ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WATER QUALITY OFFICE
REPORT ON
POLLUTION AFFECTING
SHELLFISH HARVESTING
CALVESTON BAY, TEXAS
PREPARED BY
DIVISION OF FIELD INVESTIGATIONS - DENVER CENTER
AND
SOUTH CENTRAL REGION
DENVER,COLORADO
DALLAS .TEXAS
JANUARY 1971
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WATER QUALITY OFFICE
Report on
Pollution Affecting Shellfish Harvesting
in
Galveston Bay, Texas
Prepared by
Division of Field Investigations - Denver Center
and
South Central Region
Denver, Colorado Dallas, Texas
March 1971
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Title Page
LIST OF FIGURES „ iii
LIST OF TABLES v
I INTRODUCTION ; . . . 1
II SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 3
III RECOMMENDATIONS 11
IV DESCRIPTION OF AREA 15
A. PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION 15
B. CLIMATE 16
C. HYDROLOGY 17
D. POPULATION 19
E. ECONOMY 20
F. WATER USE 21
Municipal and Industrial Water Supply ... 21
Navigation 23
Recreation 24
Irrigation 25
Shellfish Harvesting 25
V WATER QUALITY 29
A. APPLICABLE STANDARDS 29
B. COLIFORM 31
C. HEAVY METALS AND PESTICIDES 36
D. OIL AND PETROCHEMICAL RESIDUES 40
E. DISSOLVED OXYGEN 44
F. BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND 47
VI WASTE SOURCES 51
A. MUNICIPAL AND DOMESTIC WASTE DISCHARGES . . 64
B. INDUSTRIAL WASTE DISCHARGES 65
C. OTHER SOURCES 75
VII ECONOMIC IMPACT OF POLLUTION 79
A. SHELLFISH AREAS CLOSED BY POLLUTION .... 79
B. PRODUCTIVE SHELLFISH BEDS IN CLOSED AREAS 81
C. ECONOMIC DAMAGES 83
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONT'D)
Section Title
VIII WATER QUALITY IMPACT OF FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS ... 87
A. HOUSTON WATER SUPPLY DIVERSION 87
B. CEDAR BAYOU POWER PLANT 90
C. MORGAN POINT DEEPWATER PORT 95
BIBLIOGRAPHY 97
APPENDICES
A APPLICABLE TEXAS1 WATER QUALITY
REQUIREMENTS FOR THE GALVESTON
BAY AREA AND THE PUBLIC HEALTH
SERVICE MANUAL "SANITATION OF
SHELLFISH GROWING AREAS"
B ODOR EVALUATION TEST PROCEDURES
AND RESULTS
ii
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure No.
IV-1
V-l
V-2
V-3
V-4
V-5
V-6
V-7
V-8
V-9
V-10
V-ll
Title
Calves ton Bay Area
Water Quality Standards Zones
in the Galveston Bay Area
Calves ton Bay Study Sampling
Stations and Classifications
of Shellfish Harvesting Areas
Isolines of Median Colifortn
Concentrations, Galveston Bay
Percent of Samples' with Total
Coliform Concentrations Greater
Than 230/100 ml, Galveston Bay
Isolines of Total Coliform Con-
centrations - Galveston Bay -
January 14, 1969
Isolines of Total Coliform Con-
centrations - Galveston Bay -
February 18, 1969
Isolines of Total Coliform Con-
centrations - Galveston Bay -
March 18, 1969
Isolines of Total Coliform Con-
centrations - Galveston Bay -
January 13, 1970
Isolines of Total Coliform Con-
centrations - Galveston Bay -
February 10, 1970
Isolines of Total Coliform Con-
centrations - Galveston Bay -
March 10, 1970
Water and Oyster Sampling Loca-
tions -- FWQA Reconnaissance
Survey, November 1970
Follows Page 16
Follows Page 30
Follows Page 32
Follows Page 34
Follows Page 34
Follows Page 34
Follows Page 34
Follows Page 34
Follows Page 34
Follows Page 34
Follows Page 34
Follows Page 46
iii
-------
LIST OF FIGURES (CONT'D)
Figure No. Title
VI-1 Permitted Wastewater Discharges Follows Page 51
in the Calves ton Bay Arra
VI-2 Permitted Suspended Solids Dis-
charges in Calves ton Bay Area Follows Page 51
VI-3 Permitted BOD Waste Discharges
in the Calves ton Bay Area Follows Page 51
VI-4 Permitted COD Waste Discharges
in the Calves ton Bay Area Follows Page 51
VII-1 Classifications of Shellfish
Harvesting Areas Follows Page 80
VIII-1 Future Development Follows Page 90
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table No. Title
IV-1 Municipal and Industrial USES of Water
in the Vicinity of Galveston Bay 1960,
and Projected 1990 and 2020 22
IV-2 Oyster Harvest and Value, Galveston Bay 26
V-l Summary of Texas Water Quality Standards
Applicable to Galveston Bay and
Houston Ship Channel 30
V-2 Median Values of Total Coliform Concen-
trations and Percen'tage of Samples
Greater Than 230 Coliform/100 ml at
Selected Stations in Galveston Bay
for Periods Dec.l968-April 1969 and
Dec.l969-April 1970 32
V-3 Median Fecal Coliform Concentrations and
Percentage of Samples with Fecal Coli-
form Concentrations Greater than 33/100 ml
at Selected Stations in Galveston Bay for
the Periods Dec.l968-April 1969 and
Dec.l969-April 1970 34
V-4 Concentrations of Heavy Metals Galveston
Bay - Houston Ship Channel 38
V-5 Metals Concentrations in Oysters from
Galveston Bay November 12, 1970 41
V-6 Evaluation of Galveston Bay Oyster Meats
for Odor 45
V-7 Comparison of BOD Standards with Observed
and Average Values 49
VI-l-A Municipal and Domestic Waste Discharges to
the Houston Ship Channel above Morgan
Point, Including Baytown Area 52
VI-l-B Municipal and Domestic Waste Discharges to
Galveston Bay 56
-------
LIST OF TABLES (CONT'D.)
Table No. Title Page
VI-2-A Waste Discharges from Petroleum, Chemical,
Plastics, and Rubber Industries to the
Houston Ship Channel or Its Tributaries
Above Morgan Point Including the Baytown
Area 58
VI-2-B Other Industrial Discharges to the Houston
Ship Channel or Its Tributaries 60
VI-2-C Waste Discharges from Petroleum, Chemical,
Plastics, and Rubber Industries to
Calves ton Bay or Its Tributaries 62
VI-2-0 Other Industrial Discharges to Calves ton
Bay or Its Tributaries 63
VI-3 Pollutants Associated with Various Petro-
chemical Processes 72
VI-4 Discharges of Heavy Metals to the Houston
Ship Channel 74
VI-5 Summary of Permitted Waste Discharges,
Galveston Bay Area 76
vi
-------
I. INTRODUCTION
Water quality standards were adopted for Galveston. Bay and
its tributaries by the Texas Water Quality Board in June 1967 and
accepted by the Secretary of the Interior on January 28, 1968 in
accordance with the Federal Water Quality Act of 196,5. Pollution
of these waters is subject to the provisions of Section 10, Federal
Water Pollution Control Act, as amended (33 U.S.C. 466 et seq.).
Section 10(a) of the Act provides that the pollution of navigable
waters in or adjacent to any State, which endangers the health
or welfare of any persons, shall be subject to abatement.
Section 10(d) of the Act further provides that a Federal-
State conference shall be called whenever, on the basis of reports,
surveys, or studies, there is reason to believe that substantial
economic injury results from the inability to market shellfish
or shellfish products in interstate commerce because of pollution
of such waters, and because of action of Federal, State or local
authorities.
This report summarizes presently available information per-
taining to the quality of the Galveston Bay system; evaluates that
information with respect to applicable standards, statutes, regula-
tions, and criteria; and recommends a program which will lead to
compliance with established water quality uses.
Specific objectives of the report are:
(1) To describe existing water quality in the Galveston Bay
system.
-------
(2) To summarize presently available information pertaining
to sources of pollution.
(3) To evaluate the impact of present waste discharges on
water quality and uses, and to assess compliance with established
State and Federal regulations.
(A) To indicate the effect of projected water related devel-
opment upon water quality in the Galveston Bay system.
Sources of information contained in this report include: the
National Estuarine Pollution Study, FWQA; the Texas Water Quality
Board; the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department; the Texas State
Department of Health; the Texas Water Development Board; the
Galveston Bay Study (a cooperative Federal-State-local study
currently in progress), Texas ASM University and the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers. Limited field studies were also conducted by
the Division of Field Investigations, Denver Center, WQO - EPA,
to obtain additional data. The cooperation and contribution of
the various State, local and private organizations are gratefully
appreciated.
-------
II. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
The area considered in this report includes all of Calves ton
Bay, Texas, and its major tributary streams and embayments.
Nearly half of Galveston Bay is presently closed for shellfish
harvesting due to excessive bacteriological contamination and
the proximity to sewage and industrial waste effluents. Total
coliforra concentrations at two locations in the approved area of
Galveston Bay and one location in the approved area of West Bay
exceed the applicable criteria of 230 organisms per 100 milliliters
more than 10 percent of the time (Appendix B), based on monthly
samples collected by the Galveston Bay Study during the 1968-69
and 1969-70 shellfish harvesting seasons.
Under the applicable standards for shellfish harvesting,
sampling to determine approved and prohibited areas must be con-
ducted under the most unfavorable hydrographic and pollution
conditions. Ir. Galveston Bay, the most unfavorable hydrographic
and pollution conditions occur with northerly and northwesterly
winds as .well as precipitation. During the 1968-69 shellfish
harvesting season, these conditions occurred about 40 percent
of the time. On days when the most unfavorable hydrographic
and pollution conditions occur, virtually the entire approved
area in Galveston Bay, including the most productive reefs, have
total coliform concentrations exceeding the required criteria. If
sampling were regularly conducted under these conditions, nearly
-------
all of Galveston Bay would be closed to shellfish harvesting due
to excessive bacteriological pollution.
The major source of bacteriological pollution to both open and
closed areas for shellfish harvesting in Galveston Bay is the
Houston Ship Channel. The Clear Lake area also contributed to
excessive total coliform concentrations in the Bay. The City of
Galveston area, while not affecting concentrations in approved
areas, does discharge significant bacteriological pollution to the
closed areas. There are localized influences of bacteriological
pollution in West Bay approved areas from Chocolate Bayou and in
Galveston Bay proper from Double Bayou.
Of the more than 215 million gallons per day (MGD) of domestic
waste which are permitted by the Texas Water Quality Board to be dis-
charged to Galveston Bay and its tributaries, about 110 MGD is raw,
inadequately treated and/or unchlorinated. As of January 1971, the
two largest sewage treatment plants of the City of Houston which dis-
charge to the Ship Channel area, the Northside and Sims Bayou plants,
account for 103 MGD of unchlorinated discharge. The effluent from
each of these plants contained nearly 35,000,000 total coliform
organisms per 100 milliliters during February 1969 sampling.
Oil and hydrocarbon residues were observed in oysters taken
from both approved and prohibited areas of Galveston Bay, ranging
from 23 parts per million (ppm) and 26 ppm in the approved area to
237 ppm in a prohibited area near the mouth of the Houston Ship
-------
Channel. These hydrocarbons are not generated by the oysters
themselves but derived from petroleum wastes. The concentrations
observed in oysters taken from approved areas in Galveston Bay are
from two to six times greater than concentrations in oysters from
West Falmouth 7Jay, Massachusetts. The State of Massachusetts
closed West Falmouth Harbor to shellfish harvesting, based on
residues in oyster tissue ranging between 4.0 ppm and 12.0 ppm.
Odor tests on Galveston Bay oysters showed unacceptable concentra-
tions of odor-causing materials in all samples from both approved
and prohibited harvesting areas. The intensity of odor became less
as distance from the Houston Ship Channel increased. There is a
health hazard, in addition to bacteriological pollution, associated
with consumption of Galveston Bay oysters due to the presence of
oil and hydrocarbon residues in excessive concentrations.
According to 1968 Texas Water Quality Board permits, there
are 75 sources of petroleum refining or related industrial effluents
in the Galveston Bay area. These effluents constitute a permitted
discharge of nearly 423 KGD with a total of 1,144,000 pounds per day
of chemical oxygen demand. The permits allow the discharge of
more than 55,000 pounds per day of oil and grease from 81 sources,
although this is in direct violation of Section 11-b of the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act as amended. The Texas Water Quality
Requirements specify that receiving waters shall be "substantially
free" of oil. Seventy-four of these sources are located on the
Houston Ship Channel, accounting for 98 percent of the total
-------
permitted discharge. The maj'or industries permitted to discharge
oil and grease arc: Diamond Shamrock Corporation at Deer Park,
U. S. Plywood-Champion Paper '.Company, Armco Steel Company, Atlantic
Richfield Company, Humble Oil and Refining Company, Southland Paper
Mills, Shell Chemical Company, and Crown Central Petroleum Company.
These eight sources account for 86 percent of the permitted dis-
charges .
It is estimated that 1,600 pounds per day of lead, 5,000
pounds per day of cadmium, 400 pounds per day of phenols, 7,900
pounds per day of zinc, 300 pounds per day of chromium and at
least 1,000 pounds per day of cyanide are discharged, primarily to
the Houston Ship Channel. Concentrations of these heavy metals
and toxic compounds in the waters of Galveston Bay and the Houston
Ship Channel range from 8.5 times greater than background in
natural seawater for nickel, to 108,000 times greater than
background for chromium. These concentrations indicate substantial
contamination of the receiving waters by waste discharges. Con-
centrations of toxic compounds in the Houston Ship Channel are three
times greater than levels which could be tolerated for normal algal
growth. The known major dischargers of heavy metals contamination
are Diamond Shamrock Company,; Armco Steel Company, Olin Mathieson
Corporation, Houston Northside sewage treatment plant, U. S. Plywood-
Champion Paper Company, Humble Oil and Refining Company (Baytown),
and Shell Chemical Company (Deer Park). These sources discharge more than
-------
500 pounds per day as determined by sampling conducted by the
Texas Water Quality Board in February 1969. Although the health
hazard and specific numerical, criteria associated with concentrations
of heavy metals and toxic substances has not been established by the
appropriate regulatory agencies, the Texas Water Quality Requirements
prohibit acute or chronic toxicity to human, animal, or aquatic life.
Dissolved oxygen and biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) criteria
established by the State of Texas for the Houston Ship Channel
are almost continually violated due to the discharge of municipal
and industrial wastes. Although the Texas Water Quality Board
permits specify that 180,800 pounds per day of BOD may be discharged
from municipal and industrial sources to the Houston Ship Channel,
studies conducted in the Channel during 1968 and 1969 indicate
that as much as 363,000 pounds per day of five-day BOD is the actual
loading. The aggregate total'of waste discharges to the Ship
Channel is in substantial nonrcompliance with the Texas Water
Quality Board permits.
The 1968 permits allow the discharge of 315,000 pounds per day
of suspended solids to the Houston Ship Channel. Bottom material
dredged from the Ship Channel' contains substantial quantities of
organic sludges, oil and other pollutants characteristic of wastes
discharged to the Channel. About one-third of the BOD loading and
one-half of the suspended solids discharged from waste sources
settle out and are incorporated in the bottom sediments. These
-------
waste materials contribute a substantial portion of the sediments
which must periodically be removed by dredging. The total project
cost incurred by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for dredging the
Houston Ship Cnannel in 1970 is $2,807,000. The disposal of this
highly organic spoil may cause water quality problems through disper-
sion of pollutants and through exercise of oxygen demand from the
volatile material contained.
The total permitted discharge of waste effluent to Galveston
Bay and its tributaries is approximately 779 MGD which may contain
583,000 pounds per day of suspended solids, 270,000 pounds per day
of BOD and 1,657,000 pounds per day of chemical oxygen demand (COD).
Of this total, 92.6 percent of the suspended solids, 85.5 percent
of the BOD and 92.8 percent of the COD are allocated to industrial
sources. Industrial sources contribute about 72 percent of the
total waste flow.
Of the 277 municipal and industrial waste sources having
discharge permits in the Galveston Bay area, the waste treatment
needs and status of 189 are not listed. Where needs are indicated,
40 sources provide inadequate or no treatment and no abatement,
beyond engineering studies in a few instances, is in progress.
Seventeen sources have treatment facilities in progress; 22 are
said to be in compliance with permit requirements. Nine sources
either provide adequate treatment or have no needs.
The City of Houston discharges wastes from 41 treatment plants,
only eight of which have flows greater than 1 MGD. Harris County
-------
sewer districts discharge wastes from 27 sources, only one of
which has a flow of 1 MGD. Galveston has three sources and
Baytown has five. The multiplicity of waste treatment plants does
not provide adequate operations to assure thi best treatment of
domestic sewage.
The development of an electrical power plant at Cedar Bayou
by the Houston Lighting and Power Company will eventually require
about 5,000 cubic feet per second (cfs) of cooling water. Some
of the intake cooling water will consist of grossly polluted
water from the lower reaches of the Hduston Ship Channel. The
heated water will be discharged to the relatively unpolluted
Trinity Bay. Water temperature in a large portion of Trinity
Bay will be raised above background. Trinity Bay is the major
spawning area for commerical shrimp in Galveston Bay.
The present actual economic loss to the Galveston Bay area
caused by inability to market shellfish due to pollution ranges
between $86,000 and $258,000 annually at dockside. If excessive
hydrocarbon or heavy metals concentrations in oysters and/or
sampling'under the most unfavorable hydrographic and pollution
conditions, as required, caused the closure of all Galveston Bay
to shellfish harvesting, the potential damage would be substan-
tially greater. The final retail value of shellfish products is
roughly four times the dockside value. The total actual damages
caused by pollution affecting shellfish harvesting in Galveston Bay
are between $359,000 and $1,045,000 annually.
-------
10
Sewage and industrial wastes discharged to Galveston Bay and
its tributaries are causing substantial economic injury resulting
from the inability to market shellfish or shellfish products in
interstate commerce. Accordingly, the pollution of these navigable
waters is subject to abatement under the provisions of Section 10
of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended (33 U.S.C.
1151 et seq.).
-------
11
III. RECOMMENDATIONS
To eliminate the health hazard associated with consumption
of shellfish from the Galveston Bay system and to abate the
existing pollution, it is recommended that:.
1) Due to concentrations of oil and hydrocarbon residues in
oysters taken from approved areas in Galveston Bay, the Texas State
Department of Health, in cooperation with the Food and Drug Administration,
ascertain the extent of health hazard incurred, and, if warranted,
recommend closure of Galveston Bay to shellfish harvesting. Consideration
be given to prohibition of all commercial fishing in Galveston Bay until
it has been ascertained that the marine species taken from the Bay are
suitable for human consumption
2) Sampling for determining bacteriological acceptability of
areas for shellfish harvesting in Galveston Bay be conducted under
the most unfavorable hydrographic and pollution conditions as required
by applicable regulations. The most unfavorable hydrographic and
pollution conditions occur with northerly and/or northwesterly winds
during or following periods of precipitation.
3) Effective disinfection of all waste sources contributing
bacteriological pollution to Galveston Bay be provided. A program of
centralization and abandonment of small plants be undertaken to assure
the best treatment for domestic sewage, with an implementation schedule
to be submitted to the Conferees within three months of the date of the
first session of the Galveston Bay Enforcement Conference.
-------
12
A) A waste source survey be conducted on all sources of
domestic and industrial waste permitted by the Texas Water Quality
Board to discharge effluent to Calveston Bay and its tributaries.
This survey should characterize and quantify specific compounds
being discharged and include recommendations and scheduling of
abatement measures. A characterization and scheduling of abatement
for the 55 waste sources discharging more than 500,000 gallons per
day be submitted to the Conferees within eight months of the date
of the first session of the Galveston Bay Enforcement Conference.
The Texas Water Quality Board permits'be amended to reflect the
recommendations of this waste source survey including the compliance
schedule.
5) The Texas Water Quality Board permits be amended to
immediately prohibit the discharge of oil and grease as well as
toxic materials from all waste sources.
6) The additional costs incurred by the Corps of Engineers
for dredging of the Houston Ship Channel and the effect on water
quality due to disposal of the organic sludge be evaluated. Rec-
ommendations of this evaluation include an assessment of damages
among the waste dischargers to the Channel and, location of suit-
able spoil disposal areas to minimize or eliminate deleterious
effects on water quality.
7) The Houston Lighting and Power Company be required to
abate the waste heat load to be discharged from the Cedar Bayou
-------
13
plant to Trinity Bay such that the monthly mean of the maximum
daily temperatures not be raised more than 4 F during the fall,
winter and spring (September through May), or by more than 1.5 F
during the summer (June through August) at tie point of discharge.
A cooling system incorporating recirculation and reuse be installed
at the Cedar Bayou power plant. The Houston Lighting and Power
Company also insure that no deleterious effects or impairment of
water quality occur in Trinity Bay by reason of the use of a polluted
source for cooling water.
8) A committee be appointed to make recommendations to the
Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare and the Administrator
of the Environmental Protection Agency within one year from the
date of establishment, on interim specific numerical criteria in
both water and meat for acceptance of shellfish and other commer-
cially valuable species taken from Galveston Bay. The specific
numerical criteria to include bacteriological, oil and hydrocarbon
residue, taste and odor, as well as other acute and chronically
toxic or growth-inhibiting parameters. The committee include
representatives of the Food and Drug Administration and the
Environmental Protection Agency, in cooperation with appropriate
Texas regulatory agencies.
9) Color of the waste effluent from U.S. Plywood-Champion
Paper Company and Southland Paper Mills be reduced to natural
background occurring in uncontaminated area waters.
-------
10) An assessment be made of the total waste load which can
be discharged to Galveston Bay and/or its tributaries to meet
applicable State and Federal water quality standards as well as
the recommendations of this report. This waste load be allocated
among individual waste dischargers and not be exceeded regard-
less of future development.
-------
15
IV. DESCRIPTION OF AREA
A. PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION
Galveston Bay is located in southeastern Texas on the Gulf of
Mexico about 2.5 miles southeast of Houston, the largest city in
the State. The Galveston Bay estuarine system, consisting of four
large bays, Galveston, Trinity, East, and West Bays, and numerous
smaller bays, creeks and bayous, has a total surface area of
about 533 square miles and is the largest estuary on the Texas
coast. The combined shoreline totals 245 miles.
The major bays are broad and shallow, averaging less than ten
feet in depth. The smaller bays, creeks and bayous are shallow and
sluggish. Marshes border the open water in many areas.
Most of the land surface adjacent to the bay system is only a
few feet above sea level and is virtually flat for about 50 miles
inland from the Gulf of Mexico. The natural drainage is poorly
defined and has been altered by irrigation, drainage canals, and
other man-made waterways.
Impoundments on the Trinity and San Jacinto Rivers regulate
fresh water inflows from these streams. As a result, the hydrology
of the estuary is influenced primarily by inflows from an area of
3,600 square miles in the immediate vicinity. The area includes
600 square mil^s of the lower Trinity River Basin, 1,500 square
miles of the lower San Jacinto River Basin, and 1,500 square miles
which drain directly into the bay system through bayous and
-------
16
creeks. The total drainage area of Calveston Bay is 24,300 square
miles of which 17,800 square miles is in the Trinity River system
and 3,900 square miles in the San Jacinto system. The remaining
2,500 square miles is from numerous small streams draining to
the bay.
Three major passages connect the estuary with the Gulf of
Mexico. San Luis Pass and Rollover Pass, an artificial fish
passage, are outlets for West and East Bays, respectively. The
largest passage is Bolivar Roads, located between Galveston Island
and Bolivar Peninsula. This openeing is the primary outlet for
the estuarine system.
Several navigation channels are located in the estuary. Of
major importance is the Houston Ship Channel, a dredged deep-draft
channel which enters Bolivar Roads, traverses Galveston Bay, the
San Jacinto River and Buffalo Bayou, and terminates in Houston
about 50 miles from the Gulf of Mexico. Shorter deep-draft
channels connect port facilities in Galveston and Texas City
with the shallow-draft Intracoastal Waterway which traverses
East and West Bays. Other shallow waterways connect various
points in the estuary system. The area under consideration is
illustrated in Figure IV-1.
B. CLIMATE
The average annual rainfall in the Houston area is approxi-
mately 45 inches per year, with monthly rainfall evenly distributed
-------
-------
17
throughout the year. Thunderstorms are the main source of precipi-
tation, with rainfall of several inches per day not uncommon.
Temperatures are moderated by the influence of winds from the
Gulf, which result in mild winters and warm 'mmid summers. Average
daily temperatures range from about 53 F in uhe winter to about 83 F
in the summer, with an annual mean temperature of 69 F.
Prevailing winds are from the southeast and south, except in
January, when frequent passages of high pressure areas bring
prevailing northerly winds. Thundersqualls and tropical storms
with high wind velocities occasionally pass through the area.
C. HYDROLOGY
Freshwater inflow to the estuarine system from the Trinity
and San Jacinto Rivers and other coastal streams averages about
11,300 cubic feet per second (cfs), or an average annual volume of
8.2 million acre-feet. Both the rate of inflow and the annual
runoff fluctuate widely. For example, in 1965 the average weekly
inflow varied from less than 1,000 cfs to more than 45,000 cfs.
Between 1941 and 1957, total annual inflow varied from less than
2 million acre-feet to more than 20 million acre-feet. Precipita-
tion falling directly on the water surface of the estuary contributes
a fresh water inflow of about 1.4 million acre-feet annually.
The location, relative magnitude and variability of the major
sources of freshwater exert a strong influence on water quality in
the estuarine system. The Trinity and San Jacinto Rivers together
-------
18
contribute almost 90 percent of total freshwater inflow. With an
average annual flow rate of 7,900 cubic feet per second, the Trinity
River strongly influences salinity levels in Trinity Bay. The
Houston Ship C lannel traverses the lower ten miles of the San
Jacinto River. High flows in the river thus tend to flush degraded
water from the middle reach of the ship channel out into Calveston
Bay. Buffalo Bayou, a small stream with a drainage area of about
360 square miles, discharges into the upper end of the ship channel
in the City of Houston. Peak flows in the bayou following heavy
rainfall frequently flush the water contained in the upper 25
miles of the ship channel, into Galveston Bay.
A major portion of the water supply for municipal and industrial
purposes in the Galveston Bay area is obtained from groundwater
sources. The principal freshwater aquifer in the area is the
Gulf Coast Aquifer which has a saturated depth exceeding 3,000 feet.
Recharge of the aquifer is adequate to sustain the present rate of
pumping if the withdrawal points were adequately dispersed. Sus-
tained heavy withdrawals in local areas have caused overdrafts
of the aquifer. Declining water tables, land subsidence and
salinity intrusion problems have resulted. A reduction in ground
water withdrawals is expected in the future as these problems
become more severe and alternate surface supplies become available.
Two types of tides occur in the Galveston Bay estuary during
normal weather. Diurnal tides, with an average range of 1.25 feet,
exist during too to three weeks per month, and semi-diurnal tides,
-------
19
with an average range of 0.5 feet, prevail during the remaining
period. The complex geometry of the bay causes amplifications and
reflections of normal tidal effects resulting in considerable
spatial variation in tides. During unusual readier conditions,
such as high winds or the passage of a cold front, the Galveston
Bay tides become wind-dominated and no consistent tidal performance
can be observed.
Current measurements made by the Corps of Engineers show that
ebb and flood currents in the Houston Ship Channel are about 1.5
feet per second—. In shallow areas of Galveston Bay, water currents
average between 0.3 and 0.4 feet per second. However, in some of
the passes and channels between reefs, currents may range as high
as four feet per second.
D. POPULATION
The population of the Galveston Bay Basin, including three
counties and portions of four additional counties, was estimated at
1.4 million in 1960. By 1968, the population had increased to an
estimated 1.8 million. The Houston Standard Metropolitan Statistical
Area (SMSA), with 1970 population of 1.9 million, and the Calveston-
Texas City SMSA, with combined 1970 population of 178,000, are the
most important urban areas.
I/ Bobb, W. H., and R. A. Boland, Jr., Galveston Bay Hurricane Surge
Study, Technical Report H-69-12, July 1970, U.S. Army Engineer
Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi.
-------
20
The population of the area is expected to continue the rapid
growth rate of recent years. Projections indicate that the popula-
tion of the area will triple by the year 2020.
E. ECONOMY
The economy of the area rests heavily on manufacturing, chiefly
in the petrochemical field. Manufacturing is concentrated around
the southern and western shores of Calveston Bay, in the Houston
metropolitan area, and along the Houston Ship Channel. This concen-
tration is expected to become more pronounced as the potential
development of the area is realized.
Since construction of the Houston Ship Channel in 1914, Houston
has become a major port, now surpassed in total tonnages handled by
only two other U.S. ports, New York and New Orleans. The require-
ment for sites located near the Texas oil fields and major shipping
lanes has led to intensive development along the Ship Channel of
refineries, chemical and petrochemical manufacturing plants.
Fertilizer factories, gypsum and cement plants, two steel mills,
paper manufacturing and other industrial facilities are also located
adjacent or in close proximity to the Ship Channel.
Location of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's
Manned Spacecraft Center near Clear Lake on Galveston Bay has
attracted associated components of the aerospace industry to the
Houston metropolitan area and has helped to diversify the economy.
The service industries and local, State, and Federal govern-
ment are presently the largest employers in the area. This category
-------
21
of employment along with employment by the trade industries is
projected to substantially increase in the future relative to
employment in manufacturing and other categories.
F. WATER USE
A variety of beneficial uses is made of the waters of the
Galveston Bay estuarine system and tributary streams. The most
important of these uses include municipal and industrial water
supply, propagation of fish and wildlife, navigation, recreation,
and irrigation. The rapidly expanding electrical power requirements
for the Galveston Bay area are being paralleled by increased use of
water for cooling purposes.
Municipal and Industrial Water Supply
Water use for municipal and industrial purposes other than
condenser cooling water was estimated in 1960 to total about 608,000
acre-feet per year (544 million gallons per day-HGD) for the
Galveston Bay area. Almost 80 percent of this water supply was
obtained from groundwater, as shown in Table IV-1. The relative
use of water at various locations in the area is also shown in the
table. It is estimated that average annual water use will total
about 1.7 million acre-feet (1,520 MGD) by 1990 and 3.3 million
acre-feet (2,850 MGD) by 2020.
In 1968, nine public utility steam electric generating plants
were operating in the vicinity of Galveston Bay. These plants
have a production capacity of 3,632 megawatts and a peak demand
-------
ro
ro
TABLE IV-1
MUNICIPAL AND INDUSTRIAL USES OF WATER IN THE VICINITY OF GALVESTON BAY
1960, AND PROJECTED 1990 AND 2020
(1,000 acre-feet per year)
Neches-Trinity Coastal
Trinity
Trinity-San Jacinto Coastal
San Jacinto
San Jacinto-Brazos Coastal
Total
2
3
1
2
1
Ground
0.1
24.3
21.8
356.1
80.9
483.2
1960
Surface
5.6
-
26.2
33.6
60.0
125.4
Projected 1990
Total
5.7
24.3
48.0
389.7
140.9
608.6
Ground
-
48.8
17.7
231.0
42.8
340.3
Surface
23.6
18.6
. 70.0
944.2
305.0
1,361.4
Total
23
67
87
1,175
347
1,701
.6
.4
.7
.2
.8
.7
Projected 2020
Ground
-
49.1
25.0
161.9
42.8
278.8
Surface
53.0
92.3
127.2
2,154.1
636.4
3,063.0
Total
53.0
141.4
152.2
2,316.0
679.2
3,341.8
Source: Texas Water Development Board, The Texas Water Plan. Austin, Texas, November 1968.
-------
23
capacity of 4,200 megawatts. The nine plants use about 1,900 MGD
for once-through cooling and about 17 MGD of water for consumptive
cooling purposes. In 1967 there were 18 industrial generating plants
in the area with an installed capacity great ;r than 1,000 kilowatts.
The total installed capacity of the 18 plants is about 1,168 megawatts.
These plants use about 870 MGD for once-through cooling and about 8
MGD for consumptive cooling purposes. Condenser use and consumptive
use are projected to increase to 12,000 MGD and 86 MGD, respectively,
by 1990. Comparable projections for 2020 arc 24,000 MGD and 288 MGD.
Navigation
The Houston-Calveston-Texas City port complex is one of the
largest deep-water harbor areas in the United States. The tonnage
handled by these three ports in 1966 was greater than 82 million
short tons. Several smaller ports in the Galveston Bay area added
about 2 million short tons of shipping to the 1966 total. Principal
exports and imports include raw and refined petroleum and petroleum
products, chemicals and related products, grain and food products,
iron ore .and sulphur.
Commercial shipping is generally of two types: Ocean-going
traffic which enters Galveston Bay through the entrance channel,
and shallow-draft barge traffic which moves through inland channels
to and from terminals on the Gulf Intracoast*! and other inland
waterways. Vessel traffic during 1966 amounted to about 19,500
ocean-going ships and 77,900 shallow-draft barges.
-------
24
Two planned developments, a shallow-draft channel to open the
Trinity River to navigation upstream to the Dallas-Fort Worth area
and a new deep-water port facility at Morgan Point, are expected
to bring about additional ship and barge traffic in the Galveston
Bay area.
Recreation
The major water-oriented recreation activities in the Galveston
Bay area are swimming, boating, camping, picnicking, water sports,
2/
fishing, and hunting— . In a 27-count;y study area which included
the Galveston Bay area, there v;ere 69,000 feet of established salt-
water beaches, 160 boat ramps, and about 2,300 boat-car parking
spaces in 1968. A shortage of 9,000 campsites is expected by 1975.
Dock and pier space for saltwater fishing totaled 369,000 square
feet in 31 structures.
Increases in population, available leisure time and personal
incomes contribute to the growing demands for recreational facili-
ties. Because it is adjacent to the most populated metropolitan
center in Texas, Galveston Bay is probably the most important
coastal area in terms of recreational resources. The full value of
this resource cannot be realized unless suitable water quality is
maintained.
2J Texas Water Quality Board, Socio-Economic Stody, Galveston Bay
Area. A report to the Federal Water Pollution Control
Administration in fulfillment of a contract, Austin, Texas,
l$ay 1969.
-------
25
Irrigation
The total irrigated acreage in the vicinity of Galveston Bay
in 1964 was about 258,000 acres. Irrigation water is obtained from
ground and surface sources and is used principally for rice produc-
tion. The irrigated acreage is projected to increase to 278,000
acres in 1990 and 297,000 acres in 2020.
Shellfish Harvesting
Commercial fishing and shellfishing in the Galveston Bay
system amounts to nearly five million .pounds per year, providing
year-round employment for bay area residents as well as seasonal
employment for commercial fishermen from Louisiana coastal areas.
The amount and value of oysters harvested from the Galveston
Bay estuary has fluctuated significantly from year to year. Oyster
harvest data for the 1955-1969 period are presented in Table IV-2.
For this period, the annual harvest of oyster meat ranged from
311,000 pounds in 1958 to 4,836,000 pounds in 1965. The correspond-
ing range in dockside value of the meat was $118,000 in 1958 to
$1,604,000 in 1966. The average price for oyster meat fluctuated
independently of the Galveston Bay supply and ranged from $0.28 per
pound in 1957 and 1959 to $0.44 per pound in 1967 and 1968.
Examination of the data shows a sharp increase in oyster
harvest beginning in 1959. This change was tempoarily reversed in
1961 by Hurricane Carla which extensively damaged shellfish beds.
The harvest rapidly increased between 1961 and 1965, the peak
-------
26
TABLE IV-2
OYSTER HARVEST AND VALUE
GALVESTON BAY, TEXAS
Total Oyster Harvest
Year
1955
1956
1957
1958
1959
1960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
Total
Average
1963-69
Average
Source :
Oyster Heat
(1,000 Ibs.)
543
986
953
311
1,411
2,296
1,096
1,211
2,618
3,357
4,836
4,083
2,993
2,839
3,447
32,980
iJ.,199
3,453
Texas Parks &
Market Value
($1,000)
160
285
262
118
396
655
329
473
914
1,093
1,538
1,604
1,320
1,250
N.A.
10,397
743
1,270
Wildlife Departm
Average
Price
0.30
0.29
0.28
0.38
0.28
0.29
0.30
0.39
0.35
0.33
0.32
0.39
0.44
0.44
N.A.
-
0.34
0.38
ent.
Bed
Area
(Acres)
8,800
8,800
8,800
8,800
8,800
8,600
8,600
8,600
8,600
8,600
8,600
8,900
8,900
8,900
9,100
-
8,760
8,800
Oyster
Yield
(Ibs. /Ac.)
62
112
108
35
160
268
128
141
305
391
562
458
336
319
378
-
251
392
-------
27
harvest year. During this period, the approved area for shellfish
harvesting remained constant. Other factors, such as a decrease in
the size limit for harvesting oysters and an increase in the
number of out-of-state oystermen taking shellfish from the estuary,
are believed to account for much of the increase in harvest. For
the past three years, the harvest has been relatively constant,
indicating a stable production may be occurring.
-------
28
-------
29
V. WATER QUALITY
A. APPLICABLE STANDARDS
The Texas Water Quality Requirements provide specific numerical
criteria for fourteen zones in the Galvcston Bay area. The locations
of these zones arc shown in Figure V-l. Table V-l summarizes the
applicable criteria.
The Requirements also provide for classification of shellfish
producing areas, as "approved," "conditionally approved," "restricted,"
or "prohibited," based upon criteria contained in the U.S. Public Health
»
Service manual, "Sanitation of Shellfish Growing Areas," 1965, revised.
The criteria for approved shellfish areas are, in summary form:
(1) The area is not so contaminated with fecal material that
consumption of shellfish might be hazardous.
(2) The area is not so contaminated with radionuclides or
industrial wastes that consumption of the shellfish might be
hazardous.
(3) The coliform median MPN of the water does not exceed
70/100 ml, and not more than 10 percent of the samples ordinarily
exceed an MPN of 230/100 ml (5 tube decimal dilution test) measured
under the most unfavorable hydrographic and pollution conditions.
The Texas Water Quality Requirements and the Shellfish
Sanitation Manual are reproduced in Appendix A.
-------
30
TABLE V-l
SUMMARY OF TEXAS WATER QUALITY STANDARDS APPLICABLE TO GALVESTON BAT AND HOUSTON SHIP CHANNEL
0901
0902
0901
0904
Zone
- Gulf of Mexico at Galveatoa
- Trinity River Tidel
- San Jacinto River Tidal
- Houaton Ship Channel
(Turning Basin area)
Chloride
Average
ma/ 1
20,000
6,000
10.000
4.000
Sulphate
OK/1
3,000
300
1.000
600
Filterable
Residue
Average
m/1
45,000
10,000
20.000
9.500
BOD
Average
TWt/1
1.0
4.0
2.0
7.0
Dissolved Oxygen
not less than
nt/1
7.0
6.0
4.0
1.3
MPN
Log.
Average
per 100 ml
3.0
1,000
50
100,000
pH Temperature
Rama F
7.0-9.0
7.0-9.0
6.2-8.S g
6.0-8.J 03
Suitable
A.I
A. I
A.I
>,!.»
Efti/
Known
A
A
A,I
IiB
0905 - Uouaton Ship Qunnal 7.000
(San Jaclnto Monument to
Tuning Baaln)
0906 - Houaton Ship Qunnal 10.000
(llorgan Point to Saa Jaclnto
Monument)
0907 - Claar Laka
0908 - Texas City Ship Channel
1101 - EMC Day
1102 - Calvoaton Bay (Eaat of Houaton
Ship Channel, Bounded by
Channel Marker 68, Fisher
Shoals Day Deacon II, Lone
Oak Bayou, Smith Point, Banna
Roof and Bolivar Peninsula)
1103 - Trinity Bay and Calvoaton Bay 10.000
(East of Houaton Ship Channel
and North of Channel Marker
68 and Fisher Shoala Day
Beacon fl)
1104 - CalvaaUD Bay (Wait of Houaton 12,000
Ship Channel)
1105 - West Bay (Eaat of Carancahua 16,000
Roof)
1106 - Heat Bay (Uaat of Carancahua 16,000
Raaf)
1.000 16.000
1.000 20.000
3.0
2.0
5.000
17,000
12,000
12.000
700
2.000
1.200
1.200
12,000
35,000
23,000
25,000
3.0
8.0
3.0
4.0
700 20,000
1,500
2.000
2,000
25.000
32,000
32.000
S.O
6.0
3.0
2.S
2.0
4.0
6.0
3.0
6.0
6.0
3.0
5.0
5.0
6.0
10.000 6.0-8.S
50
70
1,000
70
70
70
70
70
70
6.2-8.S
7.0-9.0
7.0-9.0
7.04.0
7.0-9.0
7.0-9.0
7.0-9.0
7.0-9.0
7.0-9.6
B.I B.I
A.I A.I
A.I
A.I
A.I
A.I
A.I A.I
A, I
A.I
A.I
A.I
NARRATIVE CRITERIA APPLICABLE TO ALL ZONES
1. Toxicity and Toxic llatorlala - These vatara ahall not exhibit cither acute or chronic toxiclty (or other harmful affact) to huoan, animal, or
aquatic Ufa to such on extent aa to Interfere with uaee of the vatara.
2. Free or Floating Oil - Substantially free from oil.
3. Foaming or Frothing Material - Nona of a persistent nature.
4. Other - The control of other aubatancaa not heretofore mentioned will be guided by the U.S. Public Health Service manual, "Sanitation of
Shellfish Crowing Area," 1965 revision. Where watera are not ahellflah growing areal. It la required only that watara entering or contlguoua
to a shellfish growing area not interfere with the ahellflah growing area.
5. Radioactive Materials - Levels of lonliing radiation and radioactive materials of all kinde. from both dissolved and suspended matter, ahall be
regulated by the Texas Radiation Control Act, Article 4590 (f), Revised Civil Statutes of Texas, and the Texas Regulations for Control of
Radiation Issued thereunder.
I/ Key to Water Uses.
Croup A - Contact Recreation, Non-Contact Recreation, Flab and Wildlife, Fiahing, Aaathetlca, Navigation.
Croup D - Non-Contact Recreation, Aaathatlea. Navigation.
Croup E - Aesthetics.
Croup I - Industrial Cooling Water.
Group H - Navigation.
-------
IIISTU
O904
0
Figire V-l Walrr Qaalilv Staidards Z*ies la lie Calresloi Bay Area
-------
31
B. COLIFORM
Coliform data obtained by the Galveston Bay Study for the
period July 1968 through June 1970 show that shellfish harvesting
criteria have been exceeded a significant percentage of the time
during the shellfish harvesting season in approved areas and almost
continuously in closed or prohibited areas (Table V-2). Classifi-
cation of shellfish areas and locations of sampling stations are
illustrated in Figure V-2. Samples are collected monthly from a
network of widely separated stations.
Although the total coliform median limit of 70/100 ml is met
at all locations in the open areas, the 230/100 ml limit is exceeded
more than 10 percent of the time in at least three locations in,
or immediately adjacent to, approved harvesting areas. Two of
these locations are in Galveston Bay (Stations 4 and 23) and one
in West Bay (Station 13). Total coliform concentrations were
acceptable in the area of the most productive shellfish reef
(Station 28).
A supplementary fecal coliform criterion was recommended and
discusssed at the Fifth National Shellfish Sanitation Workshop (1964).
It was proposed that a median fecal coliform MPN of 7.8/100 ml
not be exceeded and that not more than 10 percent of samples should
exceed 33/100 ml. Fecal coliform organisms have been demonstrated to
almost exclusively originate from the digestive tract of man and
other warm blooded animals and are, therefore, presumedly a better
-------
i
HOUSIOK
NOTE
JTitlll ItCIIIIIS III Mill
II - IIISIII HIP (IIIIEl. 111! SI
IS - IIISIII SUP CIIIIEL. IILE 45
[ I mum an »
MUIIEI IIEI*
I CliimillUI irulfEl lil*
« IS (IIIIIIIIEI IIMfllEI I. 1171
UUEITII III SUIT I1IPUII IIIIIll
/ t •>
Figare V -2 Calvesloi Baj Sladj- Sampling Stations aid Classifications of Shellfish Hal-testing Areis
-------
Is}
TABLE V-2
MEDIAN VALUES OF TOTAL COLIFOKM CONCENTRATIONS AMD PERCEHTAGE OF SAMPLES GREATER THAN
230 COLIFOKM/100 ML AT SELECTED STATIONS IN GALVEST01! BAT FOR THE PERIODS
DECEMBER 1968-APRIL 1969 AHD DECEMBER 1969-APRIL 1970
Station
Huzber
1
2
3
4
5
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
38
Area
Classifi-
cation
Closed
Closed
dosed
Edge of open
area
Closed
Closed
Open
Open
Closed
Closed
Closed
Closed
Conditional
Closed
Closed
Closed
Closed
Open
Closed
Closed
Closed
Closed
Open
Open
Open
Closed
Closed
Closed
Closed
Surface
Median Pel
79
79
49
33
130
13
2
2
11
490
11
8
330
230
700
49
33
240
1.600
23
130
5
2
2
790
13,000
2,400
460
1/3 Depth 1/2 Depth
rcent
18
30
9
45
36
36
9
0
9
73
0
9
45
45
74
18
27
35
73
18
36
9
0
0
91
100
100
67
Median '""jo* H*111811
27 9
130
33 18
49 55
310 64
14
< 2
5
17
940
17
7
330
330
700
49
26
221
790
14
33
7
5
2
490
33.000
3,300 91
175 33 Samples
Percent
> 230
36
18
18
0
9
64
9
9
55
55
74
18
18
45
73
18
36
9
0
0
73
100
December
2/3 Depth Bottom
u .f,... Percent „.,,«„., Percent
Median .-« Median ,-_
14 18 89
49 9 79 18
33 45 33 55
330 57 49 27
1,720 82 630 73
1969-April 1970 only.
-------
33
indicator of recent pollution from these sources than total coliform.
The concentrations for Galveston Bay are summarized in Table V-3.
The same pattern as total coliform is demonstrated, with the
recommended criteria being violated at the same three locations in
the open areas. The median concentration near the most productive
reef was less than the lower limit tested and no measured values
exceeded 33/100 ml during the 1969 and 1970 harvesting seasons.
Lines of equal total coliform concentrations (iso-lines) as
well as percentage of time that concentrations exceeded 230/100 ml
are shown in Figures V-3 and V-4. The' excessive concentrations of
coliform pollution emanate primarily from the Houston Ship Channel.
Increased concentrations of bacteriological pollution in Galveston
Bay are attributable to waste discharges from the Clear Lake area
and the City of Galveston. Concentrations are slightly higher in
the Chocolate Bayou and East Bay areas. The iso-lines also demon-
strate that, in a large portion of the approved shellfish harvesting
area, total coliform concentrations will exceed 230/100 ml more than
10 percent of the time.
To determine the pattern of coliform pollution under differing
hydrological and meteorological conditions, iso-lines were analyzed
for January 14, February 18, and March 18, 1969 as well as January
14, February 10, and March 10, 1970. These coliform distributions
are illustrated in Figures V-5 through V-10. Meteorological and
hydrological conditions existing prior to and on the date of
-------
TABLE V-3
MEDIAN FECAL COLIFORM COHCE1JTRATIOKS AND PERCENTAGE 0? SAJIPLES WITH FECAL COLIFORH CONCENTRATIONS
GREATER THAN 33/100 ML AT SELECTED STATIOHS IH GALVESTOll BAY FOR THE PERIODS
DECEMBER 1968-APRIL 1969 AHD DECEII3ER 1969-AFRIL 1970
Station
Hunber
1
2
3
4
5
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
38
Area Surface
Cinsslfi- „ .. Percent
cation Kedlan > 33
20
22
17
Edge of open 2
area
23
5
Open < 2
Open < 2
5
221
5
Conditional < 2
46
33
49
5
Open 5
17
79
2
13
Open < 2
Open < 2
Open < 2
490
7.000
1,090
40
36
36
18
0
36
36
18
0
45
73
0
9
55
45
64
9
27
27
73
0
36
0
0
0
100
100
100
50
1/3 Depth 1/2
Median P°^nt Median
7 9
33
13" 36
8 18
23 45
2
< 2
< 2
2
330
7
2
31
49
130
5
2
17
33
4
2
< 2
< 2
< 2
330
7.900
490 100
14
Depth 2/3 Depth
Percent „„.,«„„ Percent
> 33 Medlan > 33
5 9
45
17 27
8 9
23 45
18
18
0
27
73
9
9
45
45
74
0
18
18
55
0
27
0
0
0
82
100
330 100
33
Bo t ton
Median Fe*c|nt
4 9
21 36
5 18
23 27
130 91
-------
HOUSTON
NOTE
SIIFICE SIIKE! TIKI Illllt
lit Mil IMIL 1111
HI i:: iiij. inn ;ri
O 1 2345
SCALE IN MILES
Figure V -3 lso!ine> of "eilian Coliform Concentrations, Calvestoa Bay.
-------
NOTE
IIIFICE sunn UNI HIIIE
ist mi • mil mi
in is: :ii!r- irt:i n:t
a i a * 4 B
SCALE IN MILES
.
Figure V -4- |^_~^l of Samples with Tola! Coliform Conee«lratioas CreaUr Thai 230/100 ml, Calvestoo Bar.
-------
-N-
i e
METEOROLOGICAL DATA
iiiitit 12 fin sr u i.i in
IIIIIIT u tin ur u 11.1 in
UIIIIT 14 111) I!!' II !!.( IFI
Figure V -5lsolincs of Total Coliform Coneenlrations-Calvcslon Bay - Jaoiiarv 14, 1969
-------
1 -H
HOllStOK
-N-
O 1 2345
SCALE IN MILES
I 351' II i.l IM
([HUM I! Illl ;i II 1.7 IM
rmim it »ui,,]ir IT f < •"
Figure V -tSheliaee or Tola! Ooiiform Conccnlrallons-CalveslOD Bay - February 18, 1969
-------
' +
-N-
/ f
METEROLOGICAL DATA
111:1 ii mi in: ii i.i IM
IIICI II Illl 311 II I.I IF!
Illtl II Illl Ml' IT 13 ! IM
o i a s « s
SCALE IN MILES
U
Figure V -7lsolincs of Tola! Coliform Cone»nlrations-Calvrston Bar - March IS, 1969
-------
IOUSTOK
-N-
,
(/ ME
MEtEOROLOGICAL DATA
IIIIIIT ii fin 2tr IT 1.1 in
IIIIIIT 12 Illl If IT 4.5 IFI
IIIIIIT II fill II' H 1.1 IM
SCALE IN MILES
Figure V -8 Isolines of Total Coliform Conrmlralions - Cajveslon Baj - January 13, 1970
-------
• IIIKI
mi
/ "
O 1 2343
SCALE IN MILES
METEOROLOGICAL DATA
Hiiuir i mi 4i IT 14 in
flilliii ! i;u sa- il is. in
fdiniT ii mi ;*i IT i.i in
Figure V -?hollies of Total Cnlifurm Conrcntralions-Calvfslon Bay - February 10, 1970
-------
-N-
METEOROLOGICAL DATA
IIICI II Illl III* II I.I «'l
liltl I! Illl III* II '5.1 Itl
Illtl !t I'M '•!• IT 1! !•!
Figure V -folsolines of Tolal Caliform Cvaeenlratians-Calvesloo Bay - Narck 10, 1970
-------
35
sampling were examined. Strong north or northwest winds, with
accompanying precipitation, cause excessively high coliform concen-
trations in the approved harvesting area. On February 18, 1969,
after three days of strong northerly winds and 1.8 inches of rain
recorded on February 13, virtually the entire approved area of the
Bay had total coliform concentrations in excess of 100/100 ml with
542/100 ml observed immediately adjacent to the most productive
shellfish reefs. Similar conditions occurred on March 18, 1969
(variable northerly winds with 1.45 inches of rain recorded from
March 15-17) and again, coliform concentrations exceeded 100/100 ml
in nearly all of the approved areas with the exception of East Bay.
The shellfish areas in Galveston Bay were temporarily closed during
this period. In contrast, winds from the northeast, east, or southeast
with no precipitation are the most favorable conditions for low coliform
concentrations in the approved harvesting areas as evidenced by
the iso-lines for January 14, 1969, January 13, 1970, and February
10, 1970. These meteorological and hydrological conditions minimize
the effect of pollution discharged to the Houston "Ship Channel
and Clear Lake areas by confining it to the immediate areas of
discharge. Periods of rainfall cause significant bacteriological
contributions from Double Bayou on the east side of the Bay to
the approved harvesting area in Galveston Bay, and from Chocolate
Bayou to approved areas in West Bay. Coliform pollution is also
contributed from the Point Barrow area. During relatively calm
conditions, allowable coliform concentrations for shellfish
-------
36
harvesting will be exceeded in Che northern and western portions
of the approved areas in Galveston Bay due to pollution from the
Houston Ship Channel and Clear Lake areas. There is also a sub-
stantial increase in coliform pollution due to discharge from
the City of Galveston. However, this does not significantly
influence concentrations in the approved areas.
If coliform concentrations in Galveston Bay were regularly
measured during the most unfavorable hydrographic and pollution
conditions as required by the applicable standards for acceptability
for shellfish harvesting, it is probable that all of Galveston Bay
with the exception of areas in East Bay would be closed to shellfish
harvesting due to pollution. During the 1968-1969 harvesting season,
hydrological and meteorological conditions were unfavorable for
maintenance of suitable bacteriological quality as much as 40 percent
of the time. Part of the approved areas of Galveston Bay are presently
in violation of the criteria for acceptable shellfish harvesting as
defined by Federal and State standards. Approval of areas for
shellfish harvesting in Galveston Bay should reflect sampling under
the most unfavorable hydrographic and pollution conditions as required.
C. HEAVY METALS AND PESTICIDES
The Texas Water Quality Standards do not specify numerical limits
for heavy metals or pesticides. Acute or chronic toxicity to human,
animal or aquatic life is prohibited. Criteria for approved shellfish
areas prohibit contamination by industrial wastes such that consump-
tion of shellfish might be hazardous.
-------
37
It is estimated, from samples collected in February 1969 by the
Texas Water Quality Board, that 1,600 pounds per day of lead, 7,900
pounds per day of zinc, 5,000 pounds per day of cadmium, and 300
pounds per day of chromium are discharged pr;marily to the Houston
Ship Channel. The Houston Ship Channel also receives 400 pounds per
day of phenols and at least 1,000 pounds per day of cyanide, a highly
toxic chemical, principally from the Armco Steel Company. Observed
concentrations of metals in the Houston Ship Channel near water
supply intakes are summarized in Table V-4 from the Texas Water Quality
Board data and from WQO-EPA data collected during November 1970 in
Galveston Bay and the Houston Ship Channel. The Federal Water Quality
Administration's sampling locations are shown in Figure V-ll. Although
numerical criteria have not been established for most of these sub-
stances, maximum concentrations observed were grossly in excess of
natural background ranging from 8.5 times greater than background
for nickel to 108,000 times greater than background for chromium.
Concentrations of metals found at all sampling stations in Galveston
Bay and the Houston Ship Channel by UQO-EPA indicate widespread and
relatively uniform contamination throughout the system.
Sediment samples v:ere collected from the Houston Ship Channel,
West Bay near Galveston, and Trinity Bay during the summer of 1969— .
I/ Copeland, B. J., and W. G. Fruh, Ecological Studies of Galveston
Bay, Final Report to the Texas Water Quality Board - Contract
IAC (68-69), 408, 1969.
-------
38
TABLE V-4
CONCENTRATIONS OF HEAVY METALS
GALVESTON BAY - HOUSTON SHIP CHANNEL
Background Sea Water Maximum Observed Order of Magnitude
Concentration* Concentration Above Background
wg/1** yg/1
Metal
Lead
Zinc
Cadmium
Copper
Strontium
Mercury
Nickel
Chromium
0.03
10.0
80.0
3.0
-
0.03
5.4
0.005
y u y u
1,900 20 63,300
14)000 1,550 1,400 155
1,200 15
10,800 360 3,600 120
4,700 240
130 - 4,340
46 - 8.5
540 - 108,000
* Water Quality Criteria - Report of the National Technical Advisory
Committee to the Secretary of the Interior, Federal Water Pollution
Control Administration, April 1968.
** Micrograms per liter.
I/ Texas Water Quality Board Data - February 1969.
2J Federal Water Quality Administration Data - November 1970.
-------
39
Significant quantities of chlorinated hydrocarbon compounds ranging
to over 70 micrograms per kilogram (pg/kg) were observed in the
Houston Ship Channel and Calveston areas. No chlorinated hydro-
carbons were detected in sediments from Trinity Bay, an area which
does not presently receive measurable quantities of municipal or
industrial waste discharge. All areas exhibited significant
quantities of cadmium, tin, and lead in sediment samples. Concen-
trations were 0.31 milligrams per gram (mg/g) for cadmium; 0.62
mg/g of tin; and 0.93 mg/g of lead. Mercury concentrations in
sediments from the Houston Ship Channel were as high as 2,100
milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg).
Bioassays conducted on Houston Ship Channel water indicate
that concentrations of toxic compounds are three times greater than
21
levels which could be tolerated for normal algal growth— . The
natural biota of Calveston Bay have been severely damaged by the
discharge of toxic wastes, primarily in the Houston Ship Channel.
The diversities, numbers, and weights of fish, shrimp, and crabs
as well as the diversities of phytoplankton and benthic animals
were very low at Morgan Point near the mouth of the Houston Ship
Channel and increased in the Bay in proportion to distance from
the channel. Fish collected in upper Galveston Bay were generally
very small, and those collected at Morgan Point "were in poor physical
2j Copeland, B. J., and W. G. Fruh, Ecological Studies of Galveston
Bay, Final Report to the Texas Water Quality Board - Contract
IAC (68-69), 408, 1969.
-------
condition. A great many were missing caudal fins and some were
also missing filamentous portions of pectoral and pelvic fins."
Some were blinded with hard white crusts covering their eyes.
Oyster samples were obtained from both approved and pro-
hibited shellfishing areas in Galveston Bay during November 1970,
and analyzed for metals content. These data are presented in Table
V-5. Although substantial data are available on occurrence of
metals in oysters generally, little or no evaluation of these con-
centrations has been presented concerning acute and chronic toxic
levels. The hazard associated with concentrations of heavy metals
and other toxic substances has not yet been firmly established by
the appropriate regulatory agencies. Specific numerical criteria
which signify levels of acute and chronic toxicity should be
established as soon as possible.
D. OIL AND PETROCHEMICAL RESIDUES
The Texan Water Quality Requirements stipulate that nil
waters be "substantially free" of oil. A consistent condition of
oil pollution prevails in the Galveston Bay System due to discharges
of oil to the Houston Ship Channel as well as the prevalence of
the petroleum related industries and vessel traffic. Oil slicks
are commonplace in the Channel and are frequently observed in
Galveston Bay. During 1968, 65 incidents of pollution from vessels
and shore' facilities were investigated by the United States Coast
Guard.
-------
TABLE V-5
METALS CONCENTRATIONS IN OYSTERS FROM GALVESTON BAY-'
NOVEMBER 12, 1970
(MICROGRAMS PER GRAM - WET WEIGHT)
Paracater
Zinc
Copper
Cadmium
Lead
Chromium
Mercury
Arsenic
Boron
Phosphorus
Iron
Molybdenum
Manganese
Aluminum
Beryllium
Silver
Nickel
Cobalt
Vanadium
Barium
Strontium
Station
No. 1
>35.30
8.24
.41
< .30
< .07
.008
< .30
.87
270
14.71
.47
1.18
21.77
< .0015
.25
.24
< .15
< .30
.20
1.53
Station
No. 2
> 39.70
9.52
< .15
< .30
< .07
.062
< .30
1.65
258
12.30
1.32
.67
17.84
< .0015
'< .015
.75
< .15
< .30
.03
1.65
Station
* No .-3
20.46
5.06
< .15
< .30
< .26
.028
< .30
.66
102
4.63
1.51
.36
8.51
< .0015
< .015
< .15
< .15
< .30
.04
1.72
Station
No. 4a
26.12
4.79
< .15
< .30
< .07
.040
< .30
.58
225
7.34
1.57
.70
13.50
< .0015
< .015
.37
< .15
< .30
.15
1.80
Station
No. 5
21.58
4.13
< .15
< .30
.27
.030
.47
.78
185
5.55
1.01
.47
12.33
< .0015
< .015
< .15
< .15
< .30
.07
5.92
Station
No. 6
20.26
7.80
< .15
< .30
.42
.045
< .30
.38
102
5.93
.99
.50
16.51
< .0015
< .015
< .15
< .15
< .30
.06
3.45
Station
No. 7
22.87
5.23
< .15
< .30
.16
.007
< .30
.76
196
13.10
.29
.83
25.10
< .0015
.11
- .25
< .15
< .30
.15
2.40
V-ll for sampling locations.
-------
42
Oil pollution in shellfish producing areas can cause heavy
3/
mortality in oysters— . Oyster samples collected from open and
closed areas in Galveston Bay in November 1970 were analyzed for oil
and hydrocarbon residues at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution.
Oysters from approved harvesting areas had concentrations of 26
parts per million (ppm) and 23 ppm. The sample from the condition-
ally approved area had 30 ppm o'f residues. Oyster tissue from a
closed area near Morgan Point at the mouth of the Houston Ship Channel
was grossly contaminated as evidenced by the hydrocarbon concentration
of 237 ppm. The hydrocarbon residues were not generated by the
oysters themselves but were derived from petroleum wastes. The
distribution of hydrocarbon residues in all oyster tissues was
similar, indicating the same sources of contamination. These
residues represent a health hazard for consumption of oysters taken
from Galveston Bay, which is directly attributable to the discharge
of industrial waste from petrochemical and other related industries;
leakage from oil well pumping taking place in the Bay; and from
vessel pollution. Based on the concentrations observed in the oyster
tissues, the Houston Ship Channel is the major source of these
residues to Galveston Bay.
The State of Massachusetts closed West Falmouth Harbor to shell-
fish harvesting after a September 1969 oil spill. The area of closure
McKee, J. E., and H. W. Wolf, Water Quality Criteria. Second Edition,
State Water Quality Control Board, Sacramento, California,
Publication No. 3-A, 1963.
-------
43
was extended during 1970 due to the persistence of residues in
4/
shellfish, ranging from 4.0 ppin to 126 ppm- . In the closed section
of West Falmouth Harbor, residues in shellfish ranged from 4.0 ppm
to 12.0 ppm. The control shellfish sample from an uncontaminated
area had a concentration of 1.7 ppm. Concentrations of hydrocarbons
in shellfish from approved harvesting areas in Galveston Bay are
from two to six times greater than observed in closed areas of West
Falmouth Harbor.
Very slight amounts of oil or petroleum products in bays and
estuaries have been found to impart an oil or kerosene flavor to
oyster, clams, and mussels, making them unmarketable. Numerous
industries discharge oil and grease to the Houston Ship Channel
and Galveston Bay, as determined from permits issued by the Texas
Water Quality Board.
Oysters from Galveston Bay were analyzed for aesthetic accept-
ability by means of odor tests conducted on samples collected in
November 1970. The subjective judgments of a panel of judges were
analyzed statistically to determine the probability of true odor
conditions. Odors were rated on a scale ranging from seven (no
odor) to one (very extreme odor). Because some of the oysters
had been collected from closed areas, no taste tests were performed.
Oysters collected from East Bay were used as control or refer-
ence samples. These were the only oysters that did not have a
4./ Blumer, H., et al, The West Falmouth Oil Spill, Woods Hole
Oceanographic Institution, Reference No. 70-44, September 1970.
-------
44
strong odor. Raw oysters from this area received odor scores of
4.8 and 4.9 on the seven-point scale, and roasted oysters were
rated 5.5 by the panelists (Table V-6).
Raw oysters near the mouth of the Houston Ship Channel were
rated a low 3.1 by the panel, and were characterized by petroleum
odors. Oysters collected near the center of the Galveston Bay-
Trinity Bay area were given a very low rating of 2.9 and emitted
strong odors of sewage.
Oysters rated 3.8 and 4.0 on the odor scale were taken from
Stations 3 and 5 in the open area of Red Fish Reef (Figure V-ll).
Oysters rated 4.0 were obtained from Station 6 in the closed area.
Oysters collected from the open area of Spoonbill Reef (Station 7)
had nearly acceptable odors, and were rated 4.5 and 5.3 by the test-
ing panel. The text of the report covering the odor examinations is
provided in Appendix B.
From these tests it is concluded that oysters inhabiting waters
of Galveston Bay acquire unacceptable odors, and the degrees of these
odors are dependent upon proximity to the Houston Ship Channel.
E. DISSOLVED OXYGEN
The Galveston Bay Study data show that dissolved oxygen (DO)
criteria established for the Houston Ship Channel are being violated
consistently. From Morgan Point to the San Jacinto Monument, the
DO levels are below the criterion of 4.0 mg/1 more than 60 percent
of the time. Values in the surface layer range from zero to greater
-------
TABLE V-6
EVALUATION OF GALVESTON BAY OYSTER MEATS FOR ODOR
Judge
1
2
3
4
5
6
Total
Average
Ref.
4.0
4.5
5.0
6.0
4.0
5.0
28.5
4.8
1 2
Raw
5.0 4.0
4.5 3.5
6.0 4.5
6.0 2.0
4.0 2.0
4.0 2.0
29.5 18.5
4.9 3.1
Sample
3
Oysters
2.0 4
1.5 2
4.5 5
5.0 2
4.0 2
6.0 2
23.0 17
3.8 2
4a
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.5
.5
.9
5
4.0
1.5
4.5
5.0
4.0
5.0
24.0
4.0
6
4.0
2.5
6.0
7.0
2.0
2.5
24.0
4.0
7
5.0
4.0
6.0
4.0
5.0
3.0
27.0
4.5
Roasted Oysters
1
2
3 .
4
5
6
Total
Average
6.0
5.0
5.0
4.0
7.0
6.0
33.0
5.5
-
-
-
-
- -
-
-
-
5.0
4.0
5.0
4.0
4.0
1.0
23.0
3.8
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
5.0
4.0
3.0
6.0
5.0
4.0
27.0
4.5
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
6.0
5.0
5.0
6.0
4.0
6.0
32.0
5.3
-------
46
than 7 mg/1 from the San Jacinto Monument to the Turning Basin. In
the Turning Basin area and from the San Jacinto Monument to the
Turning Basin, the DO criteria of 2.0 mg/1 and 1.5 mg/1, respectively,
for these reaches are being violated more than 85 percent of the time.
Dissolved oxygen is generally less than 1.0 mg/1. The DO levels in
the San Jacinto River tidal area are violated about 30 percent of the
time.
In Galveston Bay west of the Ship Channel, the DO criterion
of 5.0 mg/1 is met about 95 percent of the time except near Morgan
Point where the standard is being violated more than 35 percent of
the time. Dissolved oxygen at this location is less than 4.0 mg/1
at least 30 percent of the time.
The DO levels in the Trinity Bay area and West Bay east of
Carancahua Reef meet the established DO criterion of 5.0 mg/1 95
percent of the time. The levels range from less than 2.0 mg/1 to
more than 15.0 mg/1 in Trinity Bay and less than 3 mg/1 to more
than 10 mg/1 in West Bay.
A criterion of 6.0 mg/1 has been established for the remainder
of the system. This level was met about 80 percent of the time,
with values ranging from less than 4 mg/1 to greater than 12 mg/1.
The DO levels in the Gulf of llexico must meet a criterion of 7.0
mg/1. Observed values in this zone range from 5.0 mg/1 to more
than 9 mg/1.
-------
lOIISIOl
NOT!
Illtlllt III IIIII
II Illltll Illf CIIKEL III! 41
t-t 11:1111 nit ciiuii mu 4i ilium linn
LEGEND
• mm in IITEI UIPUII tiinii
O IITII IIIPUII
Figure V • 11 Water ind Oyster,Sampling Locations - FWQA Reconnaissance Survej, November 1970
-------
47
F. BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAHD
Biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) is a measure of the biologi-
cally oxidi?,sble organic material in a was»:ewater. It theoretically
represents the dissolved oxygen consumed by microbial life while
assimilating and oxidizing the organics in the waste. The five-day
BOD data collected by the Galveston Bay Study for the period July
1968 through June 1970 were evaluated for compliance with the Texas
Water Quality Standards which specify BOD averages calculated over
a one-year period.
In the Gulf of Mexico at Galveston the BOD criterion of 1.0
mg/1 was exceeded 100 percent of the time with yearly averages ranging
from 1.8 to 4.1 mg/1. Single BOD observations ranged from less than
1.0 mg/1 to 13 mg/1 in this zone.
The BOD criteria in the Houston Ship Channel are 7.0, 5.0 and
2.0 mg/1 (yearly average) for various zones. These averages were
exceeded 100 percent of the time with averages ranging from 4.6 mg/1
to 20.8 mg/1. Single BOD observations ranged from 50 mg/1 to less
than 1.0 mg/1. The BOD criterion established for the Ship Channel
from Morgan Point to the San Jacinto Monument (2.0 mg/1) is
incongruous with the criteria set for immediately adjacent zones,
i.e., Ship Channel to the Turning Basin (5.0 mg/1) and Galveston
Bay west of the Ship Channel (6.0 mg/1). This is particularly
apparent since BOD exceeds 6.0 mg/1 from Morgan Point to the Monument
100 percent of the time although the applicable value is 2.0 mg/1.
-------
A summary of BOD observations compared to required criteria in
the remainder of the Galveston Bay system is presented in Table V-7.
The BOD parameter is not indicative of the actual organic pollu-
tion present, since the toxicity or growth limiting action of many
of the industrial wastes entering Galveston Bay and its tributaries
tends to inhibit oxidation of organic material. Depending upon the
dilution employed, there was wide variation in BOD values observed
in the same sample. This effect was most pronounced in samples
collected from the Houston Ship Channel. Where the sample was un-
diluted, the BOD value was generally less than the BOD of a diluted
sample - often by a factor of several hundred percent, thus indicat-
ing that toxic or growth inhibiting substances in the sample were
preventing satisfaction of organic material. Biochemical oxygen
demand is not a satisfactory indicator of the potential effect on
water quality caused by most of the waste effluents discharged to
the Galveston Bay system. This is particularly true of petrochemi-
cal effluents due to the large number of complex waste compounds
not immediately susceptible to biological degradation.
-------
TABLE V-7
COMPARISON OF BOD STANDARDS WITH OBSERVED AND AVERAGE VALUES
Criteria
(Annual
Average BOD)
Zones mp,/l
East Bay
Calves ton Bay
East of Houston Ship Channel
Trinity Bay
Calves ton Bay
West of Houston Ship Channel
West Bay
East of Carancahua Reef
West Bay
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
3.0
2.5
Number
Stations
in Zone
1
3
4
15
1
2
Percent
of Values
Exceeding
Criterion
36.8
23.2
32.4
12*. 8
18.8
17.6
Range of BOD
Yearly Averages
High
4.1
5.3
7.2
9.0
4.5
2.9
Low
2.6
2.3
2.9
2.1
1.9
1.5
Range of Single
BOD Observation
High
11
12
19
20
14
7
Low
1
1
1
1
0
1
West of Carancahua Reef
\o
-------
50
-------
51
VI. WASTE SOURCES
The Texas Water Quality Board, in accordance with provisions
of the Texas Waf.er Quality Act of 1967, issues effluent permits to
municipalities and industries. In the Galveston Bay area, permits
have been issued to 141 municipal and domestic waste dischargers
and 136 industrial waste dischargers. These discharges, the type
of treatment provided, the quantities of waste effluent allowed
under the permit, and the water pollution control needs where
known, are listed in Tables VI-1 and VI-2. Little or no informa-
tion is available on actual measurement and characterization
of waste discharges.
The total permitted discharge of waste effluent to Galveston
Bay and its tributaries, as of 1968, is approximately 779 million
gallons per day (HGD) which may contain 583,000 pounds per day of
suspended solids, 270,000 pounds per day of BOD, and 1,657,000
pounds per day of chemical oxygen demand (COD). The degree of
necessary waste treatment to meet these requirements is not
specified in the permits.
Of this total, 92.6 percent of the suspended solids, 85.5
percent of the BOD, and 92.8 percent of the COD are allocated to
industrial sources while the remainder is applied to municipal or
other domestic effluents. On a flow basis, industrial wastes con-
tribute about 72 percent of the total. The distribution of permit-
ted waste discharge by area is shown in Figures VI-1 through VI-4.
-------
52
TABLE VI-l-A
MUNICIPAL AMD DOMESTIC WASTE DISCHARGES TO TOE HOUSTON SHIP CHANNEL
ABOVE MORGAN POINT. INCLUDING BAYTOWN AREft='
PERMITTED DISCHARGED
Source
Bay town
(Bayvay Drlvo)
Bay town, City of
(Craiccont)
Bay town, City of
(Eaot Diotrict)
Baycovn, City of
(Hucble Docks)
Bay town, City of
(Moot Main)
Baolor. R. F.
(Sequoia Eotateo)
Bollairo
Chambers County
(UCID Si)
Crest Sanitary Corp.
Florence, R. C.
(Port Haven)
Calco Utilities Co.
Galena Park
(Plant Si)
Galena Park
(Plant £2)
Barrio County
(Eotex Oako District)
Harris County
(UCID-Fondrcn Road)
Barrio County
(FVSD 08)
Harria County
(FUSD 047)
Barrio County
(FUSD 048-1)
Harris County
(FUSD 048-2)
Harria County
(FUSD 073)
Harris County
(UCID Hi)
Harris County
(WCID 021)
Harris County
(WCID 036)
Harris County
(WCID 069)
Harris County
(WCID 070-1)
Harris County
(WCID 070-2)
Typo of2/
TrentmsnC5'
Prizmry
Chlorinatlon
Secondary
Chlorlnatloa
Secondary
Chlorination
Kono
Secondary
Chlor ina tion
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Secondary
No Chlor.
Secondary
Mo Chlor.
Secondary
Chlorinatlon
Unknown
Secondary
Chlorination
Secondary
Chlorination
—
—
—
Secondary
Chlorination
Secondary
Chlorination
Secondary
Chlorination
Secondary
Chlorination
—
—
Flow
MOD
0.700
0.140
1.000
0.560
2.700
0.400
1.9SO
0.030
0.075
0.002
0.108
0.700
0.100
1.000
0.650
0.700
0.600
0.220
0.210
0.100
0.500
0.850
0.350
0.565
0.050
0.300
Sucp.
Solido
0/Dny
*117
23
167
93
450
67
325
5
13
1
18
117
17
167
108
117
100
37
35
17
83
142
58
94
7
40
BOD
0/Day
*117
23
167
93
450
67
325
6
13
1
18
117
17
•167
108
117
100
37
35
17
83
142
58
94
7
40
COD*
0/Day
351
69
501
279
1,350
201
1,075
18
39
3
54
351
**51
501
324
351
300
111
105
51
249
426
174
282
21
120
Waste Troatccnt Needo-' and Status
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Compiles with permit.
Compiles with permit.
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Enlarge existing plant.
Meets permit requirements.
has requested this plant
ferrod to them.
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
In compliance. No needs.
No needs.
Plant remodeling required .
not comply with permit.
Unknown
Unknown
Houston
be trans-
Doos
-------
TABLE VI-l-A (Continued)
IIUNICIFAL AND DOMESTIC WASTE DISCHARGES TO TilE HOUSTON SHIP CHANNEL
ADOVE MORCAll POINT, INCLUDING BAYTCUN
53
PERIIITTLD DISCHARGE-'
Source
HarLis County
(WCID J73)
Harris County
(WCID 074)
Harris County
(WCID 0/B)
Harris County
(WCID SS4)
Karris County
(WCID 090)
Harris County
CKCID 093)
Harris County
(UCID 094)
Harris County
(UCID 095)
Houston, City of
(Water Treatment Pit.)
Houston, City of
(Almcda Plaza)
Houston, City of
(Chaduick Manor)
Houston, City of
(Chatwood Plant)
Houston, City of
(Chocolate Bayou Pit.)
Houston, City of
(Clinton Park)
Houston, City of
(Cole Creak Manor)
Houston, City of
(Easthavcn)
Houston, City of
(Fontaine Place
Subdivision)
Houston, City of
(Forest Weal.)
Houston, City of
(Culf !>alca Pie.)
Houston, City of
(Culfuay Terrace)
Houston, City of
(Harris Co. ff34)
Houston, City of
(Intornat'l. Arpt.)
Houston, City of
(Late Forest Pit.)
Houston, City of
(Lon^wood Subdivision)
Houston, City of
(Kcu Homestead)
Type of, .
Trontirent—
Secondary
Chlorination
Unknown
Unknown
Secondary
Chlorination
Unknown
Secondary
Chlorination
Secondary
Chlorination
Secondary
Ho Chlor.
Secondary
Chlorination
Secondary
Chlorination
Secondary
Chlorination
Secondary
Chlorination
Unknown
Secondary
Chlorination
Unknown
Secondary
No. Chlor.
Secondary
Chlorination
Secondary
Chlorination
—
Secondary
Chlorination
Secondary
Chlorination
—
Flou
>'GD
0.300
0.250
0.150
0.400
0.350
0.700
1.000
0.325
0.020
0.880
0.056
0.276
1.550
0.750
0.300
0.214
0.280
0.300
0.180
0.135
0.300
0.200
0.175
0.021
0.880
Suap.
Solido
l/Ony
40
42
20
67
58
117
167
54
*3
147
9
127
259
125
50
36
163
50
95
73
50
33
70
4
147
BOD
0/Itay
40
42
20
67
58
117
167
54
*1
147
9
101
259
125
50
36
135
50
48
48
50
33
38
4
147
COD*
0/Dny
120
126
60
201
174
351
501
162
3
541
27
303
777
375
ISO
108
405
150
144
144
150
**99
114
12
441
Han Cc Treatment Hccdii— and Status
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Will connect to Houston treatment
facilities.
In compliance with permit 1970.
Unknown
Unknown
Enlarge existing plant.
Unknown
Construct or improve outfall.
Meeting peralc requirements.
In compliance with permit.
Unknown
Unknown
Construction or improvement of
outfall.
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Construction or improvement of
outfall.
Currently meeting permit require-
ments.
-------
TABLE VI-l-A (Continued)
MUNICIPAL AtlD DOMESTIC WASTE DISCHARGES TO THE KOUSTOH SHIP CUAHBEL
ABOVE MORGAN POINT, IKCLUDIKC DAYTOWH AREAi/
PERMITTED DISCHARGED
Source
Kouaton, Cicy of
(Northeast Diet.)
Houston, City of
(Northsido Pit.)
Houston, City of
(Northwest Pit.)
Houston, City of
(Rod Cully Plant)
Kouaton, City of
(Sic3 Bayou)
Houston, City of
(Southwest Plant)
Eouoton, City of
(Moot Diot. Pit.)
Eouoton, City of
(FU5D 023)
Houoton, City of
(UCID 017)
Eouoton, City of
C-'CID l?20)
Uouston, Cicy of
(UCID 032)
Eouotoa, City of
(UCID 034)
Eaucton, City of
(U'CID 039)
Couoton, City of
(VJCID 042)
Houaton, City of
(WCID 044-1)
Houaton, City of
(WCID 044-2)
Eouoton, Cicy of
(UCID 044-3)
Bouaton, City of
(UCID 047-1)
Ecus ton, Cicy of
(i:CID 047-2)
Houaton, City of
(UCID 051)
Jacinto City
Jorocy Village
Jotro Luzbor and
Building Co.
Xaty, City of
Mayflower IsvcatacnC
Typo of2 .
Trrntip^nt—
Nona
Secondary
No Chlor.
Unknown
Secondary
No Chlor.
Secondary
Chlorination
Secondary
Chlorination
Secondary
Chlor Illation
- —
Secondary
Chlorination
Secondary
Chlorination
Secondary
Chlorination
•Secondary
Chlorination
Secondary
Chlorination
Secondary
Chlorination
Secondary
Chlorination
Secondary
Chlorination
Secondary
Chlorination
Secondary
Chlorination
Secondary
Chlorination
Secondary
Chlorination
Unknown
—
Secondary
Chlorination
__
Flow
HDD
2.000
55.000
/
4.000
0.300
48.000
15.000
6.000
1.250
0.750
0.12S
0.750
0.136
0.522
0.436
0.250
0.088
0.700
0.384
0.384
1.253
1.200
0.066
0.012
0.280
0.500
Suop.
Sollda
l/Dny
334
9,174
673
50
8,006
2,502
1,002
209
494
21
125
50
305
469
261
17
490
702
160
209
*320
11
2
*48
03
BOD
0/Dny
334
9,174
673
50
8,006
2,502
1.002
209
125
21
125
31
135
262
200
15
403
90
86
209
320
11
2
*48
83
COD*
0/Dny
1,002
27,522
2,019
150
24,018
7,506
3,006
627
375
63
375
124
405
786
600
45
1,209
270
258
627
960
33
6
144
249
Waoto Trcntnnt Ncada-' nnd Statui
Construct secondary troataent plant.
Hoc in compliance with parole.
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Enlarge existing plant.
Plant enlargement underway. Current
quality in compliance.
Enlarge plant. Construct or laprova
interceptors and outfalls.
Plant is to be enlarged to aerva M
a Regional Treatnont Systca.
Construction or laprovanaat of
outfall.
Unknown
Unknown
Plant Co ba abandoned and flov
divorced Co another plane.
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Construct or improve outfall.
Unknown
Unknown
Plant presently overloaded but
Booting parole requlreaenta.
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Co=?any
-------
55
TABLE VI-l-A (Continued)
MUNICIPAL AND DOMESTIC WASTE DISCHARGES TO THE HOUSTON SHIP CUANNEL
ABOVE MORGAN POINT, INCLUDING BAYTOWN
PERMITTED DISCHARGED
Source
Kccorial Villaceo
Water Authority
Korean Point, City of
nitcch, A. J.
(Durkco I'anor)
Oak Glen Building
Corp. (North Torraca)
Oakuida Uator Co.
Paco Sac tor, Inc.
(la?. Vol.)
Pasadena, City of
(Dacyvatar Plant)
Paondcao, City of
(Korthsido Plant)
Pincy Point Village
Povoll, C. L.
(Kurains Uoaa 12)
noyaluood Municipal
Utility Diatrict
Southern San. Corp.
South Houoton. City
of
Southoidc Placo,
City of
Texas Highway Dspt.
(Intorototo 10 Root
Stop)
Turkey Creek lap.
Diotrict
t'ootorn Trailo Prop.,
Inc.
Vest Road Imp. Diatrict
Waat Unlvcrcity Place,
City of
Unite Oaks Develop.
Co.
Young, Kro. Mabel G.
Typo of, .
Trentinnt-'
Unknown
Unknown
—
Secondary
Chlorlnation
Secondary
Chlorinatlon
Secondary
No Chlor.
Unknown
~-
'Secondary
Chlor ination
Secondary
Chlorlnation
__
Unknown
Unknown
Secondary
Chlorination
Unknown
Flow
KGD
1.500
0.100
0.250
0.300
0.245
0.300
1.000
5.000
1.000
0.004
0.100
0.350
0.640
0.216
0.010
0.750
0.250
0.550
1.000
0.050
0.098
Suap.
Solido
*/Day
250
17
42
40
41
SO
167
834
2,002
1
17
58
283
36
2
125
42
92
167
7
16
BOD
0/Dnv
250
17
42
40
41
50
167
834
1,668
1
17
58
283
36
2
125
42
92
167
7
16
COD*
0/Day
750
51
126
120
123
150
501
2,502
4,904
3
51
174
849
108
6
375
126
**276
501
21
48
Wantc Trcntccnt Hccdn— ' and Status
P.1 ant currently meeting permit
requirements.
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Not in compliance. Plant overloaded.
Present volume 6.400 HGD.
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Enlarge existing plant.
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
In compliance with permit.
In compliance with permit.
Unknown
Unknown
DjCicntcd Vjluo.
** True Value.
I/ I.'atcr Quality Standardo for Zonco 0904, 0905, and 0906 Apply - See Table V-l.
21 Inforr-tion fron the It.'QA STORET Inventory - Printout Date November 1970.
3/ Dnta fi-o-n "Pcrnlttcd Discharge Quantities - Buffalo Bayou and the Houston Ship Channel" compiled by FWQA, South Central Region.
y Information froa K.'QA CTORET Inventory - Printout Data Kovccbcr 1970 and/or "Susaary of Waste Discharges into the Houston Ship
C.annol in excess of 500,000 CPD." The latter document supplied by FWQA, South Central Region.
-------
56
TABLE VI-l-B
MUNICIPAL AND DOMESTIC WASTE DISCHARGES TO CALVESTOH BAY
PERMITTED DISCHARGED
Source
Dlsrlip-rfT to C"lventou
t'y or 'irj7inl.-i.il"!.
>'T- -T PV'ir to !.-,"lo
roL-s"Tjreli'i"i Clc-.r
La'-ic Area) Zone 1104i/
Baycliff MUD
Bayvicv MJD
Clear Lake Utilities,
Inc.
Clear Lake Water
Authority
Deer Park, City of —
South
Ellington Air Force
Base
Fricndswood, City of
Calvcoton County
(WCID #12)
Harris County
(Clear Woods Diot.)
Harris County
(WCID 050)
Harris County
(UCID 356)
Harris County
(WCID 075)
Harris County
(WCID 081)
Harris County
(WCID 083)
Houston, City of
(Gulf fcadovs)
Houston, City of
(Saccuont HID)
Houston, City of
(UCID 053)
Houston, City of
(WCID 062)
Lagoon Utility Co.
La Porto, City of
League City
Psscdcna, City of
(Golden Ac.)
San Jacinto Jr. Colleco
Scab rook, City of
Type of, .
TrcntnanC-'
Secondary
Chlorination
Secondary
Chlorination
Unknown
Secondary
Chlorination
Secondary
Chlorination
Unknown
Secondary
Chlorination
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Secondary
Chlorination
Secondary
Chlorination
Secondary
Chlorination
Secondary
Chlorination
Hone
Unknown
Secondary
Chlorination
Secondary
Chlorination
Unknown
Secondary
Chlorination
Secondary
Chlorination
Secondary
Chlorination
Unknown
Secondary
Chlorination
Flow
MOD
1.000
0.250
0.250
2.250
0.700
0.350
0.570
0.425
0.500
0.500
0.580
0.150
0.250
1.350
0.155
2.000
0.368
0.280
0.070
0.723
1.500
0.400
0.128
2.500
Susp.
Solids
*/Dav
167
42
42
375
117
58
87
71
83
83
97
25
42
225
26
334
61
47
12
121
250
67
21
417
BOD
J/Dnv
167
42
42
375
117
58
87
71
83
83
97
25
42
225
26
334
61
47
12
121
250
67
21
417
COD*
501
126
126
1,125
351
174
• 261
213
249
249
291
75
126
675
78
1,002
183
141
36
363
750
201
63
1,251
Waste Treatment Nccdo-' and Status
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Ho nooda.
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Enlarge Existing plant.
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
No neoda
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
No needs
Shorcacroo, City of
Unknown
0.235
39
39
117
Unknown
-------
TABLE VI-l-B (Continued)
MUNICIPAL AMD DOMESTIC WASTE DISCHARGES TO CALTCSTOH BAY
57
PEKIITTCD DISCHARGE-'
Source
Vcbctor, City of
Dischnrffa to Cilv-nton
F-v .— ! i,-JTirfiri<">t
1 •-'<• '.\i' ic to G-'lvcnton
(liclr ' i r'c!:in-on
fl- nu ,-vl le- an Cltv)
•Jane 11041/
Calvcoton, City of
(Airport)
Calvccton, City of
(tkin Plant)
Cclvcston, City of
(Tclchnan Point)
Calvcston, County
(UCID l?l)
Sunccadou MID
Tosas City, City of
Orhsr Arcfn of
C-lvitoi Dry, Trinity
T i£ r-d Tributerica
Zone 1103i/
Aaohuac, City of
Dayton, City of
Liberty. City of
Trinity Bay Cons.
District
I'sot Say and Tributaries
Zones 1105 & 110&i/
Alvin, City of
Brazoria County
(UCID M)
Fabulous Flamingo Xolos
Galvcston County
(UCID fZ)
Uitchcock, City of
LaHarque. City of
Oik Honor KJD
Robert E. Pino Utility
Co.
Type of,,
Trc.-.tr-nt-
Socondary
Chlorlnation
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Secondary
Ko Chlor.
Unknown
Secondary
Chlorinatlon
None
Secondary
Xhlorinacion
4 '
Secondary
Chlorinatlon
Unknown
Secondary
Chlorination
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Secondary
Chlorination
Secondary
Chlorinatlon
Unknown
Unknown
Flow
KCD
0.400
0.360
6.400
0.050
1.700
0.014
5.000
0.404
0.553
0.692
0.400
3.750
0.160
0.200
0.040
0.300
1.900
0.050
0.049
Snap .
Solldo
67
60
1.068
8
284
2
834
67
92
145
53
626
27
33
7
50
555
3
8
BOD
*/Dav
67
60
1.068
8
284
2
834
67
92
258
S3
626
27
33
7
50
317
8
8
COD*
#/dov
201
180
3,204
24
852
6
2,402
201
276
774
159
1,878
81
99
21
150
1,551
24
24
Haste Treatment Haedn-' and Status
Ho noado.
Unknown
Construct or improve interceptors,
outfalls, and pumping station..
Construct or improve interceptor.
Unknown
'Unknown
No needs.
Construction secondary plant, outfall,
and pumping station.
Additional facilities required.
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Construction or Improvement of
outfall .
Unknown
Unknown
v&luco
\J ll.-.ter Qurlity Standards for this zone - See Table V-l.
2/ Ir.:ortL-.tion froa the n;q;. STORZT Inventory - Printout Date Noveobcr 1970.
3/ DJEJ froa "Permitted Discharoa Quantitieo - Calvcston Bay Area" compiled by FKQA South Central Region
4/ Information fron F.KJA STOr^T Inventory - Printout Date Hovcobcr 1970 and/or "Sumaary of Haute DiBchara'oB into the Houston
Sr.ip Channel in excess of 500,000 CPD." The latter document supplied by WQA. South Central Rngion.
-------
58
TABLE VI-2-A
WASTE DISCHARGES FT.OH Pr.TROI.nWl. CUnnCAL. .PLASTICS, AND RUIH1ER INDUSTRIES TO
TUE hOUSTOH SHIP dLMRlD. OR ITS TRIBUTARIES ABOVE
KORCAM POINT INCLUDIKC TUE BAYTOHN AREA-'
PERMITTED DISCHARGED
N.i—
Amerada Petroleum Corp.
Armour Agriculture
Cicmical Co.
Achlaad Chccical Co.
(nishlar.d Chemical Co.)
Atlantic Olchficld Co.
(U outfallo)
Boot Fertilizer Co.
Ccloncco Plaotic Co.
Cook Paint and Varnish Co.
Crown Central Petrol.
Corp .
(4 outfalls)
Diamond Shamrock Corp.
(7 outfalls)
Dioaond Shacrock Corp.
at Deer Park
(6 outfallo)
Distillate Production
Corp.
Dixie Chemical Co.
Eddy Refining Co.**
C. I. DuPoat doNomouro
(2 outfalls)
Cnjay Chemical Co.
Ethyl Corp.
(2 outfalls)
Goodyear Tire and Rubber
Co. (Houston plant)
Gulf Oil Corp.
Gulf States Asphalt
Co. , Inc.
E:oa Terminals
Cooker Chemical Corp.
(3 outfalls)
Houston Natural Gas Corp.
J. M. Kubcr Corp.
Uucblo Oil and Rafining
Co.
Jcffcrcon Lake Sulfur Co.
Koppors Co., Inc.
The Lubrizol Corp.**
(2 outfallo)
Karbon Chemical
:_richom Company
(Greens Bayou)
Flow
KGD
0.028
0.664
1.380
8.950
0.007
0.425
0.080
1.600
0.500
149.250
0.050
0.058
0.001
4.312
0.200
26.000
2.535
0.900
0.150
0.108
0.018
1.34<£/
0.220
25.000
0.225
0.008
1.000
0.090
0.225
Oil &
Crease
•R/l
—
20
4 to
135
10
5
Trace
10 to
90
~
10
—
0.5
0.3
20
15
20
3
25
5
5
25
5
—
10
20
—
20
25
4
20
Stuip.
' Solids
•1
2.011
806
5.355
4
213
4
2.834
*83
124,474
•8
8
1
1,257
150
4,337
1,570
150
25
90
4
Unknown
128
14,595
0
3
634
2
141
BOD
*/dnv
*1
•111
575
9,347
1
53
*13
3,686
*83
35,458
•8
10
1
1.795
150
4,337
1,257
150
13
90
2
Unknown
92
10,425
*1
3
834
1
141
COD
0/doy
*3
30
2,302
*27,041
9
195
•39
11.058
•249
211,044
•24
73
1
7.192
584
6,505
3,145
1,501
SO
360
17
Unknown
367
41,700
*3
13
3,336
15
563
Unknown
Unknown
Prcaeration-ocdiacntation- temperature.
Biological treatment-domestic sewer
hook-up to city to bo completed 12/70,
Unknown
In compliance with permit requirements.
Unknown
Oil separation and biological treatment
to bo completed 1972.
Biological treatment required.
Heavy Metal (Hg) removal. pH control,
solids containment. Engineering
underway.
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Oil aklnmor and aerated lagoon.
Engineering in progress.
Unknown
Treatment facilities wero modified
to improve quality of effluent.
Settling and biological treatment.
Lawsuit pending.
~~ Unknown
Industry in compliance.
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Meeting permit requirements
Unknown
Unknown
Oil rcnoval and biological treatment,
solids disposal. Construction usdarva
No implementation schedule.
Npt in compliance.
Murray Rubber Ccspany
0.010
Unknown.
-------
TABLE VI-Z-A (Continued)
WASTE DISCHARGES TROM PETROLEUM, CIIEilCAL', PLASTICS. AND RUBBER INDUSTRIES TO
THE HOUSTON SHIP aiAKHEL OX ITS TRIBUTARIES ABOVE
KORCAU POINT IKCLUDIKC THE BAYTO'JN AREA-'
59
PERMITTED DISCHARGE-'
Kara
Olin Mithicso.i Gnomical
Corp.**
Ponnsolt Chcolcal Corp.
Fctrollto Corp.-.Vtroco Corp.
Pctro T. •: t.icmlcol Cu.p.- '
(3 outfallc)
Fhilllpa Pc^rolcus Cj.
(Coaat Baa.)
Philllpu Petroleum Co.
at Pasadena
(3 outfalls)
Phosphate Chcnicolo. Inc.
(2 outfalla)
Plastic Applicator a, IDC.
Premier Petrochemical Co.*.*
Raichhold Chcmicalc**
Tto&n and KduO Co • **
(2 outfalls)
S and R Oil Co.
Shell Chemical Co.
(2 outfalls)
Shell Oil Co.**
(13 outfalla)
Signal Oil- cad Gas Co.
(2 outfalls)
Sinclair-Coppers Chemical
Co.
Sinclair-Petrochemical ,
Inc.**
Southwest Chesicol & Plastic
Stauffcr Chemical Co.**
(Greens Bayou) (2 outfallo)
StaufCcr Chemical Co.**
(South of HSC)
Superior Oil Co.
Tcnnaco Manufacturing Co.**
Union Carbide, Linda Div.
The Upjohn Co.**
Flov
1"D
10.145
0.200
0.002
i. i3
0.090
£.920
0.455
0.030
0.150
0.020
1.800
0.036
6.100
5.974
2.880
0.550
2.660
0.004
1.165
1.000
0.003
1.000
0.144
0.580
Oil &
Crease
mR/1
15
20
10 lo
*j
—
10
.20
5
2.7
—
25
25
—
25
10 to
25
25
20
20
14
10
25
—
20
20
15
Suap.
Solids
J/dny
4.402
58
1
4,003
*15
1.630
218
12
25
17
5,789
6
15,262
2,616
1,801
413
1.553
1
486
417
1
500
60
339
EOD
*/day
950
83
1
3,919
*15
837
190
2
25
17
1,489
6
5,087
1,953
1,201
459
1,109
1
194
167
1
834
24
242
COD
ff/
-------
60
TABLE VI-2-B
OTHER INDUSTRIAL; DISCHARGES TO
TI!E HOUSTON SHIP dlARO. OR ITS TRIBUTARIES-'
PERMITTED DISCHARGES^
Nr-c
Airport Service Co.
Anchor Hocking Glass Corp.
Arrco Steel Corp.-*
Baker Oil Toolc, Inc.
Saroid Division-Hit.
Lead Co.
Bin Three Held. Equipment
Co.
Cameron Iron Works
Dresser Magcobar
Dresser Syotcas, Inc.
Equity Export Corp.
General Portland Ccacnt
Co.
Grief Broo. Cooperage
Co.
Croendy'.te Transport
Culf Coact Portland
Cc=nt Co.
Ear ton end Horton, Inc.
(K. Livo Oak)
Ear ton and Horton, Inc.
(Pasadena)
Ebuston Li^ht and Power
Co.**
Houston Light and Pouar Co.
(H. 0. Clarke)
Couston Lijht and Power Co.
(Dcspvctcr) (5 outfalls)
Houston Light and Power Co.
(Croeio Bayou)
Houston Light and Power Co.
(T. H. llharton)
Hughes Tool Co.
(5 outfclla)
Ideal Cccent Co.**
John Xicca end Prolcr
Steel Co-.-p.
Lead Products, Inc.
Lccc Scar Cc=cu£ Corp.
ICsjioa Manufacturing Co.
K3Sicr.cl Eliquit Co.
Kitioncl Kalasccc Co.**
Kttion Supply Div. Araco
Parker Bros, csd Co.
Flcv
rcD
0.004
0.028
32.464
0.025
0.503
0.007
0.036
0.006
0.105
0.002
0.500
0.004
0.001
0.250
0.003
0.001
0.004
0.248
0.072
1.120
4.800
0.990
0.605
0.007
0.035
0.151
0.150
0.002
0.001
0.112
0.002
Oil &
Crease
n>K/l
15
15
25
25
10
~
50
5
—
5
—
2
—
25
—
—
0
0
0
0
0
15
15
—
5
10
10
5
10
15
—
Svicp .
Solids
f/dcy
1
5
14.346
13
84
*1
44
1
18
1
209
1
1
209
80
27
1
33
4,271
9
200
143
484
1
6
126
25
1
*1
14
*17
BOD
0/dny
1
5
6,680
4
63
*1
*121
1
13
1
4
1
1
31
1
*1
1
31
4,255
93
240
122
149
1
3
14
25
1
*1
19
*1
COD
ff/dnv
*3
50
52.033
8
627
•3
363
10
*54
1
24
7
1
104
•1
*3
3
124
17,016
374
1,001
591
734
*3
29
64
75
2
*3
140
*3
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Uniinown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Effluent in compliance with panic
requirements.
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
-------
TABU: VI-Z-B (continued)
OTHER INDUSTRIAL DISCHARGES TO , .
THE HOUSTON SHIP C1ANKEL OR ITS TRIBUTARILY'
61
PtRMITTED DISCHARGE-'
,,
Parker 3roa . end Co . , Inc .
(Main)
Parker Bros., Inc.
CW. ParU Plant)
Parker Bros, and Co.
O'inficld)
Philip Carey Corp.
Pittsburg Plate Class Co.
Rapid Transit Lines, Inc.
Rcddy lea Division
Southland Co.
Reed Drilling Tools
Reliaccc Universal, Inc.
Shew Tank Cleaning Co.
A. 0. Saith Corp."
Saith-Douglas Co., Inc.
Ssith Industries, Inc.
SI'S Industries
Southern Pacific Co.
(Englcuood)
Southern Pacific Railroad
(Hardy St.)
Southland Paper Mills 91
Texas Instrument
Todd Shipyards
Uaslo Ben's Inc.
United States Gypoun**
(2 outfalls)
U.S. Plywood - Chaapion
Pcncrs, Inc.
(3 outfalls)
Flow
KGD
0.003
0.001
0.001
0.040
0.160
0.025
0.014
0.722
0.007
0.001
0.850
0.043
0.007
0.115
0.011
0.016
50.000
0.645^
0.008
0.167
0.500
44.000
Oil &
Crease
—
—
—
15
15
5
25
1
13
25
~
20
1
15
10
—
15
25
25
Sucp.
Solids
*/dnv
*1
-1
-1
5
13
8
1
4B2
1
1
425
0
*1
67
2
5
41,700
Unknown
*13
28
417
36,696
BOD
ff/day
•1
*1
*1
7
13
5
1
361
—
1
354
*7
*1
48
2
3
41,700
Unknown
*13
28
417
18,348
COD
f/day
*3
*4
*3
68
53
14
1
2,108
2
*3
1,418
*21
*3
192
18
27
166,800
Unknown
*39
*84
1,668
146,784
tfantc Treatment Jlccrto and Status—
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknovn
Effluent meets permit requirements.
Cnknown
Unknown
Aeration and solids removal.
In progress.
Unknown
Unknovn
Solids and color removal.
Engineering in progress.
Effluent complies with permit.
Unknown
Unknown
Aerated lagoon and screening.
be in compliance 12/70.
Required biological treatment
being constructed.
To
values.
** ECflucnt to:.ic to bacteria - Information from the Houston Ship Channel Survey of Waste Effluents conducted in February 1969.
:..'QA, Ssuth Central Region sjppllcd data.
I/ I'^cci- Quality Standards for Zones COM, 0905, and 0906 apply - see Table V-l.
2J DaLa froa "Pcrr^ttcd Discharge Quantities - Buffalo Cayou end Houston Ship Channel" compiled by the FUQA, South Central
"32lon.
3/ Data fror (a) Sunury of Kaato Discharges into the Houston Ship Channel in excess of 500,000 CPD and/or (b) Suaury of
Industrial U^ctu roods and/or (c) Suiaaary of Industrial Facilities constructed and/or rehabilitated. The foregoing
documents supplied by the FUQA, South Central Region.
-------
62
TABU! VI-2-C
WASTI. DisaiAT.ras men rirrrmnw. CimiCAi.. PLA^TICI. KID RUDDER IIW.TRIES
TO GALVLSTON DAY OR If, •jnjr.UTAIlII 5
PilKIITTLD DISCHARGED
<;--<•
Dlnrl rr «n ro Tilviton PT^
10"" i • • >. it 0". 'i1 -"i ,T~
Cli ir l •"Vr-ir/trn.-'llb/.i'
Chcutron Choca.
Tumble Oil and Itefincry Co.
(Day-port)
l!u=blo Oil ud Rafiaory Co.
(3ayport)
Kurilo Oil and Refinery Co.
(Clcsr Lake)
Lovo ChcBical Co.
Pan Aoerlcan Petrolcua Corp.
Stocsloff Chcsical Co.
Southeast Chcnlcal ccd
Plastic Co.
DiecSnvrro to Cilvrnton Bnv
or Tributnriri (^ i"lc Point
to Galvi Qton) (lnclidoi
Dickinson B.iyou nnd Toxaa
«tv) Zone 110«i/
tecrlcaa Oil Co. at
Tcxao City
l-aco Chcnlcal Cor;.
(Plant A)
The Cordon Chcclcal Corp.
nc^r VOXAC City
Chc=. laduacrlea Corp.
General Aaalina sod Flln
Corp. Taxaa City plant
Cusbla Oil and Rafinory Co'.
(Slcklnoca)
Karcthon Oil Co. at Texao
City
Kiscral Oil refinery Co.
Kocauito Chcolcnl Co. at
Tcuc City
Faa .\=£:4cen Pot. Corp.
Tazao City Eallnlng Co.
Flov
i™
0.144
0.010
9.000
0.003
0.726
0.012
0.010
0.043
13.000
0.370
0.030
0.002
1.000^
0.003
1.156
0.032
106.000
0.035
1.440
Oil & Sup.
Crcnno Sol Ida
rr./l l/tty
2 24
™~ 2
5.292
~™ 1
0
« 1
«« 2
4
— 3,686
20 216
0
— 1
Unknown
1
25 *1,106
_« 34
— *224.004
4 6
20 0
r.oo
I/Any
24
2
1.S01
1
"121
1
2
6
9.649
154
•4
1
Unknown
1
405
34
«0.397
1
973
COD
I/day
96
•6
15.012
*3
*363
•3
*6
*18
*28.947
617
*29
•3
UnlcAown
*3
1.591
•102
*569.589
3
1,441
Want* Treatment Ke=dn and Stntui— '
Keoto porolt re^ulreaenta.
Unknown
Activated aludga, aublllcatlan
baaino and aerobic dlgootlon.
Conatructlon piano In progreao.
Uoknoun
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Heed extended aeration. Discharge
over pernlt.
Unknown
Koed pH control and 70^ ronovml.
Unknown
Aeration and In-plant controlo.
Preaent discharge over perolt.
Unknown
H-S Stripper and biological troataenx.
Unknown
Oil oklanlng, clarification,
biologically inert plutlc pellota
spearatlon.
Unknown
Discharge over poroit. Biological
Ualoa Carbide Chcnlcal Co.
at Texas City
Mieh",;"pn to Other Arena
et C Iv- i* o. .'fZljutnrlco
10.196
4,936 46.291
phenols and flourlde ronoval - in
progress.
84,181 Discharge over poralt. Construction of
treatnont facility la progress.
Tc:ua Gulf Sulfur
31u:f)
4.541
*751
•751
•2.251
Unknown
or
?-•-.• i 1105 f-1
'^ncr.r.to Chc3. Co.
(Ciocolacc liiyou)
Pctrolcua Co.
(--yo.)
2.900
0.437
726 726 •2,178 Increased Biological Capacity required.
•73 73 «219 Unknown
i—ted valuac.
!_/ Sec 7ablc V-l for applicable water quality standards in thin zone.
2/ L_tn float "Penltted Dlcchargo Quantities - Calveaton Bay Area," coapllcd by the K1QA, South Central Region.
3/ Data froa (a) Si=ary of Industrial Uaate Heeds and/or (b) Svacary of Industrial Facilities Constructed and/or Rehabilitated.
The forc-<,olnj, docuaaats cuppllcd by the FUQA. South Central Haglon.
%
-------
TABLE V7.-7.-D
OTHER INDUSTRIAL DISCHARGES TO VSST011 BAV OR ITS TRIBU7' 1T.ES
Pcrcit tc<.'. . ..' Tchr.rrsc—
Naina
Discharges to Te:;as Citx,
Galveston tnd Dickinson., ,
Bayou Areao - Zone 1104—
Oil &
Flow Grease
KGD n»»/l
S"3p .
Solids BOD COD
If/day tf/dc-.y 0/da.y
Uaste Treatnsnf. ITseds
and StatusJL'
Atchison, Topska, & Santa 0.004
Fe Railroad #1
Atchison, Topeka, & Santa 0.002
Fe Railroad (-'2
Malone Service Co. 0.010
Texas City Terminal 0.003
Railroad
Todd Shipyards Corp. 0.032
Wan Chang Corporation 0.110
, Discharges to West Bay
Area Zone 110517
McGinnes Industries Main 1.000
Co.
20
0.0
*7
*7
*3
*42
1
*53
43
ii-0
1
*53
2
*21 Unkncrm
*9 Unknoim
••'6 Completely retained.
*3 Unknown
*159 Unknorm
11 Chemical treatr.snt
end pH control.
No compliance date
set.
584
417 1,663
* Estimated values
I/ See Table V-l for applicable water quality standards in this zone.
2J Data from "Permitted Discharge Quantities-Calveston Bay Tributaries", corrpilcd by the
FUQA, South Central Region.
3/ Data from (a) Su^nry of Industrial Uaste Needs and/or (b) Sununary of Industrie!
Facilities Constructed and/or Rehabilitated. The foregoing docimants supplied by the
FWQA, South Central Region.
-------
-t
<> " X .......^.^••-'•-f- yi
AYTOWN AREA , r.lit !•"••/
CLEAR SJ3EEK AREA
111:11 run II--HSJJ PIIII
INK Illtll! PIIII ElCllIlIt IIITIfl
IIEI IEHESEIII
200 MGO
TEXAS CITY AREA
IIClHfS IICIIISII lltll t IALIES1
NTIIUII, CIEIICIl. PUIIItl
I IIIIEI lllliTIIE!
iiiicirii i minis
t. PEIIIIIEI Hill I1TI! IISCIIItES Fill
IIIEI SIIICES II HE (UrtSTII III IIEI
HE IPPIIIiBIIEU 17.S lit.
i. Ill IICLIIEI II HE IASIE IISCIIICES
TI HE iiinn HIP citiiEi ii IIIIE:II
III I! HE Clllllt IIIEI IIICE Mllltl
tllllltl If II? Itl PEIIIIIEI II II!
111:111 inn i PIIEI ti. is. i. IEIIIII
PIIII). IITEI SIPPU II IIIEI Fill HE
IIIHU.
-
Figure V/-/ Pernitlcd Wastewater Discharges ia ihe Galvesion Bay Area
-------
AYTOWN AREA
HOUSTON SHIP CHANNEL
HIM IlltllS PIIII ElClllItt UTIItl
TEXAS CITY AREA
lltliltS IKIIISII Hill ill IIIUSIII
PEIIIltU. CIEIICIl. rtlSTICI
I Illlil IIIISTIIES.
iiiitirii i IIIESIIC
III!! IIIISIIIU
E53S35S5Z3I
NOTES—
i. pEuimi SISPCIIEI sniii IISCHKES
fill ITIil SIHC!! II HE lllltSTII III
IIEl HE irPIIIIIITELI 1.711 US,III.
I. Ill IICUIEI II TIE ItSlE IISCIIIIES
ii TIE IIISTII sur ciuiEi ii fiinsii
III IS TIE tliillt IITEI [lit! IIDCI
CIIUIEI IF 111 ICI MIIIIIEI II HE
IIISTII llll! I fllEI Cl IS. I. IEIIIII
MIIII. IIIEI SIPPLI IS Illil Fill HE
tuna
..
Figure V|-^Perm!tted Suspended Solids Discharges in Calveston Baj Area
-------
-t
HOUSTON SHIP CHANNEL
HUE mm:
rillfll. CIEIICll, PLIITICS
I IIIIEI IIIISTIIES.
. HIIIIKI III IISCIillEI Fill IIIEI
HIKES II TIE IILICSTII III IIEI tit
j sn iis/ui.
1. nr 11:111:1 ii TIE IUIE iiscuiccs
II Tit IIISIII SUP (IIIIEI I! t UEJTII
III IS TIE CIIUII IITEI (IICE Tlllltl
SCALE IN MILES tUllll) IF 11) Id PUIIIItl II US
IIISIII UIIT I PIIEI (I. |S. I. IEITIII
mill. IITEI SIPPII IS IIIEI Fill TIE
num.
-*-•
Figurf \l -3 Permilled BOD Waste Discharges in the Calresloi Bay Area
-------
T
HOUSTON SHIP CHANNE
IEAR CREEK AREA
rim ii EI in v
• 4 Mi. I.,
.'•U PI. ~f
HUE nuns PIIIT Eiciiiiif IITTIII
IIEI IEPIISEITS
5OO.OOO LBS/DAY
TEXAS CITY AREA
IICUIU HCIIIill Kill (II IIL1ESIII
PET1ILEII. CIEIICIl, PUSIII
I IIIIEI IIHilllES
IIIICIPII i li
L | mil uiiniiti
c o
. PEIIITTII (II IIICIIIIE! Fill IIIEI
siutEi ii HE iimstu in IIEI HE
ipfiniuiui 12.111 us in.
2. ir IICIIIEI II TIE IISTE ll'tllltE
2 * •* * tl TIE IIISTII SUP tllllEl II .IHESII
III IS HE CIILIII IIIEI [lit! TIIIIU
SCALE !N M.LES (Illllll I! 1)1 III PEIIITTil II Tl:
IIIS1II Hill I Hlil tl. IS. I. KITH
mill. IIIEI SIPPLI is IIIEI mi ii
tllllEl.
•f
Figure V/-^-Permitted COD Waste Discharges in ibe Calveston Bay Area
-------
64
A. MUNICIPAL AND DOMESTIC WASTE DISCHARGES
Municipal and domestic waste sources are permitted to discharge
over 215 MGO containing 39,400 pounds per day of suspended solids,
39,300 pounds per day of BOD and 118,900 pounds per day of COD. The
areas where most of this waste is discharged are the Houston Ship
Channel and tributaries, Clear Lake, and the Texas City, Galveston,
and Dickinson Bayou areas. The Houston Ship Channel area has 90
sources discharging about 172 MGD with 31,500 pounds per day of
suspended solids, 31,300 pounds per day of BOD, and 95,200 pounds
per day of COD. This represents 80 percent of the waste effluent
permitted from domestic sources in Galveston Bay. Clear Lake with
26 sources and Texas City-Galveston-Dickinson Bayou with six sources,
discharge 7.5 percent, and 5.6 percent of the total, respectively.
The remaining 7 percent is discharged from the Baytown, Trinity Bay,
and West Bay areas.
Nearly 144 MGD is discharged from 37 treatment plants by the
city of Houston to the Houston Ship Channel or its tributaries.
Only eight of these plants have flows greater than one MGD. The
two major installations are the Northside plant at 55 MGD and
the Sims Bayou plant with 48 MGD. It has previously been demon-
strated that the Houston Ship Channel is the major source of
coliform pollution contaminating shellfish harvesting areas in
Galveston Bay. Most of the permits for municipal sources require
disinfection of wastes by chlorination. Neither the Northside nor
Sims Bayou plants have chlorination facilities as of January 1971.
-------
65
Effluent data collected by the Texas Water Quality Board February
1969 showed total colifora concentrations at both plants to be
34,800,000/100 ml. Fecal coliform concentrations were 13,000,000/100
ml and 3,300,0l'0/100 ml at the Northside and Sims Bayou plants,
respectively.
At least 4 MGD of domestic wastes is being discharged to the
Galveston Bay system with no treatment. Harris County Sewer Districts
discharge waste from 27 sources, only one of which has a flow of one
MGD. The City of Houston has four additional sources not discharging
t
to the Ship Channel, for a total of 41. Galveston has three sources
and Baytown has five. More than 110 MGD of raw, inadequately treated,
or unchlorinated sewage is discharged to Galveston Bay. The multi-
plicity of waste treatment plants constructed by each political
subdivision is wasteful of resources and does not provide adequate
operations to assure the best treatment for domestic sewage. A
program of centralization of treatment facilities and abandonment
of small plants, with a firm implementation schedule, should be
undertaken at the earliest time. Effective year round chlorination
should be initiated immediately for all existing domestic effluents.
B. INDUSTRIAL WASTE DISCHARGES
The 136 industrial waste dischargers are permitted a total
effluent of about 563 MGD containing 540,000 pounds per day of
suspended solids, 230,300 pounds per day of BOD, and 1,538,200
pounds per day of COD. Petroleum and related industries, amounting
-------
66
to 75 sources, account for 81 percent of the suspended solids
permitted, 68 percent of the BOD, and 7A.5 percent of the COD.
The Houston Ship Channel receives the major portion of indus-
trial waste discharges to the Galveston Bay system. The permitted
waste effluent totals are about equally divided between petroleum
and related industries with AS sources and other industries amounting
to 53 sources. The Houston Ship Channel may receive 283,500 pounds
per day of suspended solids, 149,500 pounds per day of BOD, and
783,900 pounds per day of COD. The major sources of waste discharged
to the Ship Channel are the Diamond Shamrock Company at Deer Park with
more than 149 MGD, Ethyl Corporation with 26 MGD, Humble Oil and
Refining Company with 25 MGD, Armco Steel Corporation with 32.5 MGD,
U.S. Plywood-Champion Paper Company with 44 MGD, and Southland Paper
Mills with 50 HGD. Of the total 101 industrial sources permitted
to discharge wastes to the Houston Ship Channel, these six effluents
account for 83 percent of the suspended solids, 78 percent of the
BOD, and 79 percent of the COD. Three of these sources, Diamond
Shamrock, U.S. Plywood-Champion Paper, and Southland Paper Mills
account for 72 percent, 64 percent, and 67 percent of the total
amount of suspended solids, BOD, and COD, respectively, discharged
daily to the Houston Ship Channel. Diamond Shamrock discharges
heavy metals, particularly mercury, without adequate treatment.
There is also a need for pH control and solids containment at this
plant. Armco Steel Corporation has been discharging phenols and
cyanide, an extremely toxic substance. Adequate treatment is not
-------
67
provided at Southland Paper Mills. Excessive color is a constituent
of the waste effluent from both U.S. Plywood-Champion Paper and
Southland Paper Mills. U.S. Plywood-Champion Paper is now completing
secondary treatment facilities. The treatment at Ethyl consists of
an oyster shale barrier for pH control and an oxidation pond. Humble
Oil at Baytown has aerated lagoons and is said to be in compliance
with permit requirements.
Although the Texas permits specify that 180,800 pounds per day
of BOD may be discharged from municipal and industrial sources to
the Houston Ship Channel, studies conducted in the Channel during
1968 and 1969 indicate that as much as 363,000 pounds per day of
five day BOD is the actual loading- . The aggregate total of waste
discharges is in substantial noncompliance with the Texas Water
Quality Board permits. To meet the requirements of the Texas Water
Quality Board, a 50 percent reduction of wastes discharged to the
Channel is mandatory in addition to any reductions already accom-
plished. The conclusion of the study cited indicates that, even if
the requirements of the permits are met, the dissolved oxygen
criterion of 2 mg/1, established in the Texas Water Quality
Requirements for the most polluted section of the Ship Channel,
will continue to be violated. Approximately 90 percent additional
I/ Kramer, G. K., R. W. Hann, and S. B. Carpenter, "Completely
Mixed Model of the Houston Ship Channel", Estuarine Systems
Projects, Technical Report No. 11, Environmental Engineering
Division, Texas A&M University.
-------
68
treatment of wastes is needed to maintain a dissolved oxygen level
of 2.0 mg/1. These studies were based on BOD loadings and did not
account for any long-term or second stage oxygen demands. Under
these circumstances, and since it has been demonstrated that BOD does
not adequately characterize the oxygen demanding effects of wastes
discharged to the Calveston Bay system due to the discharge of
toxic or growth inhibiting substances in the waste effluents,
the estimate of 90 percent additional treatment is conservative.
It is probable that greater than 90 percent additional treatment
will be required to meet the applicable receiving water criteria.
The Texas discharge permits should be revised such that effluent
discharges are consistent with established water quality standards.
The permits allow the discharge of 315,000 pounds per day of
suspended solids to the Ship Channel. Materials dredged from the
Ship Channel contain substantial quantities of organic sludges, oil,
and other pollutants characteristic of wastes discharged to the
Channel. About one-third of the BOD loading and one-half of the
suspended solids discharged settle out and are incorporated in
21
the bottom sediments— . These waste materials contribute a substan-
tial portion of the sediments which must periodically be removed by
dredging. The total project cost for dredging the Houston Ship
Channel in 1970 incurred by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is
2J Button, W. S., R. W. Hann, and R. H. Smith, "A Quantitative and
Qualitative Survey of Benthal Deposits Contained in the Houston
Ship Channel", Estuarine Systems Projects. Technical Report
No, 8, Texas ASM University, May 1970.
-------
69
$2,807,000. The disposal of this highly organic spoil may cause
water quality problems through dispersion of pollutants and through
exercise of oxygen demand from the volatile material contained. The
additional costs incurred by the Corps of Engineers fpr dredging of
the Houston Ship Channel and the effect on water quality due to
disposal of the organic sludge should be evaluated. Recommendations
made as a result of this evaluation should include an assessment of
damages among the waste dischargers to the Channel and location
of suitable spoil disposal areas to minimize or eliminate deleterious
effects on water quality.
The other major area of industrial waste discharge to the
Calveston Bay system is at Texas City-Dickinson Bayou. There are
17 sources of waste in the area; however, the discharge from the
six non-petroleum related sources is negligible. The 11 petroleum
related sources are permitted to discharge 234,000 pounds per day
of suspended solids, 65,900 pounds per day of BOD, and 686,500 pounds
per day of COD. Of this total, the Monsanto Chemical Company at
Texas City with 106 MGD contributes the overwhelming majority of
the pollution discharged. Suspended solids and COD discharges per-
mitted from Monsanto account for 96 percent and 83 percent, respec--
tively, of the total from the area. Monsanto is not providing
adequate waste treatment. An assessment of waste treatment needs
for Monsanto includes oil skimming devices, clarification and
separation of biologically inert plastics. The major source of BOD
-------
70
waste in Che area is the Union Carbide Chemical Company at Texas
City with 10.2 MGD. Union Carbide is permitted to discharge 70
percent of the total BOD load in this area. Currently, the waste
discharge is in non-compliance with the permit. American Oil Company
at Texas City with 13 MGD is also a major waste discharger. The
effluent is not in compliance with the permit.
Texas Gulf Sulfur Company at Moss Bluff discharges 4.5 KGD to
the Trinity Bay area. The status of treatment is not known. The
Monsanto Chemical Company at Chocolate Bayou discharges 2.9 MGD in
the West Bay area. The treatment provided is inadequate.
Although the Texas Water Quality Standards state that receiving
waters shall be "substantially free" of oil, the permits issued by
the Texas Water Quality Board allow more than 55,000 pounds per day
of oil and grease to be discharged from 81 sources into Calveston
Bay and its tributaries. Seventy-four of these sources are located
on the Houston Ship Channel, accounting for 98 percent of the total
permitted discharge. The major sources of oil discharge are:
Diamond Shamrock Corporation at Deer Park, 12,500 pounds per day;
U.S. Plywood-Champion Papers Company, 9,200 pounds per day; Armco
Steel Company, 6,800 pounds per day; Atlantic Richfield Company,
8,100 pounds per day; Humble Oil and Refining Company, 4,200
pounds per day; and Southland Paper Mills, A,170 pounds per day.
Shell Chemical Company and Crown Central Petroleum Company may
discharge 1,270 and 1,200 pounds per day, respectively. These
eight sources account for 86 percent of the permitted discharges.
-------
71
Excessive concentrations of oil and petrochemical residues have
been found in oysters taken from Galveston Bay. The Texas permits
should be amerded to allow no discharge of oil and grease from any
waste source. The permitted discharge of oil from these waste
sources constitutes violation of Section 11(b) of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act, as amended.
The petrochemical and related industries constitute the major
pollution dischargers to Galveston Bay and its tributaries. Discharge
permits specify suspended solids, BOD and COD. These parameters
are not adequate to measure the water quality impact of these indus-
trial wastes because of the variety and complexity of compounds in
the effluents. Table VI-3 lists typical pollutants which may result
3/
from various petrochemical processes- . Many of these waste compounds
have toxic, growth inhibiting or carcinogenic effects. Several
of these effects have been noted on marine life in Galveston
Bay and the Houston Ship Channel and aromatic hydrocarbons, not of
natural origin, were recovered from oysters. (See Chapter V).
However, .no data are available on the specific types of pollutants
being discharged by the numerous petrochemical industries.
Other manufacturing processes in the Galveston Bay area produce
wastes containing toxic metals which have been observed in the re-
ceiving waters. Table VI-4 lists those municipal and industrial
sources discharging large quantities of one or more heavy metals.
3/ Gloyna, E. F., and D. L. Ford, The Characteristics and Pollutional
Problems Associated with Petrochemical Wastes, Summary Report.
Engineering Science Inc./Texas, Austin, Texas, February 1970.
-------
72
TA3LE VI-3
POLLUTANTS ASSOCIATED WITH VARIOUS PETROCHEMICAL PROCESSES
Proccns
Source
Pollutnntu
or.: Ethylbcnzcnc
Production
Aromticc Ibcovcry
Catalytic Gracing
Catalytic Reforming
Crude Processing
Cyanide Production
Dahydrogcnation
Butadiene Fiod. froa
n-Butane and Butylcnc
Kctonc Productioa
Styrcnc from Ethyl-
benzene
Dsoulfurisation
Extraction end Purification
laobutylone
Eutyleno
Styrcnc
Eutadicr.c Absorption
Extractive Distillation
netion (Principally
:ilor±r.aLio=>
Addition to 01efC.no
Substitution
Hypochloricstioa
Dcminoralization
Regeneration, Process
Condcnaates
Furnace Effluents
Extract Hater
Solvent Purification
Catalyst Regeneration
Reactor Effluents and
Condenoatcs
Condcnsateo
Crude Hashing
Primary Diati.lla.tton
Water Slops
Quench Watora
Distillation Slops
Catalyst
Condensatca froa Spray
Tower
Acid and Caustic Wastes
Solvent and Caustic Wash
Still Bottoms
Solvent
Solvent
Separator
EC1 Absorber, Scrubber
Ec'.iydrohologcaation
Hydrolysis
Tar, Hydrochloric Acid, Caustic Soda, Fuel Oil
Acid, Bases
Armenia
Carbon Dioxide, Carbon Monoxide
Aromatic Hydrocarbons
Solvents - Sulfur Dioxide, Dicthylcnc Glycol
Spent Catalyst, Catalyst Finca (Silica, Aluaina
Hydrocarbons, Carbon Monoxide, Nitrogen Oxides)
Acids, Phenolic Compounds, Hydrogen Sulflde
Soluble Hydrocarbons, Sulfur Oxides, Cyanides
Catalyst (particularly Ft, Ho), Aroaatic Hydrocarbons,
Hydrogen Sulfide, Ammonia
Inorganic Salts, Oils, Water Soluble Hydrocarbons
Hydrocarbons, Tnxs, Anxonia, Acids, Hydrogen
Sulfide
Hydrogen Cyanide, Unrcactcd Soluble Hydrocarbons
Residue Gas, Tars, Oils, Soluble Hydrocarbons
Hydrocarbon Polymers, Chlorinated Hydrocarbons,
Glycerol, Sodium Chloride
Spent Catalyst (Fe, Mg, K, Cu, Cr, Zn)
Aronatic Hydrocarbons, including Styrenc, Ethyl-
benzene, and Toluene, Tars
Hydrogen Sulfide, Mcrcaptans
Sulfuric Acid, C^ Hydrocarbon, Caustic Soda
Acetone, Oils, C, Hydrocarbon, Caustic Soda,
Sulfuric Acid H
Heavy Tars
Cuprous Acaoniun Acetate, C, Hydrocarbons, Oils
Furfural, C Hydrocarbons
Spent Caustic
Chlorine, Hydrogen Chloride, Spent Caustic, Hydro-
carbon Ico^ora or.d Chlorinated Products, Oils
Dilute Salt Solution
Calclua Chloride, Soluble Organico, Tars
-------
73
TADL3 VI-3 (Continuad)
POLLUTANTS ASSOCIATED WITU VARIOUS PETROCHEMICAL PROCESSES
Proccco
Hydrochlorir.atioa
Ey<2rocorbo::ylr.tion
Source
Surge Tank
Still Slops
Pollutants
Tare, Spent Catalyst, Alkyl Hal ides
Soluble Hydrocarbons, Aldehydes
(0X0 Pioccan)
Eydrocy.ina'ion (for
Acrylonitrilo , Adipic
Acid, etc.)
in General
Nitration
Paraffins
Arccatics
Oxidation
Ethylcnc Oxide and
Glycol Manufacture
Aldehydes, Alcoholc,
ar.d Acido from
Hydrocarbons
Acidc and Anhydrides
frcn Ai'omstic
Oxidation
Phenol and Acetone from
Aromatic Oxidation (
Carbon Black Manufacture
Polyccri=ction, Alkylation
Polymerization
(Polyethylene)
Butyl Rubber
Copolyucr Rubber
Nylon 66
Sulfatlon of Olcfins
Sulfosatibn of Aromatics
Thermal C-jackin^ for Olefin
Production (including
Fractioiiatlcn and
Purification)
Utilities
Process Effluents
Process Wastes
Process Slops
Process Slops
Condensntca
Still Slops
Decanter
Cooling, Quenching
Catalysts
Catalysts
Process Wastes
Process Wastes
Process Wastes
Caustic Wash
Furnace Effluent aad
Caustic Treating
Boiler Blow-down
Cooling Systca Blow-down
Water
Cyanides, Organic and Inorganic
Hydrocarbons; Aliphatic, Aroontic, and Derivative Tars
By-Product Aldehydes, Ketones, Acids, Alcohols,
Olcfins, Carbon Dioxide
Sulfuric Acid, Nitric Acid, Aroaatics
Calcium Chloride, Spent Lime, Hydrocarbon Polymers,
Ethylcne Oxide, Clycols, Dichloride
Acetone, Formaldehyde, Acetaldehydc, Hethanol, Higher
Alcohols, Organic Acids
Anhydrides, Aromatics, Acids
Pitch
Formic Acid, Hydrocarbons
Carbon Black, Particulatea, Dissolved Solids
Spent Acid Catalysts (phosphoric Acid), Aluminum Chloride
Chromium, Nickel, Cobalt, Molybdenum
Scrap Butyl, Oil, Light Hydrocarbons
Butadiene, Styrcne Scrum, Softener Sludge
Cyclohcxanc Oxidation Products, Succinic Acid, Adipic
Acid, Glutaric Acid, Hcxamethylcnc, Diamine,
Adiponitrilc, Acetone, Methyl Ethyl Kctonc
Alcohols, Polymerized Hydrocarbons, Sodium Sulfatc, Ethers
Spent Caustic
Acids, Hydrogen Sulfide, Mcrcaptans, Soluble Hydrocarbons,
Polymerization Products, Spent Caustic, Phenolic
Compounds, Residue Gases, Tars and Heavy Oils
Phosphates, Lignina, Heat, Total Dissolved Solids,
Xonnins
Chromatcs, Phosphates, Algicides, Heat
Calciua aad Magnesium Chlorides, Sulfates, Carbonates
-------
74
T.U3LE VI-4
o;? UEMTC METALS TO THE EOUSTO:J sui? cuzxir
Industry or
iluaiclpnlity
Oiin Ijthiecoa
Dicrasd Shf-rocit
Ar^co SEC=! Com.*
(Shcrtieid)
Ba?cnt (LnPorte)
!:oiut03 Li^hcics 6 Pwer
Co.
(Zestrcn)
Ideal Ce=23t
Goodyear Tire (Koustoa)
LO-.ri::ol Corp.
Ei=ila Oil (Houston)
Plcst
Clous too)
Patro-Tc:: Chcaicol
r^V-n £ IT/VT^.
(Doer Pad.)
Sioll Chemical Co.
(Essr Par'.:)
Eouchltxd Paper
StaufCar Cicuiccl
Couches tor)
Upjohn (Ccruin)
Tccscco Chemical (Pasadena)
U.S. Plyuood (Paocdcna)
Totals
Outfcll
Code
ilvrber
27-1
27-3
47-1
47-2
47-5
28-56
60
58-0
8-1
10-2
45-1
61-1
65-1
65-2
9-2
51-2
(API)
51-1
51-2
44-1
41
3
55
42-1
21
-
Flc-j
13D
8.36
1.44
5.03
90. CO
2.00
3.50
2.00
0.51
1.44
0.33
0.75
9.00
23. CD
20.00
3.10
0.50
1.03
1.03
8.20
13.60
0.65
0.61
2.40
30.00
242.53
iliac
920
57
320
975
72
1,6
168
"
210
-
100
540
1,0:0
300
196
21
16
40
550
215
65
117
30
1.7CO
7.CG6
Hsavy
Kctala - Ib/day
Lccd Chrosiua Ccdaiua
43
6
25
1.420
29
-
-
16
13
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
6B
2
3
-
-
1.630
22 22
150 1,050
-
8
"
5 6
6
-
;o is
47
10
16
9
0
- -
-
2 2
5 3
18
-
335 1,090
Copper
303
1,875
-
-
"
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
102
-
20
32
2.332
co=.paoitc ocvrilec collected by the I^QA, Couth Central UcQlon, allowed
Chat this industry woo discharging oppvorJLcQtcly 1.000 Ibc. of cyanide end 400 Ibs.
per day of phenols to the Houston Ship Chcnccl. Xiio Justica Department recently
filed cult czainat this induatry uadar the 1859 Rsfuac Act.
=2cJ aa. effluent dcta (grab oocplca oaly) collected by the ?occa Water Quality Board
in February 1969. Additional field data arc necessary to determine if the acsplcs
collected era representative.
-------
75
Of the 277 municipal and industrial waste sources having dis-
charge permits in the Galveston Bay area, the waste treatment needs
and status of 189 are not listed. Where needs are indicated, 40
sources provide inadequate or no treatment and no abatement, beyond
engineering studies in a few instances, is in progress. Seventeen
sources have treatment facilities in progress; 22 are said to be
in compliance with permit requirements. Nine sources either provide
adequate treatment or have no needs. These evaluations are based on
the inadequate characterization of wastes according to the parameters
listed in the Texas permits. An effective waste abatement program is
not now being conducted in the Galveston Bay area. A waste source
inventory, including characterization of specific compounds dis-
charged, as well as evaluation of present treatment practices and
additional needs for each effluent is urgently required. The
Texas permits should be revised to reflect the required removal
of waste substances causing deleterious effects or hazardous
conditions in the receiving waters. A firm compliance schedule for
each effluent should be included in the discharge permit.
A summary of municipal and industrial waste discharges by area
is listed in Table VI-5.
C. OTHER SOURCES
Many of the 'small coastal streams entering Galveston Bay flow
through heavily industrialized and urban areas. These streams carry
surface runoff from such areas following periods of precipitation.
Biochemical oxygen demand of urban runoff from the Houston area is
-------
TABLE VI-5
SU1EIARY OF PERMITTED UAST£ DISCHARGES - GALVESTOil BAY AREA
MUNICIPAL AND DOiffiSTIC
Arei
Houston ;' ip Ch?ier of Sources
* COD Values for all but three municipal and
I/ Not included in the total waste discharges
2 31.5
3 1.0
9 3.0
5 2.2
0 0.4
5 1.3
4 39.4
BOD
1,000
tf/day
31.3
1.0
3.0
2.2
0.5
1.3
39.3
PETROLEUM, CHEMICAL, PLASTIC, AKD
RUBBER INDUSTRIES
COD- Hun-ber
1,000 of Flow
f/day Sources 1IGD
95.2
2.9
8.9
6.7
1.4
3.8
118.9
48
5
8
11
1
2
75
- 277; Flow-lIGD - 778.8; S.S. (1
domestic sources - all estimated
to the Houston Ship Channel and
245.2
27.6
10.0
132.3
4.5
3.2
422.8
S.S.
1,000
ff/clay
183.0
15.7
5.3
234.0
0.8
0.8
439.6
EOD
1,000
S/dav
76.3
11.2
1.7
65.9
0.8
0.8
156.7
COD
1,000
391.1
45.9
15.5
606. 5
2.3
2.4
1143.7
OTHER ISX'JSTHTAL
Kuzber S.S. EOD COJ
of Flow 1,000 1,000 i,c:o
Sources KGD f/dny f/d-y t/ /
53 139.6 100.2 73.2 392.0
-
1 -- NEGLIGIBLE --
6 — H E G L I G I B L .E —
_
1 1.0 0.6 0.4 1.7
61 140.6 100.8 73.6 3S4.5
,000 f/day)= 583.2; BOD (1,000 i7dsy)» 269.6; COD (l.OCO C/d=y)= 1,657.1
•
tho Bay is tho ceolins uatcr discharge (once thiough flow) of 737.2
1IGD pernitted to Houston Light and Pover Conpany (S. R. Bartron Plant). Water oupply is taken fro-j the Chasiiel.
-------
77
about 20 mg/1 which is comparable to weak municipal wastes. For the
1963-68 period, BOD discharged to the upper 25 miles of the Houston
Ship Channel by urban runoff was estimated to average about 92,000
pounds per yea):. The suspended solids load from urban runoff
4/
averaged 550,000 pounds per year from 1963-68- .
Rural runoff from areas in the Trinity and San Jacinto River
basins may contribute silt and nutrients to the estuary. Construc-
tion and operation of Livingston and Wallisville Reservoirs on the
Trinity River will substantially reduce the silt load to Calveston
Bay.
A/ Button, W. S., R. W. Hann, and R. H. Smith, "A Quantitative and
Qualitative Survey of Benthal Deposits Contained in the Houston
Ship Channel". Estuarine Systems Projects. Technical Report No.
8, Texas A&M University, May 1970.
-------
78
-------
79
VII. ECONOMIC HIPACT OF POLLUTION
Harvesting of shellfish, primarily oysters, has a significant
economic value to the Calveston Bay estuary. Bacterial pollution has
closed a substantial portion of the estuary to the harvesting of
shellfish. Toxic materials and sediments discharged to the estuarial
waters have reduced the areas which will support commercially harvest-
able populations of shellfish— . The depuration of oysters harvested
from certain areas is required before the oysters may be marketed,
resulting in increased costs to oystermen. The direct economic loss
incurred by the shellfish industry as a result of impaired shellfish
production produces an associated economic impact on the regional
economy.
A. SHELLFISH AREAS CLOSED BY POLLUTION
For at least the last twenty years, a substantial portion of
the estuary has been closed to the taking of shellfish for human
consumption. Bacteriological criteria and proximity to sources of
pollution.were the determining factors in defining closed areas.
Between 1951 and 1970, the area closed to shellfish harvesting ranged
from 205,000 acres to 155,000 acres, or about two-thirds to one-half
of the estuarine area. The classifications of various areas of
I/ Button, W. S., R. W. Harm, and R. H. Smith, "A Quantitative and
Qualitative Survey of Benthal Deposits Contained in the Houston
Ship Channel", Estuarine Systems Projects, Technical Report No.
8, Texas A£M University, May 1970.
-------
80
the estuary relative to shellfish harvesting as established for the
1970-71 shellfish season are shown in Figure VII-1.
Between 1955 and the present, three significant changes were
made in the sizes and locations of the closed and open areas. The
total area open in 1955 approximated the open area for 1966 although
boundaries differed slightly. Between 1955 and 1958, the open area
remained about the same. In 1958, open areas in upper Galveston Bay
were reduced in size and a conditionally approved area was estab-
lished. The conditionally approved area, which had essentially
the same boundaries as shown in Figure'VII-1, was subject to tem-
porary closure following periods of high surface runoff. The open
areas retained the same boundaries until 1966 when an additional
area in lower Trinity Bay was opened to shellfish harvesting. The
Trinity Bay area was again enlarged in 1969, establishing the open
area boundaries shown in Figure VII-1.
The major changes in open and closed areas over the past 15
years have been in upper Galveston Bay and Lower Trinity Bay. Only
limited areas of commercially important oyster producing reefs uere
changed in classification. The actual oyster producing area approved
for harvesting has remained relatively the same for the past ten
years. Although the water area open for shellfish taking has been
substantially increased over the past twenty years, the actual area
of producing reefs has not been proportionately increased and has
probably decreased as a result of destruction of reefs by siltation
and shell dredging.
-------
KUSIOK
Figire VII - 1 Classifications of Shellfish Harvesting Areas
-------
81
At present, almost 90 percent of the oyster harvest is taken
from Red Fish Reef and the smaller Todd Dump Reef. These reefs are
located between Smith Point and Eagle Point in Galveston Bay. Todd
Dump Reef and the portion of Red Fish Reef west of the Houston Ship
Channel are located in the conditionally approved area. Temporary
closures of this area during high streamflow periods can restrict
harvesting from a significant portion of the most productive oyster
reefs. The frequency and lengths of temporary closures of this area
have not been documented.
t
It is estimated that productive reefs in open shellfishing
areas now have a total area of about 9,100 acres. Estimates of
shellfish areas open to harvesting in the past were utilized to
determine the approximate annual yield of oyster meat from one acre
of productive reef. Except for 1965, this yield has remained rela-
tively stable for the 1963-69 period. The average yield for this
period was considered representative of the level of production per
acre that could be sustained under normal conditions in the Galveston
Bay estuary.
B. PRODUCTIVE SHELLFISH BEDS IN CLOSED AREAS
The following statement by Congressman Bob Eckhardt of Texas
was presented at a public hearing for the National Estuarine Pollu-
21
tion Study- .
2J Eckhardt, Bob, U.S. Representative, 8th District Texas, Statement
presented by Mr. Keith Ozmore, staff assistant, to National
Estuarine Pollution Study Hearing, Galveston, Texas, October 8,
1968.
-------
82
"I am informed by the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department
that the 42 percent of the estuary which is off-limits for
oyster production contains some 1,500 acres of producing
oyster reefs, or roughly 15.7 percent of the oyster reefs
in the entire estuary. This means that each year we are
losing 692,429 pounds of oyster meats, worth some $311,593
because they cannot be marketed. And this does not reflect
the total loss. By the time you figure that landed value,
this means that we are losing $3,115,930 in the oyster
fishery because of pollution."
Another estimate prepared by the Texas Parks and Wildlife
Department in 1970 indicated that there are currently 1,000 acres
of oyster beds located in polluted areas of which about 500 acres
would support commercial harvesting- . Closed productive areas are
primarily located in Dickinson Bay and West Bay.
A number of smaller reefs closed to harvesting are located in
areas with suitable salinity for oyster production. Some of these
reefs support populations of small oysters which do not reach market-
able size. It is believed that these reefs could support marketable
oysters if suitable water quality enhancement were achieved.
A number of shellfish beds located in closed areas are acces-
sible by foot during low tide, or by small boat. Local health
authorities have encountered problems in preventing sport shellfish-
ing in these areas. Consumption of shellfish from these areas poses
a health hazard, as the shellfish may be contaminated by bacteria
and toxic materials.
3l/ Singleton, J. R., Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, Letter
regarding oyster harvesting areas in Galveston Bay within
polluted waters; also recent dockside value of oyster harvests
in Galveston Bay, November 1970.
-------
83
C. ECONOMIC DAMAGES
The average yield of producing shellfish beds in open areas
provides a reasonable estimate for the average harvest which could
be obtained from beds located in closed areas if shellfishing
restrictions caused by pollution were removed. The average yield
for the 1963-69 period was 392 pounds of oyster meat per acre.
Estimates of producing oyster reefs in the areas closed due
21 3/
to pollution range from 1,500 acres— to 500 acres— . If 1,500
acres could be made commercially available due to abatement of
pollution, an additional 588,000 pounds of oyster meat would be
harvested. At 1969 prices of $0.44 per pound, this harvest has a
dockside value of $258,000. If only 500 acres are commercially
available, the dockside value of 196,000 pounds would be $86,000.
A recent survey of the Florida shellfish industry states that the
final retail value of shellfish products is roughly four times the
4/
dockside value— . The economic damage to shellfish harvesters
caused by closure of producing shellfish areas due to pollution
ranges between $344,000 and $1,030,000 annually.
Approximately 16,000 barrels of oysters were harvested using
depuration techniques in the 1968-69 season. The extra handling
2/ Eckhardt, Bob, U.S. Representative, 8th District Texas, Statement
presented by Mr. Keith Ozmore, staff arsistant, to National
Estuarine Pollution Study Hearing, Galveston, Texas, October 8,
1968.
Zf Singleton, J. R., Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, Letter
regarding oyster harvesting areas in Galveston Bay within
polluted waters; also recent dockside value of oyster harvests
in Galveston Bay, November 1970.
kj Colbert, J. R., and D. M. Windham, The Oyster Based Economy of
Franklin County. Florida, U.S. Public Health Service, DREW.
-------
84
in transplanting oysters from polluted areas to approved areas in
the depuration process increases the costs of marketing oysters and
results in an additional economic impact. It is estimated that the
costs associated with depuration in Galveston Bay total $15,000
annually. The total actual damages caused by the inability to
market shellfish due to pollution in Galveston Bay are between
$359,000 and $1,045,000 annually.
If examination of water quality for approval of areas for
shellfish harvesting were regularly conducted under the most unfavor-
able hydrographic and pollution conditions as required by applicable
standards, it is probable that the most productive reefs in Galveston
Bay now approved for harvesting, would have to be closed due to
excessive bacteriological pollution. These conditions occurred
about 40 percent of the time during the 1969 season. Furthermore,
concentrations of hydrocarbon residues, exceeding those which re-
sulted in closure of shellfishing areas in West Falmouth Harbor,
Massachusetts, have been recovered from Galveston Bay oysters taken
from approved areas. Heavy metals concentrations in Galveston
Bay waters greatly exceed natural background concentrations.
Galveston Bay should be closed to all shellfish harvesting imme-
diately until the health hazard associated with waste discharges
is clearly ascertained and eliminated. Consideration should also
be given to prohibiting all commercial fishing in Galveston Bay
until it has been ascertained that the marine species taken from
-------
85
the Bay are suitable for human consumption. The value of the
commercial fishery in Galveston Bay during 1964 was $2,797,400- .
Prohibition of commercial fishing represents a substantial economic
damage. Assuming a 5 percent rate of return on this renewable
resource, commercial fishing represents to the Galveston Bay area
a $56,000,000 capital investment, based on 1964 figures, which has
been endangered due to pollution from municipal and industrial
wastes.
5/ Eckhardt, Bob, U.S. Representative, 8th District Texas, Statement
presented by Mr. Keith Ozmore, staff assistant, to National
Estuarine Pollution Study Hearing, Galveston, Texas, October 8,
1968.
-------
86
-------
87
VIII. WATER QUALITY IMPACT OF FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS
A. HOUSTON WATER SUPPLY DIVERSION
Development of the Trinity River as an j'dditional water supply
for the Houston metropolitan area is nearing the final stages.
Wallisville and Livingston Reservoirs on the Trinity River and a
pipeline from Wallisville Reservoir to the Houston area are the
major features of the Trinity River supply system.
Livingston Reservoir was recently constructed by the Trinity
River Authority to provide storage for.regulation of flow in the
lower river and for increasing the firm yield of the watershed for
water supply purposes.
Construction of Wallisville Reservoir was recently initiated
by the Corps of Engineers. This reservoir, located about four miles
upstream from the mouth of the river and downstream from Livingston
Reservoir, will provide a barrier against upstream intrusion of
saline water from Trinity Bay during high tide and low flow condi-
tions and will serve as an intake point for the water supply pipe-
line to Houston. Since the reservoir will have only a small amount
of active storage, little regulation of stream flow will be produced
other than that achieved by diversions to Houston. Construction
of Wallisville Reservoir will inundate part of the productive shrimp
nursery areas in Trinity Bay.
Wallisville Reservoir alone will produce only a small effect
on water quality in the estuary. The complete Trinity River water
-------
88
supply system will, however, substantially alter circulation and
water quality conditions. The most significant effect of the water
supply system will be to reduce the freshwater inflow to Trinity
Bay. It is estimated that the average freshwater discharge from
the Trinity River into Trinity Bay will be decreased by about 13
percent by 1980. This reduction would result from the combination
of an average diversions of about 540 cubic feet per second (cfs)
through the pipeline to Houston and the depletion of streamflow
in the upper watershed due to the expanded needs of the Dallas-Fort
Worth area and increased usage for irrigation.
At any point in Trinity Bay, salinity concentrations are
primarily a function of the Trinity River discharge. During the
spring high flow season, salinity levels throughout the Bay are at
their lowest and increase with distance from the mouth of the
Trinity River. Salinity levels are the highest during the late
summer low flow period. A reduction in average freshwater inflow
would thus be expected to produce an increase in average salinity
levels. The Corps of Engineers has conducted an evaluation of
salinity concentrations and circulation patterns in the entire
Galveston Bay estuary system using a physical hydraulic model— .
Existing (1965) and future (1980) conditions of water use were
simulated. The results of the model tests indicated that 1980
I./ Bobb, W. H., and R. A. Boland, Jr., Galveston Bay Hurricane
Surge Study, Technical Report H-69-12, July 1970, U.S. Army
Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi.
-------
89
average salinity levels would increase slightly (0-10 percent) over
1965 levels at most locations in Trinity Bay with increases as high
as 50 percent produced at a few locations for part of the year.
The suitability of an estuarine area for a shrimp nursery is
highly dependent upon salinity conditions. Abnormal'salinity
fluctuations can be expected to affect development of juvenile
shrimp. Increases in average salinity concentrations will alter
the area having salinity levels suitable for a nursery. The average
annual value of shrimp harvested from the estuary is nearly $1
million. This harvest represents only a fraction of the adult
shrimp produced by the Trinity Bay nursery, as many shrimp caught
in other areas were hatched in Trinity Bay. Any reduction in the
shrimp production of this nursery would thus have a substantial
economic impact.
Water use for municipal and industrial purposes in the Houston
metropolitan area is projected to substantially increase in the
future. Most of this increased water use will be returned to the
estuary, primarily the Houston Ship Channel, as municipal and
industrial waste discharges. Additional waste discharges to the
Ship Channel will require that higher levels of treatment be
provided for all waste sources to maintain acceptable water quality.
Perhaps the most significant result of :'rcreased waste dis-
charges would be the augmentation of freshwater inflow to the Ship
Channel. It is estimated that this flow augmentation will be almost
200 percent of present low flows under 1980 conditions of water use.
-------
90
The net effect of the circulation pattern in the Houston Ship Channel
is to transport pollutants from the Channel into the Bay via the
surface freshwater outflow. Flow augmentation will result in more
rapid transport of pollutants to the Bay; the frequency of flushing of
the Channel would also increase. If water quality in the Ship Channel
is not improved, flow augmentation could result in greater degrada-
tion of water quality in the Bay.
B. CEDAR BAYOU POWER PLANT
A large-scale fossil fueled electric generating plant known as
the Cedar Bayou Power Plant is being constructed by the Houston
Lighting and Power Company at a location on Cedar Bayou near the
north shore of Trinity Bay. The plant is scheduled to be built in
six stages. Each of the first four stages will consist of one 750-
megawatt power unit. The last two stages will add one 1,000-megawatt
unit each, bringing the ultimate generating capacity of the plant to
5,000 megawatts. The first unit is scheduled to be on line by mid-
1971, with the second unit available about a year later. Completion
of all six stages will be in the mid-1980's.
A once-through cooling water system will be utilized by the
plant. Water will be drawn into the plant through an intake channel
dredged down Cedar Bayou through Tabbs Bay to upper Calveston Bay
as shown in Figure VIII-1. As the intake channel through Tabbs Bay
is only two to three times the depth of the Bay, some of the cooling
-------
f Illlili liter
liitliiji Clmtl /
Figore VIII - I Future DevcU-taril
-------
91
water will be drawn directly from Tabbs Bay. Both Tabbs Bay and
upper Calveston Bay receive polluted outflow from the Houston Ship
Channel. The point of entrance of the intake channel into Tabbs Bay
is about 2 miles from the Houston Ship Channel near Morgan Point.
After passing through the plant's condensers, the heated cooling
water will be discharged into a six mile long channel which will con-
vey the flow to upper Trinity Bay near the mouth of the Trinity River.
For the operation of the first two stages of the plant, the cooling
water will be discharged directly to the Bay. As later stages are
constructed a 2,600-acre baffled cooling pond will be added to the
discharge channel to provide evaporative cooling before discharge to
the Bay.
Operation of the first two power units with a total generating
capacity of 1,500 megawatts will require about 1,500 cfs of cooling
water. Cooling water requirements are expected to increase to 3,500
cfs in 1980 and 5,000 cfs upon completion of all six stages. By way
of comparison, the average discharge of the Trinity River, the
major source of freshwater inflow to Trinity Bay, is 7,900 cfs. In
1965, the minimum average weekly flow into the entire Calveston Bay
estuary was less than 1,000 cfs.
Operation of the Cedar Bayou Power Plant will impact water quality
of the estuary -«.n three major ways. (1) The temperature of the cooling
water will be raised by about 20°F as it passes through the plant's
condensers, resulting in the discharge of a large heat load to Trinity
Bay. (2) The quality of the water drawn into the system from Tabbs
-------
92
Bay will be poorer than the present quality of upper Trinity Bay.
The cooling water discharge will thus transport pollutants to Trinity
Bay. (3) The discharge of large volumes of saline water from Tabbs
Bay to the less saline waters of Trinity Bay will increase average
salinity concentrations in Trinity Bay.
The Texas Water Quality Board has granted a permit covering the
discharge of 1,500 cfs of cooling water from the first two units and
has recently granted permits to cover the ultimate 5,000 cfs discharge,
over the objections of the Environmental Protection Agency. The
present permit allows a maximum temperature of 115 F and a daily
average temperature of 110°F at the point of discharge of cooling
water to the six mile canal. Some cooling will be achieved in the
canal but the discharge to Trinity Bay will still be substantially
warmer than existing maximum temperatures, which are in the low 90's.
Under full-scale operation, the cooling ponds will be utilized
to remove about one-half of the heat load contained in the cooling
water and reduce discharge temperatures. The residual heat load
discharged to the Bay will still be sufficient to significantly
increase the surface temperature of several square miles of the Bay.
The National Technical Advisory Committee on Water Quality Criteria
has recommended that the monthly mean of the maximum daily water
temperatures should not be increased by more than 1.5 F by the
artificial addition of heat during June, July and August, nor more
-------
93
than 4 F during the remainder of the year— . The Texas Water Quality
Requirements specify that a 1.5 F rise in the representative tempera-
ture above natural conditions is not to be exceeded during the
summer, nor more than 4 F during fall, wintei and spring. The area
of the zone which will exceed the 1.5°F limit when the plant is in
full operation is controversial but is estimated to be in the range
of 600 to 2,200 acres. Measurable temperature increases will extend
over a much larger area.
The impact of the expected water temperature increases on the
shrimp nursery of Trinity Bay and other aquatic life is also a con-
troversial subject. Increasing water temperatures have been found
to be beneficial to some stages of shrimp development and detrimental
to other stages.
Withdrawal of large quantities of cooling water is also expected
to increase the dispersion of Houston Ship Channel pollution into
Tabbs Bay, with attendant water quality degradation. The cooling
system will thus provide a route for direct transmission of channel
pollution to the relatively good quality water of upper Trinity Bay.
The Corps of Engineers model study evaluated the combined effects
of the Cedar Bayou Power Plant, upstream development on the Trinity
River, Wallisville Reservoir, and increased flow in the Houston Ship
Channel on the dispersion of pollutants from the Ship Channel through-
21 Federal Water Pollution Control Administration, Water Quality
Criteria. Report of National Technical Advisory Committee,
April 1968, pp. 68-70.
-------
out the estuary- . The model study compared dispersion patterns under
existing (1965) conditions with predicted dispersion patterns for
proposed 1980 conditions of water use. A cooling water discharge of
3,500 cfs was used for the Cedar Bayou Power Plant. The relative
concentrations of persistent pollutants would increase by as much
as 600 percent in portions of upper Trinity Bay during low flow
conditions. Flow-through time in the cooling water system is less
than four days, indicating that the concentrations of degradable
pollutants would also increase substantially. It would appear that
increasing the power plant discharge to 5,000 cfs would further
increase the concentration of pollutants.
Salinity concentrations in Tabbs Bay and upper Galveston Bay are
higher than in upper Trinity Bay. The cooling water system will thus
contribute to some increase in salinity levels in Trinity Bay. Evap-
oration from the cooling ponds will also slightly increase the
salinity of the cooling water discharge. The combined effects of
the cooling water discharge and reduced freshwater inflow from the
Trinity River on salinity levels were evaluated by the model study.
Predicted future increases in average salinity levels for both low-
flow and high-flow periods are larger in the Trinity Bay area than
any other area of the estuary. Since Trinity Bay is a prime shrimp
nursery area and shrimp propagation is affected by salinity levels,
the most significant changes in future salinity levels will come in
an area where they can cause the most damage.
_3/ Bobb, W. H., and R. A. Boland, Jr., Galveston Bay Hurricane Surge
Study. Technical Report H-69-12, July 1970, U.S. Army Engineer
Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi.
-------
95
C. MORGAN POINT DEEPWATER PORT
With the exception of port facilities in Galveston and Texas
City, almost all of the existing deepwater port facilities in the
estuary are located on the landlocked portioi of the Houston Ship
Channel above Morgan Point. In this location, any vessel pollution,
oil spills and waste discharges associated with operations of port
facilities and ancillary industries may be somewhat diluted and
dispersed by the time they reach the higher quality open waters of
Galveston Bay.
The Fort of Houston has announced'plans to construct a new major
deepwater port facility at the site of the existing shallow draft
Barbour Terminal near Morgan Point. This location is immediately
adjacent to the open waters of upper Galveston Bay. Any pollution
from this facility could thus be carried directly to the Bay by wind
currents and prevailing circulation patterns. The proximity of
the port facility to the Cedar Bayou Channel and the cooling water
intake of the Cedar Bayou Power Plant would provide an avenue for
rapid transport of additional pollution to Trinity Bay.
The magnitude of the pollution hazard posed by the port facility
will be primarily dependent upon the types of activities occurring
at the port. As presently planned, the major port activity will be
the handling of containerized cargo from large container ships and
the loading and unloading of barges from barge carrying ships.
This type of activity should generate minimal pollution except for
-------
96
vessel pollution caused by the incrased vessel activity in the
area. Should the port also be used for the off-loading of cargo
from deep-draft to shallow-draft vessels for transshipment on the
area's shallow-draft channels, the potential for spills of oil and
hazardous materials would be increased.
-------
APPENDIX A
Applicable Texas Water Quality Requirements
For The Calves ton Bay Areai' And
The Public Health Service Manual
"Sanitation of Shellfish Growing Areas"
—' See Figure V-l for Water Quality Zones established in the Galveston Bay
Area.
-------
GENERAL STATEMENT TEXAS WATER QUALITY REQUIREMENTS
The Texas Wajter Quality Act, through which the State of Texas
expresses its interest in the quality of the waters in the state,
sets forth the following statement of policy: "It is declared to be
the policy of the State of Texas to maintain purity of the waters
of the state consistent with the public health and public enjoyment
thereof, the propagation and protection of fish and wildlife, in-
cluding birds, mammals, and other terrestrial and aquatic life,
the operation of existing industries, and the economic development
of the state, and to that end to require the use of all reasonable
methods to implement this policy."
The water quality requirements set forth herein have been de-
veloped under authority of State law in line with the foregoing
statement of legislative policy and are considered to be in the
-------
best interests of the State of Texas. These water quality require-
ments, insofar as applicable to the interstate waters in Texas,
are submitted to the United States Department of the Interior for
approval as the water quality standards for such waters, in
accordance with Section 10{c) of the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act (33 U.S.C. 466g(c). The water quality requirements
applicable to the intrastate waters in Texas are provided to the
Federal Water Pollution Control Administration only for purposes
related to' the qualification of projects under the Federal con-
struction grant program as authorized in Section 8 of the Act
(33 U.S.C. 466(e).
In implementing the legislative policy expressed in the Texas
Water Quality Act of 1957 and subject to the foregoing, it is the
policy of the Texas Water Quality Board that the interstate waters
in the State whose existing quality is better than the applicable
water quality requirements described herein as of the date when
these requirements become effective will as provided hereafter
be maintained at their high quality, and no waste discharges may
be made which will result in the lowering of the quality of these
waters unless and until it has been demonstrated to the Texas
Water Quality Board that the change is justifiable as a result of
desirable economic or social development. Therefore, the Board
will not authorize or approve any waste discharge which will
result in the quality of any of the interstate waters in the State
being reduced below the water quality standards without complying
with the Federal and State laws applicable to the amendment of
water quality standards. Anyone making a waste discharge from
any industrial, public or private project or development which
would constitute a new source of pollution or an increased source
of pollution to arty of the interstate waters in the State will be
required, as part of the initial project design, to provide the highest
and best degree- of waste treatment available under existing tech-
nology consistent with the best practice in the particular field
affected under the conditions applicable to the project or develop-
ment. In the spirit of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act,
the Board will keep the Department of the Interior informed on its
activities and will furnish to the Department such reports, in such
form, and containing such information as the Secretary of the
Interior may from time to time reasonably require to carry out
his functions under the Act. Additionally, the Board will consult
and cooperate with the Department of the Interior on all matters
affecting the Federal interest.
-------
The Texas Water Plan presently being developed by the Texas
Water Development Board is a flexible proposal for the adminis-
tration of water resources to meet v/ater neods for all purposes
throughout the" state to the year 2020 and beyond. The Plan, when
complete, will propose a method of implementation in accordance
with the statutory directive that the Plan be developed with "regard
for the public interest for the entire state ... in order that
sufficient water will be available at reasonable cost to further
the economic development of the entire state." The Texas Water
Quality Requirements, or the Texas Water Quality Plan, is a
companion plan to the Texas Water Plan.
The Wagstaff Act, passed in 1931, establishes the priority of
uses as between applicants for permits to appropriate water from
the same source of supply. The preferences of use in order of
sequence are: (1) domestic and "municipal, (2) industrial, (3) irri-
gation, (4) Mining and recovery of minerals, (5) hydroelectric
power, (6) navigation, and (7) recreation. Cities are empowered
to acquire the use of surface waters for domestic and municipal
purposes from an appropriates who uses the water for a lower
purpose, provided the appropriation from a lower use was per-
fected after the 1931 Wagstaff Act. Texas also has a dual riparian
and appropriative rights system, which prevents the precise
administration of the surface waters in the state as to particular
uses, although the Texas Water Rights Adjudication Act, recently
adopted by the Legislature, should alleviate this. The Texas Water
Plan also envisions the transfer of waters across the face of the
state to meet water needs, and this will affect the water quality
requirements for jthose waters. The examples of water uses set
forth on the water quality requirement pages following are indica-
tors of the uses- to which the water might reasonably be put.
Water uses of a non-consumptive nature such as fishing, recreation,
aesthetics, and navigation under some conditions may be recog-
nized and provided for independently of statutory consumptive
uses.
1. The surface waters of the State of Texas, for the purposes
of this document, are divided into two categories, namely:
A. Inland Waters - Those surface waters not subject to
the ebb and flow of the tides.
B. Tidal Waters r Those waters of the Gulf of Mexico within
the jurisdiction of the State of Texas, bays and estuaries
thereto, and those portions of the river systems which
are subject to the ebb and flow of the tides, and to the
intrusion of marine waters.
-------
2. For inland waters, the proposed requirements are based on
an evaluation of available data and reflect those quality con-
ditions which can be attained in streams when there is a
discernible flow in the stream. These requirements also apply
to reservoirs, lakes and impoundments, bays and estuaries
and other coastal waters of the state, except as provided in
paragraph 7.
3. Sampling will be in accordance with fuJy recognized pro-
cedures. Samples must be representative of the receiving
waters allowing time and distance for mixing.
4. The water quality requirements represent arithmetic average
conditions over a period of one year, but maxima and minima
for some parameters are shown where average values do not
provide the necessary degree of understanding or regulatory
base. The water quality requirements apply at approximately
the mid-point of the zone with reasonable gradients applying
toward zonal boundaries; where three consecutive samples
taken in the regular course of surveillance activities reflect
a water quality less than that shown in the water quality re-
quirement, an investigation will be made to determine the
cause of the lower quality water and the appropriate action to
be taken.
5. The values established by the parameters in these water
quality requirements relate to analytical procedures outlined
in the latest edition of the "Standard Methods for the Exam-
ination of Water and Wastewater" as prepared and published
jointly bythe -American Public Health Association, the Ameri-
can Water Works Association, and the Water Pollution Control
Federation^
In evaluating toxicity, bioassay techniques are to be selected
suited for the particular purpose at hand.
Where water quality requirements need supplementing
to provide adequate water quality protection, such terms and
conditions as may be necessary will be placed in permits for
discharges of wastes.
Taste and odor producing substances shall be limited to con-
centrations in the waters of the state that will not interfere
with the production of potable water by reasonable water
-------
trealmoiit r.iothody, or Imy.irt unyalat-ililo flavors to food fifth,
including shellfish, or result in offensive odors arising from
the waters, or otherwise interfere with the reasonable use of
the waters.
6. The suitability of water for irrigation will be based on the
irrigation water classification system developed by the Uni-
versity of California at Davis and the U. S. Salinity Laboratory
at Riverside, California. Class I irrigation water is desirable,
and will be assumed wherever possible. Class II or Class III
irrigation water may be satisfactory under conditions of soil,
climate, irrigation practices, and crops where impairment
and deterioration will not ensue.
The SAR (sodium adsorption ratio) should not exceed 8 for
waters safe for irrigation. Sampling and analytical procedures
and schedules are not specified but will be as appropriate for
adequate protection of irrigation waters.
A resolution of the Texas State Department of Health applies
as to the sanitary quality of irrigation waters.
7. Although temperature requirements are included in these
water quality requirements, information on stream and bay
temperatures and information on the effects of stream and
bay temperatures on the state fisheries resource is inadequate
on a statewide basis. Water uses requiring temperature control
have not 'beea inventoried and their intake water temperature
needs are not known. The state has initiated a survey program
to obtain adequate background data on. water and waste temper-
atures. In addition, at Texas A & M University, under sponsor-
ship of the Electric Utilities of Texas Committee on Water
Quality, a research program has been initiated seeking to
provide, from the fisheries standpoint, an acceptable basis for
setting water temperature requirements. It is the intention
of the Texas Water Quality Board when sufficient firm infor-
mation is available, to review in full the water temperature
requirements set herein as may be deemed appropriate.
During this interim period, the temperature conditions shown
in these water quality requirements will apply. No temperature
-------
requirements apply to off-stream or privately owned reservoirs.
The temperature requirements are intended to be read broadly
and with judgment. Generally speaking, temperature require-
ments refer to the representative temperature throughout the
entire body of water into which the waste discharge is made.
The extent of the receiving body of water can only be defined
on the basis of judgment and knowledge of existing conditions.
8. Water oriented recreation, including water contact sports, is
a desirable use of the waters of the state everywhere. Water
contact activities in natural waters are not opposed by the
state health agency where routine sanitary surveys support
such activities, and where, in addition, as a flexible guideline
to be used in the light of conditions disclosed by the sanitary
survey, the geometric means of the number of fecal coliform
bacteria is less than 200 per hundred milhliters and not more
than 10% of the samples during any thirty (30) day period
exceed 400 fecal coliform bacteria per hundred milliliters.
This policy is advisory only and in no way limits the respon-
sibilities and authorities of local health agencies.
9. It is highly desirable for waters comprising the raw water
supply to a public surface water treating plant that the total
coliform bacteria should not exceed 100 per 100 milliliters
and the fecal coliform bacteria should not exceed 20 per 100
milliliters. Nevertheless, raw water supplies to surface water
treating plants shall not be deemed unsatisfactory where the
total coliform brgainisrns do not exceed 20,000 per 100 mil-
liliters and. the, fecal coliform organisms do not exceed 2,000
per 100 milliliters. The evaluation of raw water supplies
cannot be reduced to the simple counting of bacteria of any
kind and the foregoing must be used with judgment and dis-
cretion and this paragraph is not intended to limit the respon-
sibilities and authorities of responsible local governments or
local health agencies.
10. Nothing in these water quality requirements limits the authority
of the Commissioner of Health of the State of Texas to take
such public health protective measures as he may deem
necessary.
11. It is the policy of the State of Texas, acting through the Texas
Water Quality Board, to require primary and secondary
-------
treatment and disinfection (except for oxidation pond effluents)
at all facilities serving the general public and which treat
domestic sanitary wastes. Treatment or control of industrial
wastes is equally as important as the treatment or control
of municipal (domestic) wastes. It is the policy of the Texas
Water Quality Board to require a comparably high standard
of treatment or control of industrial wastes being discharged
to the waters of the State. Therefore, anyone making a waste
discharge from any industrial, public or private project or
development which would constitute a new source of pollution
to any of the waters in the Sta:e will be required, as part of
the initial project design, to provide the highest and best
degree of waste treatment available under existing technology
consistent with the best practice in the particular field affected
under the conditions applicable to the project or development.
12. The general water quality requirements listed below are
applicable to all waters at all times:
A. Essentially free of floating debris and settleable suspended
solids conducive to the production of putrescible sludge
deposits or sediment layers which would adversely affect
benthic biota, or other lawful uses.
B. Essentially free of settleable suspended solids conducive
to changes in the flow character of stream bottoms, to
the untimely filling of reservoirs and lakes, and which
might result in unnecessary dredging costs.
C. The surface waters in the state shall be maintained in an
aesthetically attractive condition.
D. There shall be no substantial visible contrast to the
natural appearance of the receiving waters so far as is
feasible after wastes receive the best practicable treat-
ment or control.
E. There shall be no substantial increase in turbidity due to
waste discharges.
-------
"
.
iVc-:;»j
-------
G' ! • *" f"\" 7\ fl "• V <*•/*> A
«Jv.L- GV evl'^^L^Q A
090;
Water Quality is deemed suitable for t'.ie fo!!ov/inc; uses among others:
Contact Recreation
Non-Contact Recreation
Propagation of Fish and Wildlife
Fishing
Aesthetics
Navigation
Industrial Cooling Water
Known water uses:
Conlnct Recreation
Non-ConL;icL Kccit'aLion
Propagation of Kish and Wildlife
Fishing
Aesthetics
Navigation
-------
G9D2
(]>:: GENIAL STATEMENT IS AM INTEGRAL PAST OF T;-;£ rOLLOWiKG REQUIREMENTS.',
Tnese requirements relate to the surface water layer. The salinity of the underlying saline waters will ap-
proach that of the contiguous bay or coastal zone. Where there is no surface water layer or where mixing has
occurred, judgment must be applied. In some streams, salt water barriers may pi event the intrusion of marine
water*.
A. Chloride, average not to exceed 6,000 mg/1
B Sulphate, average not to exceed 500 mg/1
C. Filterable Residue, average not to exceed
(Total Dissolved Solids) 10,000 mg/1
D. B.O D., average not to exceed 4.0 mg/1
E. Dissolved Oxygen, not less than 6.0 mg/1
F. pH Range 7.0-9.0
G. MPN, logarithmic average not more than 1,000/lOOrnl
H. Temperature (See General Statement). Fall, winter, and spring, not to exceed a 4°F rise in the represen-
tative temperature above natural conditions. Summer, not to exceed a 1.5°F. rise in the representative
temperature above natural conditions.
This temperature requirement is a requirement of the Federal Water Pollution Control Administra-
tion.
I. Toxicity and Toxic Materials-These waters shall not exhibit either acute or chronic toxicity (or other
harmful effect) to human, animal, or aquatic life to such an extent as to interfere with uses of the waters.
(See General Statement)
J Free or Floating Oil - Substantially free from oil.
K. Foaming or Frothing Material — None of a persistent nature.
L. Other-The control of other substances not heretofore mentioned will be guided by the U.S. Public Health
Service manual "Sanitation of Shellfish Growing Areas", 1965 revision.
M. Radioactive Materials —Levels of ionizing radiation and radioactive materials of all kinds, from both dis-
solved and suspended matter, shall be regulated by the Texas Radiation Control Act, Article 4590 (f), Re-
vised Civil Statutes of Texas, and the Texas Regulations for Control of Radiation issued thereunder.
-------
V/oter Quality is deemed suifablc for the following uses among others:
Contact Recreation
Non-Contact Recreation
Propagation of Fish and Wildlife
Fishing
Aesthetics
Navigation
Industrial Cooling Water
Known v/aler uses;
Contact Recreation
Non-Contact Recreation
Propagation of Fish and Wildlife
Fishing
Aesthetics
Navigation
-------
r ••. v 1 ^ ,*"iv.'il..v*'i '•"!"?.J.":T< 7["7>1 .a i
L)^\:\J Ji'-v^EiX-'-'O .x.ivu:.w u^.-.l
(ALSO S££ T
(T;-:S GENERAL SYATE^SNT is AN INTEGRAL ?.-.^v o? v;-:s FOLLOWING REQUi.i5i7.Ei\7s.)
These requirements relate to the surface water layer. The salinity of the underlying saline waters will ap-
p.-oach that of the contiguous bay or coastal zone. Where there is no surface water layer or where mixing has
occurred, judgment must be applied. In some streams, salt water barriers may prevent the intrusion of marine
waters.
A. Chloride, average not to exceed 10,000 mg/i
B. Sulphate, average not to exceed 1,000 rng/1
C. Filterable Residue, average not to exceed
(Total Dissolved Solids) 20,000 mg/1
D. B.O.D., average not to exceed 2.0 mg/1
E. Dissolved Oxygen, not less than 4-0 msft
F. pH Range 6.2-8.5
G. M?N, logarithmic average not more than 50 /100 ml
H. Temperature (Sea General Statement). Fall, winter, and spring, not to exceed a 4°F. rise in the represen-
tative temperature above natural conditions. Summer, not to exceed % 1.5cF.nse in the representative
temperature above natural conditions.
This temperature requirement is a requirement of the Federal Water Pollution Control Administra-
tion.
I. Toxicity and Toxic Materials-These waters shall not exhibit either acute or chronic toxicity (or other
harmful effect) to human, animal, or aquatic life to such an extent as to interfere with uses of the waters
(See General Statement
J. Free or Floating Oil - Substantially free from oil.
X. Foaming or Frothing Material - None of a persistent nature.
L. Other -The control of other substances not heretofore mentioned will be guided by the U.S. Public Health
Service manual "Sanitation of Shellfish Growing Areas", 1965 revision.
M. Radioactive Materials - Levels of ionizing radiation and radioactive materials of all kinds, from both dis-
solved and suspended matter, shall be regulated by the Texas Radiation Control Act, Article 4590 (0, Re-
vised Civil Statutes of Texas, and the Texas Regulations for Control of Radiation issued thereunder.
-------
SA& JAC8X7O SiV^E TSDAL
f/lLSO SES 7V7Q3 ORDER 65-2)
0903
Wafer Quality is c'cemcd suitable (or the following uses among ofht rs:
Contact Recreation
Non-Contact Recreation
Propagation of Fish and Wildlife
Fishing
Aesthetics
Navigation
Industrial Cooling Water
Known wolcr uses:
Contact Recreation
Non-Contact Recreation
Propagation of Fish and Wildlife
Fishing
Aesthetics
Navigation
Industrial Cooling Water
-------
KOUS7C-NS S>ij?
(TURNING B£.
0904
(THE G2N2SAL STATEA'iENT JS AN IWTSGUAL PAST O? TH;i FOLLOWING R2
'iiicse requirements relate to the suiface water layer The salinity of the underlying saline waters will ap-
pioach that of the contiguous bay or coastal zone Wheie there is no surface water layer or where mixing has
occui red, judgment must be applied In some streams, salt water barriers may prevent the intrusion of marine
waters.
A Chloi ide, average not to exceed 4,000 mg/1
IJ. Sulphate, average not to exceed 600 mg/1
C. Filterable Residue, average not to exceed
(Total Dissolved Solids) 9,500 mg/1
D. B.O.D., average not to exceed 7.0 . mg/1
E. Dissolved Oxygen, not less than 1.5 mg/1
F. pH Range 6.0-S.5
G. MPN, logarithmic average not more than 100,000 /100 ml
H. Temperature (See General Statement). Fall, winter, and spring, not to e,xceed a 4°F rise in the represen-
tative temperature above natural conditions. Summer, not to exceed a 1.5°F. rise in the representative
temperature above natural conditions.
This temperature requirement is a requirement of the Federal Water Pollution Control Administra-
tion.
I. Toxicity and Toxic Materials -These waters shall not exhibit either acute or chronic toxicity (or other
harmful effect) to human, animal, or aquatic life to such an extent as to interfere with uses of the waters.
(See General Statement)
J. Free or Floating Oil - Substantially free from oil.
K. Foaming or Frothing Material - None of a persistent nature.
L. Does not apply.
M. Radioactive Materials — Levels of ionizing radiation and radioactive materials of all kinds, from both dis-
solved and suspended matter, shall be regulated by the Texas Radiation Control Act, Article 4590 if), Re-
vised Civil Statutes of Texas, and the Texas Regulations for Control of Radiation issued thereunder.
-------
i-i . * •. -\'- '. - i
t ti Va*"is»i «J !.' "ia^ l! V n.' - -\" •'='•- ai- 43
(7UEXIXG B&S1H AREA)
Woter Quality is deeriec' suitable for the following uses amonj1 others:
Aesthetics
Navigation
Industrial Cooling Water
Known water uses:
Navigation
Industrial Cooling Water
-------
(MEABUP.ZD AT SANJ^CiNTO 14C?liJtf?N7 TO CONFORM VSiTH TWQ3
OBDE2 85-5)
09C5
(THE GENERAL SVAT2V.EMT IS AM INYcGSAL ?A?.T Or 7HS FCLLOWiNG REQUIREMENTS.)
These requirements relate to the surface water layer. The salinity of the underlying saline waters will ap-
proach that of the contiguous bay or coastal zone. Where there is no surface water layer or where mixing has
occurred, judgment must be applied. In some streams, salt water barriers may prevent the intrusion of marine
waters.
A Chloride, average not to exceed 7,000 mg/1
B. Sulphate, average not to exceed 1,000 mg/1
C. Filterable Residue, average not to exceed
(Total Dissolved Solids) 16,000 mg/1
D. B.O.D., average not to exceed, 5.0 mg/1
E. Dissolved Oxygon, not less than 2.0 mg/I
F. pH Range 6.0-85
G. MPN, logarithmic average not more than 10,000 /100 ml
H Temperature (See General Statement). Fall, winter, and spring, not to exceed a 4°F.nse in the represen-
tative temperature above natural conditions Summer, not to exceed a 1.5°F rise in the representative
temperature above natural conditons.
This temperature requirement is a requirement of the Federal Water Pollution Control Administra-
tion.
I. Toxicity and Tox:c Materials —These waters shall not exhibit either acute or chronic toxicity (or other
harmful effect) to human, animal, or aquatic life to such an extent as to interfere with uses of the waters.
(See General Statement)
J. Free or Floating O.I — Substantially free from oil.
K. Foaming or Frothing Material — None of a persistent nature.
L. Other-The control of other substances not heretofore mentioned will be guided by the U.S. Public Health
Service manual "Sanitation of Shellfish Growing Areas", 1955 revision
M Radioactive Materials-Levels of ionizing radiation and radioactive materials of all kinds, from both dis-
solved and suspended mtter, shall be regulated by the Texas Radiation Control Act, Article 4590 (f), De-
vised Civil Statutes of Texas, and the Texas Regulations for Control of Radiation issued thereunder.
-------
(MEASURED AT SANJACIXTO XQXUrSENT TO COXFG3M rtlTH T7/QB
ORDEH 35-3)
Wafer Quality is deemed suitable for the Wowing uses cmong others:
Non-Contact Recreation
Aesthetics
Navigation
Industrial Cooling Water
Known water uses:
Non-Contact Recreation
Aesthetics
Navigation
Industrial Cooling Water
-------
SAX JAC:-X?O f^GXilJMZ^T
(MEASURED £71/JOHGAtfS POJ^r LV CONFORMANCE V/1TH
TWQB O?.D27i S5-S)
C9C6
(THE GI.\'EnAL S"A7£.V.5,\T 15 AN IN7EG2AL PAST Cv THi: FOLLOWING RSQU,'S:,V,EN7S.)
Tntse requirements relate to the surface water layer. The salinity of the underlying saline waters will ap-
proach that of the contiguous bay or coastal zone. Where there is no surface water layer or where mixing has
(jccunod, judgment must be applied. In some streams, salt water barriers may prevent the intrusion of marine
waters.
A. Chloride, average not to exceed 10,000 mg/1
B. Sulphate, average not to exceed 1,000 mg/1
C. Filterable Residue, average not to exceed
(Total Dissolved Solids) 20,000 mg/1
D. B.O.D., average not to exceed 2.0 mg/1
E Dissolved Oxygen, not less than 4.0 mg/1
F. pH Range 6.2-8.5
G MPN, logarithmic average not more than 50/100ml
H. Temperature (See GeneraUStatement). Fall, winter, and spring, not to exceed a 4°F. rise in the represen-
tative temperature above natural conditions. Summer, not to exceed a 1.5°F. rise in the representative
temperature above natural conditions.
This temperature requirement is a requirement of the Federal Water Pollution Control Administra-
tion.
I. Toxicity and Toxic Materials-These waters shall not exhibit either acute or chronic toxicity (or other
harmful effect) to human, animal, or aquatic life to such an extent as to interfere with uses of the waters.
(See General Statement)
J. Free of Floating Oil - Substantially free from oil.
K. Foaming or Frothing Material - None of a persistent nature.
L. Other-The control of other substances not heretofore mentioned will be guided by the U.S. Public Health
Service manual "Sanitation of Shellfish Growing Areas", 1955 revision.
M. Radioactive Materials-Levels of ionizing radiation and radioactive materials of all kinds, from both dis-
solved and suspended matter, shall be regulated by the Texas Rrdiation Control Act, Article 4590 (0, Re-
vised Civil Statutes of Texas, and the Texas Regulations for Control of Radiation issued thereunder.
-------
s;-;i? CHA^^-AAO^GA^S ?O;KT TO
SAM JA
(MEASURED AT MORGANS PC/AT 71V COAraOMtfCE V77TH
TV/Q3 ORDER 65-3)
Water Quality is deemed suitable for the following uses among
Contact Recreation
Non-Contact Recreation
Propagation of Fish and Wildlife
Fishing
Aesthetics
Navigation
Industrial Cooling Water
Known water uses:
Contact Recreation
Non-Contact Recreation
Propagation of Fish and Wildlife
Fishing
Aesthetics
Navigation
Industrial Cooling Water
-------
(SEWAGE EsFLUZfflS DW227ED)
0907
(7Hf GENIAL STA"2;/.SJS!T IS AM SN72GSAL PART O? YX: FOLLOWING 3EGUJREMEN7S.)
A Chloride, average not to exceed 5,000 mg/1
B. Sulphate, average not ro exceed 700 mg/1
C. Filterable Residue, average not to exceed
(Total Dissolved Solids) 12,000 mg/1
D BOD, average not to exceed 3.0 mg/1
E Dissolved Oxygen, not less than 6.0 mg/1
F pH Range 7.0-9 0
C. MPN, logarithmic average not more than 70/100ml
H. Temperature (See General Statement). Fall, winter, and spring, not to exceed a 4°F rise m the represen-
tative temperature above natural conditions. Summer, not to exceed a 1.5°F rise in the representative
temperature above natural conditions.
This temperature requirement is a requirement of the Federal Water Pollution Control Administra-
tion.
I. Toxicity and Toxic Materials —These waters shall not exhibit either acute or chronic toxicity (or other
harmful effect) to human, animal, or aquatic life to such an extent as to interfere with uses of the waters.
(See General Statement)
J Free or Floating Oil -Substantially free from oil.
K. Foaming or Frothing Material — None of a persistent nature.
L. Other-The control of other substances not heretofore mentioned will be guided by the U.S. Public Health
Service manual "Sanitation of Shellfish Growing Areas", 1985 revision. Where waters are not shellfish
growing areas, it is required only that waters entering or contiguous to a shellfish growing area not inter-
fere with the shellfish growing area.
M. Radioactive Materials - Levels of ionizing radiation and radioactive materials of all kinds, from both dis-
solved and suspended matter, shall be regulated by the Texas Radiation Control Act, Article 4590 (f), Re-
vised Civil Statutes of Texas, and the Texas Regulations for Control of Radiation issued thereunder.
-------
CLEAE LA:G
(SEWAGE EFFLUENTS DIVERTED)
0907
Water Guali*y is deemec1 suitable 'or the following uses cT.ong others:
Contact Recreation
Non-Contact Recreation
Propagation of Fish and Wildlife
Fishing
Aesthetics
Navigation
Industrial Cooling Water
Known water uses:
ContactRecreation
Non-Contact Recreation
Propagation of Fish and Wildlife
Fishing
Aesthetics
Navigation
-------
r. -a * 7 .- '» ,/v, r •-»» 7 f- - n i; i-^ f*i - n •• -^ --.-->.•
ii L^AAb w. •: \ S/J:L" ^L-.^A'^J-L
(MONITORED AT GALVZ37GN 2JAY SURVEY STATION £-92,
NORTHWEST O? SNAKE ISLAND)
0903
(T:-:E GENERAL STATEMENT is AN INTEGRAL PAST o? THE ?CLLOV.'ING Rc
1-u.iC requirements relate to the surface water layer The salinity of the underlying saline waters w.ll ap-
p/oach that of the contiguous bay or coastal zone. Where there is no surface water layer or where mixing has
occurred, judgment must be applied. In some streams, salt water barriers may prevent the intrusion of marine
'uatc-rs
A Chloride, average not to exceed 17,000 mg/1
Ii Sulphate, average not to exceed 2,000 mg/1
C. Filterable Residue, average not to exceed
(Total Dissolved Solids) 35,000 mg/1
D. BOD, average not to exceed 8.0 mg/1
E Dissolved Oxygen, not less than 3.0 mg/1
F. p'H Range 7.0-90
G MPN, logarithmic average not more than 1,000/100ml
H. Temperature (See General Statement). Fall, winter, and spring, not to exceed a 4°F rise in the represen-
tative temperature above'natural conditions. Summer, not to exceed a 1.5°F.nse in the representative
temperature above natural conditions.
This temperature requirement is a requirement of the Federal Water Pollution Control Administra-
tion.
I. Toxicity and Toxic Materials-These waters shall not exhibit either acute or chronic toxicity (or other
harmful effect) to human, animal, or aquatic life to such an extent as to interfere with uses of the waters.
(See General Statement)
J. Free or Floating Oil -.Substantially free from oil.
K. Foaming or Frothing Material - None of a persistent nature
L. Other-The control of other substances not heretofore mentioned will be guided by the U.S. Public Health
Service manual "Sanitation of Shellfish Growing Areas", 1965 revision.
M Radioactive Materials — Levels of ionizing radiation and radioactive materials of all kinds, from both dis-
solved and suspended matter, shall be regulated by the Texas Radiation Control Act, Article 4590 (f), Re-
vised Civil Statutes of Texas, and the Texas Regulations for Control of Radiation issued thereunder.
-------
(MONITORED /IT GAL7ES7OX EM SU3VEJ S7A71OXA-22.
NQ37EV7EZ7 Q? ZKAKE ISLAI'D)
Weter Quality is doemec! suitab'.e for tSe follov/in^ uses among others:
Contact Recreation
Non-Contact Recreation
Propagation of Fish and Wildlife
Fishing
Aesthetics
Navigation
Industrial Cooling Water
Known water uses:
Contact Recreation
Non-Contact Recreation
Propagation of Fish and Wildlife
Fishing
Aesthetics
Navigation
-------
(THE GENERAL STATS V.EN7 IS AN IXT2G2AL PAST OF THE FOLLOWING REQUIREMENTS.)
•. Chloride, average not to exceed 12,000 mg/1
i Salphate, average not to exceed 1,200 mg/1
(' Filterable Residue, average not to exceed
(Total Dissolved Solids) 25,000 mg/1
i'j BOD, average not to exceed 3.0 mg/3
•; Dissolved Oxygen, not less than 60 mg/1
\ pH Range 7.0-9.0
(, MPN, logarithmic average not more than 70/100 ml
ii Temperature (See General Statement) Fall, winter, and spring, not to exceed a 4°F. rise in the representa-
tive temperature above natural conditions. Summer, not to exceed a 1.5°F rise in the representative tem-
perature above natural conditions.
This temperature requirement is a requirement of the Federal Water Pollution Control Administra-
tion.
! Toxicity and Toxic Materials-These waters shall not exhibit either acute or chronic toxicity (or other
harmful effect) to human, animal, or aquatic life to such an extent as to interfere with uses of the waters.
(Ste General Statement)
•J. Free or Floating Oil -Substantially free from oil
K Foaming or Frothing Material -r None of a persistent nature.
i. Other -The control of other substances not heretofore mentioned will be guided by the U.S Public Health
Service manual "Sanitation .of Shellfish Growing Areas", 1965 revision. Where waters are not shellfish
growing areas, it is required only that waters entering or contiguous to a shellfish growing area not inter-
fere with the shellfish growing area.
M Radioactive Materials — Levels of ionizing radiation and radioactive materials of all kinds, from both dis-
solved and suspended matter, shall be regulated by the Texas Radiation Control Act, Article 4590 (0, Re-
vised Civil Statutes of Texas, and the Texas Regulations for Control of Radiation issued thereunder.
-------
Wo'cr Qualify is deemed suitable for the fo!!ov/ing uses among others:
Contact Recreation
Non-Contact Recreation
Propagation of Fish and Wildlife
Fishing
Aesthetics
Navigation
Industrial Cooling Water
Known water uses:
Contact Recreation
Non-Contact Recreation
Propagation of Fish and Wildlife
Fishing
Aesthetics
Navigation
-------
.;"> A 1 ^ 7 ""•. vr* .<-';>" P ^ V
Cy/-il b- J J j sJj \; J--J-1 u
(Z/i.37 Cr EOVS7QN SHI? CHrliV/J^L, BOUNDED BY CHANNEL
60, FJSK2B S3O/1LS D/iY SEACO?/ XLLGXE OAK BAYOU. SMITH POINT,
HANXA ZEEF AND 3GL1VAR
1J5 02
(THE G2NEKAL STATEMENT IS AN IN72GKAL PAST Or 7K2 FOLLOWING REQUIREMENTS.)
\. Chloride, average not to exceed 12,000 mg/1
2. Sulphate, average not to exceed 1,200 mg/1
C. Filterable Residue, average not to exceed
(Total Dissolved Solids) 25,000 mg/1
D. B O.D., average not to exceed 4.0 mg/I
E. Dissolved Oxygen, not less than 6.0 mg/1
K pK Range 70-9.0
G MPN, logarithmic average not more than 70/100 ml
H. Temperature (See General Statement) Fall, winter, and spring, not to exceed a 4°F rise in the represen-
tative temperature above natural conditions. Summer, not to exceed a 1.5°F rise in the representative
temperature above natural conditions.
This temperature requirement is a requirement of the Federal Water Pollution Control Administra-
tion.
I. Toxicuy and Toxic Materials-These waters shall not exhibit either acute or chronic toxicity (or other
harmful effect) to human, animal, or aquatic life to such an extent as to interfere with uses of the waters.
(See General Statement)
J. Free or Floating Oil —Substantially free from oil.
K. Foaming or Frothing Material — None of a persistent nature.
L. Other-The control of other substances noc heretofore mentioned will be guided by the U.S. Public Health
Service manual "Sanitation of Shellfish Growing Areas", 1965 revision. Where waters are not shellfish
growing areas, it is required only that waters entering or contiguous to a shellfish growing area not
interfere with the shellfish growing area.
M. Radioactive Materials-Levels of ionizing radiation and radioactive materials of all kinds, from both
dissolved and suspended matter, shall be regulated by the Texas Radiation Control Act, Article 4590
(0, Revised Civil Statutes of Texas, and the Texas Regulations for Control of Radiation issued thereunder.
-------
(EAST OF HOUSTON SHIP CHANEL, BOUNDED BY CHANEL X&3ZEP
6Z; FISHER SKOALS DAY BEACOH #1. LOPE OAK BAYOU. Si&TH POOfT,
REEF J^KD DOLI7AR PENiIJSULA
1102
Y/ater Quality is deemeo1 suitable for the following uses among ol'ners:
Contact Recreation
Non-Contact Recreation
Propagation of Fish and Wildlife
Fishing
Aesthetics
Navigation
Industrial Cooling Water
Known water uses:
Contact Recreation
Non-Contact Recreation
Propagation of Fish and V/ildlife
Fishing
Aesthetics
Navigation
-------
#AS'/ OF HOUSTON SHI? CHAXX2L A3D NO2TX Or CHANNEL MAF1ZZ2
SC AND FISHEE SEGALS DAY BEACON #1)
•.] -a
6 li
(TH2 GENrSAL 57ATE.ViEN7 IS AN! IN7SG3AL ?AR7 OF THE rOLLOWJNG REQUIREMENTS.)
A Chloride, average not to exceed 10,000 mg/1
ii Sulphate, average not to exceed 700 mg/1
C Filterable Residue, average not to exceed
(Total Dissolved So!ids) 20,000 mg/1
ix BOD, average not to exceed 5.0 mg/1
[•]. Dissolved Oxygen, not less than 5.0 mg/1
F. pH Range 7.0-9 0
G MPN, logarithmic average not more than 70/iOO ml
H. Temperature (See General Statement). Fall, winter, and spring, not to exceed a 4°F. rise in the representa-
tive temperature above natural conditions Summer, not to exceed a 1.5°F. rise in the representative
temperature above natural conditions
This temperature requirement is a requirement of the Federal Water Pollution Control Administra-
tion
1. To.xicity and Toxic Materials-These waters shall not exhibit either acute or chronic toxictty (or other
harmful effect) to human* animal, or aquatic life to such an extent as to interfere with uses of the waters.
(See General Statement)
•J. Free or Floating Oil - Substantially free from oil.
K Foaming or Frothing Material - None of a persistent nature.
I.. Other-The control of other substances not heretofore mentioned will be guided by the U.S. Public
Health Service manual "Sanitation of Shellfish Growing Areas", 1965 revision. Where waters are not
shellfish growing areas, it is required only that \\aters entering or contiguous to a shellfish growing area
not interfere with the shellfish growing area.
M Radioactive Materials —Levels of ionizing radiation and radioactive materials of all kinds, from both
dissolved and suspended matter, shall be regulated by the Texas Radiation Control Act, Article 4590 (0,
Revised Civil Statutes of Texas, and the Texas Regulations for Control of Radiation issued thereunder.
-------
"r^i!"\;"7^f n A^r
t fc-isSSi* J t bA /
HOUSTQK SHJ? CHANNEL AND NOF17H CF CHANNE
SS Ar:D FISHEF. SHOALS DAY DEACON #1)
•= " /o<->
S, 3VO
Water Quality is deemed suitable for t'nc foliowing uses among o*hors:
Contact Recreation
Non-Contact Recreation
Propagation of Fish and Wildlife
Fishing
Aesthetics
Navigation
Industrial Cooling Water
Known v/aier uses:
Contact Recreation
Non-Contact Recreation
Propagation of Fish and Wildlife
Fishing
Aesthetics
Navigation
Industrial Cooling Water
-------
OF -/HE HG^srojv ss/? CHAINED
31C4
(Tr!2 GiZK^AL STA72.V.2N7 IS AN i,\72C^AL PA.Tf G.= THE rOLLOWJNG 3EOUI3EMENTS.)
Chloride, avci age not to exceed 12,000 mg/1
Sulphate, r.\ ei age not to exceed 1,500 mg/1
1'iherablc Residue, average not to exceed
(Total Dissolved Solids) 25,000 mg/1
BOD, average not to exceed 6 0 mg/1
Dissolved Oxygon, not less than 5.0 mg/1
;,H Range 7.0-9 0
MP.\T, logarithmic average not more than 70/100 ml
Temperature (See General Statement). Fall, winter, and spring, not to exceed a 4°F nsc in the representa-
tive temperature above natural conditions. Summer, not to exceed a 1.5°F rise in the representative tem-
perature above natural conditions.
This temperature requirement is a requirement of the Federal Water Pollution Control Administra-
tion.
Toxicity and Toxic Materials— These waters shall not exhibit either acute or chronic toxicuy (or other
harmful effect) to human, animal, or aquatic life to such an extent as ty interfere with uses of the waters
(.Sec General Statement)
Free or Floating Oil — Substantially free from oil.
Foaming or Frothing Malena-1 — None of a persistent nature.
Other-The control of other substances not heretofore mentioned will be guided by the U.S. Public
Health Service manual "Sanitation of Shellfish Growing Areas", 1965 revision Where waters are not
shellfish growing areas, it is required only that waters entering or contiguous to a shellfish growing area
noi interfere with the shellfish growing area.
Radioactive Materials— Levels of ionizing radiation and radioactive materials of all kinds, from both dis-
-.olved and suspended matter, shall be regulated by the Texas Radiation Control Act, Article 4590 (0,
Revised Civil Statutes of Texas, and the Texas Regulations for Control of Radiation issued thereunder.
-------
ALVISTQ^] BAY
(V/EST CF 7^5 HOUSTON SHIP CHANNEL)
104
Wafer Quali'y is deemod suitable for the following uocr. a-nonct otncrs:
Contact Recreation
Xon-Contact Recreation
Propagation of Fish and Wildlife
Fishing
Aesthetics
Navigation
Industrial Cooling Water
Known water uses:
Contact Recreation
Non-Contact Recreation
Propagation of Fish and Wildlife
Fishing
Aesthetics
Navigation
Industrial Cooling Water
-------
jSY SAY
O7 ZA2ANXAWA EZEF)
1105
(THE GEfcSSA! S7AVE,Vi5NT IS AM IMTjG^AL PAP.7 0? 7!- E FOLLOWING ?.3
• Cnlonde, average not to exceed 16,000 mg/1
Suiphate, average not to exceed 2,000 mg/1
• - iherable Residue, average not to exceed
' (Total Dissolved Solids) 32,000 mg/1
; HOD, average not to exceed 3 0 mg/1
• ' Dissolved Oxygen, not less than 5.0 mg/I
: pH Range 70-90
1( MPN, logarithmic average not more than . 70/100 ml
:; Temperature (See General Statement) Fall, \\ inter, and spring, not to exceed a 4°F. rise m the representa-
tive temperature above natural conditions. Summer, not to exceed a 1.5°F rise in the representative tem-
perature above natural conditions.
This temperature requirement is a requirement of the Federal Water Pollution Control Administra-
tion.
i. Toxicity and Toxic Materials -These waters shall not exhibit either acute or chronic toxicity (or o:her
harmful effect) to human, animal, or aquatic life to such an extent as ip interfere with uses of the waters.
(See General Statement)
.] Free or Floating Oil — Substantially free from oil
K Foaming or Frothing Material -None of a persistent nature.
I. Other-The control of other substances not heretofore mentioned will be guided by the U S Public
Health Service manual "Sanitation of Shellfish Growing Areas", 1965 revision. Where waters are not
shellfish growing areas, it is required only that waters entering or contiguous to a shellfish growing area
not interfere with the shellfish growing area.
M. Radioactive Materials — Levels of ionizing radiation and radioactive materials of all kinds, from both dis-
solved and suspended matter, shall be regulated by the Texas Radiation Control Act, Article 4590 (0,
Revised Civil Statutes of Texas, and the Texas Regulations for Control of Radiation issued thereunder.
-------
WC5T SAY
(EAST CF ZF&fJ$X£MR EEEF)
Wcfer Quality is deemed suitable for the following uses crnong o'Scrs:
Contact Recreation
Non-Contact Recreation
Propagation of Fish and Wildlife
Fishing
Aesthetics
Navigation
Industrial Cooling Water
Known wcter uses:
Contact Recreation
Non-Contact Recreation
Propagation of Fish and Wildlife
Fishing
Aesthetics
Navigation
-------
IVZiSY 3AY
(VJEST OF KA2ANX£V/A EEZF)
1306
(THS GENS2AL S7A"2iV.5NT IS AN IXTjG^AJ. ?A^T Gv T.-.2 FOLLOW1NG REC'JiREA'.ENTS.)
A Chloride, average not to exceed 16,000 mg/1
B. Sulphate, average not to exceed 2,000 mg/1
C Filterable Residue, average not to exceed
(Total Dissolved Solids) 32,000 mg/1
D BOD, average not to exceed 2.5 mg/1
E Dissolved Oxygen, not less than 6.0 mg/1
F. pH Range 7.0-9.0
G. MPN, logarithmic average not more than 70/100 ml
H. Temperature (See General Statement). Fall, winter, and spring, not to exceed a 4°F.nse in the representa-
tive temperature above natural conditions. Summer, not to exceed a 1.5°F.nse in the representative tem-
perature above natural conditions.
This temperature requirement is a requirement of the Federal Water Pollution Control Administra-
tion.
I. Toxicity and Toxic Materials-These waters shall not exhibit either acute or chronic toxicity (or other
harmful effect) to human, animal, or aquatic life to such an extent as, to interfere with uses of the waters.
(See General Statement)
J. Free or Floating Oil — Substantially free from oil.
K Foaming or Frothing Material — None of a persistent nature.
L Other-The control of other substances not heretofore mentioned will be guided by the U.S. Public
Health Service manual vSamtation of Shellfish Growing Areas", 1965 revision. Where waters are not
shellfish growing areas, it is required only that water entering or contiguous to a shellfish growing area
not interfere with the shellfish growing area.
M. Radioactive Materials-Levels of ionizing radiation and radioactive materials of all kinds, from both dis-
solved and suspended matter, shall be regulated by the Texas Radiation Control Act, Article 4590
(f), Revised Civil Statutes of Texas, and the Texas Regulations for Control of Radiation issued thereunder.
-------
V7E3T 07 X^AUZ^f/A REEF)
Water Quality is deemed suite 'j!c for the 'o!!ov/inc; uses emong ofliers-
Contact Recreation
Non-Contact Recreation
Propagation of Fish and Wildlife
Fishing
Aesthetics
Navigation
Industrial Cooling Water
Known wofer uses:
Contact Recreation
Non-Contact Recreation
Propagation of Fish and Wildlife
Fishing
Aesthetics
Navigation
-------
National Shellfish Sanitation Program
Manual of Operations
Part I
Sanitation of
Shellfish
Growing Areas
7965 Revision
Edited by
Lcroy S. Houser, Sanitarian Director
•l79»'
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE
Public Health Service
Division of Environmental Engineering and Food Protection
Shellfish Sanitation Branch
n, D,C ?0201
-------
This is part I of h\o companion volumes published by the Public Health
Service with lilies and publication numbers as follows:
National Shellfish Sanitation Program
Public Health Service Publication No. 33
(Revised 19G5) Part. I—Sanitation of
Shellfish Grow ing Areas
Public Health Service Publication No. 33
(Revised 19G5) Part II—Sanitation of the
Harvesting and Processing of Shellfish
This is a revised edition published previously under the title: Cooperative
Program for the Certification of Interstate Shellfish Shippers, Part I, Sanita-
tion of Shellfish Growing Areas, 1962 Revision.
PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE PUBLICATION NO. 33,
Parti —Revised 1965
For sale by the Superintendent of Document, U.S. Govemmcn* Printing Office, Washington, D.C , 2040? - Price ^5 ecnti
-------
LIST OF PREVIOUS EDITIONS OF MANUAL OF OPERATIONS FOR
NATIONAL SHELLFISH SANITATION PROGRAM—NOW SU-
PERSEDED
1925. Supplement No. 53 to Public Health Reports November 0, 1025 "Kcpoit
of Committee on Sanitary Control of tlie Shellfish Industry in the
United States".
1937. U.S. Public Health Service Minimum Requirements for Appio\:il of
State Shellfish Control Measures and Certification for Shippuis in
Interstate Commerce (Revised October 1937).
19J6. Manual of Recommended Practice for Sanitary Control of the Shellfish
Industry Recommended by the U.S. Public Health Service (Public
Health Bullet in No. 295).
1957. Manual of Recommended Practice for Sanitary Control of the Shellfish
Industry (Part IT: Sanitation of the Harvesting and Processing of
Shellfish). Printed as Part II of Public Health Service Publication
No. 33.
1959. Manual of Recommended Practice for Sanitaiy Control of the Shell(Kh
Industry (Part I: Sanitation of Shellfish Growing Areas). Printed as
Part I of Public Health Service Publication No. 33.
1962. Cooperative Program for the Certification of Interstate Shellfish Ship-
pers, Part II, Sanitation of the Harvesting and Processing of Shellfish.
(Printed as Part II of Public Health Service Publication No. 33.)
1962. Cooperative Program for the Certification of Interstate Shellfish Ship-
pers, Part I, Sanitation of Shellfish Growing Areas: (Printed as Part
I of Public Health Service Publication No. 33.)
ill
-------
Contents
Pace
INTHODUCTION ........................................ - ..... '
DEFINITIONS ............................................... 3
SECTION A — Gcncml Administrative Proceduies ............ it
\. Slulc Laws nnd Regulations ....................... -r>
2. Administrative Procedures To Be Used by States ---- 6
3. Intrnslate Sale of Shellfish ......................... 8
SECTION B — Laboratory Procedures ....................... 9
1. Bacteriological ................................... 9
2. Toxicological .................................... 9
3. Chemical and Physical ........... . ......... . ...... 9
SKCTION C— Growing Area Survey and Classification.' ....... 10
1 . Sanitary Survey of Growing Areas .................. 10
2. Classification of Growing Areas ........ . ........... 12
3. Approved Areas .................................. 13
4. Conditionally Approved Areas ..................... 15
5. Restricted Areas ................................. 18
6. Prohibited Areas ................................. 19
7. Closure of Areas Due to Paralytic Shellfish Poison ---- 19
SKCTION D— Preparation of Shellfish for Marketing ......... 21
1. Relaying ___ .................................... 21
2. Controlled Purification ............................ 22
SKCTION E — Control of Harvesting From Closed Areas ...... 24
1. Identification of Closed Areas .................... -- 24
2. Prevention of Illegal Harvesting From Closed Areas.. 24
3. Depletion of Closed Areas ....................... -- 25
APPENDIX A. Bacteriological Criteria for Shucked Oysters at the
Wholesale Market Level ................................. 26
APPENDIX B. In Preparation. ................................
APPENDIX C. In Preparation .................................
REFERENCES ............................................... 28
INDEX ......... ____ • ........................................ 31
-------
FOREWORD
A Declaration of Principles
Tlic National Shellfish Sanitation Program
is an unusual (paining of Slate and Federal re-
sources to preserve and manage a naluial re-
source for a beneficial use. Although the
current progiam is of comparatively recent
origin, its development can be traced bark
through several centuries of American history.
When the European colonists arrived they
found almost, unimagincd natural wealth. For-
ests, rich ngricultiiial land, minerals, and space
itself, were present in quantities and a variety
previously unknown. To these settlers one of
the most valuable and readily uscablc of these
natural resources wan the food resources of I he
sea, particularly the estuaries. It is not surpris-
ing that shellfish were foremost among their
staple food items.
The value of tlxese renewable natural re-
sources to the early settlers was reflected in
colonial legislation designed to encourage their
wise use. In 1658—over 300 years ago—the
Dutch council of New Amsterdam passed an
ordinance regulating the taking of oysters from
the East River. Other early legislation, includ-
ing that, of New York (1715), New Jersey
(1730), and Rhode Island (1734), was designed
to regulate harvesting, presumably as conserva-
tive measures to guarantee a continuing supply.
The public health problems which were as-
sociated with shellfish in the United States in
the first two decades of the present century
brought a new dimension to natural resource
utilization; i.e., shellfish could not be used for
food unless of acceptable sanitary quality. This
concept was clearly recognized in the Public
Health Service sponsored conference of 1925 in
which the concepts of the present cooperative
program were first outlined and the administra-
tive foundation put down. All parties seemed
to recognize, and accept as fact, the premises
that: (1) shellfish represented n valuable
natural food icsomce; (2) the cultivation, har-
vesting, and marketing of this food lesourco
were valuable components in (he financial bases
of many coaslal communities; (;3) a Stale and
Federal program was necessary (o permit, the
safe use of this resource; and (4) the transmis-
sion of disease by shellfish was preventable and
therefore not to be tolerated. It is iijjmficant
that (he foundcisof (his program did not take
the parochial stand (hat (he only completely
Silfc way to prevent disease transmission l>\
shellfish was to prohibit its use. Instead, they
held that this beneficial use of the estuaries
was in the best public interest, and (hat .sanitary
controls should be developed and nmntaincd
which would allow safe use. Tlie^-e concepts
were recognized in the progiam which evolved
following the report of the "Commit Ice. on San-
itary Control of (he Shellfish Industry in the.
United States" in 192.").
In 1954 the Surgeon General of the U.S.
Public Health Service called a second national
conference to discuss shellfish sanitation prob-
lems. Specifically, the 1954 conference ad-
dressed itself to the questions of the practicality
and need for this tripartite program. There
was general agreement that, despite the pro-
fusion of technical problems, the basic concepts
were sound and that it was in the public interest
to maintain the program. Thus, the presence
of an irrevocable bond between the application
of sanitary controls in the shellfish industry and
the continuing beneficial use of a renewable
natural resource was again confirmed.
Despite this long established relationship the
national program lias tended to neglect the
second of these biphasic goals—use of a valuable
natural resource—and to concentrate on the
negative policy of closure of areas of unsuitable
sanitary quality. Little effort has been made
by the program to develop -a compensatory ele-
vii
-------
meiii which would rin'nui.ii.'t1 i-onootnc nctinn
by Slate or I-Ydoi.il .iiri'iu ir- Similarly, (ho
program ha«» nol l.iki-n .1 po-itum on the ii-e
of con«en.ilioii law PU'ii \\lirii il was known
(h.il this would inciiMM'1lu- pifigMiiiVroiiMiiiipr
protection confidence factoi.
In recognition nf |u>l IH^IOI \ of (lie slicllfi^h
indn-ti-y in (lie I'liilnl Sisiirs .mil of I ho ivla-
tion^liip of the Xalioim! Slicllfi-h Saiuliition
Prof:ram lc
nntnra! rcfcoinrcof significiuit econom-
ical value to many coastal communi-
ties, nnd which should be managed as
carefully as arc other natural resources
sucli as forests, w ater, and agricull iiral
lands.
2. Shellfish culture and harvesting repre-
sents a beneficial use of water in the
estuaries. This use should bo recog-
b\ State nnd Federal aprncies
in planning and carryingnnl pnllulion
pivxvnlum ami nhalrmrnt programs
and in ci)mpiohonsi\o planning for the
u'-c of tlii'<-c areas.
3. The goals of the National Shellfish San-
ilahon Progiain are: (1) (he con-
tinued safe u«e of this natuial resource
and (2) ar.thc, cncoiiiagomont of
water quality programs which will
preserve nil possible coastal areas for
this beneficial IIM\
It, is the convict ion of the 10(1-1 National Shell-
fish Sanitation Workshop that, survival of the
shellfish industiy is in the best public interest;
that by application of the above principles on
a Stato-bj-State basis shellfish can continue to
be used safely ns food and to make a valuable
contribution to the economic struct me of the
Nation both in the immediate present nnd in the
foreseeable future.
viii
-------
Introduction
In 1025 State. :iml local hca.llh authorities
and represent at i\ i" of (lie shellfish indti&lry
requested the Public Health Service to exer-
cise supcn i"ioii over the sanitary quality of
shellfish shipped in intcrstiUc coininercc. In
accordance with thib request., a cooperative
control procedure was developed. In carrying
out this cooperal ive cont rol, the States, the shell-
fish industry, and the Public Health Service,
each accept icsponsihility for certain procedures
its follows.
1. Procedures To Be Followed by the
State.—Each shellfish-shipping State adopts
adequate laws and [emulations for sanitary con-
trol of the shellfish industry, makes sanitary
and bacteriological surveys of growing areas,
delineates and patrols restricted areas, inspects
shellfish plants, and conducts such additional
inspections, laboratory investigations, and con-
trol mcasuics as may be necessary to insure that
tho shellfish reaching the consumer have been
grown, harvested, and processed in a sanitary
manner. The State annually issues numbered
certificates to shellfish dealers who comply with
the agreed-upon sanitary standards, and for-
wards copies of the interstate certificates to the
Public Health Service.
2. Procedures To Be Followed by the Pub-
lic Health Service.—The Public Health Serv-
ice makes an annual review of each State's
control program including the inspection of a
representative number of shellfish-processing
plants. On the basis of the information thus
obtained, the Public Health Service either en-
dorses or withholds endorsement of tho respec-
tive State control programs. For the- informa-
tion of health authorities and others concerned,
tho Public Health Service publishes a semi-
monthly list of all valid interstate shellfish-
shipper certificates issued by the State shellfish-
control authorities.
3. Procedures To Be Followed by the In-
dustry.—Tho shellfish industry cooperates by
obtaining shellfish from safe sources, by pro-
viding plants which mrel the agrocd-upin
sanitary standards, by maintaining sanitary
plant conditions, by placing the proper certifi-
cate number on each package of shellfish, and
by keeping and making available lo the control
authorities records which show the origin and
disposition of all shellfish.
The fundamental components of this National
Shellfish Sanitation Program were first de-
scribed in a Kiipit/emrHf fo Fnblir Health Re-
ports "Report of Committee on Sanitary Con-
trol of tho Shellfish Industry in the I'nitod
Slates" (l!V2."i). This guide fnrsaml.irk conliol
. of the shellfish industry was re\ ised and reissued
in 1IW7 and again in 1!)-K>. It. wa&se,p.irale.d into
two parts by publication of Pait II. Sanitation
of the Harvesting and Processing of Shellfish
in 1957 and by publication in lOSO, of Part I.
Sanitation of Shellfish Growing Areas. The
need for a specialized program of (hi-* nature
was reaffirmed at the National Conference on
Shellfish Sanitation held in Washington, D.C.,
in 1954 (/) and at the Shellfish Sanitation
Workshop held in 19:Vi (2), in.->S (.7), 1901
(67) and 1904 (68).
This edition of the shellfish sanitation manual
has been prepared in cooperation with the State
shellfish control authorities in all coastal States,
food control authorities in the inland States,
interested Federal agencies, Canadian Federal
departments, the Oyster Institute of North
America, the Pacific Coast Oyster Growers As-
sociation, and the Oyster Growers and Dealers
Association of North America.
Since the growing and processing of shellfish
are two distinct phases of opera! ion in the shell-
fish industry, the manual has been prepared in
two parts: I: Sanitation of Shellfish-Growing
Areas; and II: Sanitation of the Harvesting
and Processing of Shellfish. This, Part I of the
manual, is intended as a guido for the prepara-
tion of State shellfish sanitation laws and regu-
lations, and for sanitary control of the grow ing,
relaying, and purification of shellfish. It is in-
-------
tondid tli.it Si,111'- p.i 11 in pal in;; ill I lie National
J>hellli>h S.iiiiiiilitiii pi 01:1 .mi fur tho (eililica-
tion of inlcr-l.ile t-hflUMi -hippeis will lie
guided h\ thi-« iii.iiiiiiil in e\eicMn<: simian
supri vision oxer shoIUNi grow ing. irlsiyinp. :incl
imrilic.ition. :intl in (lie i~-iiin^ of ccitilicMlcs lo
slicllfi5h sliippci^.
T1>P in:iiiiiiil will also lie n^ocl b} Hie, Public
ITcnlth Service in pv;iln;itmg Stale sliellfisli
sniiitalion propisuns to dclcnninc if the pro-
grams qualify for endorsement. Part III of
the manual, ''Public Health Service Appraisal
of Slate Shellfish Sanitation Programs", sets
foilh iippi.ii^-.il pioceihiiCM in c\:ihi:iting Slafc
shellfish sanitation projri;iius and is based on
tho leqiiiieineiils contained in parts 1 and II.
The. \nn\ i^ions of thU in.inual \\eir accepted
at tho Shclllish Sanilalion Workshop held in
Washington, November 17-10, 1%}, and unless
otherwise, stated become I'llVdiu1 (iO days after
publication (f>8).
I'jl'RKNR T. tlF.NbKN,
Chief, Shell/till Sanitation Branch, Di»ixion
of Environmental Engineering and Food.
Protection, Public IleaK/i Service.
-------
Definitions
And/or.—Whoic this, term is used, and shall
appl\ when- p«<^ihlc:oihciuUi.', ofshull appK.
Area, growing.—An area in which market
slidingi fiiv grmni.
Coliform group.—Tho colifonn group in-
cludes all of (In1 aciobic and facultative an-
:icrol)ic, ni.un-m'glativr, non-^porc-forming
bacilli which fniiirnf lactose with gas forma-
tion uitliin -JS Imumal :i.~>° C. Hucfcria of this
group which will pioducc gas from K. C. medi-
um withm ~1\ limn-, at 44..')° ('. in a water hath
will bcieftrml loas fecal rolifontis.
Controller! purification.—The process of re-
moving conlamiii.ilinn fiom whole live shellfish
acquired while glowing in polluted areas.
National shellfish sanitation program.—
Tho cooperative Slate-PllS-Industry program
for flio ccrlincation of interstate shellfish ship-
pel's as desri ihcd in Public Health Service
Publication Niunlicr .13, National Shcttfah
Sanitation I'l-offmrn Manual of Operations.
Parts laud II.
Depiction.—The removal of all markd-size
shellfish from an area.
Most p r o b a f> I e number (abbreviated
MPN).—The MPN is :i statistical estimate of
the number of huctenu per unit volume, and
is determined from the number of positive re-
sults in a series of fermentation tubes. A com-
plete discussion of MPN determinations nud
computations, including MPN tables, can be
found in the American Public Health Associa-
tion publication "Siamlaid Mi'tlitxls for (he
I''A»iuM\ation of Walei .uul Waste Water" (4)
(o).
Population equivalent (colifnrm).—A
qu>inti'\ of si'wanc containing .ippioximately
IfiOXKP cnlifonn piimp harteiisi This is
appro'iniaU'ly rqunl tn the prr capita per day
conliibnliun of colifonns as tU'lmilined in a
metropolitan sewciago sjstein (^) (7) (£).
Sanitary survey.—Tho samlaiy survey is
the evaluation of all factor-, having a bearing
on the suiiitiiry quality of a shellfish giowing
urea including sou ires of pollution, (he ell'ccK
of wind, tides, and currents in thn distribu-
tion and dilution of the polluting- materials,
and the baderiolojric.il qtialilj of the water.
Shellfish.—All edible species of oysters,
clams, or mussels, either shucked 01 in the shell,
fresh or frozen.
Shellfish, market.—Shell Pish «Inch aic, may
be, or have Iwen harvester! and/or pieparcd for
sale for human consumption n.s a frash or frozen
product.
Stale shellfish control agency.—The State
agency or agencies lt;mng legji! ituthoiity lo
classify shelHisiv growing areas, ajul/or to issue
permits for the interstate shipmciit of shellfish
in accord with the provisions of this manual.
State shellfish patrol agency.—The State
agency having responsibility for the patrol of
shellfish growing areas.
Transplanting.—Tho jnoving of shellfish
from one area to another area.
-------
Section A
GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES
1. State Laws and Regulations.—StMe
laws or regulations hliall pioiide an adequate
legal basis for •sanitary contiol of nil intci^talc
phases of (ho shellfish industry. This loyal
autlioiih shall enable ono or innic departments
or agencies of Ihc Stale to classify all coaxal
waters for shellfish harvesting nn MIC basis of
sanitary qualit) ; effectively regulate the har-
vesting of shellfish; effectively prosecute per-
sons apprehended harvesting shellfish from
restricted, prohibited, or nonapprovcd areas;
regulate and supcn iso the shipment and stor-
age of shell stock, and the shucking, packing,
nncl repacking of shellfish; make laboratory
examinations of shellfish; seize, condemn, or
embargo shellfish; and restrict the harvesting
of shellfish from particular areas and suspend
interstate shipper certificates in public-health
emergencies.
Satisfactory compliance.—This item will be
satisfied when the State has legal authority to—
a. Classify nil actual or potential shellfish
growing areas as to their suitability for shell-
fish harvesting on the basis of sanitary quality
as defined in section C of this manual. (It is
strongly recommended that a State permit be
required for the growing of shellfish, and that
such permits be revocable or subject, to suspen-
sion for just cause. It is also recommended
that tho State have authority to regulate the
discharge of sewage, radioactive, and other toxic
wastes from boats in the vicinity of approved
shellfish growing areas.)
b. Control the harvesting of shellfish from
areas which are contaminated or which con-
tain marine shellfish poisons. To be effective
this authority must, allow the State to—
(1) Patrol growing areas.
(2) Apprehend persons violating the
restrictions.
(3) Effecti\ely prosecute persons appre-
hended harvest ii>p .shellfish from restricted or
prohibited areas. (Penalties for such viola-
tions should be sufficient to discourage illegal
harvesting.)
c. Regulate nnd supervise relaying, deple-
tion, wet storage, and controlled purification
as dewilxul in this manual if these techniques
are uiecl.
d. Rcquiic that shell slock in storage or in
transit from the growing area to the certified
shipptThc protected agaiiiM contamination; i.e.,
every person, linn, or corporation that haiu'Ics
.shellfish up to the certified shipper will be s.ib-
jcct to sanitary control by an official agency
but. nil! not necessarily be required to havu a
State shellfish permit.
e. Prohibit national progi.im shippers
from possessing or selling .shellfish from out-of-
State sources unless such shellfish have been pro-
duced in accord with roopci alive program
requirements.
f. Regulate the operations of shurker-pack-
ers, repackers, shell stock shippeis and reshtp-
pers in accord with the applicable piovisions of
part II of this manual.
g. Restrict, the harvesting of slicllfisli from
specific areas, and suspend interstate shipper
certificates in a public-health emergency. Ad-
ministrative procedures requited in connec-
tion with such emergency actions should not
require more than one day to complete.
h. Prevent the sale, shipment, or possession
of shellfish which cannot be identified ns having
been produced in accord with national pro-
gram requirements or which arc otherwise unfit
for human consumption, and to condemn, seize,
or embargo such shellfish. This authority need
not be specific for shellfish and may be included
in other State food laws.
Public-henUh explanation.—The National
Program was developed by the 1925 Conference
on Shellfish Pollution to meet the specific public-
health need resulting from the 1024-25 typhoid
epidemic (0).
However, tho National Program has gone
beyond the original objective of insuring that
shellfish shipped inteistate would not. be the
cause of communicable disease. Thus, in *'ie
1940's, paralytic shellfish poison became a matter
of public-health concern and steps were taken
to protect the public against this hazard. In
1957 it was recognized that shellfish might
concentrate certain rn d ion ucl ides and that, a
JUNK 19C5
-------
r,uli:il ion sin leill.iiK c .iiimr\ nii^lit lire-nine a
iuvi»s.sjir\ !iil|iiiiil In tin1 i'«i.il>lisln>d pini'i'duiys.
To accomplish tlip=e pulilif-lu-nlili objectives
the. Stale nni«l Mipci VIT :ilt pli:i-rsof I he grow-
ing, h.irvcsliup. transport.-iI ion, --liiH'knig-park-
ing. nncl repacking of slu-llli-li In be. shipped
inler.sfnle. If is also important (li:il shellfish lie
properly refrigerated and protected against
contamination during interstateshipment. This
is no! easily accomplished b\ llic Stale of origin
nltliough certified shippers arc required to pacl;
shellfish in containers which will protect them
ngninst contamination.
If Slate supervision is to bo effective all
phases of the activity miisl be supported by
Ieg.il authority. This authority may be either
a specific law or regulation. The success with
which the State is able to regulate the several
components of the shellfish industry provides a
measure of the adequacy of the statutory
authority.
The unique nature of shellfish as a food also
makes it necessary (hat flic Slate shellfish con-
trol agency have authority to take immediate
emergency action to halt harvesting or process-
ing of shellfish without recourse to lengthy ad-
ministrative procedures. As examples, a State
may find it necessary to close a shellfish growing
area within hours of a breakdown in a sewage
treatment plant or the unexpected finding of
paralytic shellfish poison.
Periodic revisions of State shellfish laws or
regulations may be necessary to cope with new
public-health hazards and to reflect new knowl-
edge. Examples of changes or developments
which have called for revision of State laws
include (he wide-scale use of pleasure boats with
the resulting probability of contamination of
shellfish growing areas with fresh fecal ma-
terial, the conditionally approved area concept
resulting from the construction of sewage treat-
ment works, and the apparent ability of shell-
fish to concentrate certain radionuclidcs.
Experience has demonstrated that all actual
and potential shellfish growing waters of the
State must be classified as to t'ncir sanitary suit-
ability for shellfish harvesting. Harvesting
should be permitted only from those areas
which have been found by sanitary survey to
meet the sanitary criteria of this manual. Har-
vesting should accordingly be specifically pro-
hibited from aiens which do not meet the cri-
teria. 01 whirh have nol been sun eyed.
2. ficncial Administrative Procedures To
Be Used liy Stales.—Sl.ilcs shall keep records
whirl) will facilitate Public Ilcallh Service re-
view of then shellfish sanitation programs and
shall assisi (ho Service in making such reviews.
Stak^ sliiiM not certify shippers for interstate
shipment unless ll.c shipper complies substan-
tial!} willi the construction rcquiiemcnts of
pait II of this manual and maintains a sani-
tation nil ing of at least 80 percent during
periods of operation Shippers nol meeting
these requirements will not be eligible for in-
clusion on the Public Health Service list of
State-certified shellfish shippers. National Pro-
gram standards shall be applied to all actual
and potential growing areas, all shellfish har-
vesters, and all persons handling shell stock-
prior to its delivery to the national program
certified shipper. When two or more State
agencies me involved in the sanitary control of
the shellfish industry, a clear statement of re-
sponsibility of each agency should be developed.
Satisfactory compliance.—This item will be
satisfied when—
a. National Program requirements me ap-
plied to all actual and potential shellfish
growing areas.
b. National Program requirements are ap-
plied to all commercial market shellfish
harvesters.
c. National Program requirements are ap-
plied to all persons handling the shellfish prior
to its delivery to the interstate shipper.
d. Interstate shellfish shipper certificates are
issued only to those establishments substan-
tially meeting the construction requirements of
part II of this manual and which maintain a
plant sanitation rating of at least 80 percent
during periods of operations. (Tlie Stale shell-
fish control agency shall suspend or revoke cer-
tificates if a plant sanitation rating drops below
80 percent or if any individual sanitation item
is violated repeatedly.) Ratings will be deter-
mined on the bas;; of compliance withe the ap-
applicable provisions of part II of this manual
as measured by an inspection report comparable
to that contained in appendix A of part II.
e. The following records are kept of shellfish
sanitation activities as required in sections C,
JUNE 1065
-------
D, mid K. I':i11 I. of this manual and when
monllih -niniiianc'-.of Sl.ilepahol activities arc
foi warded ID tin- Public Ilo;illl< Sen ice reg-
ionnl olhVe:
(1) Jiulix idn.il glowing aioa files. (Areas
may IIP defined In eillier geographic or po-
litical boundaries)
(2) Patrol activities, including nriests,
pro-enitions. ami the icMilfs of pionTiilions.
(3) Plain inspections. Shncker-packers
and repacker-. shall ordinarily be inspected at
least montlih. Shell stock shippers and re-
shippcrh shall lio inspected at a frequency
which will all'ord adequate public-health su-
pervision of their operations. A central in-
spection-report file should bo maintained by
the State.
f. Tho following guidelines arc observed by
tho State in issuing interstate shellfish certifi-
cate1'.
(1) Certificate content. Eacli certificate
should give the following information:
Name. (The usual business name and al-
ternative names that should appear on the in-
terstate shellfish shippers list, hereafter
called "list")
Addrew. (A business and/or mailing ad-
dress in the Slate issuing the certificate. This
address indicates wheie records are kept and
where inspection may be arranged.)
Certificate Number. (A number shall be
assigned for each business unit. Suffix or
prefix lett.crs may not bo used to differentiate
between two or more plants of a given ship-
per.)
Cltissifaation. (The shipper classification
should bo indicated by a symbol: i.e., shucker-
packer, SP; rcpacker, RP; shell slock, SS; or
reshippcr, KS. Only one classification should
bo used. The single classification will cover
all proposed operations which the shipper is
qualified to perform.)
Expiration Date. (All certificates in a
State should expire on the same date, pref-
erably tho last day of a month. This date w ill
be shown on the "list". All certificates will
be automatically withdrawn from the "list"
on the date of expiration unless now certifi-
cates have been received by Public Health
Service headquarters office. If tho date of
expiration coincides with the date of issue for
tho ''list" the certificates expiring on the date
of issno will be deleted.)
Certifyinq Officer. (Each certificate is
signed by a responsible State official.)
(2) Certificate changes. A change in an
existing, unexpired certificate .should be made
by issuing a. corrected cerlificate.
(3) IntelMato shipment before listing.
Tho shipper should be informed of the prob-
nbl N date, his name will appear on the "list"
am, should be. ach ised against making inter-
stale, shipment prior to that date. (If ship-
ments must be made before the appcainnce
of the shipper's name on the "list,", the Public
Health Service will notify the applicable re-
ceiving Slates if the names and addresses of
tho expected receive is are indicated in ad-
vance by the State when the certificate is for-
warded to tho Public Health Service.)
(4) Stale cancellation, revocation, or sus-
pension of interstate shippci certificates. If
a State revokes, cancels', or suspends an inter-
state shellfish shipper certificate, the Public
Health Service legional office should be im-
mediately notified, preferably by telephone or
telegram, with a following confirmatory
letter.
(5) Mailing list for interstate shellfish
shipper list. Names of persons, business
units, organizations, or agencies, desiring
copies of the "list", and requests for informa-
tion concerning the "list" should be sent
to the appropriate Public Health Service
regional office. Recipients will be circular-
ized periodically to determine if they still
have use for the "list".
g. Tho appropriate Public Health Service
regional office is notified by the State of any
revision in growing area classification. The
notification shall so describe the area that it may
bo readily located on Coast and Geodetic Sur-
vey charts.
h. State shellfish plant inspectors are pro-
vided with tho following inspection equipment:
standardized inspection forms, thermometer,
chlorine test kit, and light meter.
i. Interdepartmental memoranda of under-
standing havo been developed which will define
the responsibilities of each State agency in
maintaining adequate sanitary control of the
shellfish industry in the State.
JUNE 1965
-------
r.r/if,ni'i/it»> - Tin1 nnnunl IP-
view of c.ioli p;irl u ip.ihng Nali1'* '•lu-lllUh «ani-
tation activities is a fundamental Public Health
Service responsibility in the N.ilmn.il Pioirram
The purpose, of thi* ie\iiM\ f- to evaluate llic
adequacy and reliability of cm li individual
Stale program in accoid \\illi the agroed-upon
standards. The Service will cndm>p those. State
programs meeting I IIP. Nation:'! Progiam stand-
ards and will publish and d'llnbiitc a list of
the name* of the State cert ifiecNhippeis. How-
ever, if a Stale program does not meet the stand-
ards the program will not l>c endorsed. Names
of nonparlicip.iting Stales will be omitted from
the Public Health Service list of State certified
shellfish shippers.
Minimum plant sanitation standards for
interstate shellfish shippers arc described in
part II of this manual. Experience has shown
that absolute compliance with these minimum
standards is not always attainable, particularly
those items which relate to operating proce-
dures. The establishment of the 80-percent
plant sanitation score as a prerequisite for list-
ing on the Public Health Service list of State
certified shellfish shippers recognizes the fact
that perfection is not always obtainable and, at
the same time, provides a mechanism for exclud-
ing any plant which is not operated in a reason-
ably sanitary manner.
National program sanitary requirements
should I>c applied to all actual and polenli.il
gio\\ ing areas and all shellfish harvpslors to
insuie thai all shelllM) available lo certified
deak rs have been produced and hai vested under
arreplable sanitary conditions. It is also im-
portanl that (he, shell slock IKJ protected against
contamination during the. period between har-
vesting and delivery to the certified shippe.i.
3. Intiastatc Sale of Market Shellfish.—
Sanitary «.fand:«rds for intrastatc shellfish ship-
pers should be substantially equivalent lo those.
of the national progiam.
PnMic-henlfh c.r./>2ajwf!on.—States may ac-
cept lower sanitary standards for shellfish sold
intrastate than arc required by the National
Program. However, it has been found that
O *
small intrastate shippers may at times sell their
product, lo interstate shippers if demand exceeds
the supply of shellfish available to the. latter.
Bccause.of the possibility thatsur.h substandard
shellfish might'be shipped interstate, Hie 1!>M
National Confeienceon Shellfish Sanitation rec-
ommended that National Progiam standards
be applied to all shellfish production and
processing (7). The 1958 Shellfish Sanitation
Workshop also strongly recommended the use
of substantially equivalent standards for inlra-
and inter-state shellfish shippers (5).
JUNE 19G5
-------
Section B
LABORATORY PROCEDURES
1. Bactcrinlopical. — American Public.
I Trail li Aloi_ric.il examination :ind in
tlio lahoratoty r.\:iinin:ilion of sucli samples.1
Satisfactory compliance.—This item \\ill he
satisfied when current Amcric.in Public Health
Association liccoinmcndcd Procedures for tlio
Examination of Sea Water and Shellfish are
followed in the lurler'mlopical examination of
shellfish and shellfish waters.
Public-health rrplnnation.—Experience with
the bacteriological examination of shellfish and
shellfish growing waters has indicated that mi-
nor difTereiu-es in laboratory procedures or
techniques will cause vide variations in the re-
stilts. Variations in results may also be caused
by improper handling of the. sample during col-
lection or transportation to the laboratory (10).
The American Public Health Association Rec-
ommended Procedures for the Examination of
Sea Water and Shellfish, which are revised peri-
odically, offer a reliable way of minimizing these
variations (02). (National Program required
use of a standaid procedure for the bacterio-
logical examination of shellfish and shellfish
waters should not discourage laboratories from
working on new methods of sample handling
or analysis.)
2. Toxicological.—A recognized procedure
shall be used in the assay for paralytic shellfish
poison.
Satisfactory compliance.—This item will be
satisfied when current Association of Official
'Material which may be useful In Interpretation of resulto
of bacteriological examination of ahellfiah IB contained In ap-
pendix A.
Agriculfuial Chemist}) official methods arc fol-
lowed in the bioassay for paralytic shclllisli
poison.
I'ubiic-hritltk explanation.—It has been dem-
onstrated that significant \aiialions in bioassay
rc.MilK will be caused by minor changes in pr >-
mimes. If reliable lesults arc to be obtained
it. is rv-cnlial that the tof procedures be stand-
aid i/cd and that \aiiations duo to us; of strains
of mice be minimized (//). The oflicia] pro-
cedure for the bioassay for paralytic shellfish
poison adopted by the Association of Oflicinl
Agricultural Chemists minimizes these varia-
tions (GG). A method of analysis for cignalcra
poison in shellfish has been developed (/2).
3. Chemical and Physical.—Standard lab-
oratory methods shall IMJ used for nil salinity,
radionuclide, and other chemical and physical
determinations made on shellfish or shellfish
waters in conjunction with National Program
activities. Results shall be repoi led in standard
units.
Satisfactory compliance.—This item will be
satisfied when—
a. Chemical and physical measurements on
shellfish and shellfish waters are made in accord
with accepted laboratory techniques.
b. Results of all chemical and physical deter-
minations are expressed in standard units-. (For
example, salinit-y should be expressed in parts
per thousand rather than hydrometer readings.)
Public-health explanation.—Sta ndardizcd
laboratory procedures are most apt to produce
results in which the State shellfish control
agency can have confidence, and facilitate com-
parative evaluation of data. The need for ad-
herence to standardized procedures should not
discourage laboratories from experimental list'
of nonstandard methods.
JUNE 1965
-------
Section C
GROWING AREA SURVEY AND CLASSIFICATION
1. Sanitary Surveys of Griming Areas.—
A sanitary survcj' shall In- m:ule of each
growing area prior to it-> apprmal by the
State as a sourrc of market «-lirllfi-h or of shell-
fish lo bp n«si'il in :i controller! purification or
relaying operation. The *-,\:\\i uy qualify of
each area shall be reappraised if least biennially
and, if necessary, a resurvoy ir.adc. Ordinal ily,
resimevh will he much Ic'-s comprehensive than
the original survey since it will only be neces-
sary to bring the original information up to
date. Records of all original surveys and re-
surveys of growing areas shall he maintained by
the State, shellfish control agency, and shall be
made available to Public Health Service review
officers upon request.
Satisfactory com-pUancc.—This item will be
satisfied when—
a. A sanitary survey has been made of each
growing area in the State prior to initial ap-
proval of interstate shipments of shellfish from
that area. A comprehensive sanitary survey
shall include an evaluation of all sources of
actual or potential pollution on the estuary and
its tributaries, and the distance of such sources
from the growing areas; effectiveness and reli-
ability of sewage treatment works; the presence
of industrial wastes, pesticides, or radionuclides
which would cause a public-health hazard to
the consumer of the shellfish; and the effect of
wind, stream flow, and tidal currents in dis-
tributing polluting materials over the growing
area.2 The thoroughness with which each ele-
ment must be investigated varies greatly and
will be determined bj the specific conditions
in each growing area.
b. Tho factors influencing the sanitary qual-
ity of each approved shellfish growing area are
reappraised at least biennially.3 A complete
resurvey should be made of each growing area
in an approved category at least once every ten
1 In making the snnlturj survey consideration should be
Rlion to the hjdroRrnphlc and KooRrn[ihlc characteristics of
the <"stii.iry. the bacteriological quality of the growing nrcn
«nti>r nnil bottom sediments, and the presence and location
of xmnll sources of pollution, Including boats, which might
contribute fresh sewage to the area
•The puri'ORe of this renppralsal Is- to determine If there
have been chnngcn In ntrenm flow, sewage treatment, popula-
tions, or other similar factors which might renult In a change
In the sanitary quality of the growing area. The amount of
years; however, data from original surveys can
be used when it is cle.ir that such information
is still valid.
c. A file which contains all pertinent sani-
tary suney information, including the dates
and icsults of preceding s.mitary surveys is
maintained by tlic State shellfish control agency
for each classified shellfish area.
d. The Stale agenry having primaiy respon-
sibility for this element of the national pro-
gram develops a system for identification of
growing areas.
Public-health explanation.—Thc, positive re-
lationship between sewage pollution of shell fish
growing areas and enteric disease has been
demonstrated manj times (13) (/4) (to) (16)
(17) (18) ((S3) (64) (G-,). However, cpidomi-
ologicarinvestigations of shellfish-caused dis-
ease outbreaks have never established a direct
numerical correlation between the bacteriologi-
cal quality of water and the degree of hazard
to health. Investigations made from 1014 to
1925 by the States and the Public Health Serv-
ice—a period when disease outbreaks atti ibut-
able to shellfish were more prevalent—indicated
that typhoid fever or other enteric disease
would not ordinarily he attributed to shellfish
harvested from water in which not more than 50
percent of the 1 cc. portions of water examined
were positive for coliforms,4 provided the areas
were not subject to direct contamination with
small amounts of fresh seicage which, would not
ordinarily be revealed by the bacteriological
examination.
Following the oyster-borne typhoid outbreak
during the winter of 1924-25 in the United
States (10) the national shellfish certification
program was initiated by the States, the Public
Health Service, and the shellfish industry (9).
Water quality criteria were then stated as:
a. The area is sufficiently removed from ma-
jor sources of pollution so that the shellfish
would not bo subjected to fecal contamination
in quantities which might be dangerous to the
public health.
field work associated with such a reappraisal will depend upon
the nren under consideration and the magnitude o( the
changes which hare taken place.
' An MP.V of approximately 70 per 100 ml
10
JUNE 19W
-------
l>. The .11 ri i- t'nv t'lom pollution b\ e\cn
small i|ii.uil ilir- of lu-li '•(•wage. The ipport
emphasised tli.it lufUMiolopical examination
does not, in it-elf. clK-r i-wirliisiAC proof of the
sanitary qiialitx of .in .m-a.
c. Haderiolngii.il i>\.iniiiiiition docs not or-
dinarily show flic PITMMXT of flic coli-aerogcnes
group of bacteria in 1 re dilutions of growing
aiea water.
Tlio reliability >f ilu- three-part standard for
evaluating the -,ifct\ of shcllfi'Oi-pioducmg
areas is evidenced by t he fact that no major out-
breaks of typhoid fever or other enteric disease
have been attributed to shellfish harvested from
•waters meeting the criteria since they were
adopted in the United States in 1925. Similar
water quality criteria have been in use in Can-
ada with like results. The available epidemio-
logical and laboratory evidence gives little idea
as to the margin of safety, but it is prob-
ably considerable as indicated by the virtual ab-
sence of reported shellfish caused enteric disease
over a comparntnely long period of time (75)
(20) (21) (65) (69) from waters meeting this
criteria.
The purpose of the sanitary survey is to iden-
tify and evaluate those factors influencing the
sanitary quality of a growing area and which
may include sources of pollution, potential or
actual; the volume of dilution water; the effects
of currents, winds and tides in disseminating
pollution over the growing areas; the bacterial
quality of water and bottom sediments; die out
of polluting bacteria in the tributaries and the
estuary; bottom configuration; and salinity and
turbidity of the water. Sources of pollution in-
clude municipal sewage discharged into the es-
tuary or inflowing rivers; sewage brought into
the estuary by tides or currents; surface runoff
from polluted areas; industrial wastes; and dis-
charges from pleasure craft, fishing boats, naval
vessels, and merchant shipping.
Bacteriological examination of the growing
waters is an important, component of the sani-
tary survey. In many instances the bacterio-
logical and related salinity data will also pro-
vide valuable information on the hydrographic
characteristics of an area.9"
•Bacteria In an nnfatorablc environment die out In ouch a
way that following an Initial Ing period there Is a large per-
ccntnge decline during the first few days Descriptions of
studies on bacteria dirout have been published by Oreenbcrg
(I!) and Pearson (IS). DleoZ baa t:ao been Invcctlgaled
Ideally, a large number of water samples for
bacteriological examination should be collected
at oach station. However, in most, instances
this is not piartiral because of time and budget
limitation':, and accoidingly only a limited num-
ber of samples can be collpclrd. Therefore,
sampling stations should be chosen which will
provide a maximum of data, and which will be
resprcscntative of the bacteriological quality of
water in as wide an area as possible. Sample
collection should be timed to represent the most
unfavorable hydrographic and pollution con-
ditions since shellfish respond rapidly to an in-
crease in the number of bacteria or viruses in
their environment (25) (26) (70) (71) (72)
(78).
There is no specified minimum number of
sampling stations, frequency of sampling, or
total number of samples. Sampling results ob-
tained over a period of several j cars can be used
as a block of data provided at least 15 samples
have been collected from each of a repicsentativc
number of stations along the line separating ap-
proved from restricted growing areas and there
have been no adverse changes in hydiographic
or sanitary conditions. Only occasional bac-
teriological samples are necessary from areas
which arc shown to be free from pollut ion.
Experience with the shellfish cert ifiral ion pro-
gram indicates a tendency to omit or de-empha-
size some components of the sanitary survey
unless a central State file of all shellfish sanitary
surveys, reappraisals, and resurveys is main-
tained. This is particularly true where re-
sponsibility for shellfish sanitation is divided
between two or more State agencies. Mainte-
nance of a central State file for all shellfish sani-
tary survey information will also simplify the
endorsement appraisal of State programs by
the Public Health Service and will help prevent
by the Public Health Service Shellfish Sanitation Laboratory
at Woods Hole, Mass, and I'ensncola, Pin. Application of
this principle may be helpful In predicting the quantity of
pollution which will reach an nren. and In establishing objec-
tive effluent quality criteria (24K
•In connection with the cinluntlnn of campling result*. It
should be. noted thnt the SIPS determination la not a precise
men'ire of the concentration of bacteria (J) Thin. !i re-
peated sampling from waters having n uniform ilen«lt) of
bacteria varjlng MPN estimates nlll be obtained The unr
of the tolerance factor 3.1 (applicable only to 3 tube decimal
dilution MPN's) IB one method of recognizing this variation.
For example. In a body of water In which the median con-
centration of collform bacteria Is TO per 100 ml, 0.~>% of
observed MPN's will be between 20 and 230 per 100 ml.: IP.
70/3 3 = 31 and 70X33 = 230.
JUNE 1065
11
-------
lossof olil data which may I>c u-rfnl in evaluat-
ing the sanilary qualify of an aioa.
Periodic ivappi.us.ils of the sanitaiy quality
of shellfish producing aic.is are ncce-^an to
determine that eimromnenlal ronditions arc
such that Mie, original conclusion-; are si ill valid.
A rcxurrry should 1)0 made within 1 \ear if the
reappraisal shows a .sigmficinf detnnipiital
change.
2. Classification of Growing Areas.—All
actual and potential growing waters shall be
classified as to their public health suitability for
the. harvesting of market, shellfish. Classifica-
tion criteria are described in sections C-tf, C-4,
C-5, C-6, and C-7 of this manual. Except in
emergency any upw ard rex ision of an area clas-
sification shall be preceded by a sanitary survey,
rcsurvcy, or reappraisal. A written analysis
of the data justifying the rcclassilication shall
bo made a part of the aiea file.
Satisfactory compliance.—This item will be
satisfied when—
a. All actual and potential growing waters in
the State are correctly designated with one of
the following classifications on the basis of sani-
tary survey information: Approved; condition-
ally approved; restricted; or prohibited.1 *
b. Area classifications are. revised whenever
warranted by survey data.
c. Classifications are not revised upward
without at least a file review, and there is a
written record of such review in the area file
maintained by the State shellfish control agency.
d. All actual and potential growing areas
which have not. been subjected to sanitary sur-
veys shall be automatically classified as pro?
hi ft! ted.
Public-health explanation.—The probable
presence or absence of pathogenic organisms in
shellfish waters is of the greatest importance in
deciding how shellfish obtained from an area
may be used. All actual and potential growing
waters should thus be classified according to the
information developed in the sanitary survey.
Classification should not be revised upward
without careful consideration of available data.
'Closures may nlno he bnsrri on prr»cnce of Mnrlne Toxlnx
or other toxic mntcrlnli.
•Stntcs may use other terminology In dencrlblng arcn
elanslflcntlonn; provided, thnt rhr clnnslflcntlon terms used
are consilient with the Intent and meaning of the word"
"approved", "conditionally approved", "restricted", or
"prohibited"
Areas should bo rcclassifiod whenever warranted
by exiting data. A written justification for the
reclassjficalion simplifies Public Health Service
appraisal of State piograms.
A hypothetical u«e, of the four recognized
area classifications is shown in figure 1. This
idealized situation depicts nn estuary receiving
sewage from two cities, "A" and "H."" City "A"
has complete sewn cjp, t real ment including chlori-
nation of cfllucn!. City "II" has no sewage
treatment. The c-slnary has been divided into
five areas, designated by roman numerals, on
the basis of sanitary survey- information:
Approved
Area I. The sanitary survey indicates that
sewage from cities "A" and "B" (even with the
"A" sewage plant not functioning) would not
reach this area in such concentration as to consti-
tute a public-health hazard. The median coli-
form MPN of the water is less than 70/100 ml.
The sanitary quality of the area is independent
of sewage treatment at city "A.1"
Conditionally Approved
Area II. This area is of the same sanitary
quality as area I: however, the quality varie.s
with the effectiveness of sewage treatment at
city "A." This area would probably be classi-
fied prohibited if city "A" had not provided
sewage treatment.
Restricted
Area. III. Sewage from "B" reaches this
area, and the median coliform MPN of water is
between 70 and 700 per 100 ml. Shellfish may
be used only under specified conditions .
Prohibited
Area IV. Direct harvesting from this area
is prohibited because of raw sewage from "B."
The median coliform MPN of water may exceed
700/100 ml.
Area. V. Direct harvesting from this area
is prohibited because of possible failure of the
sewage treatment plant. Closure is based on
need for a safety factor rather than coliform
content of vrnter or amount of dilution water.
12
JUNE 19G5
-------
3. Appro\cd Aii'.-is.—Growing areas maj
1)0 designated .1- u/i/inn-nl when: (n) llic sani-
tary SIIIVCN indir.nc*. Ilial pathogenic inirio-
organisnix, ladmnnclidcx. and/or harmful in-
dustrial watte-* do not icach tlio area in dan-
gerous concent Ml ion. .ind (b) this is verified by
laboratory findin^x whenever the sanitary sui-
vcy indicates the, need. Shcllfi-h may be taken
from such areas for dnect mailed ing.
Satisfactory ctmi/ifiiinca.—This it.cm will he
satisfied when the tlneo following ciitcria aie
met:
a. The area is not so contaminated with fecal
material that consumption of the shellfish might
be ha/.ardous, and
b. The area is not. so contaminated with
radionuclidcs or industrial wastes that con-
sumption of the shellfish might bo hazardous
(see section C, item 7, regarding toxins in shell-
fish growing areas), and
c. The colifoim median MPN of the water
docs not exceed 70 per 100 ml., and not more
than 10 percent of the samples ordinarily ex-
ceed an MPN of i>:>0 per 100 ml. for a 5-tube
decimal dilution tes.1 (or 330 per 100 ml., where
the 3-tubu decimal dilution test is used) in those
portions of the area most probably exposed to
fecal contamination during the most unfavor-
able hydrographic and pollution conditions.
(Note: This concentration might be exceeded if
less than 8 million cubic feet of a col i form-free
dilution water are available for each population
equivalent (coliform) of sewage reaching the
area). The foregoing limits need not be ap-
plied if it can be shown by detailed study that.
the col if onus are not of direct fecal origin and
do not indicate a public health hazard (19)
(SO).1
Public-health explanation.—A review of epi-
demiological investigations of disease outbreaks
attributable to the consumption of raw shellfish
reveals (hat two general situations prevail ° in-
sofar as pollution of growing or storage areas
arc concerned.
•This MPN rnltic Is bnsi-d on a typical rntlo of conform-.
to pathOKons nail wnul'1 not be applicable to on} ultuntlnn In
which nn almnrmnlly Inrcr number of pathogens mlcht be
present Consideration imi«t nl«o be glvrn to the possible
presence of Industrial or agricultural wastes In which there
IK nn ntjptcnl col I form to pathogen ratio (SO}.
•There Is n third general consideration In which shellfish
may be contaminated through mlnhandllng. Thin IB not re-
Intrd to growing area sanitation and IB considered In part II
of thin mnnual.
(1) Gross sew age con I a mi nation of a grow-
ing or wet sloiage :irea. (A report of a 1910
out bicak of typhoid fever iiivohing 41 per-
sons notes that law sewage from a city with
a population of 30,000 was discharged only
a few hundied feet away fiom clam beds and
floats (27) (_V?). In 1947 a case, of typhoid
fevrr was attributed to clams harvested 200
yards from the outlet of a municipal sewage
tieatment plant (20). In the latter case, ihe
coliform MPN of the harbor water exceeded
12,000 per 100 ml. and the area had been
posted as closed to shellfish hat vesting.)
(2) Chance contamination of a growing or
wet storage aica by fiesh fecal material which
may not he diffused throughout the entire, niea
(U) (16) (17) (7.9) and therefore not readily
detectable b}' oidmary bacteriological pro-
cedures. The possibility of chance contami-
nation was noted by Dr. Gurion in his icport
on a 1902 typhoid outbreak, anil who is quoted
in Public Health lUillclin No. 8fi, as "there
is a zone of pollution established b} the mere
fact, of the existence of a populated cil \ upon
the banks of a stream or tidal estuary which
makes the laying down of ousters and clams
in these waters a pernicious custom if per-
sisted in, because it renders these articles of
food dangerous at times, and always suspi-
cious'5. The 19f>G outbreak of infectious
hepatitis in Sweden (091 cases) attributed to
oysters which were contaminated in a wet
storage area'is an example of such contami-
nation (J6)*. Similarly in 1939, 87 cases of
typhoid were attributed to fecal contamina-
tion of a storage area by a tvphoid carrier
Wi-
lt is well established that shellfish from
water having a median coliform MPN not ex-
ceeding 70 per 100 ml.8 and which is nlto pro-
tected against chance contamination with fecal
material, will not be involved in the spread of
disease which can be attributed to initial con-
tamination of the shellfish. This is not surpris-
ing since a water MPN of 70/100 ml. is equiv-
alent to a dilution ratio of about 8 million cubic
feet of coliform-free water per day for the fecal
material from each person contributing sewage
to the area. This tremendous volume of water
is available in shellfish growing areas through
JUNE IOCS
13
-------
l
\
I
PROHIBITED AREA
•^ V V \N
Sewer outfall
Sewage
treatment
plant \iiiK
PROHIBITED
AREA
CONDITIONALLY
APPROVED
AREA
APPROVED AREA
FlUl'KE 1
-------
tidal art inn which i> ion-i:in(ly bringing tin-
pnlliifcd wiiti'i niln the :iir:i.*
Aieas winch .tic approved for direct market
luincstin;.'of-ht'llli'h whirh will lie.eaten raw
must necc--:inl\ inert one £ieiicr,il test; i.e.
sewage leac'lnii;,' tin- «:io\\iiip aica must be so
frented, diluted, or .I«:IM| ili.it it will lie of neg-
ligible public-health sigiiificjinre. This implies
an element of lime ami id<'red in evaluating tlie san-
itary quality of a "row ing area since the bacte-
rial and viral content of the effluent will be
determined by the decree of treatment which is
obtained (2)" (7.1) (/{) (75). The results of
bacteriological sampling must also be correlated
with sewage ticatmrnt plant, operation, and
evaluated in terms of the minimum treatment
which can be expected w ith a realization of the
possibility of malfunctioning, overloading, or
poor operation.
The presence of radionnclicles in growing
area waters may also have piiblic-hcalth sig-
nificance since shellfish, along with other marine
organisms, have the ability to concentrate such
materials (31) (32) (33) (34). The degree to
which radioisotopcs will be concentrated de-
pends upon the species oi shellfish and the
specific radioisotope. For example, it has been
reported that the Eastern oyster lias a concen-
tration factor of 17,000 for Znts whereas the
concentration factor in soft tissues for Sr50 is
approximately unity (31) (33). The distribu-
tion of the radioisotope in the shellfish and the
biological half-life are also variable. Sources
of radioactive materials include fall-out, indus-
trial wastes, and nuclear reactors. Limiting
maximum permissible concentrations of radio-
active materials expressed in terms of specific
radioisotopcs and unidentified mixtures in
water and food have been established (55) (36).
The current standard should be consulted in
evaluating the public-health significance of de-
tected radioactivity in market shellfish.
See footnote 8 on pngo 13
The..bacterial quality of active shellfish
ordinarily be directly propoifional to the bac-
terial quality of thr water in which they grew ;
however, considerable variation in individual
e> expected. The colifoi in
Ml'N's of the shellfish usually exceed those of
flic 01 crlj ing water because shellfish filler large
qiinnlilirs of water to obtain food, thereby ron-
rcMiliaiing (he suspended bacteria.. This reh-
tionship will depend upon the shellfish specks,
water temperature*., piescnce of cei-tain cherri-
cals, and varying capabilities of the iudividuil
animals.
4. Conditionally Approved Areas.—The
suitability of some areas for hanest ing shellfish
foi diicct market in«r is dependent upon the at-
tainment of an established pcifounnncc stan-
dard by sewage treatment wotks discharging
diluent, directly or indirrctly. to the area. In
other cases the sanitary quality of an area may
bo effected by seasonal population, or sporadic
use of a dock or harbor facility. Such areas
may be classified as conditionally approved.
State shellfish control agencies shall establish
conditionally approrcd areas only « hen satisfied
that (a) :ill necessary measures have been taken
to insure that performance standards will be
met, and (b) that, precautions have been taken
to assure that shellfish will not be marketed
from the areas subsequent to any failure to meet
the performance standards and befoic the shell-
fish can purify themselves of polluting micro-
organisms.
ftntisffrrtory comfilianrp..—This item will !>e
satisfied when—
a,. The water quality requirements for an
approved area are met at all times while the area
is approved as a source of shellfish for direct
marketing.
b. An operating procedure for pnrli rnnftl-
tionally approved area is developed jointly by
(•he State shellfish control agency, local ;i.ironcie«.
including those responsible for opcintinn of
sewerage systems, and the local shellfish indus-
try. The operating procedure should be based
on an c- aluation of each of the potential somx s
of pollution which may affect the area. The
procedure should establish performance stand-
ards, specify necessary safety devices and meas-
ures, nnd define inspect ion and check proce-
dures. (These procedures arc described in
JUNE 1005
15
-------
morr detail in ihe lollnwin-r public-health
explanation.)
•c. A clo-cd safot\ /.one i- established between
the conditinnnlly n/>i>iffi'f aiv.i :iiid the sourer
of pollution to gi\c tin- Stair airenrj time to
stop shellfi»h ham-sling if pri formance stand-
ards are not met.
d. Houndaries of cnndiliniinlhi iipprnrcil
areas are so marked as ID l>e readdy identified
by harvester*.
e. Critical sewer.ige Astern units aie so de-
signed, const i ucted, and mahtamed that the
chance«. of failure to meet the established pei-
formance standards due to mechanical failure
or overloading are ininimi/ed.
f. Thcic is a complete understanding of the
purpose of the conditionally approved classifi-
cation by all parties concerned, including tlic
shellfish industry. Successful functioning of
the concept is dependent upon the wholehearted
cooperation of all interested parties. If such
cooperation is not assured the State should not
approve the area for direct harvesting of mar-
ket shellfish.
g. Any failure to meet the performance
standards is immediately reported to the State
shellfish control agency by telephone or messen-
ger. In some instances States may find it, de-
sirable to delegate the authority for closing a
conditionally approved area, to a representative
of the agency located in the immediate area.
h. The- State immediately closes condition-
ally approved areas to shellfish harvesting fol-
lowing a report that the performance standards
have not been met. The area shall remain
closed until the performance standards can
again be met plus a length of time sufficient for
the shellfish to purify themselves so that they
will not be a hazard to'the public health. (See
section D-l, "Relaying," for information on the
length of time required for self-purification of
shellfish.)
i. The- State shellfish control agency makes at
least two evaluations during the shellfish har-
vesting season of each conditionally approved
area including inspection of each critical unit
of the sewerage system to determine the general
mechanical condition of the equipment, the ac-
curacy of recording devices, and the accuracy of
reporting by the operating agency.
j. It. is discovered that failure to meet per-
formance standards have nob been reported by
the opeiating agency, or if Ihe performance
standards are not met, the area will imme-
diately i ex cil to a rctlr'ntcd or prohibited
class! hYat ion.
k. All data rel.ilmg to the operation of n
conditionally npprnrrd atca, including oper-
ation of snivel age systems, arc maintained in a
file by the-'Stall! shellfish control agency.
I'tiliUc-hcalth c.r pinna lion.—The condition-
ally ii/>/>rnri'(! classification is designed pri-
mal ily to piolcct shellfish growing areas in
which the water quality might undergo a signifi-
cant adverse change within a short period of
time.1" The change might result from over-
lo.ulmg or mechanical failure of a sewage treat-
ment plant, or bypassing of sewage- at a lift
station.
Water qualify in many growing aieas in the
more densely populated sections of the country
is, to some degree, dependent upon the opera! ion
of sewage treatment, plants. For example, the
boundaries of an approved shellfish aiea might
bo determined during a period when a tributary
sewage treatment plant is operating at a salis-
factory level. If there is some inletniption in
treatment it follows that there w ill 'be some, deg-
radation in water quality in the growing area,
which may justify a relocation of the bound-
aries. The degree of relocation would depend
upon such items as the distance between the pol-
lution sou i co and the growing are.i, h)drog-
raphy, the amount of dilution water, and the
amount, of pollution.
The concept is also applicable to other situa-
tions in which there may be a rapid or seasonal
change in water quality. Examples of such
situations include—
a A growing area adjacent, to a resort com-
munity. During the summer months, the
community might have a large population which
might have an adverse effect on water quality.
However, during the winter when there are few
people in the community the water quality
might improve sufficiently to allow approval of
the area. In some States this is known as a
seasonal closure
b. A protected harbor in a sparsely settled
area might, provide anchorage for a fishing fleet
"A natural tllnaster may also cause mnn> scwnpc trent-
men t plnnln to be oat of service for an rxtcnclr-tl period of
t!c-« Th» co--HHintlly affrivr.il nr»« rnnivpt In not ordi-
narily concerned with ctich emergency •ltunilonn.
16
JANUARY 1039
-------
sevei.tliiinnili* ,1 \i.\\ When the- fishing fleet i>
in. the h.irlmi \\.iirr v.nnlil l>e of poor ••anilary
cpi.nl it \ : h'>wi'\i-r. dining (he remainder of (lie
year llu1 qu.iliu <>f flu1 lintlmr wafer might bo
Patisf:irlni\. 'I In- HUM won IJ lie approval for
shflllMi harvi^un:: mils xvlu'ii flic fishing fleet
is not usinjf il»* h:irl«n.
c. The \\:itci i|ii.ihi\ in an aica fluctuates vrilli
(lie dischaige of :i major rn or. During period*
of high rinioir the ;ue;i is polluted because of
decreased flow (line in the river. However, dtir-
ing periods of lm\ innoll' Ilic aiea might be of
satisfactory f{iiality and thus lie appro\ed for
shellfish harvesting.
The establishment of camfifJonnffy approved
areas might l»c coiiMdored whenever (lie poten-
tial for sevv!i»c cniilaiiiination is siicli that the
limiting water quality criteria for an tipprorcil
nrca might he exceeded in less than one week
due to a failure of sow age treatment, or oilier
situations as described above.
The first step in determining whet her an area
should be placed in the condilionntty approved
classification is the, evaluation of the potential
sources of pollution in terms of fheir effect on
water quality in tlic a 1-0:1. Potential sources of
pollution include the following:
(1) Sewage treatment plants.
(a) Bypassing of all or part of sewage
because of mechanical or power failure,
hydraulic overloading, or treatment over-
loading.
(6) Reduced degree of treatment due to
operational difficulties or inadequate plant.
(2) Sewage lift stations.
(a) Bypassing during periods of maxi-
mum flow due to inadequate capacity.
(&) Bypassing because of mechanical or
power failure.
(3) Interceptor sewers or underwater out-
falls.
(a) Exfiltration due to faulty construc-
tion.
(6) Leakage tluc to damage.
(4) Other sources of pollution.
(a) Scwapa from merchant or nnval
vessels.
(b) Sewage from recreation use of area.
The second step in establishment of a condi-
tionally approved area is the evaluation of each
source of pollution in terms of the water quality
sf;iitd:ii
-------
{'2) Slrmdhy <'i|iM|>mi'lil In iiiMire (lull
treatment "i pumpiiiL: will not liemUTtupd'd
IW:UN«* "f il.u»:i!!t« i'1 :t >ui;:'«% mill or lo pmsvr
fiiiliiii*.
(.1) In^l riiim'iii.iiiDi! <>f |iinii|)-, ami equip-
ment <<» :ill iririil.idti \ itiyncy to de-
termine (li.it pet fifH'ot'ed nlisas will vary from
State to State depending upon the legal require-
ments for closing an area.
The length of time a conditionally approved
area should be closed following a temporary
\\ ill depend upon several f.ictois includ-
ing HIP species of sl\cll(i.-!i. wafer temperature,
pnnfirfllwii v:itt«.. procure of silt, or other
chemicals that might intei feic with the* physio-
Inyirnl ;u'(i\ ity «if the shcPlish, und the degree
of [mlliitinn of the nu-n. (Sec wet ion D-l of
())!=• iDiiiiii.il for lulihlionul infmnmtinn on tlic
nnluial pinifiVdlion of shelllish.)
5. Rcsti ictcd Areas.—An area may bo clas-
sified 51s* n'v/r/WcV when a sanitary survey in-
ditates ;i limited degree of pollution which
would niiik<' il misnfu to hniveit the shellfish
for diiwt market ing. Alternatively the States
may classify .such areas as prohibited. (See
section C-(i, tliis manual.) Sliellfisli fioin such
areas may bo marketed after purifj'ing or re-
laying !is jirovided for in section D.
Safitfnctory compliance.—This item will be
satisfied wlren the following water quntity cri-
teria aio met in areas designated by Stales as
restrictatf." '-
a. The area is so contaminated with fecal
inatcriaK that diiect consumption of the shell-
fish might be hazardous, and/or
b. The area is notsocontnminated with radio-
nuclidcs or industrial wastes tliat consumption
of the shellfish might be hazardous, and/or
c. The coliform median MPN of the water
docs not exceed 700 per 100 ml. and not more
than 10 percent of the samples exceed an MPJT
of 2,300 per 100 ml. in those portions of the
areas most probably exposed to fecal contami-
nation during the most unfavorable hydro-
graphic and pollution conditions. (Note: this
concentration might be exceeded if less than
800,000 cubic feet of a coliform-free dilution
water are available for each population equiv-
alent (coliform) of sewage reaching the area.)
d. Shellfish from wstricted areas are not
marketed without controlled purification or
relaying.
Public-health, explanation.—In many in-
stances it is difficult to draw a clear line of de-
marcation between polluted and nonpollutcrt
areus. In such iiutnnccs the State may, at its
11 It la not mandatary Hint States use thli clnialHcatlon
Arena not meeting the njiproieil claailflcatlon m.tj l)c> cio=ecl
to all harvesting for direct mnrltctlnK
"Routine a.inltniy surveys and rrapprnlcnln of restricted
areas glinll be made on the same frcquoari- as fur
18
JANUARV
-------
option, clarify HUM- i>f intermediate sanitary
qualify asxVcVv. V.nnl :uit!ioii/p.p.(lic u^eof the
shellfish for icl.ii in-:, iircnntiolled purification.
6. Piohibiled Aiciiv—An aim «liall be rlas-
si Red proliililtff if 1110 -a nitary survey indicates
that dangcrnii-; mmilici- of pathogenic micro-
organisms miglil ic.u'li .in area. Tlio taking of
shellfish from Midi :m\i> for direct marketing
shall ho prohilnlnl. Relju ing or other salvage
operations shall lie c.irefully supervised to in-
sure against polluted shellfish entering trade
channels. Actual and potential growing areas
which have not been subjected to sanitary sur-
veys shall be automatically classified as
prohibited.
Satisfactory compliance.—This item will bo
satisfied when:
a. An area is classified as prohibited if a sani-
tary survey indicates cither of the following
degrees of pollution:
(1) The- area is contaminated with radio-
nuclidcs or industrial wastes that consump-
tion of the shellfish might, be hazardous
and/or
(2) The median colifonn MPN of the wa-
ter exceeds 700 per 100 ml. or more than 10
percent of the samples have a colifonn MPN
in excess of 2,300 per 100 ml. (Note: This
concentration might bo reached if less than
800,000 cubic feet of a coliform-frec dilution
water are available for each population equiv-
alent (coUform) of sewage reaching the
area.)
b. No market shellfish are taken from pro-
hibited areas except by special permit as de-
scribed in section D.
c. Coastal areas in which sanitary surveys
have not been made shall be automatically
classified as prohibited.
Public-health explanation.—The positive re-
lationship between enteric disease and the eat-
ing of raw or partially cooked shellfish has
been outlined in section C-l. Prevention of
tho interstate transport of shellfish containing
sufficient numbers of pathogenic microorga-
nisms to cause disease is a primary objective of
the National Program. Therefore, areas con-
taining dangerous concentrations of microor-
ganisms of fecal origin, or areas which may be
slightly contaminated with fresh fecal dis-
charges, should nol bp approved as a source of
shellfish foi diiccl ni.irkcliiiy.
7. Closure of Areas Due to Shellfish
Toxins.—Tlio Slate shellfish control agency
shall ii'guliirly rollrrt and assaj representative
samplci of shcllliili from growing areas where
shellfish toxins are likely to occur. If the
paralytic shellfish poison content reaches 80
microfirams per ino-ii a ins of I he edible-portions
of raw shellfish mrat, flic area shall be closed
to the t.ik'uii: of thr species of shellfish in which
tho poi .on h:is been found.11 The hai vesting of
shclllis'i from snrh au-a.s shall be controlled in
accord with (he recommendations of .sections
E-l and K-2 of this manual.
The quarantine shall remain in effect until
such time as the Stale shellfish control agency is
convinced the poison content of the shellfish in-
volved is below the qimiaiitine lc\cl."
Satisfactory compl'mnrc.—This item will be
satisfied when—
a. The State shellfish control agency collects
and assays representative samples of shellfish
for tho presence of toxins from each suspected
growing area during the harvesting season.
(Sec section B-2 for assay methods.)
b. A quarantine is imposed against the taking
of shellfish when the concentration of paralytic
shellfish poison equals or exceeds SO micrograms
per 100 grams of the edible portion of raw-
shellfish.
Public-health explanation.—In some areas
paralytic poison is collected temporarily by bi-
valvo shellfish from free-swimming, one-celled
marine plants on which these shellfish feed. The
plants flourish seasonally when water conditions
are favorable.
Cases of paralytic poisoning, including sev-
eral fatalities, resulting from poisonous shell-
fish have been reported from both the Atlantic
and Pacific coasts. The minimum quantity of
poison which will cause intoxication in a sus-
ceptible person is not known. Epidemiological
investigations of paralytic shellfish poisoning
in Canada have indicated 200 to 600 micrograms
of poison will produce symptoms in susceptible
»Tlil<< vnluo Is bnvcd on the rrsults of opldomloloplcnl In-
vestigations of outbreaks of pnrnlytlc eliellflsli poison In
Camilla In 1034 and 1937 (38) (J9).
"The provisions of this Item npply only to shellfish which
will bo marketed BB a fresh or frozen product n» properly
controlled bent processing will reduce the poison content of
the sliellflsh
JUNE 1065
19
-------
per': >ns and a death lias Ix-rn attributed to the
mpjslion of a pinhahlc 'tSfl inmn;rnuri« of poi-
son. Tnvesligal ions iridicviln that Irw-cr amounts
of the poison have no ilclclpiinii'. ellVrls on 1m-
m:iiis. Growiii<; ureas should l»o elo<-cil al n
lower lo.xicily Ic\rl lo pro\ idi- :tn :nlcqunto mar-
gin of s:ifcty sinco in man}' instances toxirily
levels will change rapidly (-75) (-19). It has
also liccn sliou-n that tlio heat liralmnil af-
forded in ordinary canning professes redm-cs
tlio poison content of raw slicllfish considerably.
A review of literature and research dealing
with the soiiivo of the poison, the occurrence
and distribution of poisonous shellfish, physi-
olojrj and loxirolopy, rhaiarlrrkticsof Ilic poi-
son, and picfcnfion and ronlrol of poisonin^
liasbcpn prcpaicd ({1).
In Gulf roii«.| areas, to.\icily in slic!lfic;li has
been ap-ociatrd (/J) (
-------
Section D
PREPARATION OF SHELLFISH FOR MARKETING
1. Relaying.—Star*- <.|u>]llMi control agen-
cies may appiove tin- inti.i- or iiilet-t:ite trans-
planting of niiirkrl -liolMUli fioin nMrirled or
prohibited areas to .ippiovcd areas subject to
ccifaiu limitation1- All phases of Hicopci.itinn
sluill Iv under the inimcdialt' supervision of ic-
sponsilili' State(s) ^helllMi control 01 piiliol
agency(s). A memorandum of understanding
shall be developed between (lie agencies respon-
siblc for the control of interstate relaying oper-
ations. (Shellfish ma\ 1)0 transplanted from ;in
approval area to another like area at any time
without restriction due to sanitary reasons.)
Satixfactory compliance.—This item will he
satisfied when—
a. Shellfish are not relaid from restricted or
prohibited area* to approved fri-eft without
written permission of the State shellfish control
agency.
b. All relaying operations are under the im-
mediate supervision of the State shellfish con-
trol or patrol agency. Supervision shall be
such that no polluted shellfish are marketed be-
foro the end of the approved relaying period.
The supervising officer shall be authorized and
equipped to enforce the State regulations on re-
laying: shall actually supervise the harvesting,
transport and relaying of shellfish; and shall
patrol the approved area during the period that
shellfish arc undergoing the cleansing process.
However, continuous supervision will not be
necessary if relaying operations are carried out
during a period when shellfish m.iy not he mar-
keted. A continuous record of water temper-
ature, salinity, and any other critical variables
must, he maintained when it is known that the
limiting values may he approached and when
the minimum relaying periods are being used.
c. State permission to relay shellfish is given
only to responsible persons; responsibility to be
determined by the past record of the permit
applicant.
d. Relaid shellfish arc held in the approved
area for a period of time sufficient to allow them
to cleanse themselves of polluting bacteria.
(The time required for purification will be de-
termined by water temperature, salinity, initial
bacteriological quality and species of .shellfish.)
e. Kelaid shellfish arc not harvested without
writlcn permif-sion from the Si air shellfish con-
trol agt'icy.
f. Areas designated for inlaid shellfish me-so
located and marked that they may bo read 51 j
identified by the harxesters and so that «he,lHis!:
in any adjacent nppnipp.fl ami will not. ho con
taminatcd. (This rcqiiiieincnl applies only to
relaying during the harvesting season.)
g. Shellfish are not relayed intra or interstate
from resnicted or prohibited areas to tipproretf
areas nithotil w riltcn permission of the Stale(s)
shellfish control agency(s). (If shellfish aie.
relayed interstate, a memorandum of agreement
shall be dcvlopcd outlining the ronl rol measures
.to bo used.)
Public-henJtk eatphnaflon.—Shellfish trans-
planted from a polluted to a clean environment
wjll cleanse themselves of the polluting bacteria
or viruses. This is a natural phenomenon re-
sulting from the shellfish feeding processc<;.
Bacteria or viruses in the body and shell cavity
of the shellfish at the time of transplanting arc
either used as food or are ejected in fer.es or
pseudofeces.
Tho length of time required for this cleansing
process is influenced by many factors including
original level of pollution, water temperature,
presence of chemicals inhibitory to physiologi-
cal activity of the shellfish, salinity, and vary-
ing capabilities of the individual animals. Ad-
vice on limiting water temperatures, either
maxmum or minimum, should be obtained from
local marine biologists.
Investigations by marine biologists have con-
firmed that the psysiologioal activities of the
Eastern oyster (Crnssoxtren virginica) is re-
duced when the water temperature falls below a
certain value. It has been found that the pump-
ing rate of Eastern oysters is reduced at water
temperatures helow 50° F., and that most, ani-
mals stop pumping at a water temperature >»f
about 41° F. However, a few oysters show
slight activity at temperatures approaching 32°
F. (40 (42). This phenomenon was first noted
by shellfish bacteriologists who found that East-
JUNE 1905
21
-------
ern oy.-ters liai\i--icd fmni polluted areas dur-
ing cold wi'iillirr li.nl mlifinni contents com-
parable, with thn-e nf m.-ler- harvested from
clean aieas during waimrr w rallm- (.$.?) (44)
Gibbard ft nl. ({<»') m MM noting tempera-
tiire-indured hibernnlion wai unable to demon-
strate roll forms in Ka-tcrn oysters within a few
days after (he water temperatures dropped to
32° F. The rapidity with which hibernating
oysters become artive when the water tempera-
ture rises aboxc the. threshold value was dis-
cussed by Wachter (4~) '» 102.") and was demon-
strated by Gibbard ct h ed oxygen, presence of chemicals, and
time required for purification.) The bacteri-
ological quality of the purified shellfish shnll be
at least equal to shellfish of the same species
harvested froth local npproned areas.
I). A puiificttion plant operating1 procedure
is developed and copies are supplied to the
Public Health Service.
c. Water used for purification is obtained
from an aica meeting the physical ;ind bacterio-
logical requirements of an approved growing
area, or in the case of treated water the bacter-
iological limits of the Public Health Service
Drinking Water Standards (48) arc met. If
water is to be treated, it shall be obtained from
an area meeting at least the sanitary require-
ments "for a restricted area.
d. Water used for purification has chemical
and physical characteristics conducive to max-
imum physiological activity of the shellfish.
(Consideration shall be given to the following:
Presence of chemicals, turbidity, temperature,
salinity and dissolved oxygen, and to the ade-
quacy of the facilities of the operating agency
for measuring these characteristics.)
e. Shellfish are freed of contamination and
foreign material adhering to shells before
purification.
f. Shellfish are culled before and after
purification.
g. Purification plant operation is under the
administrative control of the State shellfish con-
trol agency. Purification plants may be oper-
ated by agencies other than the State; however,
insofar as the National Shellfish Sanitation
Program is concerned, the State is responsible
for satisfactory operation.
h. Laboratory control is maintained over the
purification operation. Controls shall include
at least the following: Daily or tidal-cycle bac-
teriological quality of water; final bacteriolog-
ical quality for each lot of shellfish purified;
and, when, they are critical factors, hourly or
continuous salinity determinations and tidal-
cycle turbidity determinations.
22
JANUARY 1050
-------
i. Tlic plant npornloi posse*«cs a. satisfactory
knowlpdgp of the principles of water treatment
and bacteriology.
j. Animals rodents mid unauthorized ppr-
soiis nip excluded from tlip plant.
k. Plant rtnplmci'-! fulfill (lie (jiKilifii'alions
for a shuckcr as dcs-nlvd in action R-2S, part
II of this ni.inu.it.
1. Tlio Slate has a-i effective system for as-
suring tliat shellfish ha nested from restricted
areas will be submitted to purification before
marketing. Shellfish harvesting from pro-
hibited areas for controlled purification shall
be under the immediate supervision of the State.
in. Shell fish from prohibited areas are not
subjected to purification unless tlio State shell-
fish control agency can show that, relaying or
depletion is not biologically feasible; and that
no public-health hazard will result, from the
use of such shellfish.
Public-health exphmttfion.—The ability of
shellfish to purify themselves in clean water
was discovered early in the 1900's. The bio-
logical process is reasonably well understood
and is described liy Arcisz and Kelly (3G) as
follows:
"Purification is a mechanical process effected
by the physiological functioning of the shellfish
in clean water. When sliellfisli are feeding, the
gills act as a. filter to strain out some of the
material that may be brought in by the water
which passes through them. If this water con-
tains sewage, some of the microorganisms in it
are entrapped in (lip mucus on tltc body of the
shellfish and transferred fo the alimentary tract.
Somo of tlieso nre perhaps utilized as food (49)
and the others discharged from the body in the
form of feces and pscudofcces. When shellfish
from polluted water are placed in clean water,
the sewage bacteria are eliminated from the
shellfish, and, since no more are ingested, puri-
fication is accomplished."
Tho pnriJicaf inn pioccsshasbet-n investigated
extensively in Kiighmd and to a lesser extent in
ihe United Sl.ilcs"iiml('!iiiiida (SO) (51) (62).
Tho Icchiiunii1 is reliable if proper me.lhods aru
used, and insofar as is known, is applicable to
all commpiriul species of shellfish.
Many of tin- earlier investigators hiiggesled
that purification be accomplished in tanks using
water which had been subjected to a treatment
process (•'-). Tho analogy with water treat-
ment was carried to the point of recommend-
ing a rhlorinit residual in the pin itication tanks.
IFowcviT, fishery Imilogi.sts li.-nc shown th.it
shellfish pumping is decreased or inhibited by
even small quantities of chlorine (53) (54)•
Tho inhibitory ell'cct of chlonnated-dcchlori-
natcd water on activity of Eastern oysters has
been noted by the Public Health Service Shell-
fish Sanitation Laboratory.
Since purification depends upon the pump-
ing rate of the shellfish, it is important that
the water bo free of chemicals or physical char-
acteristics which might interfere with this ac-
tivity. For example, silt, or dissolved organic
substances mny influence the pumping i.ites of
shellfish (55) (06). The relationship of water
temperature to pumping rates has been men-
tioned previously.
Shellfish purification facilities have gener-
ally been considered to include holding tanks
and water treatment facilities (-57) (oS); how-
ever, investigations in Canada and England
have demonstrated that purification can be ac-
complished with relatively simple installations
if the operation is supervised properly (50)
(50) (60) (Gl). Accordingly, any purification
process of proven effectiveness will be accepted
by the national program.
Administrative control of the purification
process is necessary to insure that shellfish are
properly washed and culled, are held for the
required length of time, and that the purifica-
tion, water supply is properly controlled.
JANUARY 1039
23
-------
Section E
CONTROL OF HARVESTING FROM CLOSED AREAS
1. Identification of flowed Areas.—Shell-
fish harvesters shall l>e (unified by due^t no-
tice and warning siirn- of SIMMS closed to har-
vesting. Closed areas sli.ill be «-o inurkecl or
described llisif Miry 111:13 '"' I'siMily recognized
by HIP ban caters. The niea'urcs necessary to
accomplish delineation sind iiotificsilinn will
vary with the structure of the local shellfish
industry and with the legal requirements of
eacli Stntc.
Safwfarfory co>»/>/i"nsr.—This item will be
satisfied when:
. a. The boundaries of the closed areas are
marked by fixed objects or Iniulnv.uks in a man-
ner which permits successful prosecution of any
violations of the closed areas.
b. Shellfish harvesters are notified of the lo-
cation of closed artus by publication or direct
notification (such as registered mail) and/or
warning signs posted sit points of access to each
closed area. The method of notification and
identification should permit I lie successful pros-
ecution of persons harvesting shellfish from the'
closed areas. (The limiting of shellfish har-
vesting permits to specific areas is an alterna-
tive to pasting or notification. Where such a
system is used, posting will be required only for
closed areas which contain market shellfish.)
Public-health explanation.—Previous sec-
tions of this manual have described the public-
health reasons for limiting .shellfish harvesting
to areas free of contamination and shellfish
toxins. Methods have been described for the
evaluation niul classification of sucli areas.
However, classification is not effective unless the
State can prevent illegal harvesting of shellfish
for direct marketing from these closed areas.
For the most part, control of illegal harvest-
ing depends upon the police activities as de-
scribed in section E-2. However, adequate de-
lineation of the closed areas is fundamental to
effective patrol.
The type of area identification will be de-
termined by the structure of the local shellfish
industry. Posting a warning sign is one
method of informing shellfish harvesters that
an area is closed to the taking of shellfish for
public-health lensons. IIowe\er, if the. local
shellfish industry is highly oif-an'r/ed, \\ith
shellfish hciui: harvested by only a few opera-
tors, idnntific.ition insiy bo accomplished by of-
ficially informing the harvesters that rerlain
sueiis are closed to the, diking of shellfish. It is
recommended that the :uh ice of the Slate's legal
counsel be obtained to insure that tho mark-
ing of closed areas and notifications to shellfish
hancstcis are such that illegal harvesting can
bo piosecutcd successfully.
2. Prevention of Illegal Harvesting of
Shellfish From Closed Areas.—Closed grow-
ing areas shall be patrolled by a Stale agency
to prevent illegal harvesting. The patrol force
shall be so equipped that its ofliccrs will be able
to apprehend persons taking shellfish from
closed aresis.
Satisfactory compliance.—This item will be
satisfied when—
a. There is no'evidence that shellfish are
being harvested from closed areas except by
special permit as required to meet local con-
ditions.
b. Closed shellfish growing aresis are pa-
trolled by representatives of an official agency,
due consideration being given to night, week-
end and holiday patrols. .(States may de-legate
patrol activities to local organizations; How-
ever, responsibility for effective control will re-
main with tho State insofar as the National
Program is concerned.
c. Patrol forces are so equipped that per-
sons observed in closed areas may be appre-
hended.
d. Complete records of patrol activities, in-
cluding violations and court actions, are main-
tained in tho central office of the State shellfish
control or patrol agency. It will be the respon-
sibility of the State to include local patrol ac-
tivities in these records. (See section A, sub-
section 2(e) rejjirding monthly summaries of
patrol activities.)
Public-health explanation.—Tho primary ob-
jective of the National Program is to insure that
shellfish will bo harvested only from areas
which are free of dangerous concentrations of
24
JUNE; lees
-------
pathogenic mirniuriMiiMiis, industrial or
rndio;ic(i\i' wii-tr-, pi-dridi'sor slipllfi-h toxins
Growing :ui'.i-> ni:i\ he clarified as to their
public-htMllh Miilnhilih for j.liplllMi har\e>ling
on (lie hasi* of iiifnimillion obtained h) sinilary
and tn.xicnlngii .il -unr^. Ilowp\er, if lornl
shcllfi-h li.'ini'-lfiN :uv Dot coin inrL¥
-------
Appendix A
BACTERIOLOGICAL CRITERIA FOR SHUCKED OYSTERS
AT TH)«: WHOLESALE MARKET LEVEL
The development of satisfactory bacteriolog-
ical criteria for interstate shipments of oysters
as received at the wholesale market level has
been under consideration since 1050. At that
time the Canadian Department, of National
Health and Welfare pointed out that most of
the U.S.-shucked Eastern oysters sold in Canada
had high coliform MPN's, high standard plate
counts, or both (2). The Canadian experience
with market standards for oy&lcrs was dis-
cussed at the 1956 National Shellfish Sanitation
Workshop (2) and the Workshop adopted on
an interim basis the following bacteriological
standard for shucked Eastern oysters at the
wholesale market level:
"Clfiss /, Acceptable: Shucked oysters with
a Most Probable Number (AIPN) of coliform
bacteria of not more than 16,000 per 100 ml.,
and/or a Standard Plate Count of not more
than 50,000 per ml.
"Class 2, Acceptable on Condition: Shucked
oysters with a coliform MPN greater than
16,000 per 100 ml., but less than 160,000 per ml.,
and/or a Standard Plate Count greater than
50,000 per ml., but less than 1 million per ml.
(The oysters will be accepted on the condition
that the shellfish sanitation authority in the
originating State will make immediate investi-
gation of the producer's plant and operations
and will submit a report of such investigations
to the control agency in the market area. On
the basis of this report the control agency in the
market will reject or permit further shipments
from the producer in question.)
"Class 3, Rejcctable: Shucked oysters with
a coliform MPN of 160,000 or more per 100
ml., and/or a Standard Plate Count of 1 million
or more per ml."
In establishing the above interim standards,
the 1956 Workshop recognized the limitations of
the coliform group as an index of quality in that.
it failed to reveal whether theshellfish had been
harvested from polluted areas or had been ex-
posed to contamination during handling and
processing subsequent to remouil from the
water. A recommendation was made that in-
vestigations bo conducted lo evaluate the signi f-
ican.ce of other bacterial indices. The fecal
colifonn group was suggested as a possible sub-
stitute for the coliform indices.
In partial fulfillment of this suggestion, a
report on an interstate cooperative study to eval-
uate bacteriological criteria for market oysters
was presented at the 1058 Shellfish Sanitation
Workshop (3). A feature of this report was
the development and evaluation of a method for
the estimation of fecal colifonn organisms fol-
lowing a procedure originally developed by
Hajna and Perry (77). Gross increases in coli-
form organisms were observed during normal
acceptable commercial practices. The magni-
tude of changes in coliform organisms was of
the same order as those observed in plate counts.
The results clearly demonstrated the inadequacy
of the coliform group as an indicator of the sani-
tary quality of shellfish. It was further con-
cluded that the plate count was of equal signif-
icance in revealing chance contamination or
violations of acceptable storage time and tem-
perature. On the other hand, the results of the
examinations for fecal coliform organisms re-
vealed a much higher degree of stability as the
shellfish proceeded through commercial chan-
nels and thus suggested the'greater suitability
of this parameter as an index of sanitary quality
at the wholesale market level. After due con-
sideration of the report, the 1958 Workshop
changed the interim bacteriological standard
26
JUNE 1906
-------
for fie«h and fm/i-n shurkcd oilers at the
wholesale mnrKt't K-u-l to llic following:
Safiofnftnri/.^ /•'. rnJ! density of not more
than 7S MPX pel 100 ml. of samples fis indi-
cated by product inn n> Ihan 100,000 total
bacteria per ml. on njrar at 3.V C. will be nc-
coplnble vilhoiil question. An E. en//content
of 79 to 230 MPX per 100 ml. of snmplo or a
total bacteria con it of 100,000 to 500,000 jier
ml. will be rureplable in occasional samples.
If these concent rr. I ions arc found in two suc-
cessive samples from (he same packer or rc-
pncker, the Slate regulatory authority at the
source will be requested to supply informa-
tion to the receiving State concerning tlio
status of opei :ition of this packer or repacker.
Unsatisfactory.1* E. coli content of more
than 230 MPN per 100 ml. of sample or
a tot.il bacteria, count of more than 500,000
per ml. will constitute an unsatisfactory
sample and may be subject to rejection by the
Stato shellfish regulatory authority. Future
shipments to receiving markets by the shipper
concerned will depend upon satisfactory
operational reports by the shell fish regulatory
authorities at tho point of origin.
In adopting the above standards, the 1958
Workshop recommended that the cooperative
studies conducted by city and State labora-
tories and the Public Health Service be
continued.
The 1961 Workshop reviewed still more data
collected by tho collaborating agencies during
the 1958-61 period (67) and after considerable
deliberation agreed to continued use of the in-
terim bacteriological standards arrived at by
the 1958 Workshop.
The 1964 Workhop considered all bacteri-
ological data available up to that time (Nov.
17-10), including data relative to Crassostrea
gigas, and adopted tho following standards on
8 permanent basis, versus the previous interim
basis, as bein/r applicable to all species of fresh
and fioziMi oysters at tho wholesale market
level, provided they con be identified as having
been produced under (he general sanitary con-
troh of flic A'tilituial Slicttfa/i Sanitation
/'rofff-rrn.1"
Sniixfnctory. Fo'al roliforiu (tensity 1T of
not more than 230 MPN per 100 giams and 35°
C. pi.ilo count " of not more, than 500,000 per
gi am «ill bo acceptable A\ ithout question.
Conditional. Fecal colifonu density of more
than 230 MPN per 100 grams ami/or 35° C.
plafo count of more than 500,000 per gram will
constitute a conditional sample nnd ma}' be
subjcrt to rejection by tho State shellfish regu-
latory :iutliority. If these concentrations are
found in f.wo successive samples from the same
shipper, the State regulatory authority at the
sourco will be requested to supply infoimntion
to tho receiving State concerning the status of
operation of this shipper. Future shipments to
receiving markets by tho shipper concerned will
depend upon satisfactory operational reports
by tho shellfish regulatory authorities at the
point of origin.
In establishing the above bacteriological
standards the 1964 Workshop took cognizance
of the fact that no known health hazard was
involved in consuming oysters meeting the
standard; that oysters produced in the Gulf
Coast States with warmer growing waters,
could meet the standard if harvested, processed,
and distributed according to tho National Shell-
fish Sanitation Program requirements, and that
the oysters harvested were from "approved"
growing areas complying with the standards for
growing areas established in part I of the PHS
Publication No. 33.
"B. toll was defined ng coUforma which will produce gnu
from E. C. medium within 48 bonrs at 44 5* C. In • water
batb will be referred to KB fecal conforms.
"Tbo standards lire not considered meaningful In the
absence of euch Information
"Fccnl colUorrn orgnnistna are those which, an transfer
to E C. medium from £HF positive presumptive broth tube*
nhow production of gns nftcr Incuhntlon In n wntcr bnth (it
4-l.ft" C. ±0.2' C for 24 hours Where air Incubntton In
at 455* C. ±02* C compnratlve testa must he made to
determine comparable If me of tncubntlon
"Plate count Is the number of bacteria determined by the
"Standard Plate Count: procedure for shellfish described In
the APHA Recommended Procedure for the Bacteriological
Examination of Sea Water and Shellfish."
JUNE 1065
27
-------
References
1. JriiM'M. K T ' Thr ;.•»."•} \attnnal Con/rrt ncc nn
ftlirllfiih Sniiilnlnttt, Public Health Rc|ioit«, »ol
70, No 0, Si-]it in"i
2. /•rwrrrfiiii/ji—/f.iff Khrllfiili Sanitation Wf»k-
nhiip, mimroKrtiplic'd, IMililk Health Sen Ice, 10.~C.
3. I'riiercding*—/fl.i.S K/ir»/inr»n«fl,
Nc« EiiKlimd* Journnl of Medicine, 2I!>- 7fi.'i-773,
S()i-Sll! nnd 843-S.V2 (Nov. 5, 12, and 19) 1953.
19. rjiiiiitdcn. I.. L. Ha-sseUIne, II. K, Ix^nk, J. P. and
Vclrtw. M V.: A Tupiioi'l Fr.vcr Epidemic Caused
bu Ouitcr-fiontr Infection, IMiliHc Ilenlth Reports,
siipp No ."0, 1025.
20. A Hepnit nn the Public Health Aupcctf of Clam-
miiiif in Karitan Day, Pulillc Health Service, re-
issued June 1054.
21. Dnck, G. M.: Food Pawning, third edition; the
University of Chicago Press, 1956, fourth impression
1964.
22. Greenbcrg, Arnold E.: Survival of Enteric Organ-
isms in Sea Wafer, Public Health Reports, vol. 71,
No. 1, January 1956.
23. An Investigation of the Efficacy of Submarine Out-
fall Disposal of Sctcagc and Sludge, Publication
No. 14, California Stale Water Pollution Control
Board, 1000.
24. Harris, Eugene K : On the Probability of Riiroiua-l
of Bnctcria. in Sea. Water, Biometrics, June 1!)5S.
25. Wood, P. C.: Factors Affecting the Pollution and.
Self-Purification, of Molluscan,-Shellfish, E^traitdu
Journal du Conseil International Pour i'Flxplora-
tion de la Mcr, vol. XXII, No. 2, 1957.
26. Arcisz, William and Kelly, C. B.: Self-Purification
of the Soft Clnm, tfya arcnaria, Public Health
Reports, vol. 70, No. 6; 005-614, June 1955.
27. Investigation of Pollution of Tidal Waters of Mary-
land and Virginia, Public Health Bulletin No. 74,
1916
28. Investigation of the Pollution of Certain Tidal
Waters of Xeio Jersey, A'eto York and Delaware,
Public Health Bulletin No. 86, 1917.
2i>. Mood, Eric W.: First Typhoid Case in Seven Years,
Monthly Rcj>ort of the New Haven, Conn., Depart-
ment of Health, December 1048.
30. Bidncll, Milton H-, and Kelly, C. B.: Ducks and
Shellfish Sanitation, American Journal of Public
Henltli, vol. 40, No. 8, August 1950.
31. Effect* of Atomic Radiation on Oceanography and
Fisheries, Publication No. 551, National Academy
of Sciences, National Research Council, 1957.
32. Gong, J. K., et al.: Uptake of Fission Products and
Xcniron-Induced Radionuclidcs by the Clam, Pro-
ceedings of the Society for Experimental Biology
and Medicine, .-ol. 95, 451-454. 1957.
33. Studies of the Fate of Certain Radionuclidcs in
Estaurinc and Other Aquatic Environments. Public
Health Service Publication No. 09O-R-3.
34 Welsa, H. V., and Shlptjian, W. H.: Biological Con-
centration by Killer Clams of Cobalt-60 from Radio-
28
JUNE) 1065
-------
arlirc Faltmtt, £n'.-ii7.
33. Title 10. Part 20 ('..di- of Federal reculnllons.
30. Mariiniini r< imivulilr llml/i Itiirdriii find Mn ri-
al H in /•niiiiMi'Wf Cnwrnhatirtni of tlnilinniirlnlri
in .lir niirf in ll'nfrr foi Orcw/in/ionn! T'fpnsure,
Xntinnal Itiireau of ShiiulanN I [:imll>nn!c CO. Juno
r>, iron.
37. H'ff/rr Qtinlilit ffitriruaf Htriiifitun Knatli Klu-llfiih
.lira*, Virginia Stnlr Department of Health nwl
US Public Honlth Service, 10.-.0
38. TonnHiit. A. 1).. Npiiliert. .1., and Corbel I, II. E :
An Outbreak o/ Paialytic Shellfish Poisoning, the
Canadian Medical Association .Toitmnl, 72: 4.36-
j.i!). in.-;.-)
30. Prorcrdinnv—/fl.37 Conference on Paralytic Shell-
fiili rattan, mhm'npniphed: Puhlir Hrnltti Service.
1958.
40. McFnrren, E. F., el al: Public Health Significance
of Paialt/tic Shellfish Pn'non—Atrancn In Fond
Research, vol. 10,10GO.
41. Gal(*off, P S.: Riafogy of the Oyster in Relation
to Sanitation, American Journal of Public Health,
rol. 20. 245-247. 1030.
42. Loosanoff. V. L : Some Aspects of Behavior of
Oysters at Different Temperatures, Biological Bul-
letin, vol. 114, No I, 57-70. 1958.
43. Gage, S. DoM, and Gorham, P.: Self-Purification
of Oysters During Ifibcination, American Journal
of Public Health, December 1925.
44. dimming, Hugh S.: Investigation of the Pollution
and Sanitary Conditions of the Potomac Water-
shed icith Special Rcfcicnrc to Self-Purification
and, the Sanitai y Condition of Shellfish in the Lower
Potomac Rivet, U.S. Public Health Service, Hy-
gienic Laboratory Bulletin No. 104, February 1910.
45. Fisher, L M., and Acker, J. E.: Bacteriological
Examinations of Oysters and Water from Narra-
gattsctt Bay During the Winter and Spring in
/S27-2S, Public Health Reports, vol. 50, No. 42.
October 18, I»33.
46. GIbbard, James ft al.: Effect of Hibernation on
Contrnl of Col'iform llaclcria in Ousters, Ameri-
can Journal of Public Health, vol. 32, 979-9S6,
September 1.9J2.
47. Wachter, L. M.: The Laboratory Aspects of Oyster
Pollution, American Journal of Public Health, 15,
1006-68, 1925.
4S. Public Health Kcnifc Drinking Water Standards,
PHSnnb.S->6
49. ZoQoll. C. E., and Lnndon, W. A.: Racicrial Nu-
trition of the California Mussel, Proc. Soc. Exper.
niol. and M«I., 3(5, C07-C0n (19.17).
60. Wood, P. C.: The Cleansing of Oysters, Public
Health, February, 1937.
51. Erdman, I. E, Kelij, J. M., and Teimnnt, A. D.:
1954 Clam Gleaming Studies (3fya), Manuscript
Report, Fish Inspection Laboratories, No. 55-1,
Canadn Department of Fisheries.
52. Messer, R., and Reece, O. M.: Progress in Oyster
Conditioning With Report of Experiments at the
Dcntniiilrntinn. Plant, ffnifnlk, Vn, Pnhllc* Health
Reports, Reprint No. 1R70, I-151-14CO, 1937.
S3. Galt«f>n". Piml S.: Itcaction of Oysters to Chlorin-
atinn, Rewart-li Tleiwrt 11, Kish and Wildlife Serv-
ice. 1!>IO.
54. SandlinlKcr, L A, and nnrlcncr, C. R : nar.tciin-
InnifMl Stuilim of Oyxtcr Gonrtittnninq, Coinnicrrlal
Fishp-lpi Review, ft, 7-11, 1!>17. •
!!5. I/x»s:inofr, V. J,, nnd T7. Vilctn, II. Oytr.m m CniLftfirnpCion and in the 'Na-
tional Economy, publication 18, Council of Studies
of Fisheries, Separate from nullrtin of Fisheries
No. -IS, Lisbon, Portugal, IfKM. (Tninslafion avail-
able from the Public Health Service).
58. Report of the Special Commission ExtablinlicA To
Slake an Investigation and Study-Relative to Kdiblc
Shellfish and Shellfish Chlorinating Plants, the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts, December 19-17.
59. Sn-an^burg, K. B., and Mullnn, M. W.: Studies in-
the Self-Cleans mij of Quahoug* (Venus mcrcc-
naria, L.), manuscript report ,r>7-2. Canada De-
partment of Fisheries, 19Ti7.
60. Cole, H. A.: Purification nf Oysters in Simple Pits,
Fishery Investigations, scries II. vol. XVIII, No. 5,
Mlnlbtry of Agriculture and Fisheries, London,
1954
61. Reynolds, Nial: A Simplified System of Afusscl
Purification, Fishery Investigations scries II, vol.
XX, No. 8, Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries,
London, 1956.
62. Recommended Procedures for the nactcrwlopical
Examination of Sea Water and Shellfish, American
Public Health Association.
63. Ringe, Mlla E., Clem, David J-, Linkncr, Robert E.,
and Sherman, Leslie K.: A Case Study an the
Transmission of Infectious Hepatitis by Raw
Clams, published by U.S. Department of Health,
Education and Welfare, Public Health Service.
64. Mason, James 0, and McLean, W. R.: Infectious
Hepatitis Traced to the Consumption of Raro
Oysters, American Journal of Hygiene, vol. 75,
-No. 1. Jan. 19G2,
65. Communicable Disease Center Hepatitis Surveil-
lance, Report No. 18, March 31, 19G4, and Report
No. 19, June 30, I9W. U.S. Department of Health,
Education and Welfare, Public Health Service.
60. Official Methods of Analysis of the Association of
Official Agricultural Chemists, published by the
Association of Official Agricultural Chemists.
67. Proceedings—1SG1 Shellfish Sanitation Workshop,
Lithographed, Public Health Service; 19G2.
68. Pwcdings—100} Shellfish Sanitation Workslmv
Lithographed, Public Health Service, 1965.
69. Communicable Disease Center Hepatitis Surveil-
lance, Report No. 5, May 3,19C1, and Report No. 0,
September 28, 1901. U.S. Department of Health,
Education, and Welfare, Public Health Service.
JUNE 1905
29
-------
70. M.-lcalf, T. G : nnd Stiles \V C. The Accumula-
tion of the r.ntfiir I im»i < tin the O//»/rr.», Crns-
lo.ttrra riigiHirn Jn
Branch
73. Knblor, Tnul: Rcmoral of Pathogenic Jficro-
Organifmi hy Scicnjrc Treatment Prnccsscs, Sew-
age anil Industrial Wastes, \ol. 31, 1373-S2 (Dec.
10r,!>).
74. Kelly, Sailer, nnd Snndcr-on. \V. W.: The Effect of
Scicagc Treatment on Viruses, Sewage and Indus-
Mai Waitcs. vol. 31, GS3-89 (June 1959).
75. Clnrke. Normnn A., nnd Knlilcr, I'nul W.: Human
Enteric ri»n*f» in Sen age, lloaltb Lnborntory
Si-icruv, vol. 1, 41-'« (Jnn 1!WI).
70. Elilrwl. H., StciiliiiRcr, K . nnd WUHnnis, J : Pro-
luniiintii Kindles of the Relation of Gt/nninrthnim
Brcie. Count* In Shrll/iili Tone.ily. A Collcrtion
of Data in Rofrrpncc to Ri'd Tide Ontltjcnks nur-
inc IflUI, Ili'iirodiipcil Ity the .Marine Lnlmiatory of
IMC Florida Hoard of Condonation, SL retcrshiirg,
Flonilii. Mny \f''A.
77. Il:i]na, A A., a'ul Terry, C. A, W34, Comparatnc
Study of Ptcsinnptivc and Confirmatory Media, for
Ractrria. nf the Cotiforin Group and for Fecal
Streptococci, American Journal of Public Health,
33, .ViO-oriO.
7a Mitchell, J. 11., Prcsncll, M. W., Akin, B. W., Cum-
mins. J. 31., and Liu, O. C.: Accumulation and
Elimination of Poliovirus &i/ (Ac Eastern Oyster,
manuscript In preparation.
30
JUNE 1006
-------
INDEX
Approved areas
bacteriological qunlily
classificat ion
definition
industrial unites
radioactive material-*
relationship to sewage treatment
sanitary SUMey
Bacteriological
content of hibernating shellfish
control of purification. —
die out
examination of growing water
frequency of water sampling
most probable numbers
proccd ures
quality of shucked market oysters
relationship of sewage treatment to water
quality
shcllfish-water rehit lonship
Certificates, shipper
Ciguatei a poison
Classification of growing areas
Coliform gioup, definitions
Conditionally approved areas.
boundary marketing r
definition
discussion 15,16,
establishment of performance standards —
in harbors
near resort areas -
performance standards
records
relationship to river discharge
safety zones —
water quality requirements...
Controlled purification.
administrative control - - j -
definition
discussion
laboratory coutrol -
use of shellfish from restricted or prohibited
areas
water quality required
Cooperative program
application to growing areas
application to handlers
application to harvesters
definition
history
Closed areas
depletion of
marking of boundaries
notification to harvesters —
use of shellfish
Definitions — —
Depletion of closed arras
Die-out of bacteria
Disease from shellfish - 10,
Growing areas, definitions
Hibernation of shellfish
Industrial wastes:
in approved areas
in prohibited areas
in restricted areas
12
n
15
15
11
21
22
11,17
II
II
3,11
26,27
16,17
15
7
9,20
12
3
16,17
15
17,18
17
16
15.16
16
16,17
17
16,18
15
22,23
3
22,23
22
22
22
6
6
6
3
1
25
24
24
24
3
25
11, 17
13,19
3
21
13
19
18
IdentifiralioM of growing areas
Infection-, licpalili-- from shellfish
Intro* 'ate sale of shellfish.
bacteriological procedures ............. —
eliemicnl and plnsical procedures .........
cont rol of purification ...................
to\icological procedures ..................
l.aus nnd regulations
classification of growing an:ns__ -------- ..
control of illegal harvesting.. ............
general requirements .......... - .........
harvesting permits ......................
relationship to patrol ....................
Most probable number — sec bacteriological
Paralytic shellfish poison.
closure of areas .........................
collection and assay of samples ...........
discussion ..............................
in approved areas. ......................
laboratory examination for ...............
quarantine level ........................
Patrol.
equipment required .......... . ..........
frequency ................. - ............
Need
shellfish for purification ..................
records ................................
relationship to State laws _______ ........
relaying ...............................
Prohibited areas-
bacteriological quality ...................
depletion of ............................
establishment of ........................
identification and marking ..............
patrol of ...............................
radioactive materials in. .................
use of shellfish from .................. 1 9,
Radioactive materials-
in growing areas ........................
in shellfish ................ - ............
maximum permissible concentrations ......
Records-
court actions ......... ------ ............
operation of conditionally approved areas. .
patrol activities.. . .............. - .......
plant inspection ...... . ......... --------
purification plant operation ..............
relaying ...................... . ..... —
sanitary surveys ..................... —
Relaying.
from restricted or prohibited areas ........
marking and identification of relaying
areas ......... -----------------------
I*, mission for ---- ......................
supervision of __________________________
Repackcrs:
inspection ________ ......................
records of inspection ....................
requirements for certification .............
sanitary rating ............ ------ .......
Page
10
13
8
0
0
22
0
5
5
5
5
24
'0
13
0
24. In
25
22, 23
22
22
21
10
25
10
24
24.25
10
20, 24
13, 15
15
15
5, 24
15
5, 24
6
22, 23
21, 22
6, 10
21
21
21
21
7
7
6
6
31
-------
Restricted arras: Ps«
bacteriological quality of 18
' depletion of 2-5
rslal>lishnienl of 18
fecal contain {nation of IS
patrol of 21
radioactivr materials in IS
use of Pliellfi.-li from 18, 21, 25
Sanitary surveys:
content of I"
definition 3
frequency required 10,12
purpose II
records - 6. 10
sen-age treatment evaluation 15, 16, 17, 18
Self-purification of shellfish 21
Sewage treatment:
instrumentation nnd records 17, 18
performance standards for 16,17
records of - 16
relationship to approved areas 15
Scwnpr treatment—Continued
relationship to bacteriological sampling 15
nprci.il equipment rcquircracnls 18
storm sewers 18
Shellfish clnpprr certificates'
control - 6
c\pir.i I ion flat'- - 7
rcr|iiiremcii(s for 7
Shcllfi.-li .shipper list 7
Shell stock shippers.
inspection 7
records of inspection 7
requirements for certification 6
Shuckcr-parkcrs.
inspection - 7
records of inspection. 7
requirements for certification 7
snnitary rating 6, 8
Trntispliui ttng 3
Typhoid fever—sec Disease.
Wet storage 13
•ftu i. tuvBHrfcfl ffiiwnw ofttei teas
32
-------
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE
Public Health Service
REGIONAL OFFICES
REGION I—Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts,
New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Vermont
120 RoyIston Street
Boston, Mass., 02110
RF.OIOX II—Delaware, New Jersey, Now York,
Pennsylvania
Room 1200, 42 Broad\\ ay
New York, N.Y., 10004
REGION III—District of Columbia, Kentucky,
Maryland, North Carolina, Virginia, West
Virginia, Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands
700 East Jefferson Street
Charlottesvillc, Va., 22901
REGION IV—Alabama, Florida, Georgia Missis-
sippi, South Carolina, Tennessee
Room 404
50 Seventh Street NE.
Atlanta, Ga., 30323
REGION V—Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio,
Wisconsin
Room 712
New Post Oflice Building
433 West Van Biiren Street
Chicago, 111., 60607
REGION VI—Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Mis-
souri, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota
5GO West port Road
Kansas City, Mo., 64111
REOION VII—Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mex-
ico, Oklahoma, Texas
Ninth Floor
1114 Commerce Street
Dallas, Tex., 75222
REGION VIII—Colorado, Idaho, Montana,
Utah, Wyoming
DEEFP-PHS-DHEW
Room 9017
Federal Office Building
19th and Stout Street
Denver, Colo., 80202
REGION IX—Alaska, Arizona, California, Ha-
waii, Nevada, Oregon, Washington, Guam,
American Samoa
Federal Office Building
50 Fulton Street
San Francisco, Calif., 94102
-------
APPENDIX B
Odor Evaluation Test Procedures and Results
-------
OfTIOHAl K»M NO. 10
MAY lt» IDiriON
CSA nun (41 CFU 101-11.6
FEDERAL WATER QUALITY ADMINISTRATION
5555 Ridge Avenue, Cincinnati, Ohio 45213
UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT
Memorandum
TO
DATE: November 20, 1970
FROM
SUBJECT:
ODOR EVALUATION REPORT
Product :
Submitted by :
Dates Tested :
Panel :
Samples :
Procedure :
Results
Oysters and Water from Calves ton Bay
John G. Connor, Division of Field Investigations--
Denver Center
November 16 and 17, 1970
4 experienced judges; 2 inexperienced judges;
6 judgments per sample
Controls (Ref.) and samples 1, 2, 3, 4a, 5, 6, 7
The live oysters were thoroughly scrubbed, individually
wrapped in aluminum foil, and baked at 450 until the
shells opened (approximately 45 minutes). One reference
oyster and one sample oyster were submitted to each
panelist. The judges were asked to score the degree of
odor from each sample on a seven point scale—from 7,
no odor, to 1, very extreme odor.* The raw oysters were
evaluated by placing the meat from three oysters in screw
top jars. The judges were given two jars--one contain-
ing a reference and the other containing sample oysters.
The odor was scored on the same 1 to 7 point scale.
The threshold odor on the water samples was determined
by the method prescribed in the 12th edition of "Standard
Methods for the Examination of Waters and Waste Waters."
The results from the oyster odor evaluation were analyzed
by the Chi-square test. A linear regression was performed
on the results from the water and the oyster samples to
determine the relationship between the odor of the Galveston
Bay water samples and the odor of the oysters.
* Score sheet appended.
Buy US. Savings Bonds Regularly on the Payroll Savings Plan
-------
In the raw oyster test, t'le reference and sample 1
received similar scores as would be expected in that
the reference samples were drawn from sample 1. All
the remaining samples scored significantly lower
(.05) than the reference sample. Samples from sta-
tions 2 and 4a were given the lowest rating (very
strong odor). The samples from station 2 were
characterized by some of the panelists as having a
petroleum odor, while the samples from station 4a
had a sewage odor. The samples from stations 3, 5,
and 6 had strong odors, while the sample from station
7 received a rating almost the same as that given to
the reference and the samples from station 1.
The results from the roasted oyster odor test indicate
the same pattern of off-odor. The testing of the
roasted oysters was limited to stations 3, 5, 7,
and a reference from station 1 because of the extreme
odors being emitted from the oyster shells.
The results from the water odor tests indicate that
the water from station 1 had the lowest threshold
odor. The samples from stations 3 and 4a received
the highest threshold odor values. The linear re-
gression between the odor evaluations of the raw
oysters and the water samples indicates that there
is no correlation between the two. Upon examination
of the water odor results, it was found that station 2
received a very low threshold odor value. If the re-
sults from station 2 are eliminated, a very high
correlation (.9) exists between the odor of the water
and the odor of the oysters obtained from the same
stations in Calves ton Bay. The validity of Che water
sample from station 2 should be investigated as it
might have been influenced by abnormal hydrological
conditions.
In conclusion, only the oysters from station 1 did not
have a strong off-odor. The strong odor of the oysters
from stations 2, 3, and 4» would lower their palatabild
thus reducing the marketability of these shellfish.
-------
ODOR EVALUATION DATA
Average
Chi-square
Probability of the
distribution being
less than x statis-
tical
Sample
Ref .
1
2
3
4a
5
6
7
PAW OYSTERS
4.0
4.5
5.0
6.0
4.0
5.0
28.5
4.8
5.0
4.5
6.0
6.0
4.0
4.0
29.5
4.9
0.65
0.014
4.0
3.5
4.5
2.0
2.0
2.0
18.5
3.1
5.7
0.67
•>
Petro-
leum
i'.O
! .5
i.5
5.0
4.0
6.0
23.0
3.8
3.4
0.36
4.0
2.0
5.0
2.0
2.0
2.5
17.5
2.9
6.3
0.72
Sewage
4.0
1.5
4.5
5.0
4.0
5.0
24.0
4.0
2.2
0.18
4.0
2.5
6.0
7.0
2.0
2.5
24.0
4.0
3.5
0.37
5.0
4.0
6.0
4.0
5.0
3.0
27.0
4.5
2.2
0.18
ROASTED OYSTERS
1
2
3
4
5
6
Total
6.0
5.0
5.0
4.0
7.0
6.0
33.0
5.0
4.0
5.0
4.0
4.0
1.0
23.0
5.0
4.0
3.0
6.0
5.0
4.0
27.0
6.0
5.0
5.0
6.0
4.0
6.0
32.0
Average
Chi-square
Probability of the
distribution being
less than x^ statis
tical
Geometric mean of
threshold odor
values
5.5
3.8
5.8
0.67
4.5
3.4
0.36
WATER SAMPLES
3T 32 18
23
5.3
2.2
0.19
11
-------
DIVISION OF FIELD INVESTIGATIONS
CINCINNATI
Name_
Date
Sample_
Odor
None
.Slight
Moderate
Strong
Very Strong
Extremely Strong
Very Extreme
Type of Odor_
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Blumer, M., et al, The West Falmouth Oil Spill, Woods Hole Oceanographic
Institution, Reference No. 70-44, September .1970.
Bobb, W. H., . nd R. A. Boland, Jr., Calves ton Bay Hurricane Surge Study,
Technical Report H-69-12, July 1970, U. S. Army Engineer Waterways Ex-
periment Stat?on, Vicksburg, Mississippi.
Carter, Luther J., "Galveston Bay: Test Case of an Estuary in Crisis",
Science. Vol. 167, pp. 1102-1108, February 20, 1970.
Colbert, J. R., and D. M. Windham, The Oyster Based Economy of Franklin
County, Florida, U. S. Public Health Service, DREW.
Copeland, B. J., and W. G. Fruh, Ecological Studies of Galveston Bay,
Final Report to the Texas Water Quality Board - Contract IAC (68-69)
408, 1969.
Eckhardt, Bob, U. S. Representative, 8th District Texas, Statement pre-
sented by Mr. Keith Ozmore, staff assistant, to National Estuarine Pol-
lution Study Hearing, Galveston, Texas, October 8, 1968.
Federal Water Pollution Control Administration, Water Quality Criteria,
Report of National Technical Advisory Committee, April 1968, pp. 68-70.
Federal Water Quality Administration/Engineering Science, Inc., Petro-
chemical Effluents Treatment Practices, February 1970.
Gloyna, E. F., and D. L. Ford, The Characteristics and Pollutional Prob-
lems Associated with Petrochemical Wastes, Summary Report, Engineering
Science Inc./Texas, Austin, Texas, February 1970.
Hann, Roy W., "Houston Ship Channel Data Summary", Estuarine Systems Pro-
jects, Technical Report No. 9, Texas A & M University.
Hann, Roy W., "Neches Estuary Water Quality Study", Estuarine Systems Pro-
jects, Technical Report No. 14, Texas A & M University.
Hann, Roy W., "Management of Industrial Waste Discharges in Complex Es-
tuarine Systems", Estuarine Systems Projects, Technical Report No. 15,
Texas A & M University.
Hann, R. W., and W. S. Button, Source, Nature and Effects of Organic
Sludges in the Houston Ship Channel, Technical Paper for Texas Section
ASCE, October 1970 (2 copies).
Button, W. S., R. W. Hann, and R. H. Smith, "A Quantitative and Qualitative
Survey of Benthal Deposits Contained in the Houston Ship Channel", Estuar-
ine Systems Projects, Technical Report No. 8, Texas A & M University,
May 1970.
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY (continued)
Hydroscience, Inc., Texas Water Quality Board, Mathematical Model of
Calves ton Bay 1969.
Kramer, G. R., R. W. Hann, and S. B. Carpen er, "Completely Mixed Model
of the Houston Ship Channel", Estuarine Sys ems Projects, Technical Re-
port No. 11, Environmental Engineering Division, Texas A & M University.
McKee, J. E., and H. W. Wolf, Water Quality Criteria, Second Edition,
State Water Quality Control Board, Sacramento, California, Publication
No. 3-A, 1963.
Pringle, B. H., and C. N. Shuster, Jr., A Guide to Trace Metal Levels
in Shellfish, Northeast Marine Health Sciences Laboratory, USPHS,
December 1967, Narragansett, R. I.
Singleton, J. R., Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, Letter regarding
oyster harvesting areas in Calves ton Bay within polluted waters; also
recent dockside value of oyster harvests in Galveston Bay, November 1970.
Sparr, Sprague, and Hann, "A Study of the Flushing Times of the Houston
Ship Channel and Galveston Bay", Estuarine Systems Projects, Technical
Report No. 12, Texas A & M University.
Texas Water Quality Board, Water Quality Requirements, Vol II Coastal
Waters, June 1967.
Texas Water Quality Board, Socio-Economic Study, Galveston Bay Area,
report to the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration in fulfill-
ment of a contract, Austin, Texas, May 1969.
University of Texas, Port Aransas and Austin, Ecological Studies of Gal-
veston Bay, 1969.
University of Texas and Texas A & M University, Reaction Rates of Houston
Ship Channel Waters, March 1970.
------- |