with tie pforcmciitiont:1.
requirements v;ithin such period of tire as is
reasonably required bvt not to exceed tvo (?)
years fro,r the data of the adoption of thxs
Order; order JPJ uh-it these rcq'iir events be
made a part of the waste- control orders (pc-mits)
held by these waste dischargers; and establich-
ing a proc-rpHi for cowpliar.ca \iii\i thess require-
ments.
VniESE?»S, und-jr the provii.ionc of TO.CS&I Water Quality Board
Order Ko. 69-S, the Hoard ar.no jncod :
"That in the event that the plan for the protection of CJe?.,:
Lafce, conte?:;j]ated in this Orcc-r, fails to materialise withii.
reasonable time limitations, the Board will, of necessity, be
compelled to consider and seek more stringent permit require-
ments for each waste discharger in the watershed. These
requirements will be determined on a czce-by-case basis but
generally- would include the following quality caraneters:
11 (a) Five day biochemical oxygen d>-nand and total suspended
solids not to exceed 12 i?g/l.
" (b) Chloi'ir.o r£siclur3 of 2 ng/1 ?itcr one hour dstpntion
tine a-icl as r..c:isuren by the orthc-tolodir.e tc>:.!; or other
ftCCCJ'tcl'lC tCSl.
" (c) Nui-rio:i;.P in the cCfJuent v:jl] ba removed as ff.llo1. si:
Nilro^oii shall not he reojulatod and j.hor.pho-OM*.. in
-------
" (d) A fully trained and certified operator v/ill bo iivail--
able to the plant at nil time's' aj?J a satisfactory
operation and maintenance program will be required.
(c) .Bach discharge will be adequately monitored to insure
permit compliance and detect inadequacies of operation.
Laboratory services will be made available, by contract
or otherwise, to the end that a sampling and analytical
.program is established to monitor effluent quality on
a continuing basis."
•WHEREAS, the Board", upon full evaluation of the progress made
in achieving the regionalization 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-
pli shed,,
WHEREAS, the Board finds that the continued discharge of
wastewaters at the presently authorized levels'of treatment-is caus-
ing and will continue to cause the water quality degradation of
Clear LaV.e 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 sower
system or systems properly designed according to sound engineering
and scientific practices- and the Board further finds that its long-
standing policy to encourage r.nd foster regional systems will require
the following:
(A) Whenever, in the judgment of the Board, it appears that
it is technically and economically feasible for sny waste
discharging entity within the watershed, be it municipal
-------
or industrial, to join into a regional rystew on an ^"3
ownership, ;i contract or other cjil.isfucl-.ory basis,
'the connection or 'tie-in with the system will be
required.
(D) Y/hencver, in the judgment of the. Board, it appears '
• that a local government will construct, operate and
administer a regional system in"an area and the system
is found to be necessary to preserve and maintain the
waters in the State, the Board will, pursuant to the
provisions of the Texas Water 'Quality Act, designate
jthe 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 tiee as a regional
sewer system- or systems are developed, the insnediate implementa-
tion of advanced waste treatment requirements_is necessary; and
WHEREAS, the Board, in Order 69-9, has previously recognized
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
cuuenable to a.generaUordcr, it will 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 dischargers pursu-
ing 'the acceptable alternatives contained in this Order) j-re
.hereby ordered to improve and upgrade their waste treatment
" facilities and operations'in .accordance v:ith Section 3
-------
Ko. GS)~9.
2. TiuiL UJG iulviincoii vai.tc Li ceil merit anil other requi rcir-cntv;
contained in OLOCT C9--9 lie- and llio1 same arc hereby iiicor-
poratcii into and in..c3c an Oj>Ttiti.ve put of the Wct&'.c
conlrol orders (permits) held by those waste dischargers,
3. Tliat the construe-Lion and other vurk necessary to cic'.iicvo
satisfactory compliance v.'ith these new requirements lie
completed as soon as is reasonably possible but not in
excess of two (2) years £ro:n the dtitc of the adoption of
this Order.
4. That each waste discharging entity within the watershed
shall, on or before October 1, 3970, provide the Board
with written evidence thcit 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 vastes 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-time limitations but that such written evidence
'shall contain the industry's evaluation of the applica-
bility of the general order to their particular wastc-
Wcitcrs and their proposals concerning compliance wth
the purposes of this Order.
6. That he-cause of the variety of techniques by vhicli ad-
VPnccd Vcssle trcat^c-nt can be ac-hievcd, the specific
-------
A2.-5
iircii.-'iili, for p. ]>.n titular iMLlc di :.<.•'•.p.rrjer nay be;
altered fro/a tho:,c s,hcr.;n in Order G?)--9 upon a pCi&iUvc1
tieiPOnuLrcilio!] M'jjjioiLed by adc-qiKite technical evidence.
that thu eli f fcrcnce it attributable to the technique
employed and not the result o/! an inferior ncthorl of
advanced waste ticalmcnt fend that the technique caipJoyc-d
v;ill adccjUcitoly protect C3 car La]:c.
7. Tlieil al] vasLc discluirgsi-s within the purview; of this
Order shall be required to &ubrj£t inrittcn reports and
otherv/ise comply v/ith the following provisions:
(A) THOSE ELECTING TO ll-PLE-ICOT ADVAKCED V.'ASTP. TRZ^TIffiLJT
PRACTICES
1; By Dacc-ipber 1, J970, submit to the Boe.rd a \nritLcn
report containincj a description of the addition?!
treatment facilities proposed along with appropri-
ate "clocurcntation r.s to the engineering £ira or
person authorized to proceed v:ith the design of
the facilities.
2. By February 1, 197], subrrit written report detail-
ing the proposed fiscal or other programs to be
used in constructing and operating the facilities.
3. By May 3, 1971, submit a complete progress report
on all phases of compliance; with this Order.
4. By August 1, 3971, construction of the facilities
should commence and a icport should be submitted
containing the date of the start of coi^truction
and the estinitcd date of conpletion.
S, After August I, 1971, quavterly progrrsr, retort!,
shall bo submitted ?nd by August 28, 197?, it) 1
facilities shall have baen completed ?nd in Gyra-
tion.
-------
. A2-6
(») '/lie-si; ULKCYJ.'.'c TO mi'.:.'.;;'. i)ivj-:::r.jou oi-1 W^TJ:.^'!';-:.:!;.
OU Ca'Hiili JiCCJJ.'.'l'Al.'iJjli /JA'ill'.lvVl'IVKS
1. By December 1, IST/Ci, submit? a written report
containing a description of the specific con-
struction and other arrangements necessary to
implement the particular alternative chosen.
2. By February 1, 1971, submit a v;rittcn report
detailing the proposed fiscal or other program
to be followed in implementing the alternative,
•3. After pcbrusrry • 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 follov.'ing
address:
Texas Water Quality Board
1103 Lavac?. Street
Austin, Texas 78701
M'TN: 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 status
of each entity in meeting the provisions of this Order.
10. -That the Executive Director be instructed to undertake
a program to insure full compliance with this Order, to
keep the Hoard apprised of the status of coiaplizmcc with
the Order; and to seek, in appropriate cases, the fullest
possible prosecution of any violations of the terns and
-------
A2-7
provi:-.io:;.- of tin j; Order,
11. 'j'iuit the proyiuions of this; Order shall be; appl ieiibl'j to
•all waste discharges within the Clear La):c V/atcrclicd in-
cluding those waste dischnryes nuthoirizcd by O'exiss V.'atcir
Quality Hoard V.'nsto control Or.der.s issued to the entities
listed in Exhibit A of this Order.
Issued this the 28th day of August, 1970.
TEXAS WATER QUALITY BOARD
Gordon Fulcher, Chairman
(Seal)
ATTEST:
Hugh C. Yantis, Jr.t Executive Director
-------
ATTACHMENT NO. 3
HOUSTON - GALVESTON AREA COUNCIL
PROPOSED REGIONALIZATION PROGRAM
FOR
WASTE ABATEMENT
-------
GREENS BAYOU AP.EA
TV.'QB
WCO #
10962
10876
10DS2
106CO
10919
Owning |j Receiving
Agency | Stream
Cypress-
Fairbanks
I.S.D.
j
i White Oak
Bayou
l!
Harris *, White Oak
County
FWSD #61
Cypress-
Fairbanks
I.S.D.
City of
Jersey
Village
White Oak
Dev. Co.
Oak Glen
Bldg. Co.
10699 I Mayflower
j Invest. Co.
I '•
10610
i |
Southern ]
San. Corp.
: Bayou
i
Greens Bayou
' White Oak
i Bayou
i
; White Oak
• Bayou
Greens Bayou
. Halls Bayou
Halls
: Bayou
1
t
; I
Design jj Estimated 8
Capacity 1 Current x Role in Proposed Plan
(Avg. Flow), | Load |
0.025
0.100
0.064
0.066
0.050
0.500
0.500
0.350
0.025
0.100
0.060
0.066
0.019
None
0.023
0.350
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 1 System between
1975 and 1990.
Phase into Regional System between
1975 and 1990.
>
i
-------
GREENS BAYOU AREA
TWQ3
v;co 4?
10648
10518
10756
10809
10825
10419
Owning
Agency
Receiving
Stream
\
Trailer £ Greens
Park * Bayou
Harris Co. jf.Greens Bayou
FWSD £45 |
Northern
Terrace
No. Houston
Ind.
Imperial
*
\ Ha 11s Bayou
: Greens Bayou
•'
.Greens Bayou
Valley J
VJest Road f. Greens Bayou
I.D. |
i
Powell' s
Nursing
Home
Durkee
Manor
10694 jJetero
{ Lumber Co.
1
10453 tGalco
i
i
Utilities
j Ha 11s Bayou
:
i
• Halls Bayou
:
i
'. Greens Bayou
1
. Halls Bayou
f
Design jj Estimated
Capacity | Current
(Avg. Flow) I Load
Unknown
0.053
a. 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
0.122
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. >
N>
-------
GREENS BAYOU AREA
wco #
10953
10435
10495-
73
10236
10679
10705
10495-
14
10495-
45
10451
Owning
Agency
Aldine ISO
Crest San.
Corp.
Houston
Int.
Airport
Oakw'i Ide
Water Co.
Chatwood
PI.
Harris Co.
WCID #74
Sequoia
Estates
City of *
Hous ton i
'City of -
Houston
Harris Co.
WCID #76
! i
/
Receiving
Stream
Greens Bayou
.Greens Bayou
[ Greens Bayou
1
Halls Bayou
( Greens Bayou
•
1 Greens Bayou
.
1 Greens Bayou
, Halls Bayou
. Halls Bayou
i
I
; Greens Bayou
1
\
Design jj Estimated
Capacity 1 Cuzrent
(Aver. Flow), i Load
0.035
0.075
0.200
0.245
1.000
0.250
0.400
0.280
0.522
0.300
0.035
0.144
0.150
0.245
0.500
0.250
0.005
0.200
0.522
0.260
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 mgd 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.
10
-------
GREENS BAYOU AREA
T.-7Q3
WCO #
10737
10336
10495-
23
10495-
71
i;
Owning s Receiving
Agency t Stream
I
Harris Co.
WCID #59
Eastex
Oaks
City of
Houston
City of
Houston
'
,
Greens Bayou
l
; Greens Bayou
, Halls Bayou
i Greens Bayou
t
j
:
i
!
'
1
1
Design
Capacity
(Avg,. Flow)-.
0.565
1.000
1.250
0.300
|
Estimated
Current
Load
0.432
0.144
0.867
0.168
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
t
i
-------
ANAHUAC-MONT HELVIEU AREA
wco #
10400
10990
11109
Ovming
Agency
City of
Belvieu
Barbers
Hill ISO
Lincoln
Receiving
Stream
t
• Cedar Bayou
!
; Cotton Bayou
i
: Cedar Bayou
Cedars Sub-*'
division |
HUM Corp. |
Cedar Bayou'; Horsepen
Mobile Homcjj Bayou
Lakliv Inc.
R* R •
Herrington
Sr.
Dutton &
Gray
Bay Ridge
, Subdivisior
K
i
. Cotton Bayou
1
[ Cotton Bayou
; Trinity Bay
,
|
i
Si
> -s
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 Load
i
_______
0 . 1 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.
>
i
VI
-------
TEXAS CITY - LA MARQUE AREA
TVQB
WCO #
10770
10527
10172-
01
10173-
02
10375-
01
10375-
02
10410
10435
Owning fj Receiving
Agency | Stream
Bay View
MUD
i
Calves ton
Bay
Bacliff MUli Houston
r Lighting &
\ Power
; Outfall
Galyeston
Co. WCID
No. 1
STP £1
Calves ton
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 i
Dickinson
Bayou
, Dickinson
'• Bayou
• Moses Lake
• Moses Lake
1 Highland
Bayou
Highland
, Bayou
Design R Estimated
Capacity i Current
(Avg. Flow) A Load
0.25
1.00
1.20
0.50
5.00
0.80
1.90
0.05
•
O.OL
0 .12
0.50
0.06
5.00
0.61
1.90
0.04
i
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 1980. ,
Abandoned by 1990.
>
V*»
Abandoned by 1990. ^
-------
CLEAR LAKE AREA
T.VQB
WCO #
10495,79
10495,55
10435. 58
'
10522
10539
Sbr.e
Sone
i
u
Owning | Receiving
Agency | Stream
/ \
Houston •'••Through
(SE Plant) '• ditches to
i Clear Creek
Houston 1 | Through
(Beverly 1 ditches to
Hills) f, Clear Creek
Houston *• [ Through
'• (Eastridgo)S ditches to
f, Clear Creek
Harris Co . f-' Turkey Creek,
WCID 81 £ Clear Creek
4 1
.Clear Lake"]. Korsepen
City Water !• Bayou, Middle
Authority 5' Bayou, Mud
KASA-MSC
Pasadena *
(El Carey)
f
i
Lake, Clear
, Lake
Clear Lake
Clear Lake
,
!
'
1
,
Design
Capacity
(Avg. Flow).
Estimated
j Current
i Load
i
|
3.0 mgd | N.A.
0.368 mgd 1 0.40 mgd
0 . 28 mgd
0.25 mgd
2.25 mgd
0.31
Unknown
0. 12 mgd
0.25 mgd
1.75 mgd
0.25-0.50 mgc!
. 04 ngd
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
wco #
10336-
02
10836-
01
10690
10174
10958
10861
10771
Owning
Agency
K
Receiving
Stream
Flamingo j| Basford
Isle Corp. « Bayou Tribu-
| tary Canal
Flamingo j Basford
Isle Corp. | Bayou Tribu-
|' tary Canal
City of
Hitchcock
Galveston
Co. WCID
No. 8
Sun
'Meadows
MUD
Safari
Kobile
Home
Texas City
Dike
Marina
, Basford
Bayou
• Highland
, Bayou
! Dickinson
: Bayou
' Magnolia
' Bayou (A
, Dickinson
; Tributary)
• Galveston
; Bay
:•
j
»
Design
Capacity
(Avg. Flow)-.
0.20
0.20
0.50
0.04
0.01
0.007
0.0005
Estimated
Current
Load
None recorde<
0.29
0.03
0.005
None recordet
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.
>
CO
-------
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 QUALITY^BOAR
314 WEST IITH STREE
PO BOX 1324S CAPITOL STATION
AUSTIN. TEXAS
JAMES U CROSS
J E PEAVV. MD
BYRON TUNNELL
HUGH C YANTIS. JR
EMCUTIVI DIRCCTOR
PH. 479.2691
A C 912
--VV7
V>>--.-M-tf
PUBLIC HEARING NOTlCfi/ (_| J/,'
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 ir. 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
bqth 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
capita], and operating costs are expected to result from the new
(continued)
-------
A4-2
P.ublic 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 Januarv 1972.
Hugh C. Yantis, Jr., Executive Directo
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.
n
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
-------
All-It
Name
Cameron Iron Works
Cargill Inc.
Celanese Plastic Company
Charter International Oil
n
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 Hemour & 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
n
General Portland Cement Co.
Gibraltor Galvanizing Co.
Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.
n
Grief Bros. Cooperage Corp.
Groendyke Transport Co.
n
Gulf Coast Portland Cement
Gulf States Asphalt Co., Inc.
Helmerick & Payne Inc.
Hess Terminals
Hooker Chemical Corp.
ler 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
Horton & Horton, Inc.
Waste Control
Houston Lighting & Power Co.
Houston Lighting & Power Co.
Houston Natural Gas
Hughes Tool Company
Ideal Cement Company
John Mecora & 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.
Koppers Co., Inc.
Lead Products Co. Inc.
Lone Star Cement Corp.
n
Lubrizol Corporation
n
Meridiem Company
Missouri Kansas Texas RR
Hurray 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
-------
All-8
Name
Parker Bros. & Co. Inc.
n
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.
n
Plastic Applicators, Inc.
PPG Industries Inc.
ii
Premier Petrochemical
Reddy Ice Div.
Reichold Chemical Inc.
Rohm and Haas
,er 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
-------
Name
Waste Control
Order Number
Rohm and Haas
n
Rollins-Purle Inc.
Sand & R Oil Co.
Shell Chemical Company
•I
Shell Oil Company
n
n
H
n
n
u
"
•
H
•
n
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
-------
A4-10
Name
SMS Industries- Inc.
Southern Pacific Co.
It
Southland Paper Mills
Southland Paper Mills, Inc.
Southwest Chem. & Plastic Co.
Stran Steel Corp.
Stauffer Chemical Co.
Stauffer Chemical Co.
Superior Oil Company
Swift Agricultural Chem. Corp.
Tenneco Chemical, Inc.
Tenneco Oil Company
Texaco, Inc.
Haste 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
-------
Same
Tube Associates Inc.
Union•Carbide & Chemical Co.
Union Fquity Cooperative
Exchange
United States Gypsum Company
n
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
-------
TEXAS WATER QUALITY BOARD ««•«««>..
' J E PEAVY. MO
LESTER CLARK ...
VICC-CHAIRMAN . BYRON TONNELL
J. DOUG TOOLE S(wj: MUGH C" YANTIS- •"»
{'VfefCyW : EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
HARRV'P. DURLEICH \i^tP\/
^.Y.--^ PH 479-2091
AC. 812
314 WEST I1TH STREET 78701
PO BOX 13216 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 chat 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
wastd 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
------- |