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

-------